Tuesday, 27 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business and questions normally directed to Mr Kerin should be directed to the Minister for Resources, Mr Peter Morris. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister: How will the continuing dramatic fall on the Australian stock market and this morning's increasing pressure on the Australian dollar affect investment, employment, interest rates and Budget projections? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the National Party of Australia for his question. The first thing I would wish to say is that I believe it is appropriate that in this situation of a significant decline in prices on the Australian share market we are now experiencing, there not be panic on the part of the Government or at official levels. In that sense I welcome the statements that have been made in my absence by my colleague the Treasurer. I would suggest to the right honourable gentleman that the calls that some people, including himself, have made for a mini-Budget this year are not an appropriate reaction. I say directly to the right honourable gentleman that of course it is not possible to say with precision or dogmatism what the effect of these falls will be in the areas of investment and employment to which he referred. But, insofar as the Budget outcomes are concerned, I simply say that I support what my colleague the Treasurer said, that on balance we think that the Budget outcomes should be substantially unaffected. Insofar as the most recent indications are concerned, although of course the figure for the September quarter of the consumer price index (CPI) to which I refer was in its formulation before these events occurred, I simply say that the Budget forecast of an outcome of about a 6 per cent CPI increase by the end of 1987-88 seems to be on course. However, I say to the right honourable gentleman that the Government will be closely monitoring developments here and overseas. The right honourable gentleman can rest assured that the Government will take those courses of action which are necessary insofar as the Australian economy is concerned. I remind him, of course-although I think he needs no reminding-that what is happening in the Australian markets is not something which is a reflection upon the Australian economy but which is part of a world-wide phenomenon. Indeed, I conclude by saying that in the discussions I have been able to have in my recent visit overseas I have been met universally with approbation for the economic policies followed by this Government. Mrs HARVEY —Can the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House of Australia's most recent initiatives to promote the World Health Organisation's global strategies to halt the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Hawker for her question. Probably all members of the House recognise that Australia has received international recognition for its humane and comprehensive approach to the problem of AIDS. We have sought to share that knowledge with other nations and to play a role in developing an international strategy to combat the disease, with the result that Australia has taken a series of international initiatives this year. In May Australia took the initiative at the World Health Assembly with a resolution on AIDS. In July Australia, with the World Health Organisation, hosted a conference of Ministers from the Pacific region and the West Asian region to work out ways of encouraging co-operation in dealing with AIDS in this region of the world. The culmination of these activities came early today, Australian time, when the United Nations General Assembly passed an Australian-sponsored resolution on AIDS which is designed to promote international co-operation and co-ordination in the global fight against the disease. This resolution affirmed the importance of international co-operation in combating AIDS under the leadership of the World Health Organisation and the need to develop national strategies in an international context. I think the significance of the issue and the gravity with which the United Nations General Assembly took it was that it interrupted the formal debate to be briefed by both the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Halfdan Mahler, and the head of the special program on AIDS, Dr Jonathan Mann. The resolution was proposed by Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Richard Woolcott, and it received unanimous support. The decision to sponsor the resolution by Australia was in recognition of the role we had played in formulating and implementing strategies to prevent the spread of AIDS. As the United Nations General Assembly recognised, AIDS is not just a public health problem. As we have seen in this country, AIDS has wide-ranging ramifications-economic and social-for areas other than health, such as employment, education, tourism and immigration. International co-operation in this area is of great practical importance in halting the spread of the disease. International co-operation is a precondition for the exchange of information on preventative measures, research and treatment. The movement of peoples and the movement of blood products are also important factors in the spread of disease. I think the consideration of this issue in the United Nations highest council attests to its global significance and accords the fight against AIDS its proper international recognition. Mr SINCLAIR —Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government's scheme to supplement 66 per cent of the salaries to the six Australian doctors in Fiji is to be terminated on 19 January 1988? As this will severely threaten the continuation of the medical school of the University of the South Pacific in Fiji and result in the withdrawal of the only orthopaedic surgeon in Fiji and the South Pacific and the cut-off of all specialised surgery in Fiji, how does this action reconcile with his own statements before his departure from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the Foreign Minister's statement of 16 October on behalf of his Government in which he pledged to maintain Australia's traditional friendly relations with the people of Fiji? Mr HAWKE —I am not aware of the details to which the right honourable gentleman refers. I will undertake to make myself acquainted with them and the implications of what he has suggested, if it is accurate, will be examined. But as to the general question of Fiji and the attitude of my Government towards it, let me take this opportunity of stating the position briefly and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the House generally. As honourable members will appreciate, this is a matter that was the subject of discussion with my fellow heads of government of the Commonwealth in Vancouver. I am pleased to say to the House-I think all members will appreciate the fact-that there was a unanimity of view amongst the heads of government represented there, firstly, in regret at what had happened in Fiji and, secondly, that they should accept the proposal that I put. That was that the good offices of the Commonwealth should be made available so that, if those in authority in Fiji were willing, there could be an attempt from within the Commonwealth to provide some sort of mechanism whereby there could be consultation which would produce a result within Fiji both in terms of protecting the interests of all groups and people there and, following from that, in creating a situation in which an application by Fiji for renewed membership of the Commonwealth could be acceptable. My Government played a leading role in those discussions, and it is our wish that there shall emerge in Fiji a position of the sort that I have just referred to, where the interests of all groups will be properly protected and there can be, as soon as possible, a return to the processes of parliamentary democracy. It is to assist in achieving those objectives that the policies of this Government are directed. I note with approval that the Foreign Minister has indicated in my absence, as I indicated in Vancouver, that the use of industrial action at this stage by the Australian trade unions is not helpful, we believe, in attempting to achieve the sort of outcome that we think is appropriate. Going back to the particulars of the question asked by the right honourable gentleman, I am not aware of them. I will have a look at the issue to see whether, in the particular circumstances, and if what he said is correct, there needs to be any review of that situation. Mr COHEN —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I ask him to assure the House that the rumour that he is proposing to build a monorail from Ayers Rock to the Olgas is just a sick joke, or part of his quirky sense of humour, like the piddling, scratching, flea-bitten koalas. I ask the Minister whether he is seriously contemplating such an action which would, in the view of most people in Australia, completely ruin the aesthetics of Uluru National Park, which is part of the world heritage area. If he does go ahead, will he add to it a water slide on Ayers Rock and a McDonald's on top of the Olgas? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will answer that rather cynical question as gently as I can. It is a matter of fact that the road from Ayers Rock to the Olgas is one of the more important tourism roads in Australia, inasmuch as it links two of the great attractions of Uluru National Park and that unique wilderness area of Australia. It is also a fact that that road is built on shifting sand dunes. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr JOHN BROWN —Members of the Opposition might find this very humorous, but they would not find it very humorous if they had heard the fears that have been registered by all sections of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory that if something drastic is not done about the road, people will be killed using it. They might think seriously about this. There are presently bans on the use of that road by every tourism operator in the Northern Territory simply because of the dangers involved in driving along it. It is a common daily occurrence for buses to be bogged on that road, for cars to turn over on that road and for the tourism industry in the Territory generally to treat it with the disrespect that it deserves. Mr Connolly —Build a tunnel. Mr JOHN BROWN —The attitude of Opposition members towards this question is typical of the attitude that they displayed to tourism in their seven years of non-government of this country-- Mr Reith —What about your own back bench? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting. Mr JOHN BROWN —When they could do nothing about achieving the results that we have achieved since we have been in government. The only contribution of the honourable member for Flinders to tourism in Australia was to be part of the destruction of the habitat of the fairy penguin on Phillip Island when he was a land developer. So he is in a very poor position to be commenting. The need to have a reasonable form of communication and transportation between Ayers Rock and the Olgas I treat very seriously. Obviously for anybody to promote the dusty road that at present exists, which is a blight on the rather pleasant and very fragile environment of Uluru National Park is a nonsense. In the wet, which is the better time to view the Olgas, the road is impassable; in the summer, because it passes through sand dunes, it is a very dangerous piece of road. The Aboriginal traditional owners of Uluru will not allow a road to be directed through better territory so we are faced with the problem of constantly regrading what is almost an impossible piece of territory. Propositions have been floated, some of which I support and some of which I do not, which require urgent investigation. One of those is the provision of a monorail. Of course, with the misguided conceptions and the prejudices that most people have with that word all of the fears that have been expressed by the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment have surfaced. I think it is important that people have access to the Olgas, particularly in the wet when the waterfalls are running on the Olgas and when the area is at its most pleasant. I do not want the Olgas to become the preserve in the wet simply of those people who can afford to charter an aeroplane or a helicopter to view them. The matter of a low level monorail-that is, one built about two or three feet above the ground so that it can be used in the wet-has been canvassed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which the former Minister administered. He knows that the Service supports it. It has achieved a notable amount of support from the Aboriginal communities which have control of Uluru National Park. Mr Cohen —You are wrong. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am not wrong at all. If the honourable member thinks I am wrong he should check it out with the senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Bob Collins, who has discussed the matter with them. They are very supportive of the idea simply because it will stop all those lunatics with four-wheel drives who now take off on that road, head off into the environment and destroy most of the beauty of that area, which is very sacred to the Aborigines who view the Olgas as being much more religiously important to them than Ayers Rock. What I have proposed is a convenient way of transporting people safely from the rock to the Olgas, which will allow the Territory to be traversed in the wet, which will eliminate the dangers which now face anybody who travels along that road, whether it be in a four-wheel drive, an ordinary motor car or a bus. It will in no way present the damage to the environment that is now presented by the dirty, dusty road that is there, which is dusty in the dry and muddy in the wet. It will enable access to the Olgas for all people no matter what their social or economic background. If the proposal as has been put to me by the National Parks and Wildlife Service does go ahead, it will be the subject of an environmental impact study. It will be the subject of discussion with the Aboriginal traditional owners of Uluru National Park and would not be built without all those considerations being taken into account. But for anybody to suggest, as the former Minister has suggested today, that it should be accompanied by a waterslide on the rock or a razzle-dazzle or a big dipper or anything else is quite ridiculous and I find it rather repugnant that a man who had responsibility in this area should be casting such silly aspersions upon a very responsible attitude. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the substantial level of net borrowing of financial enterprises from 1984-85 to 1987-87 as outlined in chart 12, page 33 of the Budget Papers. I ask the Treasurer why some financial enterprises, in particular State government insurance offices, have been permitted to become substantial net borrowers in recent years. What measures are being taken by State governments to reduce the net borrowing of the respective insurance offices in order to place these organisations on a sound financial basis? Mr KEATING —I am not aware of the statistics raised by the shadow Treasurer, but I will have a look at the implications of his question. The only thing I say in reply to the question is that there is supervision of the insurance industry and there is a supervisory commissioner in the Commonwealth area. Generally, the commissioner looks at the prudential arrangements of superannuation funds; but I am not aware, without advice, whether the commission looks at State funds. I think he does not; but I will need to check that and I will certainly furnish the honourable gentleman with a reply. Mr SNOW —Can the Minister for Resources advise the House of progress in the development of the export of livestock by air freight and the involvement of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in the expansion of this trade? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise his strong interest in this growing area of export activity. The Government has recently been involved in several innovative exports of livestock to what are, in effect, non-traditional markets, as part of the Government's determination to broaden our export base and export income. In particular, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service has assisted in negotiating changes to the import procedures of receiving countries. The honourable member will recognise that on 17 September we shipped some 74 angora goats from South Australia to France, of all places, by regular scheduled air freight service, and another shipment of 150 goats left last week. In addition, on 24 September a consignment of 52 young camels left Alice Springs for the United States of America on a special DC8 charter flight. Mr Blunt —What about a camel train instead of a monorail? Mr PETER MORRIS —These camels-I say for the benefit of the honourable member for Richmond-underwent a special three-month domestication and preparation period which included health tests to meet United States import requirements, and we anticipate further exports in 1988. Last month saw the first export of live pigs to Peru, when 1,501 pigs were transported by a special Boeing 747 charter flight. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service negotiated amendments to the Peruvian Government's import quarantine conditions to allow that shipment to proceed. In conclusion, I advise the honourable member that all 1,501 pigs arrived on that charter flight to Peru in good health and without any evidence of jet lag. We will continue to pursue these new market opportunities as they arise. Dr WOODS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to my question to him yesterday when I referred him to his statement in which, in part, he said that the Government could raise more than $700m a year from death duties and that not taxing deceased estates is inequitable. I ask the Minister whether he recalls saying in his answer to me: `I do not know the source of the statement that was attributed to me', and, in response to an interjection which asked, `Did you say it or not?', saying, `As far as I know I did not'. Did the Minister make the remarks that I have attributed to him in a prepared speech at the Labor Day dinner at Clayton on 12 March 1984 and, if so, why did he yesterday mislead the Parliament; or does he just have a bad memory? Mr HOWE —I think one of the remarkable characteristics of the Opposition is its great sense of history. Quite clearly, it is not learning, if I might say so, from the history of the Australian Labor Party which is that when one is in opposition, one spends one's time working solidly in terms of developing policy; one encourages debate; and when there are differences of view, one focuses on policy questions rather than on questions of personality. I take it from the honourable member's question that, as usual, the Opposition is relying on some recent newspaper report. It appears that the honourable member was in fact referring to a speech that I may have made in 1984. As I suggested yesterday in answer to the honourable member's question, I have never resiled from the view and never ceased to argue in terms of the Government party room that we should be seeking a fairer taxation system. I accept-if this is what is implied in the honourable member's question-that I have consistently argued on the record from time to time in relation to various forms of capital taxation. It is certainly true that I supported this. Indeed, in a speech which I made to a recent private meeting, I pointed to the great success in terms of this Government's record in relation to taxation reform. One of the reasons that certainly I am not going to indulge in personalities with respect to the front bench is that I am proud to be a member of a front bench which has carried through the first period of significant reform not only in terms of opposition parties but in terms of my own Party. In our period of government, unlike the Whitlam Government, we were prepared to take on the issue of taxation reform. We have taken that issue on and, indeed, the Treasurer has recently referred to the fact that he believes there is further work to do in the area of business taxation. When the Opposition is able to get itself together for long enough to have a serious debate on any policy question, but centrally on the question of taxation, it can refer to history. My understanding of the Opposition is that it is history and is likely to remain history for a very long time. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a speech by the Hon. Brian Howe, Minister for Defence Support, dated 12 March 1984, with respect to that matter. Leave not granted. Mr LAMB —Has the Minister for Social Security seen a report in today's Age newspaper that the Council for the Single Mother and her Child is critical of the Government's new child support scheme because it will leave some supporting parents worse off? Can the Minister inform the House how the new scheme will work to help single parents and their children? Mr Blunt —Another one you got wrong, Brian. Mr HOWE —If I might say so, the honourable member for Richmond is a fairly typical example of a member of the Opposition who always indulges in personality and rarely refers to a policy position. The total income of sole parents affected by the new income test on child support will be protected. The income that people receive by way of maintenance will not affect the pension so that it falls below the level of income that they were receiving on Budget day. Today's Age referred to the case of a sole parent with one child, who currently gets $25 a week in maintenance. The Age reports her fears that she will be worse off. We say that those fears are misplaced. A sole parent in her position now gets $166.15 a week. Under the separate income test, she will get $169.10. I believe that sole parents are being frightened without cause. We need to make it clear what the child support scheme is about. We live in a society that cares more about collecting parking fines than it does about collecting child support or maintenance. Seventy per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay regular maintenance. This adds to poverty and burdens the social security system. The proportion of sole parents on social security has increased from 65 per cent to 85 per cent over the last decade. Superficially, the separate income test for child support may look tough, but if one looks at the total story for sole parents one sees that we have a commitment to full indexation of pensions; we are, of course, introducing the family assistance package; and we are providing major increases in income support for children in all low income families. It is fair and equitable that major benefits go to children who do not get adequate private support. The child support scheme will deliver major benefits to children who do not get the maintenance to which they are entitled. Tomorrow my colleague the Attorney-General will introduce amendments to the Family Law Act and those amendments will lead to more adequate maintenance. We will establish the Child Support Agency in the Australian Taxation Office-that in itself, is something of a tax reform-to make sure that children get the maintenance to which they are entitled, when they need it; every month, regularly. The child support scheme is a major reform. It means that, for the first time, the children of separated parents can be assured of getting fairer and more adequate support. The Age also reported that property settlements in the family law system will be income tested by the Department of Social Security. That is not true. Unfortunately, sole parent groups are spreading what I believe is a false alarm. Social Security will not be income testing property settlements. Rather, the Family Law Act will be amended to require the courts to specify in orders whether maintenance is provided in a capital form. It is not fair to apply an income test to a pensioner who receives regular cash in maintenance and not apply the test to a pensioner who gets property in lieu of maintenance. Settlements which are identified by the courts as being part of the maintenance settlement, and not property settlement, will be income tested. This Government continues to support the poorest children in our community. The child support scheme simply calls for an equitable share of the cost of support for children between the Government and separated parents. In terms of the Government's commitment to the elimination of child poverty, let me make it quite clear that the child support scheme is an essential component of our overall approach to that extraordinarily important objective. Mr WHITE —I refer the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to the decision taken by the Senate to refer to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade the record wastage rates from the Australian Defence Force and their effect on our defence capabilities. As the Government has belatedly acknowledged the magnitude of the problem generated by these record wastage rates, will the Minister assure the Parliament that the Joint Committee will have full access to any defence personnel it may wish to call before the Committee, including the chiefs of the Services who have been warning the Government for some time that the Services cannot sustain this wastage? Does the Minister still hold the view that this wastage of personnel from the Services is good for morale? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for McPherson for his question. The first part of the question related to the Parliamentary Committee. I have seen the terms of reference from the Senate. I will be discussing that reference with Minister Beazley when he returns from his trip to the South Pacific and New Guinea early next week. I can provide more details on that question next week. On the whole issue of separations which, I note, is coming up for discussion later today-- Opposition members-Resignations. Mrs KELLY —Honourable members opposite refer to resignations. When I talk about separations, I am not just talking about resignations. When people leave the Services, they leave for a number of reasons. I include in all the details about separations a magnitude of reasons. Many of them are leaving because they have served 20 years which means that they can receive a pension. After 20 years of very valuable service to this country they choose to leave, but they have provided a service. Included in the reasons for that separation figure is ill health. People may enter the Services on short term appointments and leave again. There is a lot of misunderstanding about these figures. That has been fuelled by the Opposition, particularly by the honourable member for McPherson. I am very pleased that this afternoon we will have a sensible debate about this mater. I have never said that high separation rates are good for morale. What I have said is that over the last 10 years the average separation rate has been about 11.1 per cent per annum. Currently the rate is 12.6 per cent. I have acknowledged that there are problems about that, particularly in the area of pilots. I am addressing those problems. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In view of the recently concluded Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, what action is the Government taking to control chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge that he is the leader of environmental protection in the rather sensitive area in which Dunkley is situated. Last month Australia became a party to the Vienna Convention on the Earth's Ozone Layer. The Convention provides the framework for international action to protect the ozone shield. A protocol to the Convention was finalised in Montreal on 16 September, which will lead to steps by countries to control emissions of chemicals known to damage the ozone layer. The Government supports the protocol and will give early consideration to Australia becoming a signatory to it. In the process, there will be consultation with State governments and, of course, every other interested party. As a party to the protocol, Australia would be required to put in place controls on chlorofluorocarbons, which will initially freeze their consumption in 1989 to 1986 levels. The Government will address the form of legislation needed to implement the provisions of the Montreal protocol. The Australian Democrats were quoted recently as intending to pursue legislation banning the use of CFCs in aerosol cans and promoting recycling of these chemicals. This proposal may not be sufficiently comprehensive to fulfil obligations derived from the Montreal protocol. However, the Government hopes that all parties in this place, including the Liberal Party of Australia, which, as I understand it, has a new-found-or a first-found-interest in environmental protection, will support the proposed legislation to implement controls on ozone depleting substances when we introduce it very shortly. The need for action on this issue is given added momentum because of the report in recent days that the most recent measurements by scientists show a significant deepening of the ozone hole over Antarctica. Mr WHITE —My question is again directed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I refer the Minister to recent remarks by Australia's foremost Army field commander, General Jeffery, that because of manpower shortages, the 1st Division could sustain operations for only four to six weeks-a view I confirm following my visit to the Division last week. Why has the Government sought to downgrade and discredit these remarks by General Jeffery? Why is the Government again ignoring professional advice based, as it is, on an exercise which is costing this country millions of dollars? Mrs KELLY —I, like the member for McPherson, also looked at the military exercise known as Diamond Dollar. I must say that I came away with a different focus from that of the honourable member for McPherson. I would like to put the comments of General Jeffery in perspective. General Jeffery has said that the Australian took his comments out of context. The honourable member for McPherson may enjoy reading the text of his letter to the editor of the Australian last week. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Diamond Dollar exercise and on the points General Jeffery raised. The current strategic situation does not require the whole of the 1st Division to be at a high level of operational readiness for rapid deployment. The 3rd Brigade, based at Townsville, and part of the Operational Deployment Force, is at full strength. It can be deployed quickly and sustained for at least six months and probably indefinitely on low level operations. That is a fact that has been reinforced by the Chief of the Defence Force. Only very high priority units of the 1st Division are manned to their full war establishment in peace. The Division is structured to receive the additional 3,000 personnel required in a crisis and the round out of regular Army units with Army reserves partly addresses this requirement. Every good commander, of course, would like more resources and manpower. But current balance between expenditure on personnel operating costs and capital investments is about right in our present strategic situation. Exercise Diamond Dollar is mainly an Army exercise. It is a little unrealistic when we take into account the overall resources available to meet any threat to this country. The 1987 Defence White Paper emphasised increased northern training. Exercise Diamond Dollar is by no means our first exercise in the far north-in fact, it is the second I have been to in the far north-but it is the biggest for many years. It is not surprising that lessons are to be learnt or relearnt from an exercise such as this, especially in regard to mobility and logistic support. I take this opportunity to say something positive about this exercise because I get sick to death of the Opposition whingeing and whining about defence when there are so many positive things going on in this area. One of them was Exercise Diamond Dollar. The Diamond Dollar exercise was carried out by Australian troops with the assistance of the Americans. We had some 7,000 troops involved in this military exercise. We had 2,000 vehicles and 44 aircraft deployed in far north Queensland, in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Can honourable members imagine the logistic support systems that are required to support the troops in such an exercise? There is hardly any civil infrastructure up there. There was a full battalion parachute jump with equipment conducted by a Sydney-based unit. We also had the opportunity to see our Black Hawk helicopters in operation which were on loan from America. We were able to see the effectiveness that the helicopters will have when we actually acquire them-again, on an initiative of this Government. One of the greatest successes of this exercise has been to see the total integration of the Reserve Force and the regulars. As one walked around this exercise-or, as I had to do, fly in in a chopper-one could see a total integrated force; the regulars and the reserves. As the Minister responsible for this portfolio, I was very proud to see our men and women up there working together. There are lessons to be learnt from this exercise. That is one of the reasons such exercises are held. They have proved to be very successful. I also take this opportunity to compliment the men and women who made this exercise so successful. Mr BILNEY —Has the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs noted recent reports that consideration is being given to abolishing the requirement for visas for Japanese tourists coming to Australia? Could he give the Government's position on this matter? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. It is true that again the question of visa entry into Australia was raised by me with members of the Japanese tourist industry on my recent visit to that country. The matter has been raised by our own domestic tourist agencies over a period of years. This Government has maintained the position of previous governments, that is, favouring the retention of the integrity of our visa entry system for all purposes. It is true that some governments around the world-our near neighbours, New Zealand, and Japan and others-have initiated visa-free entry. It has brought with it certain troubles but they try to weigh up the benefits against the disadvantages. Nevertheless, Australia has maintained a very strict adherence to the visa entry system. We have been loath to entertain breaking that system down, because it has been felt by the previous Government and by this Government that demand would grow once we started to do this. Nevertheless, because of the explosion in tourism to Australia and the importance now of the industry due to the enormous success of my colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, it has been necessary for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to become cognisant of the role it plays in seeing that we do not act as any sort of a barrier to the continued growth of tourism in this country. To that extent, the Government has put in additional resources, manpower, throughout the major areas-Japan, North America, and Western Europe-to make sure that there is no great delay in the issuing of visas to people wishing to visit this country. Now in Japan, for instance, the turnaround can in some cases, across the counter, be 24 hours and in most cases it is certainly no longer than 48 hours. No evidence has been presented to this Government that visas in any way hinder the number of people who wish to visit this country. Nevertheless, as the question was raised with me in Japan, as the industry is so enormously important, as we all acknowledge that the Japanese tourist is a very good tourist-there is very little incidence of overstaying the period for which a visa is issued-and as we are likely to see the numbers grow astronomically over the next decade, the view I expressed to the Japanese, and which I now express to the House, is that as far as I am concerned all cards are on the table. We will continue to review all the systems that are necessary because we are not going to do anything at all that would hinder the growth of this vitally important industry. In terms of the necessity for the issuing of visas, we are experimenting to the extent that we can. Last week Qantas Airways Ltd announced that it was going to fly into Nagoya. We have now given Qantas the opportunity of being the agency to receive applications for visas in Nagoya, which should hurry up the process in that part of Japan. But we have been reluctant, and have refused in the past, to shift away from what has been a long term policy of this country and to water down the visa necessity which has been maintained for anybody wishing to enter this country. Mr JULL —I direct an allied question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Does the Minister still believe that more than two million international visitors will come to Australia in 1988? Does he concede that, if this is so, there are not enough airline seats available into Australia to handle the numbers? In light of the fact that it is almost impossible now to get seats out of Europe, Asia, Japan and the United States of America for tourists, will the Minister pledge to kick a few heads in Qantas Airways Ltd, in the Department of Transport and Communications and even among his ministerial colleagues to ensure that there are enough services operating into Australia to handle the expected increase in the number of international visitors? Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable members uses a strange analogy-kicking heads to put bums on seats. Yesterday I had some discussions with my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications. As a result of those discussions, an urgent conference is being called between his Department, my Department and the Australian Tourist Commission to try to find a way to cope with this problem of our not having enough plane seats or, conversely, of `too many people' wanting to come to Australia. Mind you, it is a problem that 157 or so countries around the world would like to have. None of them have it but us, so I suppose that it is a good problem to be faced with. Nevertheless, it is an urgent problem. The Minister has assured me that Qantas will be flying something like 16 supplementary flights a week-I think that was the number given to me-in the peak period. We have made available the opportunity for people to take charter flights into Australia to cope with the increasing numbers. Every effort will be made to see that not one passenger intending to come to Australia will be disappointed. I have been quoted in the Press today as saying that it would be an incredible difficulty for Qantas to cope with our pro- jected number of something like five million visitors by the year 2000. If Qantas were to maintain its half share of the market that would mean that it would bring 2 1/2 million visitors a year. On average, that is 50,000 a week. Of course, in some weeks, in the peak period, that would be 80,000 passengers a week. In order for Qantas to maintain that half of the market it would need an enormous injection of funds, with Jumbo jets being worth $250m, not the $50m reported in the Press. Obviously, it would require an enormous growth to be able to cope with that 50 per cent of the market. That is a problem the Government will need to address urgently. I do not think any honourable member would want us to give away very easily Qantas's rights, under international agreements, to half of the market. For instance, there is a great reluctance in the United States to allow Qantas the right to fly to New York, which it has long sought. We see a demand by United States carriers for Qantas to give away a lot of its rights but, on the other end, no recognition that reciprocal rights should be granted to Qantas. As I am sure the honourable member for Fadden knows, the same thing was happening with Japan. Qantas sought for a long time four extra flights into Japan. Japan Air Lines was not in a position to take up the corresponding four flights, so permission was withheld for a long time. Eventually All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd accepted the right to two flights a week, Qantas got its four and Japan Air Lines got the other two. Maybe that has solved, at least partly, the problem in regard to Japan. Mrs Sullivan —That is a good argument for abandoning the agreement. Mr JOHN BROWN —That is a very big problem to which the gabble of the honourable member for Moncrieff adds nothing, as it always does. It is a problem that is being addressed very seriously by the Government. I think that we have always exhibited a responsibility not only to the tourism industry but also to the right of Qantas to maintain its integrity as Australia's flag carrier and as the airline which is indisputably the best in the world and is thus entitled to support not only by the Government but also by all Australians. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of the third meeting of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council held at Cradle Mountain on 4 and 5 December 1986. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Biological Resources Study for 1986-87. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority for 1986-87. Madam SPEAKER —I have received the following message from the Senate: Madam Speaker, The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives of the following Resolution agreed to by the Senate this day: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure: All notices of intention to modify or vary the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs, and all modifications and variations of that plan, under section 12a of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on each notice, modification and variation. (3) That, for the purpose of considering the matters referred to in paragraph (1), the Committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in paragraph (3) of this Resolution. Kerry Sibraa President Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of the following senators to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material: Senators Collins, Harradine, Jenkins, Walters and Zakharov. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill 1987 States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 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 Blunt,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cobb,Mr McVeigh,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sharp and Mr Wright. 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 Courtice,Mr Hunt and Mr Ruddock. The honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Lloyd,Mr Porter,Mr Sharp 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 Tim Fischer,Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing the gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. 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 to 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 and Mr O'Neil. 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. 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. 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 Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: The Federal Government has done nothing to ease concerns that it will support Telecom's plans to introduce time 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 Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we, the undersigned, support the need for Government Funding to enable the continuation of the Naranga Work Education Centre and the Nepean Education and Vocation Centre, both of which cater for students with disabilities and are based at the Frankston College of T.A.F.E. and your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth. 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 tax payer, 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. 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 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 Members of the House of Representatives 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 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 United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners. 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Norman Parkes, John Pettifer and Douglas Blake, former Clerks of the House of Representatives, respectfully showeth: 1. That the Speaker's Chair and the Dispatch Boxes in the Chamber of the House of Representatives are valued historical possessions of the House. 2. That the Chair and the Boxes have been used in the Chamber continuously since the transfer to Canberra in 1927 and that their traditional Parliamentary significance to Australia's Lower House cannot be over-stated. 3. That we are astounded to learn that a decision has been announced that this Speaker's Chair will not be moved to the Chamber of the House of Representatives in the new Parliament House on Capital Hill when the transfer is effected in 1988. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the House will not abide by the announced decision not to move the present Speaker's Chair to the Chamber of the House in the new Parliament House on Capital Hill, but will take action to resolve that this valued and historic Chair, together with the Dispatch Boxes, will be moved to grace the new Chamber when the transfer is effected in 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Government's continuing neglect of the Australian Defence Force as evidenced by the record high wastage rates from the Australian Defence Force and the reduction in the operational capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. 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 WHITE(McPherson)(3.00) —This matter of public importance is being brought forward to condemn the Government for its neglect of Australia's Defence Force and the men and women who man it. The Government is failing in its first duty, and that is to provide adequate security for Australia, Australians, and Australian territory. It is presiding over the decline of one of the most professional defence forces in the work, not through active government policies but by sheer neglect. We bring this matter of public importance forward at this time of economic difficulty because it demonstrates our concern about what is happening to the defence forces of this country. The Government has allowed the service men and women of this country to become second-class citizens in their own land. For four years, the defence personnel have looked to the Government for assistance, but looked in vain. They have now decided that it is nothing but froth and bubble as far as promises to the defence forces are concerned, and they are voting with their feet. The first Minister for Defence in the first Hawke Government tried hard, but he simply did not understand what defence was all about or what made defence personnel tick. The second and present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has a grand academic plan for the defence of this country which takes no account of the personnel who are manning the defence forces. He treats them as cogs in a machine and as nine to five public servants, without any understanding of what they are trying to do. It looks as though he is about to bail out of this position because the long haul is far too tough, so he has passed the buck to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), and she has, in some way, passed it to Ms Mayer, to whom we have already referred in the House. The Minister's contribution, despite what she has said, as reported in the Melbourne Sun, is that high wastage rates are good for morale. Mrs Kelly —That is not what I said. Mr WHITE —The Minister can get up and deny it in a minute. Last night, on Channel 7, she said that she was working on morale in the defence forces, as though it were a piece of putty or something made of wood or a tap that can be turned off and on. Her theory about increasing morale in the defence forces will push the wastage rates up even higher. The Defence Force of this country is bleeding to death. It is crying out for help, and not only will the Government not stop the bleeding, but it will not even provide the bandages. As most people know, the present position is as follows. In the last four years, 32,000 service men and women have resigned from the Defence Force. That is more than half the trained personnel in the defence forces of this country. In the four years to June next year, the predictions are that 36,000 will have gone. The resignation rate has gone from 6,700 in 1983-84 to 9,000 in 1986-87, and in 1987-88 we expect to see an annual loss of something between 10,000 and 11,000. Officer resignations have gone from 5.4 per cent to over 12 per cent. We have lost 250 pilots in the last two years. The replacement rate for pilots in the training system is about 130 over two years. We have lost 75 pilots in the last three months. If that is projected over 12 months, we shall lose 300 in the coming year. Mr Brumby —Where did they go? Mr WHITE —Do not give us that old Qantas stuff. The 20-year average loss has been 47 in a year. In a recent survey, 88 per cent of Navy personnel condemned the Government. The Commander 1st Division, General Jeffery, said last week that the 1st Division could sustain itself in the field for something like four to six weeks, and the Government's reaction is to stop publishing figures. What a stupid, pathetic and futile act. The causes of the resignation rate are quite clear and, for God's sake, the last thing that we want is yet another investigation. Generally speaking, they are government disinterest and the fact that the people in the defence forces are quite aware that the Minister has no interest in them as people. In 27 pages of a defence document brought down in this Parliament two weeks ago there was one paragraph relating to personnel and that was so obscure as to be meaningless. The Hamilton report, Supporting Service Families, which the Government keeps on talking about, made 15 major recommendations, not one of which has been implemented-only one has been partially implemented. The Minister for Defence says that service personnel did not join for an easy life. What a stupid, fatuous, patronising remark. His ministerial ambitions are all he considers in being responsible for the defence portfolio and the sooner he moves on the better because the men and women who are manning our defence services have lost faith. The White Paper is falling around his ears because of lack of funding. For God's sake, if he cannot make a go of it he should move aside and hand the portfolio over to someone who can make a go of it. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, I believe, is full of good intentions but she will need more than good intentions to pull this situation out of the fire. Some of the matters that need particular attention are pay and overtime. Every time there is a claim before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal it is totally opposed by the Government. Service allowance of $716 was granted recently, which is about $1 an hour for every hour of overtime worked throughout the year. The flying allowance claim is not yet before the Tribunal. Out of 70,000 service men and women 87 are in receipt of an education allowance. A serviceman may receive a removal allowance of $470 every time he moves house, which is approximately once every two years. There are long hours of work-52 to 55 hours a week on average, none of it recognised. There is increasing turbulence in the Services to plug the gaps appearing because of resignations and other wastage. Housing in the Defence Force is a disgrace, as honourable members are well aware. Out of a total of 22,000 defence houses 12,000 are substandard, by the Defence Force's own admission. Maintenance on many of them is absolutely non-existent. I repeat the story of a friend of mine living in a service house in Townsville. Recently he fell through the floor of his bathroom because it had simply rotted away. Barracks are substandard. There is no removals allowance for single personnel. Working wives are not recognised. The Hamilton report was going to fix all these things for families. It is 1 1/2 years old and, of the 15 major recommendations, not one has been acted on. Defence service housing is the biggest fiasco of the lot in recent days. In the Budget the Government announced it would make changes. It has substantially downgraded the matter and there were near riots in camps throughout this country because once again servicemen had waited for the Government to act and they saw the Government act to their detriment. It is not as though the Government has not had advice from the service chiefs. Senior officer after senior officer has said to the Government, `We can no longer continue to function with this wastage'. Yet in the Budget the Government cut another 900 personnel from the manpower levels. General Bennett, recently retired Chief of the Defence Force, has given the warning to the Government. General Gration, the present Chief, has said the same thing. Air Marshal Funnell, Chief of the Air Staff, has said that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is in a tight spot. Air Vice-Marshal Bradford has given warning as recently as last week that the experience level in the RAAF is being dangerously denuded. Admiral Hudson, the Chief of Naval Staff, says that equipment is meaningless unless we have adequate personnel. General O'Donnell, the Chief of the General Staff, expressed the same concerns. General Fitzgerald, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, in the Estimates hearings last week was critical of manpower shortages. Air Marshal Newham, former Chief of the Air Staff, says that we desperately need more pilots and technicians. The advice to the Government last week by General Jeffery from the 1st Division was that that Division can be sustained in the field for four weeks-and that is one brigade. There are three brigades in the Division. God help us if they all had to be put into the field. The Government's response to this has been to discredit a fine soldier and a very able commander. It is only because of the calibre of men such as General Jeffery and the troops up there that the Government is able to run these exercises at all. The Government is using the Army Reserve to prop up the Regular Army instead of allowing our reserve forces to perform the tasks that they should be doing. The effects of all this are quite severe. We are becoming an impotent force in our own area and our reduced manpower is leading to seriously reduced capabilities. We have limited troop lift equipment to take stores or troops to other parts of Australia or overseas. A landing craft squadron has been disbanded because there is no manpower to run it and a medium artillery battery and an anti-aircraft troop have also been disbanded. Royal Australian Air Force squadrons are almost grounded in some cases and the Army is incapable of taking the field for any length of time. Front line units are undermanned and infantry battalions on Exercise Diamond Dollar are running at about 70 men in the company when they should be running at about 120 or 130 men, and platoons are running at 15 men when they should be running at 30 to 40 men. Batteries have been disbanded, and the Royal Australian Navy is desperately short of technicians and project managers for two of the biggest defence projects in this country-the submarine project and the frigate project. In fact, when asked, 88 per cent of naval officers say that they are thinking of resigning. Last week during the Estimates Committee hearing Rear-Admiral Ralph said that the landing craft squadron had been disbanded simply because there was not enough manpower. When one turns to the RAAF where does one start? There are shortages in the F18 squadrons, shortages in the F111 squadrons, mass resignations from the transport squadrons at Richmond, and half to two-thirds of qualified flying instructor positions at Richmond to train extra pilots are vacant. Air Marshal Funnell, the Chief of the Air Staff, quite rightly says that the RAAF is in a very tight spot. It is not just that we are short of personnel-it is causing enormous costs in retraining. In fact, on average it costs $35,000 to train a recruit. To train a pilot to the stage where he reaches his first squadron costs about $2m, and by the time he has about 1,000 flying hours the cost is $6m. If we lose 300 pilots in the coming year, at an average cost of $4m each, the total cost would be $1.2 billion. I will conclude by describing what should be done-and done quickly. First, we should reassess the priorities between spending on personnel and spending on equipment. Secondly, the Government must show that it cares by taking positive action in relation to the men and women who are serving in our defence forces and looking to the Government for assistance. Thirdly, the Government must implement the Hamilton report and stop mucking around with it, which is what it has been doing for the past 18 months. For God's sake, the Government must put some decent money into housing and give people accommodation in which they can live with pride. The Government must stop fiddling the figures by using half the housing money for new base projects, and it must stop opposing the payment of decent pay and allowances. The Government must recognise the long hours and the difficulties and dangers, the separation and the dedication of these men and women who are serving the Government. Further, the Government must make sure that there is a meaningful education allowance so that people can educate their children decently and not have to scrounge around to get an education for their children, because that makes them look and feel as though they are second class citizens. The Government must give the issue of flying allowances some sort of priority before the Tribunal and must stop mucking around with the defence service housing loan which so many people look on as their right for the years to come. For God's sake, the Government must act in these matters and, if it does, it will have our support. If it cannot act or will not act it should move over and let someone who can recognise the responsibility, particularly to the men and women of our defence forces, have a go. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(3.15) —I appreciate some of the comments, particularly the concluding remarks, that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) made. In fact very many of the points that he has raised are exactly the points that I am working on implementing. But there is one thing that basically I do not understand about the honourable member's speech. How on earth would the Opposition, if it were in government, ever implement any of the proposals that he has put up as recommendations to this Government? Just this week we have had calls from the Opposition to further reduce Government spending and to oppose totally any wage increase for wage and salary earners in this country. So, how on earth could we implement all of these wonderful recommendations? In fact, as I said, I and this Government support many of these recommendations and I am working to implement them. Members of this Opposition stand up here and piously say, `We care for our defence forces'. Believe it or not, I do too. But I have to do something about it and I will do something about it. We hear all sorts of pious claims from the Opposition. On the one hand, it says that we should do this that and the other. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says that we should cut back Federal Government expenditure and that we should have no wage increase. Where does a policy like that leave the poor soldiers and sailors of this country? I will talk about this Government's record in a moment, but what is the Opposition's record? What did the Fraser Government do about salaries? It imposed a wage freeze. There was a consistent erosion of conditions. I will tell honourable members opposite that the housing rot set in when the present Opposition was in government. Between 1979-80 and 1982-83, in the years the Opposition was in government, $93.5m in January 1987 prices was spent on housing. How much do honourable members opposite think that we have spent on housing in the last four years? We have spent $211.4m. We have had to make up for the total neglect by this Opposition-when in government, of defence service homes-let alone salaries and conditions of service. Although the Opposition says that we should cut back Government expenditure, the honourable member for McPherson says that we should spend money on the Defence Force. Basically, his main criticism is that we are spending too much money on capital projects. I would like the Opposition to tell me and to tell the Government what capital projects it wants to cut out. Does it want the new submarines, the 39 Black Hawk helicopters, the eight new light patrol frigates, the 6,000 radios for the Army, the 75 FA18 fighter aircraft, the 16 Sea Hawk helicopters for the Navy, the 67 new PC9 training aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), the 3,000 trucks for the Army, or the 3,240 light machine guns and the 67,000 rifles? If the Opposition does not want them, it should tell us what it wants in terms of its policy. The Opposition wants us to spend more money on service conditions. I support that and I will be doing what I can about it. The Opposition says, `We do not support salary increases, we want to cut back Government expenditure', but it will not tell us what capital projects it wants chopped out. It should tell us what capital projects it wants chopped out. There has been a lot of discussion about people leaving the Services and about separation rates. I am trying to put this matter into some sort of perspective. There is no doubt that we have a problem in certain areas-for example, in respect of pilots. I am seeking, with Air Marshall Funnell, to address that. But over the last 10 years about 11.1 per cent of service personnel have turned over every year-that is, about one-third of the whole of the Defence Force has turned over during the last 10 years. As I said at Question Time, this has happened for all sorts of reasons-not just because people are resigning but because they are pensionable, sick or have been on short term appointments. That figure has now gone up to 12.8 per cent. So, on a 10-year average, we are up about 1.7 per cent. I think there are some reasons for that. One is that there are more women serving these days and they are more inclined to leave. There are more reservists who are coming in and then leaving and there are more trainees. Mr White —That is nonsense. Mrs KELLY —There is no doubt that it is a factor. It is not the only reason, but it is a factor. Basically, what we have to do is to analyse the facts and look at where there are problems. We have identified that one of the key areas in which there are problems is definitely the pilot area. Current rates of pilot separations are much more than the Government and the Air Force would like. The 20-year average loss rate is 47 a year. In 1985-86, it was 70; in 1986-87, 107 and so far this year it is already 75. The problem is that we have not been training enough pilots to make up for those leaving. On average we have been training between 55 and 65 a year. Why are they leaving? There are all sorts of reasons, but one of the key things is that there is a world-wide demand for pilots. Qantas Airways Ltd is actively recruiting at the moment. That is a big factor. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is also recruiting. We have a voluntary Defence Force. I will not tell our Defence Force pilots that they have to stay in the Defence Force and cannot go to Qantas. But what I do want and what I think this Government and this country have a right to expect is that we have sensible discussions with Qantas about how it can meet its needs without impinging on our operations of the Air Force. We have already had some discussions and they have been very useful. What we have tried to do is minimise the impact of continuing losses from RAAF to Qantas on RAAF operational activities. Pilots are very expensive to train. We have done a number of things internally because the issue must be approached from both sides. I do not blame Qantas for the fact that Defence Force pilots are leaving, but there is no doubt that its increased recruitment is a factor involved. What we have done internally is increase the return of service obligation to eight years. The Chief of the Air Staff and I have had discussions about how we can improve the working environment. We are working towards increasing the compulsory retiring age for pilots of wing commander rank and below to 55 years. Also, we hope to introduce a limited air crew specialisation scheme, and we are working towards adopting policies designed to widen promotional opportunities for non-pilots in areas such as personnel and materiel to reduce demand for pilots in staff posts. We are concerned about the pilot problem, but we are acting. We are not whinging, whining and complaining about it; we are acting to solve the problem. The way to work our way out of this is to train our way out. That is the only way we can do it. We must acknowledge the problem, look at the working conditions of our pilots and train more young people going through the ranks to fill the gap. We have to work with Qantas to ensure that it has more rational recruitment which does not impinge on our operations. I wish now to say something about the conditions of service. I am sick to death of hearing the honourable member for McPherson say that we are undermining conditions. That is not true. Mr Brumby —Absolute nonsense. Mrs KELLY —It is absolute nonsense. This Government has a commitment to improving the conditions of service of defence service personnel. I have just outlined the sort of money we have spent in the defence housing area. Tonight we will introduce a very important Bill-the Defence Housing Authority Bill-which will establish a more rational way of servicing and repairing our defence homes, as well as for putting more money into building new ones. Also, we have supported an increase in salaries for our defence Services. In fact, the anomalies case in 1985 gave the defence Services a 5.9 per cent increase. Our approach to wages and salaries, basically, has been to look at allowances. Recently, we have seen an increase of over 100 per cent in the submariners allowance. The field allowance has been increased from $4.01 to over $12. The hearing for the flight allowance is about to start. I refer also to the increase in the service allowance of 22 per cent. Although there are problems within our economy, we have supported these increases, despite the Opposition's view that there should be no increase for wage and salary earners. We have been able to give priority to these things and to conditions of service. I will continue to tackle these issues. I have been in charge of this portfolio for three months. I assure the House that I am committed to the implementation of many aspects of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses. It seems to me that a couple of the key areas of concern to defence personnel and their families-we do not consider defence force personnel in isolation from their families-are posting frequency and education. A report on posting policy generally supported the current posting policy, but it stated that some modifications could be made to make it easier for defence service personnel. I have already discussed these issues with the Chief of the Defence Force. We are looking at the detailed recommendations of that inquiry. Obviously, one of the other areas of major concern is education. I think it is important to address the key issue of providing education and education stability, particularly for older children in their last years of high school. There is the education allowance, as the honourable member for McPherson said. The take-up rate of that allowance is very low. I am now looking at the details to see whether we can do anything about that, having regard to the financial restrictions that we all face. I assure the House of my commitment to improving the morale and conditions of defence service personnel and their families. I want to say something about operational capabilities. The honourable member for McPherson is incorrect in asserting that there has been a reduction in the operational capabilities of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Mr White —Not a reduction, a massive reduction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for McPherson has had his opportunity to address the House and will remain silent. He cannot continue to interject with impunity. Mrs KELLY —This Government has put in place, for the first time in this nation's history, a comprehensive build-up in Australia's Defence Force, tailored to our unique strategic circumstances-something the Opposition failed to do, and continues to fail to do, now that it is in opposition. It totally neglects the whole concept of Australian defence. This Government is having realistic regard for our unique strategic circumstances and the economic realities. In order to achieve a balance in regard to investment in new capabilities, we are looking to the future for the Defence Force, to ADF operations with emphasis on credible contingencies. We are redressing the Opposition's neglect of critical issues such as service housing and single living accommodation. Honourable members opposite failed this country. They did not provide this country with a viable defence force, capable of defending the nation, its sovereignty and its vital interests. They failed because they failed to recognise where the defence of this country was heading. They have failed to do that even today. The Opposition's policy in this area is one of whining, groaning and trying to hit at various aspects of Government policy. But overall, it has no basic commitment to defence policy. It has no real understanding of where defence policy in this country should be headed. Instead, it has allowed itself to be mesmerised by aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces overseas. It has ignored the vital need to develop a joint force concept for our security. This Government has now developed the strategy and force structure plan to meet credible threats to the nation. This Government is not just addressing the real threat; it is also addressing issues that are of concern to all defence personnel in this country. It is committed to the defence forces; it is committed to the defence of this country; and it totally rejects the assertion of the Opposition that the Government is treating the members of our defence forces like second-class citizens. We value our Defence Force. We value its members and their families who give them support. It is those families whose conditions I am working to improve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(3.30) —This debate concerns the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Navy, and the Royal Australian Air Force-I put them in that order because I am a little prejudiced-which have been recognised internationally as having the finest servicemen in the world. But the defence of this country, it is recognised, is running down to alarming levels. In spite of the dubious, misinformed and uninformed explanations from Government Ministers, including, regrettably, the new Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), the fact is that this country's service men and women are leaving the forces in droves. The reasons they are leaving are simple. They are fed up with service conditions that in no way compare with civilian standards and that in no way compensate for the dedication they show and the real sacrifices they make. They are leaving because they are convinced that this Government has turned its back on them. They know that the Government needs to do more than simply create a high flying ministerial title to rectify a problem that besets the service people and their families. Having a Minister in Canberra does not by itself solve the problems of remuneration, housing and the family turbulence caused by endless transfers from one post to another, nor does it provide in itself an answer to the problems of the career path that confront many middle ranking service men and women. Answering these problems takes more than a pretty ministerial title. It requires commitment. It is that lack of commitment that has caused the personnel wastage, the resignation problem. In 1986 over 9,000 service men and women left the Australian defence forces. Many left before they were due to retire. In the first nine months of this year 7,287 voted with their feet and left for civvy street. In other words, out of a total complement of close to 70,000 service men and women, over 16,000 have left the forces in the last 21 months. The 823 who left the Services in August 1987 is the highest figure for August on record. Prior to 1986, monthly resignation figures had reached 1,000 only once-that was in January 1982, when I was not the responsible Minister. In the past 21 months that figure has been exceeded on four different occasions. No wonder the Government has decided not to publish monthly reports detailing personnel turnover. Why would it? Here we are spending billions of dollars each year on new equipment to make sure that we are at the forefront in modern military technology-we have the Australian Defence Force Academy and so on-yet we cannot seem to find the money to keep people in the Services. It is not hard to understand why they are leaving. Australia's service men and women are totally professional. Let us look back. General Westmoreland stated during the Vietnam War that the Australian Army was the finest Army in the world. For a United States General to describe our forces in that way indicates that what I am saying is totally correct. Our forces are totally professional and dedicated. Yet since November 1981 there has been only one Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal decision favouring an increase in pay for these same service people. That was in 1985 and it amounted to a lousy 5.9 per cent instead of the 12 per cent recommended by the Defence Force advocate. Mr Cobb —That is as bad as the parlia- mentarians. Mr KATTER —Parliamentarians are having the same experience. Service pay has not caught up from the onset of the wages pause way back in 1982. It shows no sign of catching up if the recent decision on service allowances is any indication. In recent years the Government has squashed any prospect of a real increase in the rate of remuneration, preferring to tinker with service allowances. Even here there has been immense disappointment. Some of the allowances have been increased, but the most significant allowance, the general service allowance, which compensates for such things as overtime, was extremely disappointing for members of the Services when it was announced a few months ago. How much do honourable members think the Government gave them? It gave them $7, which was way below expectations. We will find that most service men and women are working longer hours because there are not enough people to do the work. We will find that more and more people are leaving because they are sick and tired of working long hours for little remuneration. I come to the question of housing. The Department of Defence (DOD) owns or controls 22,000 houses around Australia specifically for our service families. Indeed, the DOD estimates that, of its 22,000 houses in stock, close to 15,000 are below standard. The Government spoke of providing $750m for service housing over a period of 10 years. That works out at something like $75m a year, but when we see that close to $30m of that money is going to Tindal, a new base in the Northern Territory and a much needed defence facility-my theme song is `Defence of the north'-we realise that only $45m of this year's allocation is going to the rest of the housing stock around the country. It might seem a lot of money, but it spreads thin when it gets down to the basics-the unrepaired windows, the shoddy carpets and the crowded children's bedrooms. These are the things our defence families have to put up with. One of the most disturbing features of the present personnel wastage crisis is the number of middle ranked officers who are leaving the forces. In the first six months of this year, 64 male officers resigned from the Navy, 153 male officers resigned from the Army and 146 male officers resigned from the Air Force. They are very disturbing figures. Last year 798 male officers resigned from the forces-a number way up on the 395 who resigned in 1983, the last grace year for the defence forces. We had a damn good Defence Minister in those days. Something is wrong. Besides service conditions such as pay, housing and postings, many middle ranked officers are getting out because there is no positive direction for them in the Services. If we take away their sense of direction, if we take away the path they like to follow, what happens to morale? It begins to fall apart. The centralised nature of the defence forces which sees officers naturally gravitate to desks at Russell deters many officers from pursuing their careers to their logical outcome. Instead, they get out. Pilots who are condemned to pushing pens in Fort Fumble leave to fly airliners for Qantas Airways Ltd, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Garuda Indonesian Airways, Ansett Airlines of Australia or Australian Airlines. They go where they can continue to fly and where they are paid a lot more for it. We have lost so many pilots in the last few years-honourable members should listen to this-that we do not have enough pilots to fly our military aircraft, and this at a time when we have the finest aircraft in the world, the FA18, which our Government had the good sense to purchase. We spend millions on the new FA18s and we do not have the pilots to fly them. Similar problems of career development confront the Army and the Navy, the problems being how to develop career paths reflective of the professional and technical expertise evidenced in our defence forces. I see that the DOD has embarked on a career development path for its engineers. This is a worthwhile step, but it must be quickly expanded to include other professional and technical areas of the Services. The costs to Australia of this rundown in our defence forces are enormous and terribly worrying. Honourable members do not have to listen to me to know that in a paper prepared by the Australian Chief of the Defence Force himself, and given to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in January 1987, the implications were clearly spelt out. He stated: The increased wastage rates are impacting adversely on the Services as increasing resources are diverted into recruiting and training functions to allow increased training rates. Administration and other costs are also increasing and experience levels are being diluted . . . Recruiting shortfalls also support the conclusion that young people,- I ask honourable members to listen to this- both civilian and Service, view the RAAF as relatively a much less attractive employer now than only two years ago. I would have had much more to say, but time does not permit me. It is an appalling situation. It is absolutely distressing. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(3.40) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr McGauran —This man is a pacifist, for heaven's sake! He wants to abolish the Army. Mr TICKNER —I expected to hear those interjections from the honourable member for Gippsland because as I rose to speak I heard him plotting with some of his rich private schoolboy mates to attempt to interject in the course of my remarks. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that my contribution to this debate will be rather different from the sort of contribution which the honourable member for Gippsland repeatedly makes in this House-a contribution which demeans both himself and his own Party. As the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has indicated, the defence forces of Australia make tremendous sacrifices, for the people of Australia, not just in times of war but also in peacetime. We have great cause to be proud of the work that they perform. It is for that reason that we, as members of the Australian Parliament, are entrusted with a special responsibility to do all we can to advance their conditions of service. While I applaud the Opposition for at least raising this matter for debate in the House today, I wish that its expressed intentions were reflected in the standing which it has given to its shadow spokesman on defence. I hope that he would agree that a shadow spokesman on such an important topic as defence ought to be in the shadow Cabinet. The fact of the matter is that he is not; he is a well-intentioned but lowly ranking member of the Opposition front bench. I put it to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that if he really wants to establish some credibility with the defence forces of Australia he ought to elevate the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) to the front bench because until he does the Opposition will not have credibility when its members rise to speak about defence issues. Having said that, let me put on the record the advances of this Government in relation to serving the defence personnel of Australia. What I do not want to do in the course of what I have to say is to raise expectations or to play phoney political games in this debate. As we in the Government recognise, as the Minister said today, of course there are problems in the defence forces that need to be addressed. Of course there are problems. It is for that reason that we, as members of the Hawke Labor Government, have, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, appointed a Minister directly responsible to the Parliament as a whole for service personnel matters. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), as we all know, commands the ear of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). She is someone who can get things done. She is someone who will be-she has already shown herself to be-an ally of defence personnel and their families. For the record, let me remind the House that she is, as I recall, the first woman Minister in the House of Representatives since Dame Enid Lyons-such is her standing in the Australian Labor Party. The fact that we have a Minister directly responsible for Service personnel matters will not, of itself, as the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said, change anything. What we have got to do is put together a package of programs that will seek to address the concerns and meet the real needs of service personnel and their families. I strongly agree with what the honourable member for Kennedy and, in part, what the honourable member for McPherson had to say about rates of pay and service allowances in the defence forces. There should be improvements. Again, I remind the House that for the first time ever in the history of our country, service allowances and defence salaries are no longer a political football. It is not possible for this Government to bring about a wage freeze, as the Fraser Government sought to do, because for the first time there is an independent, statutory tribunal which can hear the claims of defence personnel for increased salary and allowances. That is a tremendous advance. I agree that that tribunal should listen very closely to what I believe are the just claims for increases in salaries and allowances. Being a member of the armed forces is a tough life. It is extremely hard on families when soldiers are away, often for many months at a time, and are forced to work long and fairly erratic hours. It is a very tough life. It deserves to be well remunerated and to be remunerated in a form comparable to salaries and allowances in civilian life. Mr White —Are you going to do something about it? Mr TICKNER —I put it to the shadow Minister that the Government does not set the salary levels. We have taken it out of the hands of the politicians-Liberal, National Party or Labor-and, for the first time, given it to an independent tribunal to review the allowances. I think that there are a lot more things that ought to be put on the record in the course of this debate. One is that for the first time within the ranks of the Government there is an organised group of members of Parliament that we call the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee which is committed to taking a stand, even if it means at some political cost to its members within the Government, to fight for service conditions and the rights of service families. I came into this Parliament to fight for social justice. There ought to be social justice in the ranks of service personnel and their families. One of the great problems has been that often army bases and communities in which there are substantial numbers of service personnel and their families have been notoriously neglected, not just by this Government, but by governments going right back through the entire history of this country. One of the reasons such places have been neglected is that there has been tremendous movement by service personnel and their families to different parts of Australia. They do not have the opportunity to build up the community links, the power base and the lobbying techniques that we in civilian life are fortunate enough to have. For that reason in the past they have missed out on child care, neighbourhood centres, transport and a whole range of things that we in civilian life take for granted. That is changing. Why is it changing? It is changing because the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) established the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses. That report is being implemented by action taken to establish the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff. It is changing because we have now got an organised national lobby group of Service spouses called the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses. It is changing because we have an Armed Forces Federation of Australia, an independent group making very public noises and doing a good job fighting for service personnel and their families. These just did not happen by accident. They happened because of this Government's commitment to implement a tangible program of reforms. I challenge the shadow Minister, because I know that he has a record of active service in the defence forces, to tell me of the track record of the Menzies, Holt and McMahon governments-the whole sad period of Liberal-National Party governments. I challenge him to tell me the track record for reform of those governments. What is his track record of reform? Even today we are going to debate another important initiative-the initiative to establish the Defence Housing Authority. Once again it is an initiative to set up an independent, professionally staffed and professionally controlled authority that will be responsible for spending $750m over the 10-year period to which this Government has committed itself. The Opposition is on the record. The then shadow Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), has been on the public record throughout the course of this year saying that what the Opposition would do if it came to government would be to sell off or to privatise all that defence housing. One does not have to be a real estate agent or an expert in property dealings to know what would happen to my constituents at Holsworthy if the honourable member for O'Connor and his mates ever got their sticky hands on all that valuable real estate in and around Sydney. What would happen is that rents for service personnel and their families would go right through the roof. I ask members of the Opposition to rethink their policies on privatisation. I want to make brief reference to the defence service home loans scheme and what happened in the course of the Budget. I want to go on the record as a member of the Defence Force Action Committee of the Government. The Government ought to do something to allay community concern about that scheme, because my constituents have always seen that as a condition of service. I urge the Government to rethink its position. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I seek leave to table a document relative to the debate that we have just had. Leave not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The time for the debate has concluded. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(3.53) —We are debating the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill 1987. It is interesting that this Bill is now going through the House of Representatives for the second time. It has been forced to be re-presented because of some deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill that went through earlier in the year which, in itself, appeared to be a fairly simple Bill. I think one can say that perhaps the parliamentary draftsman has some egg on his face in relation to this matter. Mr Carlton —Yolk, yolk! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Between the Deputy Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Mackellar this is really becoming a bit of a cackle, is it not? Mr LLOYD —Since the Bill was passed earlier this year it has become obvious that because of variations in State hen quota practices there is doubt as to the adequacy of those provisions of the Act which define the application of the levy. For example, the Act imposes a levy on quotas as indicated in the licence held by the egg producer. However, in some States the quota is not specified in the licence. In Western Australia egg producers are allocated a base quota and a lower operative quota. Such a system allows the operative quota to be varied during the season depending on demand. The proposed changes will establish clearly that the levy applies to operative hen quotas-that is, the actual hen keeping entitlements-irrespective of how and where these are specified under State or Territory administrative procedures. The Australian Council of Egg Producers supports the Bill and so does the Opposition. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(3.55) —I am very pleased to speak in support of the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has already explained, the purpose of this Bill is to overcome drafting anomalies. My involvement is both constituency-based and personal. As a youth growing up in the western suburbs of Sydney where there is a concentration of many egg producers, it was my pleasure to work as a lad on the Carney poultry farm, as well as Donnelly's poultry farm. I gained first hand experience from the industry. The benefit of that experience comes in handy when dealing with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and some of his contributions in committees. This is an important Bill. Today I want to congratulate the New South Wales Government on all the progress that has been made in this industry and also to acknowledge the very worthwhile contribution made by egg producers not only in New South Wales but Australia-wide. It is a sad fact that changes in technology and the difficulties that the industry was in have resulted in approximately 1,500 producers in New South Wales leaving the industry over the last 13 years. This Bill reflects the orderly marketing approach that has been adopted by the Government and, more particularly, by State governments. There was a referendum of all legal egg producers in New South Wales in 1982. It is interesting that some 98 per cent of legal producers voted, with a majority of 93 per cent for production control. On 1 July 1983, following the Gilchrist Committee on the Production and Marketing of Eggs in New South Wales, the Government in New South Wales decided to abandon the Egg Marketing Board and establish the Egg Corporation. In a fairly short history, I think that Corporation has done particularly well for the producers and the consumers of New South Wales. I point out that the previous coalition policies in that State resulted in ever-increasing prices to consumers, as well as the fact that we were exporting more and more egg pulp at significantly increased losses. One might say that it was an economists nightmare. That has changed significantly. How brave were the producers who voted overwhelmingly for orderly marketing. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Egg Corporation-a $100m enterprise-the hen levy has come down from about $6.10 to $2 to $3 per hen. We have significantly reduced exporting egg pulp losses. It is interesting to pose the question: Why should there be an orderly marketing system particularly as in New South Wales there are so-called rebel egg producers seeking a complete deregulation of the market? The majority of egg producers in New South Wales and, indeed, Australia, are small family concerns. There is a high degree of vertical integration not only in the egg production industry, but also in the egg meat industry. Without orderly marketing we are putting at risk the very existence of those who remain in the industry. Mr Tebbutt, a rebel egg producer, in an electorate that adjoins mine, has made pleas for a free and deregulated market, but he never advises the public or the consumers that he received approximately $600,000 when he sold his quota. In other words, when he was in the system, enjoying the benefits of it, he opted to go out but he netted approximately $600,000, and he wants to argue for a deregulated market. I know honourable members will be very pleased to learn that Choice magazine, on 23 February 1986, devoted a significant chapter to the production of eggs. I will quote to the House a few introductory paragraphs: Consider a moment the credentials of an egg. A staple food for almost 5000 years, each one is packed with protein, fats, water and essential vitamins and minerals. Eggs are versatile . . . fried, poached, boiled or scrambled, they cater to a wide range of taste preferences. And they're useful. Cakes, custards and mayonnaise (to name a few) wouldn't be the same without eggs thickening and binding action. Eggs are convenient-they can be cooked and served in less than five minutes-and they come in remarkably strong, compact packaging (even if they aren't square yet!). Over the centuries eggs have been recognised as more than just a food source. They've been collected, preserved, ornately decorated, given as gifts and treasured. They are a symbol of fertility and, in the Christian tradition, of new life. How much must you pay for something that can do and be so many things? If it's the gold and jewel encrusted Faberge style egg you're after, you could pay as much as US$1,760,000 at auction. The humble hen's egg, served up with toast for breakfast, can be yours for only 15 cents. That is a useful introduction to the egg industry in that article. The same article pointed out that in New South Wales, the Egg Corporation and consumers are doing very well, as a dozen eggs cost $1.63 there, while in Queensland, the same product costs $1.74. One of the other interesting things that I should point out, in talking about the efficiency of the Egg Corporation, is that if one looks at the vegetable and fruit marketing system that operates in New South Wales, one sees that something like 67 per cent of the retail price is added on after the farm gate. In other words, producers are getting something like 33 per cent of the price and when finally the consumer buys the product, about 67 per cent has been added on. For eggs, the after farm gate retail add-on is only 35 per cent. That speaks volumes as far as the New South Wales Egg Corporation policies are concerned. As I said, I am very proud to have had a personal association with this industry. I should also inform the House that, in the last Parliament, I was very concerned about vertical integration in the industry and I would like to commend the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for agreeing to launch an investigation by the Prices Surveillance Authority into the vertical integration of the chicken meat industry, in particular as it relates to the takeover by one of the major players of a number of hatcheries. I know that the industry has responded well to the Government's initiative in that regard, and the Prices Surveillance Authority is monitoring the situation. However, I would also warn of the dangers of excessive vertical integration as far as hatcheries are concerned, in egg production as well. I am pleased to see that the Opposition is supporting the Bill; I certainly support it. I commend the Government for the action that it has taken and I commend States like New South Wales, which has diligently sought to protect the family producers while counterbalancing that by providing a first-rate quality product for consumers at the lowest possible price. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(4.03) —I am not quite sure on what the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) was congratulating the Unsworth Labor Government in New South Wales about. I am not sure that many consumers would necessarily join in that congratulation. However, in a moment, I will come back to a recent joint initiative with the Victorian Government which is of some significance. In respect of the egg industry, what is before the House are certain amendments to the existing legislation to affirm the proper basis of charging a levy imposed on producers to finance research programs in the industry. No doubt much of that research will be directed towards increasing the technical efficiency of the industry and the productivity in the industry in terms of the eggs produced per laying hen. The end result of that will be that, while already more eggs-far more eggs-are produced than consumers want to buy, even more will be produced as that productivity goes up. I would say that it would be a very good idea if a significant portion of that research were directed towards a detailed study of the structure and the economics of the industry. The industry is almost a classic case of the effects of collusive arrangements between producers in the form of a producers cartel, enforced by government fiat introduced into an otherwise highly competitive but potentially unstable industry, characterised by a relatively simple technology, a standard product, and, if unimpeded, easy entry for new producers. What happens is that, in the interests of `stabilisation', the cartel is formed and a production quota-or rather, in principle, a sales quota for fresh eggs in the Australian market-is assigned to each producer. By limiting the aggregate offering of eggs on the market, the price is controlled, typically, increased, and lifted to yield an adequate return to as many producers, egg farmers, as have gained access to the industry and accommodating, generally, even high cost producers. In the egg industry, the first strike in controlling total production and sales is to provide for the imposition of hen quotes, as in the title of the Bill before the House, the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill. The Government, through the various egg boards, in effect issues licences specifying the number of laying hens which each producer might keep. This works initially; but the trouble then is that every effort-genetic, technological and otherwise-is bent on increasing the number of eggs laid per hen. Thus, even more eggs than people want to buy are produced, and the surplus eggs are processed to dried or powdered egg and other manufactured products and sold, principally abroad and generally at a loss. The pressure then is to lift the price of fresh eggs to the Australian consumer even further, limiting, via the marketing boards and the egg levy, the total offering of such eggs on the market to support that price. It is a situation where one tends to get the rather perverse outcome, from an economist's point of view, that, with increased capacity and potential supply, one winds up with a higher price-rather than with a lower one as one would ordinarily expect with free competition in such circumstances. Mr Webster —It is enough to make you boil. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —We have already talked about `eggsasperating' situations and others in this debate, so do not add to it. Mr Lloyd —Keep it up and you will be shell shocked. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My colleague-- Mr Beale —Made a bad `yolk'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Let us get back to business. There is this perverse outcome of increased capacity and supply at an even higher price, rather than the lower price that one would otherwise expect. One estimate by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics relating to a few years back was that the operations of the various State egg boards held up the price of eggs to about 40c above an efficient cost-price level. The price was then about $1.50 a dozen. On the basis that a freer market would lead to a price more approaching such a level, that would mean that the consumer was subsidising the egg producer to the extent of 40c a dozen eggs. It is fair to say on the other side that these arrangements ensure that there is always an adequate supply of eggs to the Australian consumers, available at reasonably stable prices, and the arrangements have the effect of maintaining a larger number of small, family producers in the market than would otherwise be the case. Overall it is a rather complex industry and it is important that the House take this on board. As I said, the purpose of the legislation before the House is retrospectively to regularise practices which vary somewhat as between the States and the Northern Territory for imposing the egg industry research levy, making it clear that this is to be assessed by multiplying the unit levy by operative hen quotas-actual hen keeping entitlements. While the existing structure of the egg marketing boards is in place, the Opposition, and I, accept that this legislation is necessary. Explicit notice was given to all boards that this change was intended, and it would have been made in the autumn session of Parliament had not the election intervened. The operative words are `while the existing structure of marketing boards is in place'. As I said before, it would be a good idea if some of the proceeds of this research levy were applied to detailed research on the structure and economics of the industry and how the existing arrangements might be modified in the interests of lower prices to the consumers and yet still allow adequate returns to the producers. Mr Ross Gittins, the economics writer of the Sydney Morning Herald, recently wrote a very interesting article on the industry. Mr Gittins, in my book, has an honoured place amongst economics writers for the very insightful immediate response to the recent August Budget that he made in the midst of all the surrounding Press euphoria. I quote a bit of it. It started off: Good old Paul, always got another rabbit in his hat: this time, a balanced Budget and we didn't feel a thing. Not bad, eh? Well, not bad, but not as good as it looks. He went on to make some very insightful comments-and we are talking about the very morning after the Budget-and he concluded in this vein: Senior ministers plan to take a long holiday over Christmas. That should bring them back refreshed, ready to start work on a tough, post-election mini Budget next May-the sort of shocker we should have had last night. That is, on 15 September! With the grave events of the past week, I think the luxury of the long Christmas holiday might not be on. However, I mention that Mr Gittins wrote that very insightful article and he also has written a piece on the egg industry. Rather than go into it in detail I draw the attention of the House to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 October. He reports there a proposal that did not get much publicity elsewhere; namely, the announcement by the New South Wales and Victorian Ministers for Agriculture that the New South Wales Egg Corporation and the Victorian Egg Board would merge their manufactured product divisions through the formation of a wholly-owned subsidiary called Good Food Products Australia Pty Ltd. He went on to report that there was some anticipation that this proposed joint manufactured egg product facility would become a significant episode in privatisation, that this might result ultimately in the dismantling of the complex structure of regulation in the industry-including fresh eggs, not just the manufactured products-and more effective competition in the industry with the effect that egg prices might be brought down to more reasonable levels. He was not too optimistic about the success of this development. It is, of course, early days and most of the real nitty gritty as to how that might be done has not yet been worked out. I refer honourable members to his article and merely commend Mr Gittins on it. I express the hope that he maintains his watching brief over the progress of this proposal for merging and, maybe, for the privatisation and deregulation of the nation's principal egg marketing authorities. Meanwhile, as I said, some detailed economic research would not go amiss. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.14) —I thank all honour- able members who have taken part in this debate. It is interesting to see that the Opposition is not opposing the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill and is giving it a speedy passage through this House. I appreciate the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Lloyd) and especially that of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) with his great experience in the poultry industry. He explained how he used to work on poultry farms in his youth. It is nice to know that we have members of this Parliament who have experience in the industry. I thank the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) for his contribution. I point out to him that the research expenditure is not directed only at increasing productivity but also at marketing improvements. Egg prices have actually decreased during the last 12 months in some States, especially New South Wales. I am sure he would be very happy to know that because I know that he has an egg a day, instead of an apple a day, which keeps the doctor away. As a colleague of mine said, this is not a debate that would set the feathers flying in this chamber or, indeed, leave honourable members shell shocked. I know that many business men and women have invested their money in the industry and they would be very concerned about what we are doing here today because once they invest their money in the industry they are always interested in what governments are doing in areas which concern their businesses. We are amending legislation which may affect them in some way. Once again, it is very pleasing that we have had a speedy passage through the Parliament of this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: COMMONWEALTH BORROWING LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1987] Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 3. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(4.17) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill and the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill which are being debated today seek to impose an annual levy on all borrowings by Commonwealth semi-government authorities other than those engaged primarily in the business of financial intermediation; for example, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. However, there are several points I wish to raise in relation to the introduction of this new levy. This levy was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his 1987-88 Budget Speech and it replaced the Commonwealth guarantee charge which was imposed in 1986-87 on borrowings by authorities that were subject to an explicit Commonwealth Government guarantee. That earlier guarantee charge was, the Government then explained, introduced to take account of the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities where their borrowings are explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Government's expressed objective in imposing the charge was to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities was more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thereby ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. However, although the government claims that it is simply trying to remove an advantage from public enterprises that private enterprises do not have, the motivation for the legislation seems to be instead the desire simply to tap an extra source of revenue. Again this Government makes its grab for the cash. Honourable members will recall that the current Government is the highest taxing government in the history of Australia. The Budget Papers tell us that for 1987-88 the Government intends to collect an enormous $78 billion in revenue. That is an increase in revenue over the previous year of some $5.9 billion. Indeed, it compares with only $44 billion collected under the last Fraser Government in 1982-83. So, during its period in office this Labor Government has increased its revenue collections by a massive 75 per cent. The Australian Labor Party may talk about its tax reform initiatives, but how does it explain to the Australian taxpayer a 75 per cent increase in the Government's income? It is the highest taxing, biggest spending government in the history of the nation. The fact is that this Government does not try to explain that. Instead, it keeps increasing revenue to fund unjustifiable programs that tie up valuable resources which otherwise could have been used by the private sector for more rewarding endeavours. Faced with the enormous predicament of $83 billion in foreign debt-I remind the House that under the Hawke-Keating Government Australia's foreign debt has quadrupled in four years-this Government nevertheless refuses to make the quality spending cuts to force the pace of needed economic adjustment to prevent us, in the words of the Government's own Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, going further down the Argentinean road. These Bills, albeit on a small scale, represent just another example of a greedy government using every avenue it can to rake in the cash. Let me return more specifically to the pieces of legislation now before the House. The introduction of this new legislation to replace the Commonwealth Guarantee (Charges) Act 1987-that legislation is not even a year old and already it is being replaced, which is yet another example of this Government being unable to think through the consequences of its action in that it introduced a charge last year and totally replaces it a year later-represents nothing less than an admission that the Opposition's reservations, as expressed during the second reading debate on the previous legislation, were well founded. In itself, the proposed legislation appears to be quite reasonable. Nevertheless, the previous legislation and its regulations, like much of the Government's legislation in the taxation arena, seem to have been hastily prepared and certainly ill-considered-frankly, just not thought through. In addition, it is also worth noting that the regulations setting out the collection machinery for the previous charges were not presented to Parliament until just before the end of the last financial year-sloppiness yet again. In the process, the public authorities-and through them the taxpayers-have suffered due to the unreasonable costs imposed and the uncertainty caused by the unnecessary delays. Let us review a number of the changes made in the new legislation. Firstly, it was realised that financial institutions gain only a slight advantage, in terms of borrowing costs, from Commonwealth guarantees beyond that arising from their status as financial institutions. Therefore, they are now to be exempt. Secondly, it was realised that a rate of half of one per cent on borrowing proceeds was too high, if not for all then at least for the large authorities such as Telecom Australia. Nonetheless, it is expected that the Government will charge the new lower rate of 0.125 per cent uniformly. This will not take account of the acknowledged difference in the benefit of a guarantee to different authorities. Indeed, it would appear reasonable that the guarantee is worth more to smaller authorities whose lesser borrowing requirements reduce the secondary market and therefore the tradeability of their securities. However, I recognise that in practice the differences are hard to judge for administrative purposes, and therefore to charge a uniform rate, at least for the first few years of the levy, is a satisfactory second best option-that is, given the Government's desire for a levy. If I may digress on this point for a moment, the question of the differences in the value of the guarantee to various types of authority has certain other implications. It would seem obvious that, because some larger authorities such as Telecom have substantial annual borrowing requirements, the secondary market for their securities is of a reasonable size. By `secondary market' I mean the market that buys and sells existing bonds of varying maturity previously issued by an authority-and again let us use Telecom bonds as an example. Because such a market is fairly active, any person who has Telecom stock knows that he or she can sell that stock fairly promptly as a result of the well-established market of buyers and sellers. This contrasts with the situation for a smaller authority such as the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority (ACTEA), where securities issued in its name are fairly scarce and therefore the risk of holding them could be higher than for Telecom bonds. As a result, the ACTEA borrowing costs are higher and the yields that it must pay will inevitably be higher than for Telecom. I mention all this because it seems to me that there may be a case for a co-ordinated borrowing system that allows the loans of a number of Commonwealth authorities to be aggregated. Because of the larger volume involved, smaller authorities then might be able to obtain lower yields. Virtually all States have what are called central borrowing authorities. Among others, there are the Victorian Public Authorities Finance Agency, the South Australian Financing Authority and the Treasury Corporation in New South Wales. Instead of a new body exactly like those for use by Commonwealth authorities, an alternative using existing institutions may-I emphasise `may'-be viable. Smaller authorities could simply contract out to have their borrowing task added into the larger borrowings of authorities such as Telecom on a type of consultancy basis. In that way they may be able to reduce their costs. Although that is only a germ of an idea at the moment, I suggest that it may be worth further consideration. Returning to the legislation at hand, the third point that I make is that during the 1986-87 financial year it was found, as the Opposition expected, that, because only borrowings explicitly given Commonwealth guarantees were covered by the earlier Act, authorities-where they could-quickly began to realise that they should forgo obtaining guarantees. That is because it became obvious that the cost of funds to Commonwealth authorities appears to reflect an expectation by lenders that the Commonwealth will stand behind those authorities whether or not an explicit guarantee has been given. As a result, it has obviously proved to be inequitable to treat differently implicit and explicit guarantees, and that is especially the case when borrowings by some smaller authorities were almost all subject to explicit guarantees-so they did not have the opportunity to avoid the charge. Indeed, this suggests that, while an authority is government owned, it will always have a safety net beneath it to prevent it from ever being truly commercial. That means that the Government's stated intention in introducing these Bills becomes moribund. The Government's argument, that a levy such as this on borrowings will remove an advantage to public borrowers over private business and therefore put them in an equal competitive position, does not necessarily follow. If the Government wants to make these authorities truly competitive, the most direct way to do it is to sell them to the private sector. Of course, the converse of that argument is: if the Government managed to attain a situation where an authority competed on a one-to-one basis with private enterprise-which I doubt is really possible-what social purpose is being supplied by the Government owning such an asset? The Opposition is committed to a rational policy of disposing of those authorities which will operate more effectively outside public ownership. Mr Cadman —Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —`Hear, hear' indeed. Such a policy would be preferable to the Government's attempts to increase its revenue base by imposing additional costs on authorities, that is, costs that will eventually translate through to the consumer and impact directly, although marginally, on inflation through increases in charges. This Government's approach to budgetary policy is all on its head. It simply focuses on raising revenue rather than making the required expenditure reductions to release resources for needed adjustment to cope with our pressing economic difficulties. Finally, and notwithstanding these concerns, I reiterate that the Opposition will not oppose these Bills. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.30) —It is my pleasure this afternoon to follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in the debate on the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill 1987 and the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill 1987. As the honourable gentleman has rightly indicated, these Bills form a very important part of the Government's strategy in terms of the 1987-88 Budget. The Bills before the House provide for the imposition of a levy on Commonwealth semi-government authorities in place of the Commonwealth guarantee charge which was introduced in 1986-87. The honourable member for Kooyong indicated that this levy replaces something which was put in place only some 12 months beforehand and saw that as some criticism of the Government's position. I do not share that view. I believe that if legislation which comes before this place is shown for one reason or another to be in need of review or that some other method of collection through a levy process would more properly address some of the issues, it is incumbent upon the Government to take that into consideration and, if necessary, to make some changes. I certainly believe that that is what has occurred here. Mr Peacock —It should be right in the first place. Mr MARTIN —It is not a question, as perhaps some might suggest, of getting it right in the first place. It is a question of making adjustments as policy adjustments are necessary. I believe that is what the Government has done. As I have already indicated, the legislation gives effect to a decision that was taken by the Government in the recent Budget. Conversely to what our colleague on the other side was just saying, obviously he and perhaps one or two other members of the Opposition saw nothing greatly wrong with the Budget strategy that was put in place or, indeed, the end result. Of course, it was no mean task for the Government to have a balanced Budget when we consider what it has had to go through over a long period to find the right economic settings. I believe that we have achieved that quite effectively. This Government, on behalf of the Australian community, has worked hard to reduce the nation's indebtedness. We are constantly fighting the good fight to do just that. The Government has been successful in its endeavours to date and certainly the recent Budget illustrates that very fact. On 15 September the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced this balanced Budget. Of course, I have no need to remind the House that that balanced Budget has put in place economic settings which have the Australian economy heading in the right direction yet again. Interestingly though, the honourable member for Kooyong also touched on the question of overseas debt and overseas borrowings. I think it is important to note and to get it on the record that, for the first time in a long time as a result of the Budget that this Government has brought down, there will be a budgeted one per cent decline which represents the first net settlement of Commonwealth debt since 1980-81. Again, I believe that that is a tribute to the economic strategy which the Government has adopted, of which this legislation is part. The first redemptions of both external and domestic bonds in the same year in more than 50 years are part and parcel of that very strategy. Additionally, of course, the gross public sector borrowing requirement of the Government is budgeted at 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product. Again, I remind the House that this compares with 7 per cent in 1984-85, 5.8 per cent in 1985-86 and 4 per cent in 1986-87. So again we see progressive reductions in all of these areas. This is part and parcel of the Government's economic strategy which it puts into place each year in a Budget context. I repeat that these Bills are part of that context. Therefore, given that the Australian community has had to make sacrifices over the last four years to achieve the very results that I have just outlined, it is essential that Commonwealth semi-government authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their borrowings, including raisings of money other than by borrowing. I think this very sound economic policy has to be adopted. I repeat that this does not reflect any consideration by the Government that something done 12 months ago was wrong. Rather, the Government has simply replaced what was in place with a more efficient system. It is the function of the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill to ensure that this will be the case by the imposition of a levy on such borrowings. The Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill 1987 provides for the collection of the levy. Of course, this House would well be aware that the Commonwealth guarantee charge, which this levy is to replace, was introduced to ensure that the effective cost of borrowing to authorities was more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers. Indeed, the honourable member for Kooyong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, made something of the fact that there was a need to make the public sector authorities more competitive with those in the private sector. Of course, his panacea for this was to sell them off and to get them into purely private hands. Of course, that is an issue which is at present alive and well within the community. A number of people from both sides of the House have made certain utterances about this whole question of privatisation. No doubt it is an issue which will receive full and proper public debate over the next few months in the various forums which exist certainly within the Government, within the Opposition and within the general community. Previously the authorities have been operating under favourable interest rates because their borrowings were explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Of course, that tends to give something of an advantage to those authorities. Whether it was explicit or implicit, they were given some special place in the market-place. Of course, if we are talking about public sector authorities competing effectively in the private sector and vice versa, the playing rules must be the same for everyone, and this Government recognises that fact. The decision taken in the Budget, to which this legislation gives effect, was a result of the review of the operation of the charge to which I have already made reference. Clearly it has become apparent that the status of being government owned conferred advantages on all authorities in financial markets simply because lenders expected that the Commonwealth would back up those authorities whether or not an explicit guarantee had been given. I think that really underlies what this legislation is about. There was an explicit expectation that there would be back-up services and guarantees given by the Commonwealth Government for the borrowing requirements of these public authorities. Therefore, the Government rightly, in my view, decided that the levy should be imposed on all borrowings by semi-government authorities from 1 July 1987. Of course, this will ensure that the community's fight against indebtedness is not endangered by these authorities being tempted to borrow more than absolutely necessary because of attractive interest rates. Despite the events of the past week or so, despite the pressures within the economy and despite the fact that interest rates are coming down, it still was possible for these semi-government authorities perhaps to seek out a more favourable interest rate climate and to get some advantage within the general community simply because the lenders saw the Commonwealth Government as being the guarantor for each of those borrowings. I do not seek in any way, shape or form to cast aspersions upon the operators and the management of the semi-government authorities. That is certainly not my intention at all. What I am suggesting is that they saw some advantage in the market-place that perhaps might have existed, and the authorities which they were managing took full advantage of that. But it must be realised that the legislation is concerned with 21 commissions, corporations and authorities. Despite what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, most of those commissions, corporations and authorities are very large operations in the general market-place. The schedule which is attached to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill lists 21 organisations and I will just quickly refer to some of them. They include Aussat Pty Ltd, the Australian National Airlines Commission-that is, Australian Airlines-the Australian National Railways Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Trade Commission, the Federal Airports Corporation, the Health Insurance Commission, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), Qantas Airways Ltd and, of course, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. They are all major public authorities. When one looks at the scale of the commissions and authorities about which we are talking and which are addressed by the legislation, we may very well have to conclude that the suggestion that they might improve their borrowing abilities and so on by being grouped together is not necessary. That is an issue which, I am sure, the Minister will take into consideration. If all of those 21 various authorities took advantage of the interest rates offered to them, because of their government-owned status, our indebtedness would probably blow right out and our economic recovery would be jeopardised. I do not think that anyone could disagree with that. Quite simply, their borrowing must be assessed in a broader economic context. This legislation will ensure that that occurs. The levy will not apply to Commonwealth-owned financial institutions, such as the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It has to be said that those financial institutions do not benefit from their government-owned status in the same way as the 21 authorities which are listed in the schedule to the Bill. I wish to make a couple of comments about the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He led off the debate for the Opposition on the Bills this afternoon. It is appropriate to consider now his statement that this Government's concentration on revenue raising rather than reducing expenditure and so on is something which needs to be further addressed. I suggest to the House that through legislation such as this, which makes public authorities more accountable and, therefore, ensures that they more effectively compete in the market-place generally within both the public and private sectors, the whole question of the Government concentrating on revenue raising and not on reducing expenditure can be overcome. The whole argument that privatisation of publicly-owned enterprises will solve all the economic ills of Australia is not, in my view, a proposition which can be wholly sustained. There seems to be a view within the community-certainly it is the view of honourable members on the Opposition benches-that simply putting a publicly-owned operations into private hands, in a particular way and for a particular reason, is magic and that that enterprise will function far more efficiently and effectively. I think that people who dwell in rural Australia would challenge that view as far as Telecom is concerned. I think that the majority of people in the poorer areas of Australia would disagree with that as far as the Health Insurance Commission is concerned. I am sure that many people would disagree with that in terms of their ability to get television reception or to send telephone messages around Australia. Those services are provided by organisations such as the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Aussat and so on. Simply stating that the Government's strategy is wrong and that the only panacea to the problem is to sell all of those public authorities to the private sector is stating a question far too simply. In addition, the honourable member for Kooyong said that this Government is the highest taxing government ever in Australia's history, that it desires to tap extra sources of revenue and that it expects to raise an extra $1.3m in 1987-88. One would not have thought that in the broader scale of things, in terms of revenue raised by this Government, that that was a great deal of money. But, nevertheless, it was said that that was the case. The honourable member went on to say that there had been no tax reform and, as the Government's tax take was so high, how could it talk of reform. What he forgot to mention, yet again, as he did when he spoke to some taxation Bills in this place the other day, was that our tax reform essentially brought into place some pieces of legislation which had a great bearing on the private sector. I am talking, of course, about the imputation system, the reduction in marginal tax rates and so on. He went on to say that the tax take which this Government has received has been the highest in 75 years, or words to that effect. That is probably right. But it is right because people who previously were not paying any tax, or certainly not their fair share of tax, are now starting to do so. That is a most important point that needs to be made about the observation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his very shallow response to this legislation this afternoon. The Commonwealth guarantee charge will continue to operate on borrowings undertaken in 1986-87. The estimated revenue from that will be about $7.6m this financial year. I conclude by saying that the measure which the legislation seeks to enact integrates into this Government's broader economic strategy. That is an important part of the consideration of a lot of the measures that will come before the House over the next few weeks. It is part of the Government's broader economic strategy, a strategy that has seen the deficit reduced to a balanced Budget situation and that has seen the economic direction of this country thought through, despite claims to the contrary by those opposite. I believe that part and parcel of that strategy is the implementation of measures such as this. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.47) —This is an example of one of those items of legislation that governments from time to time bring forward in order to, I suppose, tidy up the operation of public sector enterprises and, in a sense, to put them in a comparable position with the situation in which private enterprise finds itself, in this case in relation to their borrowing responsibilities and the type of interest that is charged on their borrowings. It is quite clear that as a result of either explicit or implicit guarantees which the Commonwealth provides for semi-government enterprises of one kind or another, lenders would be prepared, generally, to lend to those institutions at a lower rate of interest than normally would be charged for other examples of private enterprise where perhaps the guarantee and the security of those loaned funds could not be guaranteed with such certainty. Naturally enough, that places semi-government authorities in an advantageous position as far as their borrowings are concerned and as far as the cost of servicing those loans is concerned. Frequently, the claim is made that, as a result of circumstances of this kind, semi-government enterprises find themselves in a position whereby they can compete unfairly against comparable operations in the private sector. Here is an example of a case in which a Labor government has indicated that the constraints on semi-government authorities will be of the same kind as those which operate in relation to private enterprise. What we are doing now is tidying up and consolidating the Government's intention that was provided initially when the old Commonwealth guarantee charge was introduced for 1986-87. That Commonwealth guarantee charge provided that an additional charge of up to 0.5 per cent on borrowings would be imposed by the Commonwealth on its semi-government authorities as a result of the benefit they enjoyed from explicit government guarantees for their borrowings in terms of the interest they were paying for funds that they raised for capital purposes. The Commonwealth guarantee charge was applied to all of those borrowings. The annual borrowing levy is now being introduced to replace that earlier arrangement. It will be paid by Commonwealth authorities when their borrowings are explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth and also when those borrowings are not explicitly guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This legislation will put all Commonwealth authorities in essentially the same position. That did not occur with the previous arrangement that operated under the old guarantee charge scheme. It is simply based on the recognition that, whether or not the Commonwealth Government gives an explicit guarantee to any of its semi-government authorities for the purpose of their borrowing arrangements, the lenders, nevertheless, will be of the opinion that since they are Commonwealth enterprises, Commonwealth undertakings, there is an implicit guarantee. For that reason, it is reasonable to expect that private sector lenders, private financial institutions, will be prepared to lend to any type of Commonwealth Government enterprise at what is at least a marginally lower rate of interest. As a result, this is designed to ensure that the benefit accruing to semi-government authorities will be removed. They will play on an even field when they are in the market-place, in the commercial world, competing, particularly, against some of those private enterprises that have to pay a higher rate of interest in order to attract the funds that they want to borrow. This is a fairly significant change that the Government is introducing in order to overcome some of the deficiencies that existed in the previous arrangement. I am pleased to see, in a sense, the initiative being shown by some of those public enterprises. They were rearranging their borrowing programs to ensure that no explicit Commonwealth guarantee was being provided for their borrowings in order to escape that earlier guarantee charge. But they were still getting the benefit of the fact that they were public enterprises. For that reason, the Government is, in a sense, closing a loophole around which the Government enterprises operated previously. I want to emphasise, as well, that this levy which is now being imposed will be imposed on all borrowings, including raisings of money other than by borrowing, by all of those Commonwealth semi-government authorities. People may well ask: In addition to conventional-type borrowing, what other means are there for semi-government authorities to raise the money that they require? Of course, in addition to conventional domestic and overseas loan raisings, we also have deferred payment arrangements, overseas trade credits and financial leases. We also have, among some of the non-formal borrowing arrangements, sale and leaseback arrangements and instalment purchases. All of those are available to semi-government authorities, just as they are available to the rest of the community. It is important for us to understand, as well, in relation to these borrowings, that it is necessary for the Treasurer to provide his approval for borrowings. Most often, of course, that authority by the Treasurer is a delegated authority. All of those borrowings by semi-government authorities, as is the case for general borrowings by governments, are included in the public sector borrowing requirement and are also included within the global limits. This procedure and conceptual arrangement have now been adopted to ensure that some type of control or general restriction is placed on the total borrowings of the public sector. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) in his contribution referred to the fact that the gross public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has been progressively reduced by this Government. In 1983-84 the gross public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of GDP was 8 per cent; in the following year it was 7 per cent; in 1985-86 it was 5.8 per cent; last year it was 4 per cent; and this year we are budgeting for a figure of less than 3 per cent. I think it is important for people to understand that that trend has been maintained by the Government. Mr Ronald Edwards —It is a great achievement. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Stirling says, it has been a great achievement in terms of the particular difficulties that the Government faced when it came into office in March 1983. There are so many examples of this kind to which we can refer to show the adequacy of the response which has been made by this Government to ensure that the fundamentals of the Australian economy were put very firmly in place. There is no question about the very significant changes that have taken place. I have indicated that from 1983-84 until last year the reduction in the gross public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of GDP went down from 8 per cent to 4 per cent, and the net public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of GDP, during the same period, went down from 6.7 per cent to 3.8 per cent. So there have been very significant achievements in that regard. The Government has been concerned, and has expressed its concern, not only in statements that have been made, but also in the policies which it has adopted, to ensure that the public sector should reduce its total call on the resources available within the community. I prefer not to differentiate between the call which is made by semi-government authorities, public enterprises, on the liquid reserves, the liquid savings, of the community, in order to finance its investment, and the call which is made by private sector operations, of a similar kind, operating in the market, competing, as I said before, on a level field and also making demands on those liquid resources that are available to the community. If they represent new investment, the creation of new productive facilities and an increase in the total national infrastructure, does it really matter very much whether it is undertaken by the private sector or by the public sector? We must get away from this cringe that suggests that in some way public sector investment is less desirable-indeed on some occasions, even less moral-than private sector investment. Such a suggestion, of course, is totally absurd. When we look around an advanced country such as Australia we see that the Government has been fundamentally important in providing public enterprises, semi-government authorities of the kind that we have in Australia, and also the magnificent infrastructure which has been developed over 200 years, such as transport, ports, power generation, and facilities of that kind. So people should not always think the Government has a responsibility, necessarily and exclusively, to gear back the demands that are being made on the community's total liquid reserve. It is important that the great public enterprises which are affected by this legislation are given the opportunity to broaden their own capital base and to establish their own investment infrastructure, to make it possible for them to achieve those objectives, and to pursue those objectives, that the community rightfully expects from them. They may concern those areas that are called natural monopolies, such as those that are responsible for electricity and gas distribution, or Australia Post or Telecom Australia, or they may concern those areas which are more akin to private sector operations such as Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd or the Commonwealth Bank. Those bodies are all important and they all have an extremely important role to play. When the initial legislation was introduced to establish the Commonwealth guarantee system which this legislation is now making provision to replace, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer at the time, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who introduced it said: the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition . . . of an annual charge on borrowings or other raisings of money by Commonwealth semi-government authorities which are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. As I have said, it is not just those which are now guaranteed by the Commonwealth but those for which there is some sort of implicit guarantee as well. The then Minister went on to say: This charge, which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the Budget Speech, has regard to the favourable interest rates paid by Commonwealth authorities due to the fact that their borrowings are guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The main consequence of the charge will be to ensure that the effective cost of borrowings to authorities is more directly comparable with that faced by private sector borrowers, thus ensuring that authorities take full account of the cost to the community of their investment decisions. That lies at the base of this approach. It does not matter very much whether it is under the provisions of the Commonwealth guarantee charge or whether it is under the provisions of this new borrowing levy arrangement. The purpose is the same; to ensure that they are all operating on an even field. Most borrowers have to ask for a guarantee, especially where the borrowings are for a long term. For short term borrowing arrangements, generally less than 12 months, no guarantee is involved. So those institutional loans as well will be subject to this new levy. The Commonwealth guarantee charge operated on the daily balance that was outstanding for each of those guaranteed loans. I indicated before that the amount of the charge is being reduced from 0.5 per cent which applied before to the new level of 0.125 per cent. It would appear that we are adjusting that in the light of market realities and as comparable interest rates. It appears-I am not able to confirm this-from an adjustment of that kind that we have discovered the degree of differential, which is less than 0.5 per cent, in the interest being charged on private sector borrowings and public sector borrowings for operations and authorities of a similar kind. As I have indicated, most markets do not recognise the difference between those implicit and explicit guarantees-nor should they. Mr Ronald Edwards —You are right. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Stirling recognises, there is a clear recognition by those borrowers that whether the Commonwealth provides an explicit guarantee or not it will naturally stand behind its own semi-government authorities. I also indicated that one reason for this change to encompass all semi-government authority borrowings is that they were showing a commendable degree of initiative in adjusting their own borrowing arrangements in order to ensure that they did not require any explicit guarantee. As a result of that it was possible for those authorities to escape the payment of the former Commonwealth guarantee charge. As I said when I began my speech, government operations of this kind are necessary from time to time to ensure that semi-government authorities operate in a way which is appropriate not only to the purposes of the public sector but also to the general expectations of the community. While the community should accept that investment by the public sector in building up national infrastructure is just as important-if it is productive, if it is needed, if it increases our productive capacity, if it enlarges employment, if it generates income, if it helps to promote our exports-as investment undertaken by other bodies there is no reason why, in a mixed economy of the kind we enjoy in Australia, it should not be necessary for the public sector to show its bona fides by accepting the same type of constraints, the same type of limitations, the same type of requirements that exist elsewhere. For reasons of that kind, I am pleased to support the legislation. It will ensure that public sector enterprises, semi-government authorities, those which are owned by the Commonwealth, will be expected to measure up-as they have traditionally been expected to measure up-with the expectations of the community concerning the sort of constraints that should operate on any type of business undertaking when it borrows and the sort of debt servicing charge that they should be expected to meet. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.06) —It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) in debates in this House. I have enjoyed listening to his remarks on the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill and the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill. Like the honourable member for Charlton, I think that there are many aspects of this Government's economic policy that we could refer to in this debate which show a sensible approach to economic management. I note the remarks of the honourable member for Charlton. The honourable member has covered a wide and effective range of the issues at stake. For those who are listening to this debate, it is interesting that at a time of some economic turmoil in the market-place we are talking today about borrowings in the market-place and giving guarantees to those borrowings. So the remarks that we are making in this debate are quite pertinent given the current economic climate. It is also possible to observe in passing that the fundamentals in terms of the economic management of this economy are in good shape. For those who must surely be troubled by recent movements in the stock market, both here and overseas, it must be understood that we, as Government members, believe that the fundamentals in terms of economic management are well put in place and that we are confident about our stewardship of economic activity. Over the next few days there will be a further shaking out of the economic activity with a levelling of prices and some return to stability in the market-place. In contrasting ourselves with the United States of America, as the honourable member for Charlton well knows, we are in the fortunate position of having a domestic deficit which is barely perceptible now because of the 1987-88 Budget. Mr Robert Brown —That is another great achievement. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is another great achievement. We are in that happy position, vis a vis that of the United States, of having our domestic deficit under control. That means that a lot of the fundamentals are in place to deal with these difficult economic circumstances. I think the task confronting the United States is very much to rein in its domestic deficit, and its external deficit. As the honourable member for Charlton has said in previous debates much is made of the question of the external deficit, which was raised by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). It is important to remind those opposite-the honourable member for Charlton has spoken about this as well-that a significant element-a bigger proportion-of the external deficit we have in Australia is, in fact, private sector induced. We do not have any particular axe to grind in that respect except to say that this is a natural occurrence when the economy has been opened up; it is a natural occurrence when the dollar is floated; and it is also a natural occurrence of the market forces and the entrepreneurial activity in Australia which has sought to raise those funds. With the change in our attitude towards the taxation of dividends and now that we are moving towards a dividend imputation system-this is quite significant and people will recognise this-the benefits to equity raising within Australia can now be achieved in the longer term. So the need for external indebtedness in terms of the corporate sector will be reduced. Obviously, that is a long term sign for the Australian economy. If Australian corporations can raise money within the Australian market and not have to proceed off-shore there is a long term structural benefit to be achieved. The honourable member for Charlton has spoken on that and has recognised that very well. We recognise it on this side of the chamber as being a substantial achievement and a long needed economic reform. The honourable member for Kooyong brought up the question of the external sector. We can say that our taxation reform package generally is quite important. The honourable member for Charlton also referred to the public sector borrowing requirement. What he said was quite correct. I endorse his remarks that we have achieved a great deal of fiscal responsibility. The public sector borrowing requirement has been reduced. It has not been an easy task. In the face of achieving wage restraint we have also had to achieve fiscal restraint at both the national and the State levels. That degree of fiscal responsibility and discipline has been achieved by this Hawke Government since 1983, and I think it is an achievement that we can be proud of. Mr Robert Brown —And only under us. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is quite correct. It has been achieved only under us, as the honourable member for Charlton says. That is significant. We have set in place a comprehensive package of economic management. The issue of privatisation was raised by those opposite. The honourable member for Charlton has spoken about the question of public infrastructure and private infrastructure. It seems to me that one of the issues that has to be addressed in this debate is the fact that there are some criteria for public ownership. For those who are employed in public enterprises and for those who depend upon their services, I say as a Government member that there are three dominant criteria for public ownership of an enterprise. If that enterprise serves areas of specific need-if, for instance, there is a welfare benefit to be achieved, such as the supply of funds for housing at a lower cost than can be provided by the market-place-that is one reason why we might require public activity. That is a very important area. With regard to the terminating building societies, for example, it is an important area for the delivery of services that we could not expect the private sector to deliver, because there is only a welfare reason, not a market-induced reason, for delivering them. That is the first important criterion. The second criterion is the need for competition in a market-place where, if only private activity is taking place, there may not be effective competition. Historically in Australia, publicly owned enterprises have generated competition for privately owned enterprises. Due to the economies of scale, as the honourable member for Charlton knows, as a distinguished economist and author of texts, there are times when, because of the size of the market-place, particularly in an economy the size of Australia's-- Mr Goodluck —All his books are good books. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is quite correct. I thank the honourable member for Franklin, who himself is a devoted reader. They are all good books. It is important to emphasise that, where there is a smaller economic capacity, the market-place would very often tend toward an inefficient monopoly if there were not scope for public sector activity to provide some competition. We have seen that with the airlines. The Government is recognising the need to open up that over-regulated market-place. That is the second criterion, which I think those opposite tend to gloss over. The third area, which is quite significant, is that of cross-subsidisation. Cross-subsidisation has been very important to the ability of Telecom Australia, for example, to deliver services to those in need. In provincial areas such as that represented by the honourable member for Charlton and in outer urban areas such as the outer metropolitan area of Perth-Gidgegannup, for example-where the connection fee for a telephone may be as high as $2,000 based on market charges, because of the element of cross-subsidisation it is possible for a corporate organisation such as Telecom to subsidise those un- economic activities using revenue transferred from other areas of its operations. We regard that as a very important activity. Those opposite, in their debate about privatisation, have tended to expose their rural constituencies. If their arguments were to be put up to their rural constituencies they would find themselves facing some very high charges. We do not think that is very attractive or something that we ought to pursue. We on this side believe that the criteria I have listed for public ownership are very important. I reiterate them: first, that services are provided to those in need; secondly that an element of competition needs to be introduced into the market-place; and, thirdly, that an element of cross-subsidisation is required. The Labor Government and the Australian Labor Party have had a longer term interest in this matter and it is important to the debate that is currently taking place in the community. The honourable member for Kooyong mentioned the question of tax collections. The honourable member for Charlton referred very accurately to the reduced public sector borrowing requirement under this Government and previous Hawke governments. It has been pointed out by those opposite that tax collections have gone up. It needs to be emphasised that we are collecting taxes from areas that previously were untaxed. Secondly, when we increase employment, as this Government has, we collect tax from people who have previously been unemployed-and that has happened. Thirdly, with the general level of economic activity increasing-and we have achieved economic growth in our time in office-it stands to reason that tax collections will increase. We are collecting from activities that were previously static or, as was certainly the case in the 1982 calendar year, declining. I refer to the massive unemployment created under the then Fraser-Howard stewardship. We have seen a regeneration of economic activity leading to high levels of employment and high levels of production. It follows that we will have higher levels of taxation, because we have a wider productive base. The other thing to observe is that we have increased the efficiency of the tax system. We are collecting from areas which were previously left untaxed. If members of the Opposition want to open up that area for debate, we on this side, including the honourable member for Charlton and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), will be more than happy to accommodate them, because we recognise what we have done for the revenue side of government activity. I conclude by saying, as the honourable member for Charlton said, that this levy imposes a charge but does so in such a way as to take account of the market-place. It also takes account of the market-place perception of what is happening in terms of public borrowings. The market-place does not make a distinction between borrowings in which there is an explicit guarantee and those in which there is an implicit guarantee. It sees a Commonwealth semi-government authority as having the authority of the Commonwealth behind it. I interpolate that I think the Western Australian Government has acted prudently with respect to the guarantees it has provided in the Rothwells Ltd situation. It was a serious situation and the market-place recognised that. I think the private sector, in the funds it provided to Rothwells, also recognised that, and Premier Burke and his Cabinet have acted prudently and sensibly in responding to what clearly was a serious circumstance for the financial community in Western Australia and across Australia generally. It is important to observe that it took a Labor Government, with its responsibility for the wider community, to do that. The history of Australian economic activity shows that it is often the Labor governments that take the tough decisions, and take them responsibly. History treats us very favourably in that respect because people come to understand that we have always honoured our responsibility in this area. I am pleased to support the remarks of the honourable member for Charlton and the honourable member for Macarthur. I believe that these two Bills introduce some sensible reform into our activities in the market-place. They form part of the wider picture of responsible economic management by this Government and I am pleased to commend them to the House. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.18) —I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill and the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill. Once again we heard a lot of huffing and puffing from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), but at the end of his contribution he finally agreed that he did not oppose the Bill. The Deputy Leader always carries on a little and then agrees with the Government's legislation. I was very interested to hear the contributions of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). I am sure that all those listening to the broadcast, and especially honourable members in the chamber, were enlightened by those contributions. The people listening to the broadcast would realise what great talent the Australian Labor Party has on its back benches, and the great talent that makes this Labor Government such a great government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! I call the Minister back to the subject. Mr HUMPHREYS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to point out that the contribution made to the debate by Government members was very worthwhile. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your indulgence in the matter of relevance. I ask that the Minister come back to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister back to the subject. Mr HUMPHREYS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the Government contribution. I think that the Minister should be entitled to say what a great contribution that was. I am sure that every honourable member got a lesson in economics from listening to Government speakers. I am sure that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) might also have been enlightened if he had listened a little more closely to Government contributions to the debate. As I said, we can see what a great team we have on this side. Everyone agrees with our policies, even the Opposition. It agrees with the legislation. It is very pleasing to see that the Opposition is not opposing the two Bills and that it wishes them a speedy passage through the House. Once again, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Holding: 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 Humphreys) read a third time. Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendments made by the House to the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1987. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolution of the House amending the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Consideration resumed from 18 September. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(5.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I do so with a great sense of personal satisfaction. As the first woman Minister in this House since Dame Enid Lyons, my introduction of this Defence Housing Authority Bill is an historic milestone. Furthermore, I am proud to be the first Minister with specific responsibility for defence personnel, and the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority will be a most notable advance in the personnel field. As the member for Canberra, with its substantial service population, I have naturally been aware of the significance of housing to the quality of service life. Since assuming my portfolio responsibilities, I have been able to address a number of aspects of the housing situation which do concern members of the Defence Force. I have, for example, asked the Interim Defence Housing Board to give high priority to the establishment of a responsive maintenance program. In the longer term, however, it is the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority which demonstrates the Government's commitment in this vital area. Establishment of the Authority is the purpose of this Bill. The Bill is substantially the same as the Bill that was introduced into the House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on 18 March 1987. The earlier Bill was passed by the House and introduced into the Senate but lapsed with the dissolution of the last Parliament. With regard to the earlier debate, I would like to note that a number of thoughtful comments about provisions of the legislation were made by Opposition speakers. While the terms of the Bill have not been changed, I do want to say that, if there is any necessity to review the legislation in the light of operating experience, those suggestions will be borne in mind. In the earlier second reading speech, the Minister for Defence made it clear that the proposed legislation is the cornerstone of the Government's strategy to provide adequate accommodation for members of the Defence Force. In view of the pressure on parliamentary time during this period of sittings, I do not propose to repeat all the details of the previous speech. However, I would like to emphasise the following matters. The Government has accepted a responsibility for housing its employees whose duty requires them to live where there is inadequate housing, or to live on the job. A further responsibility is to minimise disruption to family life caused by a requirement for frequent relocation of employees. But in addition to its proper responsibility as an employer the Government has a constitutional responsibility for the defence of the Commonwealth and its Territories. The discharge of that purpose of Government relies on the professional abilities of the men and women in the Defence Force. The proper housing of members of the Defence Force and their families is a critical element in maintaining a high level of morale and dedication to the important task of the Australian Defence Force. The Defence Housing Authority is one of the most significant initiatives by this Government. It will reverse the trend of close to 40 years of neglect since the Second World War. There is no doubt that housing for the Defence Force in the years of neglect was allowed to fall below the standard for the rest of the community. The establishment of the Defence Housing Authority will remedy existing deficiencies and provide improved ongoing management of defence housing. The Government believes that this task can only be carried out by a single dedicated organisation with the statutory powers that enable it to set its own course. It is also essential that the authority have the enterprise and expertise for its task, and that a guaranteed level of funds is committed to defence housing. The necessary expertise, ranging from property development to social planning, will be ensured by the composition of the Authority's board. Its statutory independence will enable the greatest possible commercial freedom in operations, including the construction, improvement and disposal of housing. The Authority will have a guaranteed level of income by charging the Department of Defence full commercial rents for housing provided. I stress that this does not mean tenants will pay commercial rents, and their rentals will continue to be separately determined as a condition of service. Although the Authority will be independent in its own task of providing housing, that will of course be within the framework of the Defence Force's operational needs. For example, the Authority would be expected to meet defence housing needs stemming from the Government's decisions to have a two-ocean navy and to re-locate 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Darwin. The composition of the Authority has been carefully structured to ensure that the specialist skills required for its operations are directed towards defence needs. Four part time members-including the chairperson-will provide the necessary business expertise, as well as the professional skill needed to ensure that planning for housing takes account of the social needs of Defence Force members and their families. Four members, from the three Services and the Department, will represent the defence organisation. These members will also be in a position to present the social needs of service personnel and families, as well as the operational needs of the Defence Force. The core of the Authority's task will be to meet the Government's commitment to improving the quality of defence housing up to the level of community standards. Within overall Budget priorities, the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. The magnitude of the task is recognised by the Government's firm proposal for an investment program totalling $750m over the next decade. As defence housing problems had clearly become urgent, the Minister for Defence established an Interim Defence Housing Board late last year, on an administrative basis pending passage of legislation. That Board is headed by Mr John Graham, a former National President of the Housing Industry Association and director of the Sydney building firm of Civic Constructions Pty Ltd. Other external appointments include Dr Roy Gilbert, a former head of the Victorian Ministry of Housing, Mrs Valerie Pratt, a former personnel manager with CSR Ltd and now head of the Government's Affirmative Action Agency, and Mr Sam Salpietro, a Western Australian property developer and real estate agent. I propose to invite these members to be considered for appointment to the Authority when it is established. Besides taking over ongoing housing programs in the Defence Department, the Interim Board is doing much of the preliminary work towards setting in place operating procedures and financial arrangements appropriate for the Authority. It has also gained a first hand knowledge of the housing stock and the dissatisfactions of service tenants. The legislation contains all the standard provisions required for the operation of the Defence Housing Authority as a commercially oriented statutory authority. It has the capacity to do all things necessary to meet its objectives. It must of course be responsible to the Parliament through the Minister, who has powers of approval and direction consistent with ensuring observance of general government policies, adherence to its charter, and conformity to public standards of propriety and probity. In addition to the matters that I have already mentioned, I would emphasise the following elements of the legislation: The Authority is to meet housing requirements determined by the Minister; There will be a corporate plan, including a financial plan, to be approved by the Minister; The Authority is not subject to Commonwealth and State Government taxes unless that is provided for by the regulations. However, existing policy of making grants to local governments in lieu of rates will be continued; The Minister is enabled to transfer defence housing and land to the Authority and these assets, together with any accumulated reserves and money appropriated by the Parliament, will form the Authority's capital; and The Managing Director will be appointed by the Authority and will hold office at its pleasure. I turn now to the financial impact of the Bill. At the outset I wish to repeat the assurance that provision of housing will continue to be regarded as a condition of service. Rent levels to be charged individual service tenants will be a matter for separate decision by the Government. A detailed statement of the financial impact of the Bill is set out in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. In summary, there will be an additional recurrent Budget outlay of $39m-the difference between the $126m that the Authority will charge the Commonwealth for rent and the $87m in present outlays that the Authority will pay instead of the Commonwealth. In addition, the Authority will retain revenue from the disposal of surplus housing. In 1986-87 this was about $5m. The Authority will use its profits for capital acquisition and improvements so demands for capital from the Budget-$65.8m in 1986-87-will be reduced. However, there will be supplementation from annual Budgets to meet the Government commitment of $750m over the next decade to upgrade the defence housing stock. As the purpose of this Bill is to overcome one of the more serious areas of difficulty facing members of the Defence Force and their families, I am confident that it will have support from both sides of the House. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.33) —There are many disagreements in this House. We had a disagreement on defence earlier today. It gives me a certain amount of satisfaction to say that there is little disagreement over the general thrust of the Defence Housing Authority Bill and the setting up of the Defence Housing Authority, which obviously will be a major step in the right direction. Earlier this year there was a lengthy debate on this Bill and the Opposition at that time moved certain amendments. Generally speaking, those amendments are not now relevant. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has acknowledged that the Act will require some adjustments as it beds down. We are happy with those assurances, especially with the fact that some of the suggestions that were made in the previous debate have been taken on board by the Government. We are not opposing the Bill, but we do not believe that the Bill goes far enough to assist Defence Force personnel in housing matters. I therefore move this amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, this House: (1) recognises that the housing needs of service men and women are one of the most important factors in their conditions of service; and (2) regrets the failure of the Government to assist in any adequate and practical way Australian Defence Force personnel to purchase privately built homes'. The reason we are not opposing this Bill is that the present system of providing housing for Defence Force personnel is obviously inadequate. During my married life in the services I moved into 26 different homes in the space of 15 years, so I speak with some authority on the matter. In short, the housing presently provided to members of the Defence Force is a disgrace; not all of it, but much of it. The figures relating to substandard housing will bear this out. Of the 22,000 houses that are owned by the Defence Force, some 12,000 are considered sub-standard and some 6,000 have been condemned. That is a disgrace. We cannot expect service men and women to live in sub-standard conditions. As I have said before, it is part of the process of degrading the service men and women in this country and turning them into second class citizens. We have had an argument already today about this second class citizen status. This is something that they really believe. For example, a wing commander recently posted to Richmond told me of his experience with housing there. He was advised that there were no houses available. He is a senior officer who has probably spent 25 years in the Service and he was invited to go and find his own house. All right, so houses cannot be provided for everyone. The best he could come up with was an old farmhouse in the area with a wood stove. He introduced his wife to the wood stove and got a pretty short, sharp reply. I do not blame her and I do not blame him. The fact is that if we want good men and women in the Services we have to provide them with adequate housing, apart from anything else-pay, conditions, allowances; a whole range of things. If we are going to try to keep people in the Services-and we have this enormous wastage rate problem which we addressed today-we cannot say to them `Yes, we want you', and then not demonstrate to them that we are going to do something about providing them with adequate conditions which are equal to, if not better than, those which pertain to the normal civilian population. When we put senior service men and women with long service, apart from younger service men and women, into sub-standard conditions, of course there will be problems. The sub-standard condition of much of the service housing is not entirely the fault of this Government. But we cannot keep going back to what previous governments did or did not do; in the previous debate one of the speakers on the Government side went back to Menzies. The fact is that this Government has been in office for four years. It made a lot of fuss about housing but, 4 1/2 years later, we are only now getting the Defence Housing Authority Bill through the House. The question is: why has it taken so long? For two years the Government has talked about the Bill. An interim board has been set up for one year. Certainly there was an election in between, but it is nearly November so it cannot be said that there has been any degree of urgency in bringing the Bill forward, particularly as it has not been amended and it was only a matter of re-presenting it. I hope that lack of urgency will not manifest itself in the operations of this Housing Authority. The second question relates to the $75m a year over 10 years which the Government keeps talking about. In 1987-88 some $35m will be spent on new housing on new bases-$28m, roughly, to Tindal and $7m or $8m into the Rockingham area in Western Australia. Of course we have to provide new housing on new bases; no one is quibbling about that, but the service men and women who are reading with some pleasure that the Government is going to spend $75m on housing for them do not believe that over half of that amount will be spent on new base housing. I think it is a sleight of hand trick. I think the Government should come clean. For example, how much will be spent on new base housing next year? The fact is that people in the Services really believed that that $75m was going to be spent on buying new houses in established areas or providing maintenance or refurbishment of existing housing and that the new base housing at Tindal and Rockingham was going to come out of a separate vote. Mrs Kelly —Who lives in them? Mr WHITE —This argument comes up: We are providing a new house at Tindal, therefore no one is going to live in the house at Richmond that is to be sold. That is not true, because of all the people who are living in private rental housing someone is going to move into that substandard house at Richmond vacated by the person who moves to Tindal, from Williamtown or wherever. I hope that the Government will also look at the reduction of $75m this year in the maintenance vote. Last year, 1986-87, it was $27m and this year it is $24m. That sits oddly with the statement made not by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel but by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) that the prime requirement in the housing field was to put absolute priority on maintenance. The fact is, as anyone who has had anything to do with it will know, that for a number of years-not just four years-the maintenance of Army quarters has been a disgrace, partly because not enough money has been allocated to it and partly because, I suspect, of the approach that has been taken to some extent by the Department of Housing and Construction. There are people in Army quarters and barracks around this country who have simply given up asking or expecting anyone to come and fix the windows, roofs or anything else because sometimes it is over 12 months before anything is done, by which time they have moved on. It is hard to see, with the provision of less money for maintenance in this year, that the Government is serious about refurbishing and maintaining its existing stock of houses. Some of them should have been bulldozed long ago. Are we going to see any rent reduction for those houses which have been condemned and which are regarded as sub-standard? At the moment, there is a $5 a week reduction, which does not seem to me to be enough if one is living in the dog boxes that one sees around the country. The next question I want to address in housing, and on which I wish to make a point to the Government that I hope will be taken up, is that it is not good enough to keep pushing the Services out into the new suburbs, the back blocks and the more undesirable places. There has been a tendency to do this, but the fact is that service men and women with families and children want to live in the reasonable areas of this country as well as anybody else. By keeping on pushing them out, as has happened over the years, again one reinforces the syndrome that they are second class citizens. I hope that the Authority will make sure that there is a good mix of housing-some might be cluster houses on bases, which suit some people, and others might be private rentals and hirings in other parts of the country. There has got to be a mix and there has to be enough choice there for people to be able to say that the Authority is looking after them and knows what they want. I raise this point because we see from the investigation made by Mr Cooksey into Defence Force facilities that he is perhaps thinking of selling off Victoria Barracks in Melbourne. Again this raises a question. If one is to keep pushing the Services out into the back blocks, out of sight and out of mind, they will come to the conclusion that the community and the Government do not care, and many of them have already come to that conclusion. In my view, there is nothing more important in 1987 as far as the Services are concerned than to bring their profile forward, make sure that they are very much part of the community and that places like Victoria Barracks, a magnificent building in Sydney and Melbourne, are kept there, so that we can recognise as we go about our daily business that the Services have an important part to play in the Australian community, and bring them forward and put them in the place where they should be in Australia. The same applies to Defence Force housing. For goodness sake, let us not take the easy way out and, because land is so much cheaper, push service personnel further and further out. A couple of months ago, I was talking to a young sailor who had been allocated a quarter in the western suburbs of Sydney. That young man, a keen sailor, left home every morning at 5 o'clock to get to work, and God knows what time he got back at night. Although he was keen and enjoying his work his dedication to the service was starting to flag. He had an unhappy wife-no wonder, because she never saw him. He never saw the kids because he was working at Garden Island and was one of those who had been pushed hours away from his work into the back blocks of Sydney. I want to come to the question of priorities on housing, and the Minister may be able to clarify this point, because it seems to me that the Government is unclear on its priorities for defence housing. On 14 September this year, the Minister for Defence said: A lack of maintenance is the most common complaint I received and it will be treated as a priority. Yet we see this year the vote for maintenance go down. On this side of the House, we are not sure where the priority lies. Is it new housing or refurbishment? Some of the refurbishment of old housing that I have seen at Richmond is very good. Where are the Government's priorities? It is clear that, while the Authority has a certain amount of independence, the Minister will be in a powerful position. That may be good or it may be bad. We will just have to wait and see. On the question of maintenance, I would very much hope that the Authority will make maximum use of local contractors, because the present system is hopeless, and nothing turns people off more than having leaking roofs, bad windows and paint peeling off, having to live in substandard dog boxes and not being able to get anything done about it. On the broader subject of housing in the Services, I raise the question of barracks for single men and women. We cannot give the sort of barracks that we would like to give to our service men and women overnight, but I make the point that this must also receive a high priority. If we wish to retain in our Services the sort of men and women whom we want, it is no longer good enough, as maybe it was when I joined the Army many years ago, to give a soldier only a bed and a cupboard and put him in a barracks with 10, 12, 20 or 30 other people. Young men and women have a lot of possessions these days. They want their privacy, and that wish must be respected. If we are to retain the people whom we want, we must make sure that they are given the privacy and conditions that they deserve. On the same matter, removal for single men and women must be a priority with the Government. It is no use any longer saying to Private Smith, who happens to be single, `You're posted to Townsville; be there by Monday' and virtually expecting him to get there with all his gear himself. There is also the question of defence service housing-as distinct from housing for serving personnel-that housing that is normally taken up by people with an entitlement to it when they leave the Services. In this Budget, we have just had the fiasco of trying to alter that scheme. The Minister was appointed just before that blew up, and, to her credit, she recognised the seriousness of what was happening around Australia. I say again, and I say it seriously, that there were almost riots in many Army camps because of what people rightly perceived as another attempt by the Government to downgrade their conditions of service. Whoever thought that idea up deserves to be sacked. There is no way in the world that one can equate the proposed Government $10,000 cash grant to a $25,000 loan, over 32 years, at a cheap rate of interest. If there is going to be a cash grant, it should be at least $15,000. That has caused a very serious morale problem in the Services. The Government did it in the Budget without consultation and there are many people now who are leaving the Services because those changes were made, although the Government backed away from them and said that it would leave the existing system in place until 1 January. Many people are now leaving the Services because the changes were made. Although the Government backed away from those changes and said that it would leave the existing system in place until 1 January, many people are now taking that $25,000 loan and leaving the Services because they do not trust the Government not to make effective changes to their detriment on 1 January. I say to the Minister: Make sure, if you cannot make the changes before 1 January, that you do not downgrade that system because if you do the problems in Australia that we are having with wastage from the Services will be chicken feed compared with what happens after the system is downgraded. In relation to housing, I hope that the Government will look at proposals which have been around for some time; that is, giving service men and women who have an entitlement to superannuation or pension access to that money. Eligibility may be adjusted according to their length of service. They might have served as a service man or woman for 15 or 20 years. They should be given access to that lump sum superannuation payment now because one of the main reasons that people are leaving the Services is to get that lump sum superannuation payment either to buy a house or to educate their children-it is usually one or the other. They need that lump sum money. If a system were put in place whereby after a certain number of years they could get access to their money in a lump sum they could buy the house they wanted, settle their family down or educate their children, but a lot of the money would go on housing. They could then serve on quite happily. Such a system would make an enormous difference to the morale and the approach of service men and women right now. I hope the Government will also be looking at removal allowances, which start at, I think, $470. That amount goes nowhere near paying for new carpets, new curtains, car registration and new school uniforms for children. It is a pittance. It is an area of great annoyance, as is the education allowance, which we covered earlier today. Out of 70,000 service men and women, 87 are entitled to that allowance because it is so difficult to get. It is not too bad an allowance but it is almost impossible to get. On the question of families and housing, when are we going to see some action on the Hamilton report, Supporting Service Families, that has been hanging around for a year and a half now? One of its 15 recommendations, the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service, is in the process of being implemented. On our calculations, it will take another 1 1/2 years before the 50 positions involved will be filled. This is really cosmetic treatment of a report which the Government keeps saying over and over will solve many of the problems for defence families. But out of 15 recommendations only one is partly being implemented. It does not seem to me that that will inspire much confidence in defence families. We come again to the question of Mrs Mayer, which I have mentioned on several occasions. It would be much better and a sign of some positive action if the Government sacked Mrs Mayer tomorrow, not that I have anything against her but I do not believe she is the right person for the job. She has no qualifications for the job she has been given. It is a matter of the Government looking after its own. I guess both sides do that to some extent but she is not the person for this job. If the Government sacked her and put the half a million dollars a year going into her office-salaries and staff and travel costs-into a kindergarten in the Townsville area it would make a much bigger impact. The appointment of that woman, unfortunately, in the eyes of many service men and women has made the Government just a laughing stock. In conclusion, I wish the Defence Housing Authority Board well. When this Bill goes through a lot of people will have an enormous number of hopes riding on the success of the Board. If the Board can make a success of this Defence Housing Authority it will go a long way towards proving to Defence Force personnel that the Government is serious. I have no criticism of the Board. Perhaps its representation is not broad enough; I would have liked to have seen a representative from the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses. Mrs Kelly —Agreement. Mr WHITE —I am not sure whether the Minister agrees or is indicating that is something she will consider. That would be a step in the right direction. Generally speaking, as I said, we support this Authority very much. We look forward to seeing it, not overnight but gradually, solving some of the enormous problems that have appeared in defence housing over the years. We wish the Bill and the Board all the very best. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Blunt —I formally second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.56) —I support the Defence Housing Authority Bill, which I note enjoys a degree of bipartisan support in this place. The Bill is substantially the same as the Bill which was passed through this place earlier this year, in March. We are debating this Bill again because of the double dissolution before the election on 11 July. The Bill is a little different this time and its presentation in this House is a little different because it is being handled today by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), the first female Minister we have had in this House since Dame Enid Lyons many years ago. So it is in that sense an historic piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she has put this Bill before the House and on her achievements to date in her portfolio. This Bill establishes a Defence Housing Authority and the Government hopes that by establishing this Authority and the commitment to funding levels which will be provided over the next decade we can put an end to what has been 40 years of neglect, of haphazard arrangements, in relation to Defence Force housing. We believe, as a Government, that defence housing is extremely important. It is crucial to the conditions of service and to the morale of so many of our defence personnel who serve in all sorts of areas around Australia. Defence housing has a very high priority with this Government, a point which I will come back to a little later in this debate. I want to make a few general comments about the work of this Defence Housing Authority and then to make a few criticisms of the contributions we just heard from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is the Opposition defence spokesperson. As I said, this Bill establishes the Defence Housing Authority, the function of which will be to provide suitable housing for members of the Australian Defence Force and their families in order to meet the Australian Defence Force's operational requirements. The Authority is designed to bring the necessary forms of expertise and the operating freedom to manage and to improve the defence housing stock. The governing Board of the Authority is to be of nine persons, four of whom are to be selected for their knowledge of housing operations. They will be part-time members and the managing director of the Authority will be a full-time statutory office holder and also a member of the Board. The Authority will assume control of defence housing stock. That is obviously a key provision of this Bill. Under this legislation the Authority will also be guaranteed a level of income. It is authorised to charge the defence budget a rent which is set on a commercial basis for each house in stock. It can dispose of unwanted stock and it can keep any proceeds of disposal. In addition, the Minister for Defence has committed the Government to ensuring that the Authority has available some $750m for capital expenditure over the first decade of its operations. In anyone's language, that is an extremely significant capital contribution-and, again, that is a point that I will return to in a little while. Under this legislation the Authority is to be otherwise self-sustaining and must meet the cost of upkeep of the housing and its own administrative overheads. It will be charged for services provided by other agencies of government as in the case, for example, of any services provided by the construction authority in the Department of Administrative Services. The Authority is also free to select any preferred strategy for achieving its objectives and does not have to use government agencies. It can build new houses, buy existing homes, form a company, enter into joint ventures and, with the approval of the Minister, can participate in other partnerships, and so on. So the Authority has a wide brief in which it can operate out there in the market-place to do the best it can in terms of providing housing for the Australian defence forces. The operating arrangements for the Authority have been developed in accordance with the Government's published policy guidelines for government business enterprises, which were released for comment in June last year. Finally, the Authority is required to prepare and update annually a corporate plan which sets out its objectives in the immediate future, along with the strategies and policies to achieve those objectives. So it must also produce a financial plan with specific performance indicators. That is a general run-down of the framework, purpose and nature of the Authority which is being established by this legislation. The honourable member for McPherson, in his contribution in this House only a few moments ago, made a number of claims and allegations about the Government's overall defence policy and its record in defence and made some specific allegations about our record in respect of defence housing. I will spend a few minutes answering some of those claims. The honourable member for McPherson claimed that the state of the existing housing stock for defence personnel is in pretty poor shape generally. We agree, but much of the present defence housing stock has been provided over successive years, and for many years under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA). So it is stock which is made available to defence, but its ownership and hence the responsibility for its upkeep remain with the States. Clearly there have been problems in relation to the management of repairs and maintenance of those properties. Indeed, they have been a pervasive source of dissatisfaction among defence force tenants and it is because of the cumbersome arrangement, if you like, between ownership and control, management and use as between the States and the Commonwealth. In response to an approach from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations (Mr Lionel Bowen), all State Premiers have agreed to enter into a renegotiation of the agreements governing defence housing. These negotiations are expected to get under way in about two months. I repeat: much of the housing stock is unsatisfactory and the causes that we identify include the problem of management and control in the past between the States and the Commonwealth, the stop-go levels of funding provided by previous conservative governments in the past, and a range of other matters. We hope that, as a result of the Premiers meeting in a month or two, the establishment of the Defence Force Housing Authority and the funding commitments given to the Authority over the next decade, many-if not all-of these problems will be remedied. I will also comment on the claims by the honourable member for McPherson about this Government's overall record in terms of its defence policy. Every member on this side of the House is proud to stand here and defend the Government's record in terms of defence policy, programs and funding. It is a remarkable record in a fiscal environment in which we had to cut back spending from the prospective $9.6 billion deficit that we inherited on coming to government in 1983 to zero this year in the space of five Budgets and four mini-Budgets-so it has not been easy work. Even though we have done that, we have also maintained and improved most of the conditions in the defence forces. We have maintained real growth in most areas of capital expenditure, and we have ensured that in our defence industries there has been an enormous shift towards efficiency, self-sufficiency and exports. Those are all positive things right across the spectrum, however one wants to analyse our achievements and efforts in relation to defence. In that extremely difficult fiscal environment we have managed to set basically realistic promises and realistic levels of spending for the future-and we have managed to keep to them. That contrasts extremely markedly with the Opposition's performance right through the 1970s when it was in government and brought down report after report promising future levels of spending for defence forces on unrealistically high and unachievable levels of real Budget spending. It could not meet those aims and that had disastrous effects right through the 1970s and early 1980s for the Australian defence forces, and it had disastrous effects on the morale of the defence forces. We were party to a constant deferral of capital works because previous Liberal Defence Ministers simply could not get up the Budget increases to meet their required commitments. So we saw low morale, a constant deferral of capital works, a lack of real strategic planning, and a lack of work for our defence industries all around Australia. That meant that the degree of subsidy that had to be provided by the Commonwealth was much higher than was necessary and certainly much higher than is currently being provided in the more efficient defence industries that exist under this Government. That was the sort of policy framework that we inherited from the Opposition. In regard to the Opposition's policy today, Opposition members come into this place and wax lyrical about what they would like to do for defence and they comment about the Government's programs and record in defence but, when they are asked to announce and enunciate their policy and state what they would do for the Australian defence forces for the next three years, five years or 10 years, there is an enormous vacuum, a total void and a big black hole because the Opposition simply does not have a policy and therefore cannot announce it. When the Opposition went into the last election only a few months ago, the only commitment that it had was to slash spending to finance massive tax cuts to people on big fat incomes. So it makes one wonder where the defence forces would be if the Government had changed on 11 July-where would they be in terms of manpower, in terms of defence housing and in terms of future capital works projects? My guess is that they would be very badly down the drain because defence spending, along with every other crucial item of government expenditure, would have been hacked to make way for massive tax cuts for the well-off. I will conclude, because time is limited in this debate, by highlighting the Government's record in defence housing-another matter raised by the honourable member for McPherson. He criticised this Government's achievements, and I find that galling, to say the least, and inaccurate. In this year's Budget we have committed $75m for defence housing. In the five years of this Government's administration-from 1983-84 to 1987-88-capital expenditure on defence housing has totalled $260m. In the last five years of the previous Government capital expenditure was a mere $85m. So there has been five years of defence housing expenditure under this Government totalling $260m compared with $85m over five years by the Fraser Government. That is a large ratio of 3:1, which is an indication of the sort of relationship between the priority that this Government has given to this area and the priority of the previous Government. If we look at it in terms of constant prices in real terms, which is the only fair and objective way to look at it, even in terms of real spending levels, we are spending in the ratio of $2 to $1 compared with what the Opposition spent on defence housing. If we look at what that produces on the ground in terms of tangible benefits for the Australian defence forces, which is what we are speaking about in this debate, it means that in the five years of this Government 2,580 dwellings have been completed compared with 1,335 during the last five years of the previous Government. Again, that is a ratio of around 2:1. So when Opposition members come in here and carp and whinge about the Government's defence housing policy, they ought to look at the facts. They ought to have the intestinal fortitude to go out to the Defence Force personnel and say, `Well, the real facts are these: the reality is that the Hawke Government has done a job in defence housing which is second to none. It is certainly twice as good as the job that we did'. The Opposition ought to commend the Hawke Government and hope that it keeps that priority, as I can say, in this debate, I know we will. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.11) —I would like to say, in response to the comments made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), that the Opposition, throughout this important afternoon of debate on defence matters, including initiating a discussion of a matter of public importance, has stuck to the facts in relation to the attrition rate of our armed forces and has not used the rhetoric which the honourable member brought before the House in his comments on the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Firstly, I have been misrepresented. Secondly, the Bill before the House has nothing at all to do with attrition rates from the defence forces. With respect, even a person with the weirdest imagination could not claim that the Bill has anything to do with the attrition rate amongst personnel in the Australian defence forces. Mr Tim Fischer —On that point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —No argument is permitted on a point of order. Mr TIM FISCHER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member does not realise that housing is a key element in the morale of members of the armed forces, I have a much lesser opinion of his appreciation of defence matters and I regret that that might be so. Even the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table, has indicated previously her strong feeling that housing is very central to the morale of our Army, Navy and Air Force personnel and is therefore relevant to whether they are going to resign, extend, renew their terms, or apply for additional terms in the armed forces. I strongly support the amendment to the motion for the second reading, moved by my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and seconded by his neighbouring colleague, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). This in-principle second reading amendment puts this legislation in perspective. Many members on both sides of the House, especially members who represent large military complexes, have a great concern for the standard of service housing. The Latchford Barracks in the Albury-Wodonga military area is one of the largest inland military complexes in Australia. I know that the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and I, as well as others, have previously made strong representations in relation to this matter. When the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) visited Wodonga earlier this year, I showed him some of the housing which has caused so much concern. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the fact that this is the first Bill to be brought before the House of Representatives by a lady Minister. I recognise that this is a milestone. We should remember, of course, that there have been previous instances in the Senate of legislation being introduced by lady Ministers. Ironically, Dame Annabelle Rankin brought legislation before that chamber in a related role, as Minister for Housing-rather than Housing (Defence). This Bill attracted very good debate when it came before the Parliament earlier this year. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel alluded to that debate in her earlier comments. I want to go back to that debate briefly and quote a comment that I gave to the House then which is as relevant today as it was on 28 April 1987. I want to quote what the august Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator John Button, had to say on 24 February this year. He said: Families with young children and wage earners generally were worse off as a result of Hawke Government policies. He also said: But I concede that those families are probably worse off as other sections of the community are also probably worse off. I am sure that while some families are relatively worse off, families with young children . . . He went on to make the comment that they were particularly subject to difficulties at that time. I want to highlight to the House that often young married members of the Army, Navy and Air Force with young families face the cost burdens associated with a situation which is greatly exacerbated when the standard of housing that is available to them is poor. For example, this winter a house in Wodonga had no hot water for 36 hours. This situation resulted in suffering and difficulty for the two young babies in that household. Incidentally, that house was occupied by an officer of the Australian Army. So this serious housing situation in the armed forces is not restricted just to privates, corporals or sergeants. It extends across all ranks. I hope genuinely that the Defence Housing Authority legislation will do something about this. I hope that the Defence Housing Authority will do something positive and that it will not be just another quango of government interested in creating a headquarters Taj Mahal which could turn into being something larger than necessary. In 1987 this Parliament should not be about setting up more instrumentalities and authorities unless there is specific genuine cause and unless the authorities so created can efficiently go about their tasks. That is why I submit strongly to the House that the Minister and the Government need to watch very closely the performance of the Defence Housing Authority. We need to ensure that it sticks to its task, that it achieves and that it does not drift down the path of so many government instrumentalities and not really solve the problem which we are addressing here this evening. Not unrelated to the Defence Housing Authority legislation and the whole question of housing for our armed forces is the defence service home loans scheme area, which I know that the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), has pursued on a number of occasions. I just want to make passing reference to that scheme. The termination of the scheme, as we knew it, was announced by way of a Budget decision. After a lot of pressure from all sources, including the armed forces and the Opposition, and a further meeting, the Ministers jointly announced that there was to be backdown on that Budget decision and that applications would continue to be accepted under the existing defence service homes loan scheme until the details of the new scheme were worked out. We will be watching with a great deal of interest-as the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I will be especially watchful-to see that the new scheme does not short change the veteran or the retired soldiers, sailors or airmen who have a certain expectation arising from their contract of service with Her Majesty's Government. Veterans could well be short changed on leaving the armed forces as a result of the original proposal for a cash grant in lieu of a $25,000 loan. So I put it to the Minister that, in finalising the new defence service home loans scheme and in sticking to a very tight timetable which the Ministers set in saying that the new scheme would be in place by 1 January 1988, we will be watching to make sure that they do not in their alternative scheme of a cash non-repayable, non-taxable grant, short change the veteran and the serviceman, vis-a-vis the value of the existing $25,000 average 6.8 per cent loan scheme. If they do, I serve notice that, first, the rate of resignations from the armed forces will further increase, and secondly, there will be absolute animosity amongst ex-service personnel and veterans for what they will represent as being yet a further massive breach of commitment and contract by the Government in respect of the debt that is owed to so many of them. There are just two other areas on which I shall touch briefly. The first concerns defence housing and the problems that are encountered in the administration of the defence service home loans scheme. Sadly, I have here the Vietnam medals of a private. I will not reveal his name to the House, but I will reveal it to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I will just use his initials-Mr P.G.R. He sent me his Vietnam medals this week and said, amongst other things, that he was returning these medals; he would like me to pass on the medals to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs because he had had enough, and he thanked the Government for nothing in terms of the service he gave this nation. This is a sad case, and I am not prepared to publicise all the details because I would like to see the Minister genuinely review this person's problem. I hope that as a result of my raising the matter in this forum, the veteran might think again about handing in his medals, because those medals were an honour given by the Australian people, and it is a very big step to hand in one's medals as a form of protest. Nevertheless, it reflects the fact that Mr P.G.R. has reached such a stage of frustration. In the brief time that is available to me, I can inform the House that he is frustrated because, as a consequence of his defence service, including Vietnam service, he has been left with a severe asthma condition. He is on a special rate totally and permanently incapacitated pension. He lives in a dusty and difficult climatic section in south-west Sydney. On medical advice, he has applied for transfer to another climatic location in Queensland. Thus far, the Defence Service Homes Corporation has refused to approve the transfer of his home loan from a house in New South Wales to one in Queensland. As this is a specific matter, I will not dwell on it. I raise it in a responsible way in the House and I will pass on the details to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I hope that he will order a review of this case. I will return Mr P.G.R.'s medals to him. If he still wants to hand them in, I will suggest that he sends them to the Minister directly. Perhaps we will be able to solve his case, which reflects the great concern over defence housing in general not only for current serving personnel but also for ex-service personnel and veterans. The issue is related to morale, the composition of our armed forces and the decision factor of whether people will renew their terms of service in the Army, Navy or Air Force. Of course they will be more inclined to renew and extend their terms of service if they have adequate housing. If they do not have adequate housing, that will be a contributing factor to their resignation. This country has been taking its defence for granted for far too long. The time is fast approaching when Australia, as a nation, is likely to be caught with its pants down, and on a Sunday afternoon. Our region is not the stable, secure area that we have traditionally regarded it in the aftermath of World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars. It is anything but that, when one looks at the detailed political composition of some of our neighbours and the attitudes of some elements in the governments of our neighbours. We need to be as vigilant today in the defence of our nation as our forefathers were in two great world wars and beyond. It is for those reasons that I ask the House to give special consideration to the Defence Housing Authority Bill and the amendment moved by the honourable member for McPherson. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.24) —It is a pleasure to see that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our paths often cross at neighbouring electorate functions, and I am pleased to see you in that august position. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —I thank the honourable member for his comments. Mr TICKNER —As I rise to speak for the Defence Housing Authority Bill, it is rather a case of `once more with feeling' because the Bill has been through the House on a previous occasion. But it is important to raise a number of issues in relation to the Bill before it finally passes through the House. I begin by complimenting both the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) on their measured contributions to this debate. I note with approval that the honourable member for McPherson, who is the shadow Minister, said that the Opposition had little disagreement with the Bill and it was `a major step in the right direction'. I think that he was rather complimentary of the Government on introducing the Bill. However, he made a number of comments which I shall address quickly. The first was that the Government has shown a lack of urgency in bringing forward the Bill. My response to that is to remind the honourable member that the Government acted immediately to set up an interim Defence Housing Board, pending the passage of this legislation, and it was only because of the calling of the election that the legislation was not enacted substantially earlier in the year. I also support the call, which I understood the honourable member to make, for some broadening of the representation on the new Defence Housing Authority. As the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table, nodded earlier, I gather that she was prepared to consider the possibility at least of a representative of the National Consultative Group of Services Spouses serving on the board at some later stage. I believe that service spouses who are at the coal-face, if you like, of having to deal with defence housing are in an ideal position to be able to make a direct and effective contribution to the operation of the Authority. The honourable member for McPherson also spoke of the need to act on the condition of single service accommodation. I agree with him, but I remind him that in the current financial year the Government is committing $60m to that very project. I was also reminded in the course of the debate, by the appearance of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in the chamber, that when he was the Minister for Defence he and I visited housing at Holsworthy and in the Liverpool area. The former Minister reminded me that what we were confronted with on that first-time inspection for both of us was literally slum housing that was built as temporary accommodation around the end of World War II, and which was unbelievably cold and depressing accommodation. It was really little more than what we would regard as Third World accommodation and was not suitable for the defence forces in the 1980s. It is no doubt for that reason that the Opposition did not seek to blame this Government for what has been at least 40 years of neglect of defence housing. While the shadow Minister called for greater promptness in bringing the Bill before the House, I should indicate that throughout all those years of Liberal government, no action was taken to bring about what is now regarded by both sides of the House as a very worthwhile and constructive reform. The honourable member for Farrer, in his contribution to the Bill, said that the Government needs to monitor the performance of the Authority. I agree with that. I think we would all agree that if we can improve the Authority we should do so. He also referred to the defence service home loans scheme. In that regard I am sure that most of my colleagues, including the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who have an absolute commitment to the service personnel in their electorates, would share my concern that we ought to be encouraging the Government to make the right decision prior to 1 January that will give service personnel and veterans some real security and justice in relation to their defence service home loans. I hope that the Government will heed that very heartfelt call. The reform before the House tonight is part of a package. It is part of a package and a strategy of this Government to improve substantially the conditions of Australian Defence Force personnel. The strategy includes the establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the establishment of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service, the establishment of a first-ever Minister responsible for service personnel and the action of Government members in setting up the Government members defence force action committee. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr TICKNER —As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I fully concur with the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson, who said, in the course of his contribution, that the Government's initiative was a major step in the right direction. It is great to hear the Opposition fully supporting the Government on such an important matter. This is a very important advance for the Australian defence forces, as my colleague the honourable member for Herbert, another staunch proponent of improved conditions for defence personnel, will soon inform the House. It is not just our view that the passage of the Defence Housing Authority Bill is an important step. The retiring Chief of the Defence Force, General Sir Phillip Bennett, wrote of his views about important matters concerning the Government's initiatives in this area. He was quoted in an article in the Army Fortnightly on 16 April as saying: Establishment of a Defence Housing Authority will benefit many of . . . the soldiers as the standard of housing and the way that the housing stock is administered improve. Although the total impact of the Housing Authority may take some time to become apparent, in the shorter term the improvement in the timeliness and standard of maintenance will quickly become evident. I fully agree with what General Sir Phillip Bennett said on that occasion. As I have indicated, this Bill forms part of a package of initiatives and a strategy of the Government to advance the conditions of service personnel and their families, which have also included the establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service, the establishment for the first time of the position of Minister for Defence Science and Personnel-who is directly responsible to the Parliament for service personnel issues-and, of course, the Government back bench initiative of the establishment of a Government members defence force action committee. I speak in the course of this debate not just as a local member representing the electorate of Hughes, in which Holsworthy is located, but also as the convenor of that Government members defence force action committee. The members compliment the Government for this initiative. We place on record our fondest hope that the new Minister will carry on the work of Minister Beazley in advancing the conditions of defence personnel. The Bill that is before the House forms part of a three-pronged approach to improving defence housing: firstly, that we give a guaranteed level of funds; secondly, that we bring in outside expertise and business acumen for the task; and, thirdly, that we establish a single organisation dedicated to the management of defence housing and streamlining of functions. The authority will have, as I said, a guaranteed level of income by charging the Department of Defence full commercial rents for the housing provided. As the Minister said in her second reading speech, this does not mean that tenants will pay commercial rents and that their rentals will continue to be separately determined as a condition of service. It is not the view of this Government that service personnel ought to be charged market rents. It is not our view, as has been put by the Opposition through the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), that we ought to sell defence housing to private interests. We in the Government know that the effect of that massive sell-off would be to send rents for defence families through the roof. They simply could not afford to pay those market rents; nor should they, as the provision of adequate housing ought properly to be seen, I believe, as a condition of service. The new Authority will be free to select its own strategy for achieving its objectives. It does not have to use Government agencies. It can build new houses, buy existing homes, form companies, enter into joint ventures and participate in partnerships. The arrangements for the Authority have been developed in accordance with the Government's published policy guidelines for Government business enterprises. The Authority will be required to prepare and update annually a corporate plan which sets out the objectives in its immediate future and the strategies and policies to achieve those objectives. I think it is important that, in the course of this debate, I make brief reference to what I consider to be one of the major issues confronting the new Authority. That concerns the present state of Defence Force housing which has been provided under successive Commonwealth- State Housing Agreements. That housing stock is made available to Defence, but ownership, and hence responsibility for its upkeep, remains with the States. The difficulties with repairs and maintenance have been the most pervasive source of dissatisfaction among Defence Force tenants. If I relate to the House a small story which brought home to me the incredible frustration that defence families have, I think honourable members will have a better understanding of the problem. In the course of this year I was able to organise a public meeting in my electorate. The guest speaker was the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). In the course of that meeting, while introducing the Minister, I had cause to relate that, as a local member of parliament, I was available to service my constituents on a range of matters. Not only was I involved in taking up a range of national issues; I was involved in quite routine day to day matters. I even said that occasionally people contacted me about blocked drains. That night, after attending another function and getting home at 11 o'clock, sure enough, the telephone rang and my wife answered it. It was someone from Holsworthy who, for two days, had been living in a house-her husband was involved in exercises in north Queensland-with three children and could not use any of the household facilities because of blocked drains. Fortunately, I was able to use my good offices as a member of parliament, make contact with the authorities and get some immediate action. There are often tremendous problems with Defence Force housing which do not easily enable service spouses-who, as I have said, are often in the front line and are directly responsible for their families while their husbands are away-to have immediate repairs done in these cases. I am pleased to note that, in response to an approach from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Commonwealth-State Relations (Mr Lionel Bowen), all Premiers of the States have agreed to enter into a renegotiation of the agreements governing defence housing. These negotiations are expected to get under way quite soon. The Government has acknowledged that many of the problems relating to defence housing need to be resolved. The causes that we identify as problems include the stop-go funding for housing in the past and, as I have said, the divided control of housing matters across the Services and other departments. I hope that the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority will do a great deal to overcome these problems. In conclusion, I place on record, as I have already done, that it is my view that the shadow Minister made a valuable contribution to this debate. I welcome his acknowledgment that this is an important step on the part of the Government. I commend the suggestion that a member of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses ought to be included as a member of the Authority. I also place on record that it is a matter of great regret to me that this initiative was not undertaken a long time ago. It is the sort of initiative that should have been undertaken, not a year ago, not two years ago, but 20 years ago. It is because of that neglect by successive governments that we now have a problem that means that so much more by way of resources and new programs is needed in order to overcome the neglect that has occurred over that very long period. I welcome the passage of the Bill and commend it to the House. I compliment the Minister for what I believe is an important start to her new and very significant portfolio responsibilities. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(8.10) —The Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987 reminds me of the Punch cartoon of 1895 which depicted a curate breakfasting with his bishop. `I am afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones.', said the obviously concerned bishop in response to the equally obvious look of dismay on the face of the curate. `Oh, no, my Lord.', replied the curate, endeavouring to adopt a constructive and positive attitude to the disaster confronting him in his eggcup: `I assure you parts of it are excellent'. Like the curate's egg, this Bill is good in parts. And like the curate, those on this side of the House are endeavouring to adopt a positive and constructive attitude to this proposed legislation. After all, when one is hungry an egg that is good in parts is substantially better than no egg at all. When one is forced to live in some of the most appalling substandard accommodation provided by an employer in Australia today-and I refer, of course, to those structures euphemistically called `homes' or `houses' by our Department of Defence-a Bill that offers us some hope for improvement is better than nothing. Whilst we are not opposing the passage or provisions of this Bill, we are concerned that the Government should recognise and acknowledge the fact that the provision of decent housing is a basic but nonetheless critically important factor in conditions of service for our Defence Force personnel. We are talking about men and women and their families who are already often making substantial personal sacrifices in the service of their country. That some of them should also be called upon to cope with living under the most intolerable and disgraceful conditions is simply expecting too much. This is amply demonstrated by the current catastrophic wastage rates which are depleting the ranks of our defence forces at all levels. A major factor in this alarming and increasing exodus from the Services is dissatisfaction with substandard housing. This excessive turnover in skilled service men and women not only jeopardises the security of this nation but also costs Australian taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars in additional and unnecessary costs associated with retirement, recruitment and retraining of defence personnel. This concern is illustrated in our proposed amendment, as is our regret that the Government has failed to introduce adequate and practical measures to assist Defence Force personnel to purchase privately built homes. This is a practical initiative which so far has been ignored by the Government but which, if taken up and acted upon, would greatly assist in solving the current defence housing problems whilst at the same time providing a much needed lift to the morale of our service men and women and their spouses and families. During my 25 years of service in the Royal Air Force I experienced first-hand many of the traumas, and even the horrors of sub-standard Defence Force housing. I watched my wife coping with four small children in living quarters which were so bad as to be almost unbelievable. We laugh about it now but at the time we almost cried. During those 25 years we endured-and I use the word advisedly-23 different changes of residential address. That is not to say that we did not enjoy service life; we loved it and we thrived on it. Nor does it mean that we were always confronted with the prospect of living in poor accommodation; we were not. When one is required to lead what might best be described as a gypsy existence, sometimes it can be a lot of fun and very exciting; sometimes it can be most daunting. But the stresses and strains, both physical and emotional, of continually having to pack up home and family and move on are always substantial, always challenging. They are exacerbated when one arrives at one's latest destination only to find that the tin hut in the corner is, in fact, one's new home and will be home until one is eventually posted elsewhere. This happened to me when I was sent to a little known RAAF base at Snake Creek, some 72 miles south of Darwin. I can only surmise as to why I was sent there, but if it was little known when I arrived it was well known-or at least it had a wider reputation-by the time I left. I was accompanied on this expedition into the unknown-for that is what it was-by my wife Maggie and our two children, who at the time were both under two years of age. With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I digress here just for a moment to record the fact that when we departed from Snake Creek some three years later, we were the proud parents of four children under five. The area had a lot of things going for it but television was not one of them. For the duration of our posting to Snake Creek Maggie and I and our family called that hut home. It had no internal walls, no internal plumbing, no floor coverings, unless one counts the concrete, and the only cooking facility was a camp stove. It was necessary to boil the bore water before using it. There were no proper laundry facilities. Despite the oppressive climate there were no cooling facilities. Although our tin hut was by any definition exceedingly humble, the limited protection afforded by its corrugated iron roof and walls was much in demand. We had little option but to share our home with the local native fauna including lizards, scorpions, foot-long centipedes and not forgetting the bats. Fortunately, the snakes preferred to dwell within the precincts of the outside toilet-we believed it was the toilet. In the absence of any obvious alternative that is what we used it for. The snakes used it as a base for their terrorist activities. Having lived under these conditions, I am fully aware of, and can readily appreciate, the current level of despondency and despair in regard to Defence Force housing that is now so evident amongst our service men and women and their families. We have only to refer to Appendix B of the document, researched and complied by Ms Sue Hamilton-it is an excellent document-entitled Supporting Service Families-A Report on the main problems facing spouses of Australian Defence Force personnel, and some recommended solutions. Appendix B of this report lists 23 items most frequently identified as desirable, but not consistently available, in married quarters. Mr Webster —Are they all implemented? Mr HALVERSON —They are not quite implemented. These 23 items include such basic necessities as floor treatments appropriate to the particular area; adequate security equipment-nothing sophisticated-such as deadlocks, security doors and, in some areas, window locks. The list also includes curtain rods, fly screens, insulation, telephone sockets. Safety measures recommended include fences to keep toddlers from wandering, high cupboards or shelves for the storage of poisons, rails on high verandahs, non-slip surfaces on outside steps. Television antennae, exhaust fans in kitchens and bathrooms-we are really into the up-market luxury items here are we not?-adequate cupboard space, separate lavatories . . . the list goes on. They are all basic, if not essential, every day commodities which are so universally lacking in existing Defence Force housing that they qualify for inclusion on a list of frequently identified items which are not consistently available. It is just not good enough for this Government, which has now been in power since 1983 as the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) so readily recognises. He should have particular cognisance of this debate for within his electorate lies the very large Army establishment at Puckapunyal. Mr Cleeland —You want to see the new houses we are building there. Mr HALVERSON —We wait impatiently to see them. The Hamilton report also canvasses other sometimes relatively minor, but nonetheless significant problems confronting occupants of service housing. One important area is the difficulty resulting from poor maintenance standards and the frustrations involved in trying to get necessary repairs carried out in an acceptable manner and within a reasonable time. Another is the offhanded attitude sometimes displayed by housing staff when dealing with their tenants. Yet another is the shortage of married quarters with four or more bedrooms. There are also difficulties associated with the tendency for offbase accommodation to be located in socially disadvantaged areas, and the consequent problems with maintaining security and obtaining insurance. If the proposed Defence Housing Authority can address these matters along with its other significant responsibilities and arrive at some practical and effective solutions, it will certainly provide a valuable and much needed support service for our badly neglected service men and women and their disillusioned spouses and families. The capacity of the Authority to tackle its enormous and complex task, to unscramble the well scrambled egg, is dependent upon the resources available to it. Without adequate funding, it cannot hope to be successful and, unfortunately, there appears to be some doubt as to how adequate its funding will be. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), in his initial Press release on 30 January 1987 announcing the proposed establishment of the Defence Housing Authority, stated: An expanded funding program of more than $750m during the next decade is to be used to bring the current stock of houses up to standard. Later in the same Press release, he said: Within overall Budget priorities the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. Later again he referred to the massive task confronting the Authority and outlined some of its priorities. Again I quote: Of the 22,000 houses currently managed by Defence, the worst 6,000 will be progressively replaced and other houses of inadequate standard will be refurbished. Although the Minister has consistently maintained a hedging the bets attitude in regard to the availability of adequate funding, his statements implying that the Authority will be able to direct at least some of the Government provided $750m towards refurbishing and upgrading existing housing stocks do not entirely accord with subsequent statements on how this money may be spent. First, let us further examine the issue of the availability of adequate funding. In his ministerial statement when presenting the Defence of Australia policy information paper, the Minister referred to the so-called Government commitment to spend $750m on improving housing in the following terms: We plan to spend $750m over the next 10 years . . . Honourable members on both sides of the House will be well aware of the old saying about the best laid plans. He reinforced the element of uncertainty in regard to this commitment in his second reading speech delivered on 18 March, during the original debate on the Defence Housing Authority Bill when he said: Within overall Budget priorities, the Government will aim to provide the Defence Housing Authority with funding, additional to its guaranteed income, needed to meet this objective. This statement was paraphrased slightly by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) representing the Minister for Defence, when this Bill was reintroduced into the Senate on 15 September 1987. Senator Button's version was: Within overall Budget priorities, it is the Government's intention to have $750m committed to defence housing capital outlays over the next decade. What we have here is a lot of good intentions and no firm, unequivocal commitments. We can only hope that, in this instance at least, the Governments's aim is on target and its plans come to fruition. In regard to the second rather grey area-that of how the money may actually be used-the Minister's original grand statements about upgrading existing stocks have been somewhat modified. The White Paper released in March 1987 clearly states on page 97, under item 7.27-Defence housing: Some $750m will be spent on new housing over the next 10 years. This statement was repeated by the Minister in his ministerial statement on 19 March 1987 when he said: We plan to spend $750m over the next 10 years on new housing for the Defence Force. These two significant references to new housing are in apparent conflict with earlier statements about upgrading existing housing-that is, unless the Minister has apprenticed himself to Aladdin and, with a couple of judicious rubs, can convert old houses to new houses. But I doubt whether even his talents extend that far. A new house is a new house. An upgraded house is an existing house which has been refurbished. The two are quite different. It would be nice to know just what the Minister intends in regard to how the $750m is to be spent. This is particularly important when the proposal to relocate the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to Darwin, the FA18 squadron's relocation to Tindal and the decisions to base half the fleet at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia are taken in account. All these new bases will need new housing. How much of the $750m will that absorb? How much will be left to spend on the 13,147 sub-standard houses that currently exist within the present stock of 22,941 married quarters? What about the 6,000 of these 13,000 plus sub-standard houses that cannot be saved? How much will be left for the replacement of these homes? What about the estimated 10,000 married members of the defence services who currently cannot be accommodated at all from service housing stocks? Suddenly the $750m does not seem very generous. Over 10 years, it is ludicrous, especially when it is not even guaranteed. There are two other aspects that I would like briefly to mention. The first is rents. Despite assurances that `fundamental rent setting arrangements will be preserved', the Minister has left the door open for rental increases with his statement that `rents on some categories of housing will be modified'-note the word `modified'-`to better take account of the variations in the quality of houses provided'. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would like a small wager on the side as to what those modifications may turn out to be. Secondly, I regret that there is no room on the Board of the Authority for a representative from the non-commissioned ranks and/or service spouses-for example, from the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses-who may not have the required expertise but would certainly be in a position to speak with the voice of experience when it came to identifying the problems and possible solutions, which will be in the field of responsibility of the new Authority. This very matter was the subject of personal representations to the Minister and senior officers of the Department of Defence by members of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia when this legislation was first mooted. That no action has been taken on their very valid and appropriate suggestion is, I believe, a sad reflection on the attitude of this Government towards the lower ranks and the spouses of Defence Force personnel. Both these groups have made, and continue to make, a major contribution to all aspects of service life and its associated responsibilities. They share the challenges, and often are required to bear the brunt of many of the sacrifices that must be made in the course of duty. Even though they have been passed over in regard to any formal recognition of their ability to make a constructive contribution to decisions which are very likely to have considerable impact on themselves, their families and their whole way of life and standard of living, it is to be hoped that the members of the Board of the Authority will make every effort to consult closely and frequently with spouse groups and lower ranks so that, to paraphrase the words of John Milton, those who only stand and wait may also have an opportunity to serve. I appreciate the difficulties and understand the challenges that are posed by inadequate Defence Force housing. I have shared them. I sympathise with those currently serving members of our defence forces and their families who are at present forced to live in sub-standard accommodation, and I do not blame them for considering alternative employment options as a solution to their ongoing housing problems. But, perhaps more importantly, I know that the existing deplorable housing conditions can and must be improved. I join with my coalition colleagues in their efforts and determination to ensure that the necessary upgrading takes place. The Bill we are debating here tonight is but a small first step. It is a rather faltering step, as I have illustrated, but at least it is something and, as I said earlier, something-anything-is better than nothing at all. This Government has a long overdue responsibility to remedy the current unacceptable situation. It must do so by treating this as a matter of the utmost urgency; by according it a high priority and by ensuring that the Defence Housing Authority has the necessary Government support and assistance to complete the important work that it has been given. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(8.31) —The Defence Housing Authority Bill is indeed a very welcome Bill. This is the second time this vital piece of legislation has come before the House. Honourable members opposite must be green with envy that this Government has again brought positive, progressive legislation before the House. Of course, the Opposition amendment is a joke. This Bill is vital because with its passage the Defence Housing Authority will be able to get on with achieving this Government's commitment to an expanded defence housing program which will lead to better housing conditions for our service personnel. It was instructive to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), speak about the rates of wastage in the defence forces. The Opposition has sought to make a big deal of defence force resignations. People resign from the Defence Force for various reasons. Some people resign because they have served the sufficient period required to qualify for a service pension. Other people, such as the honourable member for Casey, retire to enter politics. Some who join the defence forces soon discover that they have made the wrong decision. I put it to honourable members that it would not be an exaggeration to say that no doubt the honourable member for Casey at this point would be feeling that he made the wrong decision. He chose to enter politics. The wrong decision was that he chose to join the wrong side. He knows in the deep recesses of his heart that he is consigned to spending the remainder of his political life in opposition. I am particularly interested in the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority because approximately 1,000 service families live in my electorate. The Singleton Army Base and the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force Base are either in or on the periphery of the electorate of Hunter. The morale and well-being of the men who serve at those two bases are of great importance to me. I know from my contact with them that adequate housing is one of their major concerns-especially in Singleton. From my inspections, I have to agree that there is need for improvement. However, poor housing conditions have long been a contentious issue not only among our defence personnel, but also among most other people in society. If we ask people such as teachers, bank managers or anyone else in our society how satisfied they are with their housing they will say that their housing is less than adequate. However, unfortunately there are priorities in this country and it is not possible, given the current economic circumstances, to wave a magic wand and rectify all those problems overnight. I know that poor housing certainly has caused serious problems of morale among defence forces personnel. However, at long last, after years of neglect by conservative governments, this Government has come to grips with the long-standing issue of inadequate housing. They were years of shameful neglect. The people of Australia know that those years of shameful neglect resulted from the fact that the Treasury benches were occupied during those long periods by the conservative forces. Those conservative forces failed miserably to provide sufficient funding to maintain an adequate standard of housing for service families. Fundamental to any improvement in defence housing must be the commitment of sufficient funding. This is the most important point. This was the fundamental issue which the Opposition, when it was in government, refused to address. Without the commitment to sufficient funding, the conditions that prevailed under former coalition governments would, of course, continue. It is the Labor Government that again has been prepared to tackle the immense problem of redressing previous neglect and providing sufficient funding to achieve the objectives of a better deal for service families. The Government has committed $750m over the next 10 years to ensure that adequate funding is available to upgrade the quality of existing houses and for the purchase of new homes more suited to today's standards. Included in this year's Budget was an allocation of $75m for new and refurbished housing. An amount of $65m of this is for projects commenced in earlier years under a Labor Government; $7.5m is for new projects which will be initiated by this Government to improve the present housing stock and to commit to construction or acquisition some 377 new or replacement homes; and $2m under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is for the construction and improvement of housing. I ask honourable members to compare this proud achievement with the neglect of Defence Force housing under those who now occupy the Opposition benches. Under the category of `works in progress', I am delighted to note that this includes two houses at Myambat in the electorate of Hunter. Myambat, near Denman, is home to the 222 Supply Company. A further $15.1m is provided in the Budget to maintain existing houses and $65.2m is allocated for rental payments to other housing authorities. Expenditure on existing housing commitments and the new 1987-88 housing program is expected to amount to $231m over about three years. This level of funding, which this Government is prepared to make available, will enable the Defence Housing Authority to meet its objective of providing and maintaining adequate housing for eligible defence personnel and, in certain circumstances, for defence civilian personnel. It is quite possible that one of the factors contributing to the current personnel separations problem could be housing. This Government will admit that. The reasons for separations are varied but there is no doubt that improved housing can contribute to higher morale and thus reduce, to some extent, the pressures causing servicemen to resign. If one's wife is not happy with the housing, one will be made aware of it. This is the cause of friction. I am the first to agree about that. One of the implications of the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses is the growing importance of family morale in the Australian Defence Force. Sue Hamilton, in her report, Supporting Service Families, identified many of the problems faced by defence families. She identified inadequate housing as a source of great concern. She said: The most frequent area of complaint and a source of great frustration for the people I consulted was the poor standard of maintenance in service housing, particularly in that leased from various State housing authorities. Tenants complained of delays in carrying out maintenance and of the poor quality of work and materials when maintenance was done, resulting in rapid deterioration. But she went on to say: I am of course aware, that the whole issue of service housing has been an area of great concern recently and that initiatives have now been put in place with the intention of improving the quality and management of the housing stock. The Service Officers Careers Study by Dr Jans also emphasised the importance of family morale. Matters that related to family morale include housing, postings and child care. These areas are of key significance. The Defence Housing Authority, together with the $750m commitment, gives some stability and a guarantee of action to the housing area. That guarantee of commitment was not present in the past when conservative governments were in office. The Authority is designed to bring the necessary forms of expertise and the operating freedom, to manage and to improve the defence housing stock. As outlined in the second reading speech, the membership of the Board has been structured to provide a range of skills necessary for housing management. It is intended to invite members of the Interim Defence Housing Board to be considered for appointment to the Authority. Much of the preliminary ground work has already been undertaken by the Defence Housing Authority Board. Members of the Board also made an inspection of a number of defence facilities to familiarise themselves with housing conditions. The external members include Mr John Graham as Chairman-Mr Graham is Managing Director of Civic Constructions Pty Ltd, Sydney-Dr Roy Gilbert, former Head of the Ministry of Housing, Victoria; Mrs Valerie Pratt, now head of the Affirmative Action Agency, but formerly a personnel manager for CSR Ltd, and Mr Sam Salpietro, a real estate developer in Western Australia, and adviser on housing to the State Govenrment. Mr William Kirkby-Jones has been selected as Managing Director of the Authority. All these people, together with Defence Force and departmental officers, bring to the Defence Housing Authority a wide range of expertise to ensure its successful operation, in accordance with sound commercial practice. Incorporated in the legislation is the requirement for the Authority to prepare and update annually, a corporate plan which will include forcasts of receipts and expenditure and financial targets for profit, rate of return and dividend approved by the Minister. How often do we sit in this House and hear ideas about corporate planning from that side of the House whose members are totally bereft of any progressive ideas? This corporate plan will provide a strategy for sound financial management. The words `sound financial management' probably sound foreign to members opposite. The Authority will also be required to earn a reasonable rate of return on its assets and maintain the Commonwealth's level of equity. While the Authority will receive commercial rents for properties which will guarantee a level of income, it is important to note that Defence Force tenants, as a condition of service will continue to pay subsidised rents, which the Government will continue to determine. The Authority is free to select any preferred strategy for achieving its objectives. It can build new houses, buy existing homes, form a company, enter into joint ventures, participate in partnerships and so on. In the latter instances, prior approval is needed. With the approval of the Treasurer, the Authority has the power to borrow. The establishment of the Defence Housing Authority heralds a new era. Gone are the days of stop and go funding for defence housing; gone are the days when defence housing was a low priority; gone are the days of inefficient and costly maintenance work. Our service families can look forward with confidence to having adequate housing standards geared to today's community expectations. Changes in living standards will not happen overnight, but at long last positive steps have been taken that will guarantee changes will be made. The guarantee is that those changes will be improvements. God, how our defence force personnel need attention and improved housing conditions after the years of neglect when the mob on the opposite side were on this side of the House. This Government has honoured its commitment to improved housing conditions for service families. I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). I am sure that those opposite who feel genuinely about the living conditions of our defence force personnel will join me in commending this Bill to the House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.46) —Just this afternoon the Sydney Sun newspaper-I am sure most honourable members would have read it-ran a story entitled `RAAF pilots flying away'. It begins by noting that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) had been hit by pilot desertions to better paid civilian jobs. It reports that 75 pilots left the Royal Australian Air Force in the past four months, more than the total number of pilots trained each year. A total of 107 pilots resigned during the 1986-87 financial year. Mrs Kelly —I told you that. Mr WEBSTER —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel says that is correct. That compared with an average over the past 20 years of 47 pilot resignations per year. The article quoted Air Marshal Funnell as identifying two factors which have produced this resignation rate. The first is the potential income available through employment by commercial airlines. We have heard a lot about that today. The second, he said, is that the whole notion of service to the nation-this is a very important point-the sort of attraction that goes beyond material benefits, has diminished. Better wages have always been available to RAAF pilots and technicians in the private sector. There is nothing new about that. As for the second factor, I do not believe, with respect to the Air Marshal, that the commitment to service has diminished among the men and women at Richmond Air Base in my electorate. I doubt whether that is true of service personnel on any base around the country. What has changed are the factors in the equation of costs and benefits, especially for one's family, of continued service and re-enlistment in the armed forces in 1987. One of the cost factors in that equation is defence housing, which we are discussing tonight. Service personnel have always had to balance personal and family costs with their service and sense of duty. What we are seeing now is the judgment by thousands of servicemen and women that the costs, immediate and potential, to their families from continued service are too heavy. We are seeing service personnel take action to defend their family life. I would have thought that any community which valued honour in its social relations would consider itself obliged to recompense the commitment and sacrifice of the men and women of its Defence Force. An honourable contract with these men and women would ensure, first, that they were provided the training and resources to do the job expected of them. It would ensure that the disruption to normal family life involved in the Services was compensated by adequate housing, and social and education support. It would ensure proper remuneration for the skills, responsibilities and work load of its defence personnel. It would ensure that, above all else, the community never allowed itself to defer or deny these obligations in pursuit of other less fundamental social or political objectives. The Australian community at the moment has no such honourable contract with its defence personnel and their families. We take both our defence and those who defend us for granted. The results have become clear over the last few months in particular. Firstly, the absence of political will in the electorate and subsequently in Cabinet has seen the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) suffer significant cuts to his budget, and there is no denying that. Secondly, there has been an uncontainable and dangerous resignation rate, or separation rate as the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel chooses to call it, from the Services. Thirdly, there is the incapacity of our defence forces to defend the nation in the face of anything bigger than a strictly limited low level threat. The Defence Housing Authority Bill which we are considering tonight is an important step towards addressing the housing factor in our defence personnel crisis. It is the first step towards righting the negligence in the area of defence housing over the last decade. When this Government took office, it acknowledged that defence housing was a serious problem. The housing available to service personnel at that time was inadequate and increasingly substandard. One of the reasons why the Opposition speaks so strongly on the defence housing problem in 1987, I suspect, is because we must make amends for our own culpability prior to 1983. But let us be honest: there is great owning up to be done by both sides. I remind those opposite that, after four years in office, it is not credible for a government to blame a predecessor for its problems, especially when it has failed to take enough concrete action during those four years. Our defence housing problems are as severe as they are because of this Government's own management of its defence priorities over the last four years and because of its overall Budget priorities. We still have two-thirds of the 22,000 defence houses below Commonwealth standards. We still have inadequate barracks accommodation and an unacceptably slow schedule of upgrading. A lot has been said tonight about large volumes of money being poured into this particular problem. I say again that the schedule of upgrading is still too slow. The housing assistance is insufficient and its future under this Government unclear. The rent increases for substandard accommodation eclipse wage increases. The first Hawke Government Defence Minister knew the nature and extent of the housing problem, as did the current Minister when he took over. Their response and that of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has been largely to defer the matter and seek refuge in committees, consultants and consultations. It was only when the exodus of service personnel because of low morale proved embarrassing, and the Chiefs of Staff started ringing alarm bells, that the current Minister took action. Mrs Kelly —I have been here for only three months. Mr WEBSTER —I am talking about the full Minister for Defence. Part of that action was the drafting of this legislation. The Opposition supports this legislation and will not unnecessarily delay it, although two amendments have been moved. Unfortunately, the Minister lacks a defence budget commensurate with the problem. To be fair, I do not believe that that inadequate budget is the fault of the Defence Minister alone, and I have said that a number of times before in the House. Parliament and the community share responsibility for that inadequate defence budget. The reality of the decision-making process in Western democracies is that the ultimate decisions and allocations reflect the strength and weaknesses of the various lobby groups and opinion makers. Notwithstanding the continuing support for defence in the opinion polls that are presented to us in our papers from time to time, our Australian community has yet to force the Government to give defence a greater priority. When the Government's consultant, Ms Hamilton, submitted her report, Supporting Service Families, on the problems facing service spouses, 18 months ago, she told the Government-I know this has been said a number of times and I am repeating it, but I will quote again: The overwhelming impression I gained from the service spouses I talked to in the course of the study was their feeling that they and the contribution they make in support of the Australian Defence Force are not valued either within the service community or in the community in general. She continued: They see the civilian community generally as placing little value on defence activities and having little or no esteem for those who chose defence as a career or for their families. Ms Hamilton's concluding remarks on these perceptions are significant. She said: Currently, there is a widespread acceptance that a defence career makes special demands on and requires a special commitment from those who choose it. However, there is no clear acceptance of the consequence that flows clearly from this proposition-the responsibility to assist serving people to cope with the problems that this special commitment can create for their families. That is the crux of the problem. We must in this place acknowledge our obligations to service personnel and their families, and then act urgently and comprehensively. The area of housing more than any other shows that not only are service personnel not compensated for the unique burdens they and their families bear, but also they are not even given conditions comparable with ordinary citizens. Our defence housing negligence and the slow progress we are making are evidence to many service families that we have turned our backs on them. I know, the Minister for Defence knows and hopefully the new Minister for Defence Science and Personnel also knows of the housing conditions at Richmond RAAF Base in my electorate. All the elements identified in the Hamilton report are evident at Richmond-deteriorating, substandard housing, maintenance and repair backlogs, in security of property and person for service families outside the base. Morale at Richmond is seriously low. Personnel on the base are cynical about whether the Government, the Defence Department, the Parliament or the community really know or care about their problems. It will take more than the few renovations to married quarters that I have seen under way to address the housing problem at Richmond. I acknowledge and thank the Government for the increased funds authorised for married quarters housing for the coming year. It would have been more appropriate, however, if the half a million dollars allocated to provide a job for Mrs Helen Mayer as another consultant on defence problems had been allocated to Richmond to allow rapid housing improvements. That decision exemplifies the political decisions made at the expense of defence for which the Government alone is responsible and I acknowledge again the significance of this Bill. But I must stress that the morale problem is so severe that only action on a much larger scale, especially in the area of housing and family conditions, will stem the resignation rate we face in the armed forces. Trying to stop Qantas Airways Ltd employing pilots will not be effective, especially given the number of other airlines that would be happy to take advantage of Qantas's unilateral restraint. Nor does the rhetoric of the recent parliamentary statement suffice. Service men and women are fed up over the unacceptable housing they and their families receive. They resent Government opposition to wage and allowance increases and the penny-pinching which characterises management of equipment, personnel and other resources. The decision to cut superannuation payments for retired servicemen and the recent confusion over the housing loans scheme have created serious apprehension about the whole range of service benefits available. Service personnel no longer trust the Government-a very serious problem-and are resigning at their first opportunity. For thousands of service personnel, continued service or re-enlistment would be unfair to their families and irrational, given past Government actions. What service personnel are waiting for is not parliamentary rhetoric or new legislation. What they want is budget allocations and policy reform which match the extent and urgency of their concerns. To my colleagues on the back benches on both sides, I would suggest that we act to resurrect defence and the needs of our armed forces as priority electoral concerns, for if we do not in the very near future conquer the apathy that pervades this nation on defence and security, that apathy which white ants the effort in Parliament and government adequately to fund our armed forces, will lead us to forfeit our sovereignty as a nation. As the Australian editorialised recently: Any economy, however admirably motivated, that puts our national survival at risk is a false economy. The Government must not forget that, if we cannot defend ourselves, all other endeavours will be in vain. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.01) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Defence Housing Authority Bill is similar to the Defence Housing Authority Bill that was introduced into this House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on 18 March 1987. The earlier Bill was debated and passed by this House on 28 April 1987 and introduced into the Senate. It lapsed on the dissolution of the last Parliament. When the earlier Bill was debated I spoke at some length on it, particularly on the history of defence service housing in Australia and on the implications and ramifications of the Bill. I now add a few observations on the Defence Housing Authority to be established by clause 4 of this Bill. Honourable members who take a keen interest in conditions of service for defence personnel would know that there would not have been an urgent need for the establishment of a Defence Housing Authority and the expenditure of $750m over the next decade on the provision of housing for defence personnel if the Fraser Government had not contemptuously broken a number of pledges which it made to members of the Australian Defence Force on this issue. Under the previous Liberal-National Party Government, the provision of housing for defence personnel under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement as a proportion of expenditure on defence dropped dramatically. From 1.8 per cent of total expenditure in 1975-76-the last financial year of the Whitlam Labor Government-this component of expenditure fell to less than 0.2 per cent under the Liberal-National Party Government in 1982-83. Eight million dollars was committed in 1982-83 under the Fraser Government for housing of defence personnel compared with $34m for defence housing under Labor in 1975-76. In real terms the movement between 1975-76 and 1982-83 represented a decline in the budget sub-division of 88 per cent when deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption-government. In respect of housing acceptances, in 1975-76, the year of the last Whitlam Labor Budget, 938 houses were accepted by the Department of Defence. The following year, under the Fraser Government, 582 houses were accepted for defence personnel and in 1979-80 only 75 houses were accepted by the Department of Defence. The 1976 defence White Paper noted there was a shortage of married quarters in most areas. To begin to meet the requirement for accommodation of adequate standard, the White Paper noted an objective to obtain a further 3,200 houses by the early 1980s. However, during the period 1976 to 1981 a little more than half of the stated objective of 3,200 houses had been accomplished: in fact, only 1,664 houses had been accepted during that period. So by 1983 when the Hawke Government was elected, the housing situation was as bad as that which the White Paper had indicated would be improved by the early 1980s and was assessed as some 3,000 houses short of the actual demand. As in many other areas under the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government, the defence housing program for service personnel had seemingly stood still. What a woeful record the Liberal-National Party had on defence matters. Not only did the Liberal-National Party Government scrimp on money for adequate defence housing, but also in 1982 the Liberal-National Party Government froze the pay of defence personnel. Under the Liberal-National Party Fraser Government, Australia's defence personnel were underpaid, underequipped, underhoused, taken for granted and generally ignored. The Liberal-National Party Government never bothered to instigate an inquiry into the conditions of defence service families of the kind initiated by the Hawke Government such as that which resulted in the Hamilton report, Supporting Service Families. Mrs Hamilton concluded as a result of her investigations that the poor standard of defence housing-particularly poor maintenance-was a significant contributor to low family morale in the Services. There is no excuse for poor maintenance of defence housing. I now refer to the achievements of the Hawke Government in the provision of good standard housing for defence personnel. In 1983-84, the first fiscal year of the Hawke Government, actual capital expenditure on defence housing amounted to $36.8m, for 440 completions of housing accepted by the Department of Defence. In 1984-85, $38.5m was spent, for 330 houses accepted by the Department of Defence; in 1985-86, $54m for 520 houses accepted by the Department of Defence; in 1986-87, $55.2m for 360 houses accepted by the Department of Defence; and this year, 1987-88, $75m for an estimated 930 houses to be accepted by the Department of Defence. That tells much about the achievements of the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, in the less than five years in which it has been the Government of this country. Compare the $8m spent by the Fraser Government with the $75m spent by the Hawke Government this year. There is no government in the history of Australia that has been more supportive of promoting defence, an adequate Defence Force for the protection of Australia and its people, than the Hawke Government. The Hawke Government has spent more money for defence purposes than any other government in Australia's history. It is spending more money for defence purposes this financial year than has been spent on defence at any time in Australia's history. Its achievements in re-equipping and re-arming the Australian Defence Force are unmatched by any previous government. It has, for the first time, commenced the urgent and overdue deployment of Australia's defence forces to the northern areas of Australia. It has decided to rebuild the Royal Australian Navy, to equip it with adequate ships and other materiel to provide a two-ocean Navy. It is re-equipping the infantrymen of the Australian Army with new personal weapons, new 105mm guns, new 155mm guns, new trucks and various other new equipment. It has instituted the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, an independent pay fixing tribunal to fix pay and conditions of service and service allowances for the Australian Defence Force. It has now, through this legislation, instituted for the first time legislative machinery to ensure that there is adequate housing and adequate maintenance of existing housing for service personnel. I find it astonishing, Mr Deputy Speaker, that having regard to the enormous sums of money, national treasure, being spent on defence by this Government, the Opposition can claim that there is a drop in morale. Any sensible and astute observer of defence issues in this country must wonder why the Opposition is going around whipping up hysteria and causing undue alarm to many service personnel and their families. The debate in this House this afternoon was a classic example of putting disinformation on the record and creating an atmosphere designed to con the Australian people that all is not well with the Australian Defence Force. The Opposition claims that there is an attrition or separation rate of 12.6 per cent, but the average over the past 10 years is about 11.1 per cent. One should look at these matters in perspective. Australian defence personnel are better paid than ever before and they are enjoying better conditions of service than they ever have previously. Certainly, there are issues in respect of which this Government must tread very warily, including any proposal to replace the defence service home loan with a cash grant. All Federal governments must be mindful of their duty to preserve, protect and defend conditions of service and pay for defence personnel. I acknowledge what was said by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), namely, that this is a bipartisan duty of the members of this Parliament, and it is also a duty of every Australian citizen to ensure that there is more than sufficient money-not just enough money-to equip Australia's Defence Force with the best equipment the Western world can supply and to have the best trained Defence Force that this country can provide. Only recently the Commander of the 1st Division, Major-General Jeffery, stated that the Hawke Government's program of re-equipping and training the 1st Division will make it the best equipped and best trained division in this region. Mr White —That is not all he said; be fair. Mr LINDSAY —That is what he said, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is sheer nonsense, as Major-General Jeffery has had occasion to repeat that statement. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who had the opportunity and privilege of visiting Exercise Diamond Dollar which was denied to other members of this Parliament because of inadequate transport facilities, knows full well that the claim that he made this afternoon that the Australian Army would have difficulty in maintaining the 1st Division in the field in a combat situation for more than six weeks is simply nonsense. It was sheer political rhetoric. I invite the honourable member for McPherson, with his extensive experience in defence matters, to acknowledge the accuracy of what I am saying tonight and reassure the people of Australia that, notwithstanding what he said in the debate this afternoon, the Australian Defence Force is in relatively good shape but that certain man management problems require assistance. That is acknowledged, and this side of the House has never sought at any time to not challenge, meet and try to solve a problem where it has been identified. Indeed, the Hawke Government's record in relation to pay and conditions of service, given the legislative machinery in place in that area, and its development of the defence White Paper put forward by the Government this year-a policy and strategy for the defence of this country-and the force structure document prepared by Paul Dibb and debated in this Parliament are positive steps forward designed to set in train the foundations and build on them to create one of the best defence forces in this region. The clear message in this debate-with the commitment of this Government and its record of expenditure on housing for defence personnel-proves beyond all doubt that the Hawke Government's record in this area is unexcelled by any previous government. I am not going to debate the issues that were raised by the honourable member for McPherson this afternoon on the attrition or separation of personnel from the Defence Force; that is another issue. This debate concerns the establishment of the Defence Housing Authority and the Hawke Government's commitment to ensure that it is properly funded and that over the next 10 years $750m is spent to provide new housing for members of the Australian Defence Force and to provide for adequate maintenance. The Government is to be congratulated on its decision to establish the Defence Housing Authority, because it is the first Federal government to acknowledge its obligation through legislation to provide adequate accommodation for the defence personnel of this country. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.16) —I certainly support the comments made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) earlier in this debate, and I support his amendment with regard to the Defence Housing Authority Bill. As the honourable member for McPherson made clear in the matter of public importance today, and has often made clear in Question Time and in numerous Press releases that he has put out, we on this side of the House are deeply concerned about the conditions under which our defence forces are currently expected to operate. I think it is important that as members of the Parliament we stop for a minute and consider our responsibility to the Australian defence forces. Members of the Parliament, the Government in particular and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) above all have a special responsibility to members of the Australian defence forces, because they do not have the opportunities that people in the ordinary work force have to pursue claims for improved conditions of service. They do not have the opportunity to join trade unions which will go on strike or take other forms of industrial action in order to improve their conditions of service. Members of the Australian defence forces must depend on the goodwill of the Government and this Parliament to ensure that they are properly looked after. That is an extraordinarily important point that we as members of the Parliament should remember. We have a great responsibility to our defence forces, and one of the most important of all the roles of government and parliament is to ensure that our country is properly defended. If the morale of our defence forces is low and if our defence forces themselves are weak, we as members of the Parliament, and the Government in particular, are responsible for that and, more than that, we have a responsibility to improve those conditions of service and the level of morale in our defence forces. We on this side of the House are not ashamed at all in saying that we believe that over the past 4 1/2 years the Government has not pursued that responsibility vigorously or effectively enough. It is all very well towards the end of 1987 to say that there is going to be some sort of inquiry into our defence forces, the conditions of service and why so many personal are resigning. Why was this not done earlier, in 1984, 1985, or 1986? It has gone on and on, the statistics have become worse and worse and the morale of the defence forces has continued to decline. Fancy that happening at a time when the security of our region is becoming increasingly tenuous. It really is very disturbing and I know that members of the Australian community, if not the Government, are deeply worried about it. Housing, which is the primary theme of this debate in relation to the Australian Defence Force, the ADF, is an important factor. I am glad to say that the one defence facility in my electorate-the Army camp at Woodside-has benefited from a substantial investment in improved housing. I am sure that the Minister will be interested to hear that, although she certainly was not involved in that but her predecessor was. The people at Woodside are an extraordinarily dedicated and committed group of soldiers who are doing a magnificent job under the leadership of Colonel Derbyshire. They deserve the best of facilities and I am very glad that the Government has seen fit to invest in significantly improved housing there over the past two or so years. People from that camp have raised many issues with me. Certainly, issues have been raised by contractors from the district about the efficiency of the investment and the way the contract has actually been carried out. But at the end of the day, even though the cost may have been significantly more than it might have been if the project had been administered more efficiently, those soldiers are going to have improved conditions of service. I am glad that is going to happen. Of course, housing generally for the defence forces is grossly inadequate. Although the standard of housing is not the only reason people are leaving our defence forces, it is one of the important reasons. Other members have talked already about the flood of resignations from our armed forces. Many have quoted the statistics for 1986-87 when 12.8 per cent of the members of our armed forces resigned. This is a record, with the exception of the period when conscription was brought to an end. We know that 8,900 out of a Defence Force of 70,000 resigned in 1986-87. The previous year, when nothing was done-no inquiry was established and the whole issue was simply neglected-12.3 per cent of our defence forces resigned. It seems to me so sad and such a dereliction of duty that a government should have ignored this problem for so long. We have had over the last five years-the period that this Government has been in office-something like a 50 per cent turnover in personnel in our armed forces. I want to say a little tonight about the way these resignations have affected the Royal Australia Air Force, an area with which I have had more contact than some other parts of the armed forces. The Air Force has told me on several occasions that housing is a major problem, and I will come back to that later. But there are many other reasons for people leaving the Air Force-in particular, pilots and engineers-than housing alone. One only has to look again at the statistics to see how serious the problem is. Today more pilots are resigning from our Air Force than are being trained. This is a time when our country's level of security, particularly in the Pacific area, is increasingly being jeopardised. We have many foreign policy problems around Australia today. This is not a frivolous party political issue but a serious issue which we as members of parliament ought to address. More pilots are resigning from the Air Force than are being trained. We are losing instructors from the Air Force at a quite extraordinary rate. Recently all of the instructors of 36 Squadron and 37 Squadron, which are based at Richmond and which fly Hercules aircraft, resigned to go to other jobs. Every single one of them resigned. The F18 squadrons recently lost three instructors. There is no question that that is a very serious matter. Our Orion aircraft form a fundamental part of Australia's coastal surveillance and coastal security function. In saying that, one sets aside the disgraceful Amann Aviation Pty Ltd affair. Look at what is happening with the Orions. The Orion squadrons have lost a large number of engineers. The Edinburgh base, which is the main Orion base in South Australia, had 15 engineers at the beginning of 1986. But 10 of those 15 engineers have by now resigned. Of course, largely they have been replaced. But 10 of the original 15 who were there at the beginning of 1986 have resigned. So this is a chronic problem. It just strikes me, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I would be surprised if you did not agree with me-as quite incredible that nothing has happened in the last 4 1/2 years to address this problem. All we are told today is that an inquiry has been set up, after more than 4 1/2 years. Mr Charles —Where's your policy? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Mr DOWNER —I suppose people are going to say that it is the fault of the Opposition- Mr Charles —Where's your policy? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr DOWNER —Or the fault of the Fraser Government or the fault of the Menzies Government. They go back in history. Mr Charles —Where's your policy? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr DOWNER —Perhaps Sir Edmund Barton is responsible, but I doubt that the community will believe any of these Labor excuses for their own ineptitude. Mr Charles —Where's your policy? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. Mr DOWNER —There are chronic problems. One of the causes of the problems has been brought about, of course, by the issue of pay. Let us just have a look at that. Mr Charles —Where's your policy? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr DOWNER —It is said that Qantas Airways Ltd and Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd pay substantially more than the Royal Australian Air Force, and that is certainly a factor. It is possible for pilots to get something in the vicinity of $150,000 a year with Cathay Pacific Airways and that compares extraordinarily favourably with the levels of pay in our own Air Force. No pay rise at all was give to the pilots in our Air Force for a period of some four years. More recently, in the 1986 Budget, they lost 2 per cent of their superannuation. These are the sorts of details that have been overlooked. Apparently their conditions of service are expendable. People call out in their party political way-we hear it week after week-and ask, `What would you do about it?'. One of the things we would not have done is impose a pay freeze on them for four years and knock off 2 per cent of their superannuation. We would never have dreamt of it. We would never have done that. But their other conditions of service are also a significant factor. The level of housing is substandard and I am glad that this legislation recognises that fact. Married quarters and living accommodation in the Air Force are substantially substandard. This legislation will bring forth in the next year something like $75m to be spent on improving housing. But half of that money, as we all now know-the honourable member for McPherson quite rightly made great play of this-is to be spent on new bases, not improved accommodation on existing bases. Just look at some of the details. Mr Charles —At any number of-- Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether I could make my speech and then the larrikin on the other side could perhaps get on with his words later. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to ignore the interjections. I have asked the honourable member for Isaacs on several occasions to cease interjecting but he has totally ignored what I said. I will warn the honourable member if he interjects again. Mr DOWNER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. The crew room for pilots at the Air Force base at Edinburgh is a converted gymnasium. No effort has been made to provide a proper crew room with proper facilities. Mr Cleeland —Who built that? Mr DOWNER —The mess was built by the Menzies Government. But the Hawke Government has done nothing for the mess. It was built in 1960 for 100 officers and it now has to accommodate some 600. Mr Charles —What did Fraser do? Nothing! Mr DOWNER —The honourable member for Isaacs has already been warned. I suggest that he allow the debate to continue. The time that these crews spend away from home is also a factor that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel needs to give careful consideration to. The Minister may or may not know-she will be interested to hear-that the Orion crews have to spend at least 100 days a year away from home. In many cases they are spending up to 200 days a year away from home. Another significant issue is the posting of pilots to desk jobs. This is one of the reasons why so many pilots want to leave the Air Force. Senior administrative positions, by tradition, are filled by pilots. But there are many instances where a pilot, after only four to five years of service, has ended up having to fly not an aeroplane but a desk. I appreciate that the Minister recognises this problem and that the Air Force is certainly doing what it can to overcome that difficulty. I was given the example of a pilot who was moved from his position as a `genuine' pilot to the position of officer in charge of married quarters. Doubtless, that is a laudable position to hold but if we want to keep pilots in the Air Force we should not put them into the position of being officers in charge of married quarters. It is interesting to look at the figures for flying time. If one is flying F18 aircraft, one might be concerned to know that one's flying time is something like only 20 hours a month, which is not an awful lot. On Orions it is something like 70 hours a month, which is obviously much more acceptable. But F18 pilots are offered 20 hours a month or an alternative career which would give them a great deal more to do. Added to all of these problems is the difficulty that so many of the pilots are put into what one might say are functions that they themselves do not regard as terribly enlightening or interesting. They have to act as the wing duty officer, the orderly officer and so on while they have to spend, as I mentioned earlier, between 100 and 200 days a year away from home. Added to that are the weekends taken up with acting as the orderly officer or whatever. Those sorts of things are not doing anything to encourage people to stay in our Air Force. These are matters that, after 4 1/2 years in office, the Government has suddenly stumbled across. These issues should have been addressed years ago and they need to be addressed very seriously now. Substandard housing is a major issue. It will be increasingly important for the Government to provide appropriate conditions for our servicemen. Let me finish where I began. I began by saying that, as a Parliament, we have a great responsibility to the members of our armed forces because they do not have and can never have the industrial muscle that those who belong to trade unions or those in the normal work force have. It is incumbent on this Government, which is so friendly and close to the trade union movement, to recognise that fact. The Government and the Parliament have a great responsibility to build up the morale of our armed forces. At a time when our foreign policy and our position in the world are becoming increasingly insecure-the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) would well recognise that-we need to ensure that we have a highly trained, highly dedicated and highly efficient armed force. If we are left in the present position where Air Force officers make jokes such as, `will the last pilot to leave, please turn out the lights', we will find ourselves as a country almost indefensible. I am glad that the Government has introduced the legislation because I think that it is a step forward. But I am sorry that it has taken the Government so long to recognise the points that have been made again and again since March 1983 by honourable members on this side of the House. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(9.33) —I am pleased to say that our defence situation is not in such a parlous state as the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) would suggest and that our foreign policy is such that Australia is in no severe difficulties at the moment. In fact, the only secure person on the Opposition back bench would be the honourable member for Mayo. He is certainly in no risk of moving to the front bench after his miserable contribution. I am very pleased to support the Government on the Defence Housing Authority Bill. I am pleased that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is representing the Minister who introduced the Bill in the last Parliament because she brings to this portfolio a very particular skill. I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) say to this House earlier tonight that she should not be a Minister. What a most atrocious statement to make in this House. He stands condemned. He should be ashamed of himself for making such a statement. Did the honourable member for McPherson make that statement because the Minister is a woman? Did he make it because she wears a skirt instead of trousers? Does the honourable member have some bias towards women that he would make the statement in this House that she does not deserve to be a Minister? Why would the honourable member for McPherson even suggest that the Minister does not deserve the position? He stands condemned from his own mouth. It was a miserable contribution, a miserable comment, and he is a miserable person for making it. I am very pleased that it is a woman who represents this portfolio because she brings a woman's viewpoint and a woman's skill to the task. She represents, in fact, a particular viewpoint. Mr Downer —Don't be so patronising. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Mayo has been heard. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr CLEELAND —She has the capacity to enter Australian Defence Force bases and to approach Defence Force spouses and discuss their problems with them. If the Opposition, over the last 30 years of its miserable existence in this country, had ever bothered to go and talk to Defence Force personnel and to ask them what their concerns were it would not have taken this Parliament so long to pass such legislation. The mere fact that the Opposition, when in government, stood back, isolated in Canberra, did not bother to end Defence Force bases, did not bother to talk to the spouses of serving Defence Force personnel and did not bother to consider the conditions under which Defence Force members serve meant that those members were neglected abysmally. The Army base of Puckapunyal is in my electorate. The honourable member for Mayo might care to ponder on the fact that at the last election the Liberal Party of Australia vote went down by 12 per cent on primaries. Mr Charles —How much? Mr CLEELAND —Twelve per cent on primaries in the Puckapunyal Army base. The honourable member for Mayo might ponder why the defence forces thought so much of the Liberal Party that they deserted it in droves. That 12 per cent primary vote was shared by me, the National Party of Australia-God help us-and the Australian Democrats. At the last election the Army personnel at Puckapunyal thought that the Liberal Party was a disgrace. Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Notice Paper draws my attention to the fact that we are debating the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987. I wonder what that has to do with the Labor vote at Puckapunyal, which, presumably, is only about 2 per cent anyway. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CLEELAND —I noticed that Opposition members ranged wide and far in their contribution to this debate. They talked about separation and all sorts of odd things and no one on this side of the House bothered to take such a frivolous point of order. That indicates, again, their inability to take the heat and the pressure when they are applied to them. In response, they make frivolous points of order which are a nonsense. The Defence Force personnel have told the Liberal Party what they think of what it would do to them. Whilst Liberal Party members in this House will not stand up and give a policy, publish a policy or discuss policy in any debate, we know, from their statements in the last election and by statements from members of the Party, what they would do. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) went to Seymour in the last election. He was reported in the local Press as saying that, in government, he would sell all the Defence Force housing to the private sector-sell it right off as part of the Opposition's privatisation program, which, no doubt, it talks about in private in its party rooms but only rarely is it prepared to stand up and admit to the public what its program would be in government. The honourable member for O'Connor had the courage during the last election campaign to stand up and say in my electorate, `We will sell it all off to the private sector and you will have to pay full commercial rents'. So much for the conditions of service about which the wets on the other side of the chamber talk. So much for their claims in this House that they are concerned about the conditions of Defence Force personnel. They stand condemned from the mouth of the honourable member for O'Connor. That is obviously one of their secret policies which was part of their proposed taxation cuts. Whilst in the last election they would not say exactly what they would cut from the defence budget, we do know that they would have cut 16 per cent across the board from Commonwealth expenditure. Mr White —What are you talking about? Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member for McPherson asks what I am talking about. We would like to know what he is talking about and where he would cut 16 per cent. Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The last defence budget guaranteed to hold defence spending-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Where is the point of order? Mr White —That is the point of order. The honourable member is-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member for McPherson will resume his seat. I remind him that the Chair will not tolerate frivolous points of order. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr CLEELAND —That is another example of the fact that when the heat is applied, honourable members opposite cannot take the pressure. The Government, the Australian people and I would be happy if the Opposition would come clean and publish in detail, line by line, where the 16 per cent cuts would go so that we can have decent debates in this House on all the issues and so that we do not have to sit in this place night after night and day after day and have the Opposition standing up, carping away as it does, whingeing and complaining as it does on every Bill, without putting up positive alternative policies-policies which will state where the money is coming from and what is their economic effect. Let us look at the amendment to the motion for the second reading that has been moved by the honourable member for McPherson. It seeks to substitute these words: whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, this House: (1) recognises that the housing needs of service men and women are one of the most important factors in their conditions of service . . . What does that mean? One would have thought that this Bill serves as the Government's recognition of that fact. It is nonsense for the Opposition to say, `Of course, we agree with the Government on this policy. Of course, we say that we need to do what this Bill will put into effect because housing conditions for Defence Force personnel are abysmal'. They are abysmal. If the Opposition agrees with that, why has it put forward such a nonsense amendment? The amendment continues: (2) regrets the failure of the Government to assist in any adequate and practical way Australian Defence Force personnel to purchase privately built homes. I repeat, `privately built homes'. I hope that if the honourable member for McPherson, the Opposition spokesman, has the chance to make some concluding remarks, he can tell the House where the money to pay for this would come from. How would the proposal that he has suggested on behalf of the Opposition work? Does the Opposition suggest that a cash grant should be made available to all members of the Defence Force to assist them to buy private housing? Does it suggest that this be done by way of subsidised interest rates, by way of a loan, to enable Defence Force personnel to purchase privately built homes? In what other way would the honourable gentleman suggest that the Commonwealth Government should allocate from its resources the money to enable Defence Force personnel to purchase homes? Does he have any concept of what he is saying on behalf of the Opposition? Has the Opposition costed the proposal? Can it tell the House tonight what the economic effect on the Commonwealth expenditure program would be? How much would it cost? Can he tell the House? Does he have any concept? Has he discussed it with the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)? Does the shadow Treasurer, who is calling for a reduction in Commonwealth expenditure and economic restraint, realise what the honourable gentleman is suggesting in economic terms? Has it been discussed in the Party room? Does his Party support his proposal? They are quite proper questions to ask of this Opposition. It is nonsense to make the suggestion which is contained in the amendment. It is an abuse of the Parliament. It is an abuse of privilege unless the honourable member is prepared to look at the bottom line and debate it in proper terms. Mr Deputy Speaker, we know what the answer is to that. Not once has the Opposition, since I have been a member of this Government, debated the matter in those terms because they are economic cowards. Historically, that is the case, and it is the case today. Having got that off my chest, having listened to the nonsense that honourable members opposite have spoken about tonight, let me return to the Bill. Mr Smith —Talking about nonsense? We have been listening to you. That is enough. Mr CLEELAND —Members of the Opposition have been talking absolute nonsense all night. If they listen very carefully they might learn something that will assist them. I know that there is a great lack of talent on the other side of the House. But members of the Opposition have a chance tonight, if they listen very carefully and have faith in me. I know that their attention span is very small, but if they concentrate they may learn what this Bill is about. I refer those honourable members opposite who are interested to a speech made earlier by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby)-a very fine member, I might add-who very adequately detailed the ramifications in procedural terms of the effect of this Bill. As I indicated earlier, the major Army base of Puckapunyal is in my electorate. There are 900 houses in my electorate that are occupied by Defence Force personnel. Of those, 300 are situated within the boundaries of the Army base and 600 are situated in the nearby town of Seymour. In fact, all of the housing in Seymour is State provided housing under the Commonwealth-State housing arrangements. Within Puckapunyal the housing mix ranges from the housing which we as a government are constructing to some older war-time construction housing which, when I was first elected in 1984, I have to say was abysmal. It was a tragedy to think that any Australians, let alone members of the Defence Force, were put in a position in 1984 that they had to live in the sort of conditions in which the Opposition left them. Doors would not close. The houses moved frequently on their foundations. They had no carpets. Windows would not open or close. The plumbing was, to say the least, antiquated. It was a shame, quite frankly, as a newly elected member of this Parliament, to think that previous governments cared so little about these people, just because they wore a uniform. Because they were out of sight, behind the walls of Defence Force establishments, housing was allowed to fall into that state. I am not at all proud of the actions of the Victorian Government and previous State governments in building the sort of terrible housing which exists in Seymour. It was second-rate housing when it was built and it is second rate housing today, only much older. The problems that this Government faced in 1984 in regard to Defence Force conditions were such that one wondered what one could do to resolve them. It is no use for members of the Opposition to try to absolve their Party and previous governments for which they were responsible from that blame. They cannot do it. They must shoulder that responsibility. It is a pity that they do not stand here and take it, because they cannot escape the simple fact that not once in post-war years did any former government, be it a conservative government or the Labor Government in 1972-75, bother to apply itself to improving conditions of Defence Force personnel and treating them as individual human beings. It is true that they gave allocations to the Defence Force. Maybe they assumed that the generals, the air marshals and the admirals, in their wisdom, sitting in the halls of power of Canberra, were allocated sufficient funds in that portfolio to improve conditions. No members of any of those governments bothered to walk into a base to find out how the money was being spent. Not one of them knocked on front doors in those areas and asked people what they thought about the conditions. It is to this Government's eternal credit that it did knock on front doors. It sent Sue Hamilton in to the army bases and into these housing areas to knock on front doors and to ask people what was wrong with their conditions. They told Sue Hamilton and she wrote a report which will always stand as a condemnation of previous governments. Yet the Opposition says, `You have been here for five years and you haven't changed anything'. I invite any member of this House to visit Puckapunyal, to walk or drive into the housing area. An innumerable number of the old houses have now been totally refurbished, inside and out. Aluminium window frames have been installed, roofing has been repaired, proper modern facilities are being put into the kitchens and bathrooms and doors that open and close are being installed. This is being done in increasing numbers. It is being done because this Government is determined to spend the money to make those conditions appropriate. I do not refer only to the old housing. Innumerable new houses are being built. Everywhere one looks in Puckapunyal, carpenters, plumbers, painters and electricians are working. The new houses to which I have been invited are attractive. There is a modern style of housing. It provides excellent accommodation. I am proud to be a member of the Government which is doing this. I have only one criticism of what is occurring there-that is, the Public Service architects seem to lack a bit of finesse regarding the colour tones that they use. Pink and orange laminex in the kitchens does not quite seem to me to be a modern toning. The colours on the walls do not quite seem to be the pastel or the neutral colours that one would expect in a modern home. This means that the occupants, who must provide their own curtains-traditionally, they like to buy their own curtains-have great trouble in matching their curtains to the colour patterns being used by the architects. I hope that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who is listening carefully, tries to ensure that more neutral colours are used in the new housing so that at least the women who have to live in them can take curtains out of one house and know that they will match the colour scheme of the next Defence Force house they will move into. It is a very simple thing, but it is a matter which concerns people who are forced to shift, in a transient style, into this style of housing. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) told us the story of his living in tin sheds and the sorts of conditions he suffered as a member of the Royal Australian Air Force. I pondered while listening to him, with the attention I usually give to all honourable members, on how any member of the Defence Force in the days of conservative governments could have put up with those miserable conditions and could ever have joined a conservative party. After all, the conditions he was forced to endure, which he complained about tonight, were imposed on him by a conservative government. Yet he joined the Liberal Party, got elected, came into this place and told us about the terrible conditions he put up with from his own Party. I must confess that I was not quite sure whether the honourable member was making a policy statement, because his suggestion that expenditure would rise dramatically on-- Mr Halverson —What were you saying? Mr CLEELAND —I am glad that the honourable member has come into the chamber. I am interested to know why he joined the Liberal Party after having suffered the rotten conditions conservative governments imposed on him when he was in the defence forces. It is very strange why anyone who put up with those terrible conditions would ever have joined the party that imposed them on him. Never mind, he has made his choice and he is stuck with it. It is a pity that the debate on this good Bill has been debased by the Opposition. I have already condemned the honourable member for McPherson for his anti-feminist and very personal remarks about a very fine member of this Parliament, a person who has my respect and whom I was pleased to support for the ministry. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is well received by the Defence Force personnel. They know that she cares. They know that the Opposition does not care. They have a Minister who does care. That is very important to people. I am very pleased that she has this portfolio. I am very pleased that the Government is putting this Bill into legislative effect. It is an important Bill to those whom it will affect. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.52) —I fully appreciate the fact that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) would like to get the legislation through the Parliament as soon as she can. The debate today has focused attention on the problems of housing within the services. I have spoken to the Minister about matters concerning the Williamtown base and broadly of the defence services within Australia. I do not want my contribution to be political in any way. I would like very briefly to add a few words regarding my own concern about the problems. When it comes to defence, we have to appreciate that we have an obligation to give the Services not only the funding but also the support and conditions of service generally that we want them to have. Undoubtedly, over the years there has been a very severe neglect in this country's support for the Services in Australia. There are other matters, apart from housing, that affect servicemen. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) spoke briefly of superannuation and the conditions of pay. The families of the servicemen are concerned. I want to put in a word for them. I think the Minister may be annoyed that I am speaking. As a member of this House I am entitled to speak. I am sorry if I am holding up the House, but I do not apologise for speaking, even though my name did not appear on the list of members to speak on this Bill. I spoke on the Bill that came before the Parliament in April. At that time I pointed out very clearly my feelings about housing for service personnel and their families. I do not care whether the debate goes on all night. The servicemen's wives in my electorate were kind enough to talk to me about their personal problems. Yesterday I asked a question in the House concerning the safety of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and those serving in it, because of those who were leaving the Services. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) agrees with me on this matter as he is an ex-serviceman of the RAAF. Those problems exist today and it is up to us to debate them, to help those who have problems in the Services in their defence of Australia. We have an obligation to say something about them. What I want to say is this: over the years there has been a deterioration in the conditions of service for those men and women who are prepared to serve this country. Not only do they belong to the Services now; if an emergency were to arise, they would be called upon to go to any theatre of war on this globe. They would be called upon to defend Australia if the Government believed it was correct for them to do so. They would be called upon, as has happened in the past, to defend this continent. It is important that we recognise the contribution they make. They have a challenge today. If I served within the Services, I would look at the awards covering the pilots of Qantas Airways Ltd, Pan Am, Australian Airlines or some other company. If I were dissatisfied with my conditions of service I, too, might join one of those companies. I do not blame people for leaving the Services. I had a phone call in my electorate office this afternoon from a woman who said that she was the wife not of a pilot but of an ordinary RAAF person. She wanted the opportunity to talk to the Minister and the shadow Minister when they come to Williamtown. I am sure that both the Minister and the shadow Minister would be very pleased to talk to her. We are all part of a team in the defence of this country. We have committed ourselves; we have signed up for service and accepted pay that was conditional upon the conditions of service. That is what we have to realise. Other little extras were given that were important. As parliamentarians we know that if we want to remain happy in our job and work hard, we have to have the support of our wives and families. It is very important to go home at weekends to be met with a smile from the wife and the children. Mrs Kelly —I have trouble with that. Mr COWAN —I know the way the Minister feels because she has children herself. It is important to these servicemen, some of whom are serving up to 50 or 60 hours per week, to be able to go home to their families and receive a warm welcome. Housing is important to them. I served on the Joint Committee on Public Works for about five years. We went to Townsville, Darwin, Williamtown and elsewhere. That Committee suggested that the wives should be represented at hearings and that they should have the opportunity of saying to us where the laundry should be, or where the kitchen should be, or the cupboards, or the stairways. From the very day the wives came before the Public Works Committee, to my knowledge, we advanced in our recommendations on improving the quality of the homes we should be building for servicemen. This was a big step forward. These are simple, elementary matters. I appeal to the Minister to look at these things and to talk to the wives about the features of the new houses. Inherent in this legislation is the fact that this new Authority, or whatever the Government is going to call it, will charge rent that will make it pay. In other words, the money that is paid out for the erection, supervision and administration of homes has to be financially self-supporting. Mrs Kelly —None. Mr COWAN —I ask the Minister to give us some figures on this. I can tell her that the servicemen and their families are very concerned that rentals are going up. They are worried about conditions of service such as education, pay and superannuation. When the Minister comes to Williamtown with me, as I hope she will, she and I will be able to talk sensibly to people about these problems, because they are worried about them. We as a parliament have a tremendous responsibility. We may line up here to argue and put up stories against each other, but our arguments are designed for only one thing-better legislation for this country. They are designed to bring about sensible, practical legislation that will result in sensible housing with proper rentals for people who are subject to transfer year after year to and from any part of Australia or, if need be, any part of the globe. These are the things that we have to realise. I appeal to the Government to ensure that the efforts that it is making, both within this legislation and elsewhere, will be to the benefit of the servicemen and servicewomen and their families throughout Australia. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(10.02) —I take this opportunity to thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. It is very important in a debate such as this on defence issues, which has become very wide ranging, that we acknowledge the Government's responsibility to take action in the area of defence conditions, but I think we also need to acknowledge the responsibilities of the Opposition. The responsibility of members of the Opposition is to ensure that they are properly informed about defence service conditions and that they do not work to undermine the morale of the Services. One of the things that I am most concerned about in this debate is the fact that the Opposition is deliberately distorting many of the facts-and that is eroding morale. I think it is important that we try to develop a bipartisan approach on these issues, so that together we can work towards a stronger defence force with high morale. I am, however, appreciative of many of the points that have been raised in this debate, and I am particularly appreciative of the support that this legislation has from the Opposition. I wish to make a few comments on the substance of the points raised by members of the Opposition. Generally, the debate has been conducted along party lines, as to what we have done, what we should have done and what we have not done, but underlying all this is a commitment from this Government to improve service conditions, especially in the area of housing. We have before us tonight a concrete commitment of this Government to our services spouses and members of the defence services. I want to put on record the achievements of this Government in the housing area and compare them with the lack of achievements of the Opposition. Mr Halverson —That will not take long. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Casey makes an interjection. I must thank him for his important contribution to this debate. He highlighted the whole crux of this housing problem. He talked about his experience in Snake Creek. I was very sympathetic about his experience in Snake Creek, but I think his experience when he was a Royal Australian Air Force officer over a period of years highlights the housing problems that have existed in this country for a very long time. This is the first serious attempt by any government to address those problems. After all, when the honourable member's Party was in government it did not give a high priority to spending in the defence housing area, and that has been acknowledged during this by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). In fact, in the five years of this Government's administration, from 1983-84 to 1987-88, capital expenditure on defence housing totalled $259.5m. In the last five years of the previous Government, capital expenditure amounted to a mere $85.2m. In constant prices, this Government's capital outlays over the five-year period is double that of the previous Government over the same period. Mr Tim Fischer —Lies, damned lies and statistics. Mrs KELLY —They are not lies; they are simple facts. We have spent $2 to every one of the previous Government's on defence housing. Why have we had to do that? We have had to do it to live up to our commitment to the defence services because when we took over in government the conditions in the defence housing area were so poor. That has been reinforced by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) with his sad story about his life in Snake Creek. As this debate has gone on I have heard many such contributions. For example, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) talked about life in Puckapunyal when he took over as the local member. I had a similar story from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), who is at the table with me. He told me about his going to see Minister for Defence Killen and telling him about the problems he was having in his electorate. He said, `What sort of response did I get from the then Government? Nil'. The Defence Housing Authority Bill is absolutely historic. It is historic in that we are demonstrating our clear commitment to improving conditions in the defence services. I have to admit that we have a long way to go in improving housing and housing maintenance. One of the major things I think we need to do is renegotiate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. In the debate tonight many people have given examples of housing that is of poor standard and desperately in need of repair. One of the major reasons for that, particularly for the repair problem, has been that much of the repairs is done by the State governments. I am committed to renegotiating that agreement, because I want the very best deal possible for members of our defence services. I am sick of their living in areas which are considered purely welfare areas, and I want to see a major improvement in repairs. I was asked by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) what the Government's priorities are. I think repairs are a major priority. I think it is essential that we make maximum use of local contracts. I have already had representatives of the interim defence housing board come to see me, and I have told them that that is my priority, principally because it is very difficult to see any immediate impact from the establishment of this Authority in the building of houses. They take time to appear, but I think we should have some quick results in the area of repairs and maintenance, particularly with the use of local contractors. One of the possibilities that I would like to explore further is that of having some self-help projects, particularly on our larger bases. I think that, if the Authority supplied some of the equipment, some of the minor work could possibly be done by the defence service personnel and their families. Many of them get sick of waiting to have minor repairs done when, if we could give some assistance to them, they might be able to deal with it themselves. I do not want to abrogate our responsibility in this area, but I think together we can work to overcome this problem. Another matter raised with me was the issue of home ownership. This is an area about which I am very enthusiastic. There are all sorts of ways in which we can look at developing a home ownership scheme, and these are matters which I am examining now. The real housing disabilities of service families arise from their requirement to relocate frequently, and it is therefore essential that they have appropriate rental accommodation, but I think it is also important, particularly in today's modern age, to recognise that people, whether they are defence service personnel or not, want to own their own homes. One of the key things that I would like to achieve is greater home ownership amongst our defence service personnel. That is one of the positive aspects of providing a cash grant under the defence home loans scheme. Mr Halverson —An adequate cash grant? Mrs KELLY —An adequate cash grant is one thing. Mr White —You are talking a riot; you are talking nonsense. Mrs KELLY —An adequate cash grant is one thing. Basically, I do not think that we should totally dismiss the cash grant out of hand. I think that for many of our Defence Service families it may be an advantage to have a cash grant, rather than the long term loan. I think that it is essential that we have a very serious look at that, as we are doing in the course of this debate. Another point to which I want to refer concerns barracks accommodation. As honourable members will be aware, this legislation really does not deal with the issue of barracks accommodation. However, it is an important issue. I think that one of the key things which a government-and an opposition-needs to do all the time is to look at its priorities. Basically, I see our major priority as appropriately housing our families. That is the point of this legislation. However, it is still very important that we do not neglect our single personnel. Many of these personnel live off base because they say the barracks lack privacy. Barracks accommodation is special purpose and is located on base, whereas the housing required for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is no different from community needs generally. So at this stage the Defence Housing Authority is dealing with housing for families. Undoubtedly, over time, the Authority will be able to contribute to meeting the ADF's requirement for barracks. That may be a natural progression of its activities. In the first instance, however, I think it is important that we get it to concentrate on the housing task; recognising the extent of the problem that has to be faced. The Government is addressing the problem of barracks accommodation. In the last four years over $50m has been spent on this. Besides Tindal, other bases, that have had significant amounts spent on barracks are the Army base at Enoggera and the Royal Australian Air Force bases at East Sale and Williamtown. I noticed also when I was in Townsville that quite an amount was being spent at the base there. On present planning another $240m will be spent on barracks during the next five-year period. I think it is important that we still give some emphasis to the concerns of the single person. Many other issues have been canvassed in this debate. It has been a pretty free-ranging debate which has dealt with issues such as separation problems, the recommendations of the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses and on service conditions in general. I do not want to delve into these issues now as the hour is late and we have had considerable debate on them in the Parliament today-debate which I welcome. However I want to say in relation to the issue of separation that there is no doubt that we have a problem and we are looking at specific areas, for example, the separation of pilots, which has been raised by a couple of honourable members tonight. We are addressing those problems. There is no way that the Government will ignore them. Rather than throwing our hands up in despair we are targeting the areas we see as being of concern. We are looking at ways of addressing that problem, both in terms of working conditions and career opportunities and also in terms of what we can negotiate with potential employers such as Qantas Airways Ltd. We do not want to limit opportunities for people who want to leave the Services. We have a voluntary service. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to ensure that we get the best value from the people we train. Therefore, it is important that we keep as many people in the Services for as long as we can, particularly those who have cost a great deal of money to train. I am addressing many of the details of the implementation of the Hamilton report. One important initiative that has not been given enough attention relates to the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff which is being established throughout Australia. It involves a network of contacts to assist defence personnel in any problems that arise for them in adjusting to new bases. It is assisting defence families in adjusting to their lives in the defence services. I would also like to make a comment at this time about my consultant, Mrs Mayer, who has been much maligned in this debate tonight. First of all, a few facts need to be stated here. Mrs Mayer is receiving the salary of a Level 1 officer. I have no idea where the figure of half a million dollars that the Opposition is raising all the time comes from. Mr White —We are asking how many staff are in the office, and so on. Mrs KELLY —I have actually answered these questions before. I find that the Opposition never seems to listen to the answers. As an opposition it has a responsibility not to distort the facts. Mrs Mayer has been appointed by me as a consultant-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mrs Kelly-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mrs KELLY —I thank the House. Mrs Mayer is employed as a consultant. Her terms of reference primarily are to deal with one of the major recommendations of the Hamilton report, that is, to deal with service conditions as they relate to State government matters. I refer to issues that cross State boundaries and, as an example, I mention adoption. I cannot see any reason why defence service families do not have the same right to adopt children as do the other members of our community. One of the major problems we have now is that if defence families cross State boundaries they can lose their places on adoption lists. This is an issue that crosses State boundaries and requires negotiation with State governments. That is one of the issues she is addressing. Mr White-Does this require an adviser? Mrs KELLY —What we need to do is to implement such recommendations. I know quite clearly what needs to be achieved for our defence service personnel in these matters. We also have clear discrepancies with car registrations as we cross State boundaries. Mr White-Does this require an adviser? Mrs KELLY —These are matters that have to be clearly negotiated with State governments. I think that these are issues of great concern to our Defence Force personnel. I do not want a report; what I want is some action in these areas. This is a major recommendation of the Hamilton report. The other fact that should be stated quite categorically is that Mrs Mayer is earning only a Level 1 salary. She does not have any formal support staff. She has the use of a steno-secretary from the Department of Defence and works out of a Defence office in Melbourne. That is it. I will go back to the substance of this debate about the housing issue. I appreciated the comments raised by several honourable members about the role of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses. I also am very enthusiastic about having the Group's advice on defence housing issues. Honourable members who are interested in the details of this legislation will know that clause 24 (9) of the Bill provides for the Authority to ask people to attend meetings. I am going to request the Authority to invite the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses to send a spouse to attend the meetings. My view is that in the longer term we will have that Group formally represented on the Authority when we bring in future amendments to the legislation. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) raised the subject of quangos and the need for these authorities to stick to their tasks. I could not agree with him more. I have always been an opponent of the formation of statutory authorities. However, I think in this instance we have a need for a statutory authority with some flexibility. All honourable members who have contributed to the debate have talked about the restrictions in providing defence housing. It has always been done according to certain specifications. I have heard the most bizarre stories about people who were not entitled, for example, to a house with an ensuite and so the ensuite was ripped out. These are the bizarre sorts of things that apply as a result of rules and regulations. One of the advantages of the Authority is its flexibility. I hope that the Authority will address issues such as the one raised by the honourable member for McEwen that related to the colour of the walls. I cannot see any reason in the world why one should have to have 11 pairs of curtains if one has 11 postings. Surely there are some standards by which we can abide so we do not have to go through this nonsense. These are the advantages of an independent authority. I give this House a guarantee that I will be watching the work of the Authority like a hawk. The Authority has as its charter the need to provide defence housing for our service personnel. I have asked it to give emphasis to repairs of defence housing. I will ensure that it does that. If it does not, I will be back here to tell honourable members why it does not. If it does not, I will abolish it. That is the commitment I give this House. Before I conclude this debate, I would like to make particular reference to the issue of rents. I do not want a debate starting in the community that the establishment of this Authority means that there will be an increase in rents. That is not the case. I want to make it very clear that we do have a system of subsidised rents for defence service personnel and that that will continue. The way this Authority will work is that it will charge commercial rents to the Department of Defence, but the Department of Defence will then subsidise the homes of the defence service personnel. This legislation does not mean that there will be an end to subsidised rentals. The Government agrees that Australian Defence Force rents should be at subsidised levels. This Government has been the first to adopt a set of principles on the provision of housing for its employees among which is a recognition of the need to compensate personnel for housing related disabilities arising from frequent relocation. That is an important commitment of this Government. As I said, I do not want any furphies circulating around our defence forces that it is anything but that. Finally, I conclude by thanking all the members for their contributions-the honourable member for McPherson, the honourable member for Farrer, the honourable member for Hughes, the honourable member for Casey, the honourable member for Hunter, the honourable member for Herbert, the honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for McEwen. I think it has been a very useful debate. It has been a fairly far-reaching debate but it does indicate that this Government is prepared to do a lot more than talk about defence conditions; it is actually prepared to deliver. It is setting up a new authority. It will give priority to repairs and it is very committed to the improvement of the defence services. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Kelly) read a third time. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.23) —Over recent years I have had occasion to complain about developments with the administration of tax law and particularly as it applied to pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayers. My concern has stemmed mainly from increases in discretionary power which has been conferred by successive Acts of Parliament and amendments on the Commissioner of Taxation. In recent times my objections and concerns have been heightened; in particular, I refer to developments in Perth involving certain members-I emphasise the words `certain members'-of the Australian Taxation Office in Perth. What is happening is tantamount to horse trading by public servants in a way which this Parliament certainly never intended when it passed the relevant laws which enable that sort of behaviour to take place. It has become worse than that in Perth in recent times. I have no hesitation in using the adjectives `intimidation' and even `extortion' when referring to the techniques employed by some officers of the Australian Taxation Office in Perth. Worse than that, although there is no evidence that there has been corruption in the sense that individuals in the Taxation Office may gain something personally, there is a great potential for corruption under the Act as it stands now and particularly in the way it is approached by these certain people to whom I have referred. It has already been noticed in the Press that the Australian Taxation Office, like any branch of the civil service, is not immune from corruption of one sort or another. In fact, we have seen recent reports of there being some sort of a drug distribution network in the Australian Taxation Office in Perth. I only mention that to indicate that the possibilities for malpractice of all sorts exist. There are allegations, there has been one reported arrest and I understand that the Australian Federal Police is pursuing investigations in respect of certain other officers. The most blatant and very serious breach, and the only one in my time in this Parliament that I have heard of, is a reported breach, an alleged breach, of the section 16 secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act by a particular officer whom I shall not name because it is not important for me to do so here tonight. It involved the disclosure to an unrelated third party of the details of an investigation into a pay as you earn taxpayer. That taxpayer is Ms Alison Fan. I will not go into the circumstances that led up to the particular instance I want to mention here tonight although, in themselves, they give cause for great complaint. The fact is that an officer of the Taxation Office, in discussions with an unrelated third party who happens to be a tax accountant, but nothing to do with Ms Fan's affairs, disclosed the details of the original assessment and what eventually happened because she had the gall to resist and to question the investigators involved in that particular exercise. There were other doubtful and perhaps illegal practices included in the same conversation by the same gentleman to the same unrelated third party involving the impersonation of medical practitioners to obtain information from Medicare. But I shall not go into that. The clear objective of this gentleman was to persuade this unrelated third party, the accountant acting on behalf of a couple of clients, that resistance to their assessments and their opinions was pointless. If that resistance took place, they could expect the same treatment, the same doubtful treatment, handed out to my constituent, Ms Fan. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.28) —I would like to raise in the House tonight the galling presumption of some people. I received through the Parliament House internal mail system a letter from a Jo Vallentine who is a senator in this Parliament. She sends me a copy of a notice of eviction to the Government of the United States of America. She and 10 other people here purport to sign for the people of Australia. There is absolutely nothing to give these people the authority to sign. Let us look at this motley collection of people. There are a couple I know. I notice that Jean Jenkins's signature appears on this notice. She is also a senator and that is probably her only claim to fame. They are the most motley collection of old women of all ages one has ever met in one's life. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the honourable member goes any further, I remind him of standing order 76. He must not cast aspersions upon or impugn any member of this House or the Senate. He should be careful how he proceeds. Mr CAMPBELL —I am not impugning her; I am in fact praising her for her enormous gall. She has pomposity beyond imagination. I feel humbled by the magnitude of this woman. She talks about Pine Gap as some threat to Australia, when it is quite clear that she, as a senator, has had briefings on the purpose of Pine Gap. There is no doubt that Pine Gap performs a very useful function in controlling arms proliferation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. She signs this letter, `Yours sincerely, towards peace and justice'. I am told that during the Vietnam war this honourable lady, this senator, was a member of the National Party of Australia. These ghastly rumours do circulate, and I am not prepared to say that I believe that, but it does have a ring of truth. How anyone could be a member of the National Party and sign a letter `towards peace and justice' I do not know. I would hesitate to criticise, and I would not do so, because I am in absolute awe and admiration of the senator's enormous gall. The danger with this group of people is that they are likely to extend their endeavours from Pine Gap to other resources, and I have heard that they have targeted the North West Cape installation, which happens to be in my elec- torate. The North West Cape is the one facility in Australia that enables us to talk to our submarines-there is no other way to do so. If the Americans are forced out of that facility, it simply means that we have to bear the entire cost of talking to our submarines. As a taxpayer, I object strongly to that. It would be counterproductive, and would serve no useful purpose, to close that facility. I believe that these people know this. They know the facts, but they proceed to distort them. This does not surprise me. I spent four hours on an aeroplane flying between Perth and Sydney, and to while away the time, I decided that I would try to educate Senator Jo Vallentine. I have always had this yen to be a kindergarten teacher. I explained to the senator the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation. I explained it in great detail and in simplistic terms so that even she could understand it. Two weeks later, she was down in Esperance talking to my branch of the Australian Labor Party, which has in it some people who also need a little education. I said to one of my members, `Ask Jo what the difference between alpha, beta and gamma radiation is, because although I spent four hours talking to her, I will guarantee that she does not know'. He put the question to her and, as I predicted, she did not know. I find it hard, Madam Speaker, to stand up here, before you all, and admit my abject failure as a kindergarten teacher. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.32) —It is with grave concern that I view the Government's intention to establish a casino on Christmas Island. In this regard I draw the attention of the House to the damning conclusion that the Hon. Mr Justice Moffitt wrote in 1974 to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Gaming Industry in New South Wales: There appears to be a very real danger that Organised Crime from overseas will infiltrate this country in a substantial fashion. If it does there will be little appearance of its arrival and it will be difficult and probably impossible to eradicate it. Its arrival is unlikely to be signalled by the arrival or activities of armed gangsters with black shirts and white ties. More likely it will arrive within the Trojan Horse of legitimate business, fashioned for concealment and apparent respectability by the witting or unwitting aid of expert accountants, lawyers and businessmen. Now, in relation to Christmas Island, we have the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), in a reply to a question without notice on 7 October last, stating: A condition of the development was that a casino operator be found who would be suitable to the Commonwealth and would pass the most rigorous examination of his credentials by the Australian Federal Police. The Minister then went on to name Federal Hotels Ltd as the casino operator. This rigorous examination by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) was in fact carried out by Detective Inspector Symons. I cast no doubts on the integrity of the AFP but I do have concerns about, for want of a better phrase, the terms of reference given to the AFP for its examination. Surely, had the examination been in depth, it would have found the following disturbing facts. In the second tender for the Darling Harbour Casino, Federal Hotels Ltd entered a partnership with Sabemo and Resorts International. As Bob Bottom pointed out to the Connor Inquiry into Casinos in Victoria: Resorts International opened the first casino in Atlantic City. It has had problems in that executives have been charged also with rackets, one racket in particular involving fraud involving four point something million dollars. It should also be noted that Resorts International, formally known as the Mary Carter Paint Company, had some of its notorious activities in the Bahamas and elsewhere exposed by the New Jersey Gaming Division. Federal's other partner in the New South Wales casino application, Sabemo, a subsidiary of Transfield, also has a record of dubious practice. Two executives of Sabemo, Vittorio Moratelli and Paul Salteri, admitted to a Sydney judge that a sham construction contract was used in an attempt to evade tax on the $25 million Blue Cow ski resort in the snowfields of New South Wales. Peter Wolfe, a director of Federal Hotels, has had a long association with Neil Ohlsson, a former director of Federal Hotels. Ohlsson has, over a long period, had an involvement with United States of America Mafia figures, including Rudy Tham and Jimmy Fratianno. Ohlsson also has a close association with Mr Bela Csidei, who, according to United States police sources, has been observed on many occasions meeting with Fratianno, Tham and Rizzitello a former member of the Gallo Mafia organisation in New York. Peter Wolfe is also Chairman of Datronics Graphics Systems Pty Ltd and is associated with International Gaming Technology (IGT) in Australia. Datronics was an applicant for an amusement device dealer's licence in New South Wales with IGT supplying the machines. IGT is known to have had links here with Len Ainsworth and in the United States with Bally Corporation. Bally, of course, has a long record of corrupt dealings. Surely the above information would have been discovered by Detective Inspector Symons in his examination of Federal Hotels. That makes it all the more difficult to understand how a company so closely associated with companies and individuals involved in organised crime has received clearance from the AFP and the Government to receive a casino licence. I turn now to the intriguing subject of air services to and from Christmas Island. Currently, a number of different types of aircraft use the airfield facilities on Christmas Island. However, in Annexure D of the Heads of Agreement document it is specified, in part, that the aerodrome is approved for use by BAe 146 aircraft only. On page 16 of the document under the heading `Air Services' it is made quite clear that the developer is to ensure that provision is made for an air uplift capability of both cargo and passengers to and from Perth and Asian ports. In this case an ``Asian port'' means any or all of Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. Specifying an aircraft type is a most unusual step. However when closer examination is made of the BAe 146, a little light begins to be thrown on the possible reason for the decision. One company has purchased, or has the option on, 72 BAe 146s. That is the entire production run for the next five or so years. A subsidiary of this company currently operates a small number of this aircraft type in Western Australia. The company operating the aircraft in Western Australia is Ansett W.A. and the parent company purchasing the 72 BAe 146s is Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd (TNT). The question arises: Is this an attempt to give TNT/Ansett a backdoor opening into the international passenger market in direct competition with Qantas Airways Ltd? I ask the House: Is the Government now paying off its debts? Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.37) —It was the British author J. B. Priestley who wrote: A rationalisation of industry that suddenly leaves a whole mass of men sinking into the bog of permanent unemployment cannot be very rational. In the years 1982 and 1983, the Big Australian, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP), decided the time had come to conduct just such a rationalisation of its steel-making operations-and some 15,000 people lost their jobs. Today BHP is talking about the need to restructure its steel-making operations yet again. In her excellent and thought-provoking book Steel City Blues, which is aptly subtitled The Human Cost of Industrial Crisis, Julianne Schultz well describes the human consequences of BHP's restructuring process earlier this decade. She said: Restructuring is used in Australia as a piece of euphemistic shorthand, as is `increasing productivity', to signify reducing the workforce and increasing output . . . Profits certainly do increase, and industries `survive' by this method. But the question of the human cost is left unanswered. In February 1984, when it had completed its previous restructuring, BHP was able to announce a half-yearly profit of $38.1 million from its steel-making division. It was a dramatic turnaround from its previous year's enormous steel-making losses. But, as Julianne Schultz says, both the steel division profit and the 15,000 people who no longer worked for BHP were the enduring testament to this wonderful exercise in restructuring. Of those 15,000 people, 8,000 lived in the Wollongong area. Today many of them are still out of work, as are many other people who subsequently lost their jobs through the multiplier effect. Things were not always this way with the Big Australian. Back in the late fifties, and into the sixties and seventies, BHP went from strength to strength. Productivity increased with improved steel-making capacity and profits went up and up, enhanced as they were by a vigorous export trade. And underlying this wonderful expansion were the blood, sweat and toil of its coal miners and steel-workers. Back in the 1960s, BHP had little difficulty in financing its costly developments. As its profits went up, thanks largely to its steel-making, BHP was able to attract the necessary capital to finance its expansion into other areas of industry, notably gas and oil production and the export of coal, iron ore and other minerals. But make no mistake about this. The basis of this highly profitable expansion was always the profits made in BHP's steel-working division-and the basis of those profits were the men and women who worked in its steel mills and coal mines. Today, BHP says it must lift its steel-making productivity to higher levels. I do not contest this. Nor do I contest the need for greater efficiency. What does cause me grave concern, however, is that BHP now says it must shed another 2,600 jobs at its Port Kembla steel-works as part of this new phase of restructuring. It is estimated that the loss of 2,600 jobs at the Port Kembla steelworks could mean the overall loss of some 7,500 jobs in the Illawarra area. BHP Port Kembla says that its original intention was to lift productivity by spending $183m to rebuild its No. 4 blast furnace, which would markedly increase iron and steel production. Now it says it cannot raise the finance to do so. Since BHP cannot lift its productivity by increasing its output, the only alternative is to reduce its work force. The question is: Just as BHP once used its steel-making profits to develop into other highly profitable areas of industrial activity, why cannot the Big Australian now turn around and use its profits from these newer areas of activity to finance the updating of its iron and steel-making at Port Kembla? BHP's answer is that there has been a policy change. Once it had a policy of cross-subsidisation of its various areas of activity; now it has a policy of no cross-subsidisation. And the people who will suffer from this new policy are the very people who, by their toil, helped BHP become what it is today. BHP says it can shed the jobs at Port Kembla by the end of 1988 through a process of natural attrition and the voluntary retirement scheme. The steelworking unions question whether this can be done-and so do I. This much I do know: the steel plan expires at the end of next year. Under the steel plan, the company agreed there would be no further retrenchments during the life of the plan. But once the plan expires at the end of 1988, BHP will not be so bound-and it has recently announced that it does not intend to embark on a renewed steel plan. It is the old story of the free enterprise system: the more capital one has, the freer one is to enter into enterprises which influence one's productivity and one's profit making ability-and if in the process one must consign to oblivion one's workers and their families, that is just too bad. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.42) —As honourable members would know, Australian merino breeders are restricted to a quota of 500 rams per year that can be sent overseas. Though I do not agree with that restriction, I want to speak of the requirement which states that whatever of these rams are sold to overseas interests should be sold not only though the auction system but at designated auctions. The reasons we are given for this are: firstly, so the authorities can keep tabs on the number sold and regulate anything pertaining to these sales, as authorities like to do; and, secondly, so that any Australian buyer will have a chance to bid on any ram that is eligible for overseas sale. That may sound reasonable but only about 0.1 per cent of total rams sold in Australia go overseas. In other words, 99.9 per cent are sold to local, domestic buyers. Therefore, the overall effect on prices from the sale of rams for overseas should be negligible. However, because this overseas buying is concentrated in only a few designated sales this can have a distorting effect on the market. It can force up the price of rams at these sales, which is a visible effect. Though this is good for stud breeders, it raises the ire of commercial buyers and stirs up the emotions of many associated with the wool industry. For these reasons, I believe the designated sales requirement should be done away with. It should at least be greatly modified, especially where it has wasteful consequences. A classic example of this occurred recently in my electorate of Parkes. It took place at last week's Dubbo Merino Sheep Show, which is the largest of its type in the world. At this show were some 70 merino rams from the Lewisdale merino stud of East Wickepin in Western Australia. They were tall, rangy, long-bodied, plain sheep with open horns and a very hardy constitution. Their wool fibre diameter ranged from 23 to 27 micron, with some kemp fibres protruding from the body of the fleece. These rams had in fact already been `purchased' by Algerian buyers at Lewisdale quite some time ago. They were just what the Algerians were looking for: hardy sheep with meat characteristics that would survive in the harshness of the Algerian climate. They were in fact similar to the type of sheep that China is looking for, only that country is somewhat more fussy about the wool characteristics. In short, the sheep were ideal for overseas buyers but not particularly sought after by the buyers at the Dubbo Sheep Show. Consequently, when they came up for auction all were `sold' to Algeria. Not one Australian bought one of those rams, which averaged, I believe, $731, for a gross price of just over $50,000. Why were these Western Australian sheep being sold at Dubbo in New South Wales? It was because Dubbo was the only available designed auction sale remaining this year and, because of deadlines, if those sheep were not sold and loaded within two days of the auction the whole sale would have fallen through. In fact, there were only four designated auctions across Australia, each starting with a quota of 125 rams that could be sold overseas. So as soon as those 70 rams were `sold' they immediately had to be loaded on to a truck and taken as fast as possible back across the continent to Western Australia to Fremantle where they had to be loaded on a ship there destined to sail within 48 hours to the Middle East. I am delighted to announce that because of the driving skills of the truck driver those rams just made it in time. However, Mr Ray Lewis, the owner, whom I spoke to at Dubbo, told me of the costs involved. There was $4,000 freight each way; air fares to and from Western Australia for Mr Lewis and the three or four people who accompanied him; accommodation, wages and other incidentals for these people; and $30 a ram pen fee in Dubbo plus feed and so on-a total of $14,000 to $15,000 completely down the tubes. That is, almost 30 per cent of the gross for those rams at the sale was totally wasted. The whole manner in which rams for export are sold needs total revision. Personally, I believe the designated auction system should be scrapped. However, at the very least we must have some changes. For example, there is no reason why those rams that were auctioned could not have been sold by video. That would have saved over $2,000 in pen fees alone, let alone the $8,000 in freight costs and so on. Obviously a better system has to be worked out whereby the rams can be inspected on the farms beforehand and perhaps go through the health protocol tests there before being offered for sale. The potential for overseas sales of even the types of rams that Australian wool growers do not want is quite substantial. Those involved should get together to devise the best system that will benefit everyone and cut out this nonsensical sort of consequence I have just spoken about. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.47) —I am pleased to see the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), in the chamber tonight because I wish to make a few comments on the welcome home parade for Vietnam veterans which was organised for 3 October in Sydney. The welcome home parade was a great success. The point I wish to take issue with is some comments made on that welcome home parade by Senator Jo Vallentine. The comments made tonight by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) have not triggered my adjournment speech but I think a few things have to be said. I wish to quote from a Press report which was run on Monday 5 October under the headline `Parade ``an insult'' '. It states: Today's welcome-home parade in Sydney for Vietnam veterans only adds insult to their sufferings, West Australian Senator Jo Vallentine, said yesterday. ``Instead of a parade, these people deserve an apology for being sent to fight America's war,'' she said. Senator Vallentine said there was no doubt the veterans and their families had suffered greatly and deserved full support and compassion. ``But we must not lose sight of the fact that they were not serving Australia's interests in Vietnam,'' she said. ``They were serving the overseas interests of the United States. ``Tomorrow's welcome-home parade, 15 years after the soldiers were brought home, only adds insult to what they have already suffered.'' Madam Speaker, I believe that a very large number of Vietnam veterans would consider those comments made by Senator Vallentine grossly insulting. The Vietnam veterans simply obeyed the law of the land which was established by the Government which was elected at that time by the Australian people. Many Vietnam veterans suffered great physical and psychological damage as a result of their service in Vietnam. I know that there are many honourable members in this House, including the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, who have fought over many years to protect the rights of veterans, including some who perhaps have suffered as a result of the spraying of agent orange and other defoliants in Vietnam. Madam Speaker, I think comments made by other people who marched in the parade perhaps better express the views of Australians. In the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr John Mathew, who was one of the Vietnam veterans who marched on that day, made the following comments: When we marched down those streets yesterday we really knew we had come home at last. We could feel the bitterness, the hate and the misunderstanding washing away with every step we took. The fact that the many tens of thousands of Australians from Sydney and other places who attended that welcome home parade stood and applauded for I think more than 90 minutes as the parade marched past said a great deal for the affection which those who turned out had for the veterans who had returned home. I quote another comment from the march's chief organiser, Mr Peter Poulton: After the march, fellows kept coming up to me and saying, `This is the greatest thing that ever happened'. They said it felt like they had just come home-that it was the end of the war.' Mr Poulton went on to say that there were plans for the establishment of a national memorial in Canberra for those who served in Vietnam and that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had made some encouraging comments. Tonight I simply place on record my support for the establishment of a commemorative memorial in Canberra for those who served in Vietnam. In my own local area, the Central Coast and Hunter Valley Vietnam Veterans Association was closely associated with the welcome home parade in Sydney. Organisers and members of the Central Coast and Hunter Valley Vietnam Veterans Association, such as Gordon Reed, Ken Bott and Ted Eaves, put a lot of work into organising and transporting Central Coast and Hunter Valley veterans to that march in Sydney. At the moment, they are seeking to encourage community support for the establishment of a hostel for Vietnam veterans and their dependants on the central coast. I hope that that receives sympathetic consideration from the Government in the coming months. Once again, I condemn Senator Jo Vallentine's comments. I think she was seeking to score a few cheap political points from a march organised by people of all shades of political opinion and sympathy who wanted to give Vietnam veterans who suffered psychological and physical damage a great experience. I think the march was greatly appreciated by all Vietnam veterans who were able to get to Sydney. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.52) —Earlier this evening, during debate on the Defence Housing Authority Bill, the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) posed a question which I would like to take this opportunity to answer. He referred to my recollections of the rigours of service life at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Snake Creek and correctly pointed out that at the time my family and I were posted there a Liberal government was directing the destiny of this nation. He also quite correctly said that the appalling housing conditions to which I alluded during my speech were a result of the policies of the then Liberal Government. Why, he asked, would anybody who had supposedly suffered at the hands of the Liberals want to join them, let alone represent them in this Parliament? The answer is very simple, and it is summed up very adequately in the words used by the late Sir Robert Menzies, in his opening address to the conference which he convened in Canberra in October 1944-some 43 years ago, give or take a week or two-and which resulted in the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia. At that time the then Mr Menzies said: What we must look for, and it is a matter of desperate importance to our country, is a true revival of liberal thought, which will work for social justice and security, for national power and national progress, and for the full development of the individual citizen . . . though not through the dull and deadening process of socialism. I believe he was right. And because I believed in the sentiments he expressed in that speech-sentiments which are embodied in the policies and philosophies of the Liberal Party, I joined that Party-that is why I represent the Liberal Party in this Parliament today. I must admit that I did consider the alternatives. I considered them carefully, and I rejected them totally. And as I contemplate the so-called program of reforms initiated by this Labor Government-reforms which it claims are aimed at building a fairer and more compassionate Australian society and which entail, in Labor's words, `The continued acceptance by the whole community of the need for hard decisions which will be necessary to overcome the basic problems facing this nation'-I wonder just how sincere the Labor Party actually is. On the one hand, this Government speaks of a fairer and more compassionate society; whilst, on the other, it vigorously pursues policies which, by any definition, are discriminatory both in theory and in practice. There is really no need for the whole community to steel itself to accept the hard decisions, because in fact the whole community is not usually involved; it is the middle-class, middle-income earners, veterans, senior citizens, small business people and those on fixed incomes who are the most popular and, in many cases, the most vulnerable `hard decision' targets. Our present socialist ship of state and all who sail in her, including the honourable member for McEwen, are well and truly headed for the rocks-very likely those on the Argentinean coastline. As they contemplate the social, moral and economic wreck that is the result of their ill-founded endeavours, perhaps they will have time to recall these words of Adlai Stevenson: More important than winning elections is governing the nation. That is the test of a political party-the acid, final test. Mr Hand —What a ridiculous statement! We have just been re-elected. Mr HALVERSON —That is the acid and final test, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should take cognisance of that. Perhaps it is taking longer than most of us expected-and certainly longer than this country can afford-but it is a test that this Government will eventually fail. Unfortunately, the honourable member for McEwen will lose his seat at the next election; otherwise, I would have been delighted to have debated the issue with him further when I serve my third term and my first term as a member of the next Liberal government. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.57) —I hope I can make my speech after hearing the last comments of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), because I was just about doubled up on the floor laughing. The next Liberal Party government will not come about until the year 2050, I would say. Honourable members opposite would be about the most hopeless mob I have seen. In the short time that I have been a member of this Parliament I have never had such a laugh as when I look at honourable members opposite. Look at the Opposition front bench-there is no one there. Who will take over when John Howard goes-Andrew Peacock? No. Will it be John Elliott? No. There is no one else who can do the job. Honourable members opposite are hopeless-they must admit that. There are stacks of members on this side, backbenchers ready to support the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and take over any role asked of them. We can do it, but there is nothing on the other side of the House-the talent has gone. One has only to look at the last Federal election Where did the Liberal Party of Australia win? Hardly anywhere throughout Australia-it was hopeless. I have not risen this evening to speak on the Liberal Party in the brief time available to me-that is just a waste of time. I refer to what the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) was speaking about-the Vietnam veterans march in Sydney some time ago. I was very pleased to be able to attend that march and I was honoured to represent the people of Dunkley at that march. I saw the faces of the veterans-the men and women-who took part, and they certainly were pleased to be able to receive a long overdue welcome. However, I must admit that during the Vietnam war I protested against the then Government. I was one of the radicals who marched up and down Bourke Street at the time and actually laid down in Bourke Street and was threatened with arrest. At the time I worked for a firm known as Spicer's Business Machines-it is no longer in business so I can say this, and the manager will not get the sack-and the manager threatened me with the sack if I attended that march. I told him that he could sack me, but he did not do that because I was making too much money for the firm. At the time I believed that what I was doing was right and I was proven correct in the succeeding period. The Vietnam war was phoney-it was a false war set up by some people to make a lot of money, which they did. Many people died; many were wounded and maimed and will be scarred for the rest of their lives because of the greed of a few people. The Vietnam war was wrong and the Government was wrong in sending Australian troops. The people who took part in the decision-making to send Australian men and women to Vietnam did the wrong thing. I will never forget them and I will never forgive them because they ruined many lives and many families. Mr Lee —It was not the veterans' fault. Mr CHYNOWETH —The veterans had nothing to do with it. They were obeying orders, doing what they were told at the time was correct. It was the fault of the Government at the time. The Ministers involved in deciding to send Australian men and women to Vietnam should hang their heads in shame. That was one of the reasons, you could say, why I joined the Australian Labor Party. At the time I was not a member of any political party and, in fact, I did not join until eight or nine years ago. But that must have influenced my thinking-the wrong decisions made by a conservative government. It was wrong to send our people to Vietnam to fight in a phoney war. However, as I said, it was pleasing to go to Sydney about a month ago and see these men and women march. They were pleased and there was a lot of very proud faces. I can assure the people who took part in the march that I was proud to be there to see them return home and receive the welcome that was due and fitting for the amount of effort that they put into protecting the cherished ideals of this nation, although those ideals were falsified by the Government of the day. What the then conservative Government did at that time was wrong-it will always be wrong and I will always remember that. That is one reason why I will stand and do my utmost to prevent a government of that type being elected to this Parliament again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Peter Morris to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fisheries Act 1952 to give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America, and for other purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to repeal or amend certain laws in consequence of the enactment of the Extradition Act 1987, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to the extradition of persons to and from Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to the transfer of certain proceedings from the Federal Court of Australia to the Family Court of Australia and the exercise of certain jurisdiction and powers of the Family Court, and for other purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the War Crimes Act 1945. Mr Duncan to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 October 1987: Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for Pipeline Authority purposes, N.S.W. Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 8-Marine, Part 2.