Thursday, 29 October 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 2 November, at 2 p.m.; Tuesday, 3 November, at 3 p.m.; Wednesday, 4 November, at 10 a.m.; Thursday, 5 November, at 10 a.m. For the benefit of those honourable members who might not have had a close look at the motion, it takes into account our recognition of the cultural event that will take place next Tuesday. We will start slightly later so as not to interrupt honourable members' interest in this great cultural event. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.02) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Before I proceed to speak on the Bill I would like to make a couple of comments in response to the address by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) last evening on the Bill. He attacked the economic record of the Government. I might say that he has a particularly short memory as he was a supporter of the Government that saw the greatest Budget explosion in this country's history when the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer. His bungling led to a deficit blowout from $1,760m to an estimated $9 1/2 billion. The honourable member also made a comment about the cost of computers. It is not really the responsibility of the Government to purchase computers for the pharmacists. Many of the pharmacists in my area have investigated the matter and found a far more useful machine. As the honourable member said, the Government is encouraging the pharmacists, by use of an incentive, to move into this area to facilitate the payment system. If it suits both parties I think that is a benefit all round. The honourable member forgot to mention during his address that the pharmaceutical benefits scheme now contains a safety net, which has been particularly useful. When the Australian Labor Party Government came to office in 1983, the Commonwealth's pharmaceutical benefits scheme was just trundling along, as it had been for some time, contributing toward the cost of a wide range of drugs supplied on the prescription of doctors and dentists without much consideration to cost effectiveness. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, as its name suggests, monitored the list of drugs available on the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits for subsidy under the scheme, as it still does. This Bill makes some changes to the guidelines on which the Committee will advise the Government and it also strengthens support for the work of the Committee. The Government will be asking the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to take factors other than therapeutic efficacy into consideration when recommending that a drug be put on the list. A drug being on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule practically ensures its wide use. The Government is now indicating to the Committee that it should, to use the words of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys): give consideration to alternative forms of treatment, for example, surgery, in making recommendations. The Committee will not be allowed to recommend the listing of a particular drug which is substantially more costly, unless it is satisfied that, at least for patients, the drug provides significant therapeutic advantages over alternative therapy. Currently, nearly 600 ready prepared drugs are available on the pharmaceutical benefits list, and they come in over 1,200 forms and strengths. As well, there are nearly 2,000 manufacturer's brands which may be prescribed from the list. It is a comprehensive list of drugs which provide suitable therapy for most medical conditions. As we all know, eligible pensioners and their dependants-and at the moment there are about 2.4 million of those-can get pharmaceutical benefits free of charge. Low income earners, including unemployed beneficiaries and other pensioners who are not entitled to fringe benefits, pay a patient contribution of $2.50. Words like `pharmaceutical benefits' sometimes do not mean much to people who are affected by changes of this sort. It is easy for us to forget that people out there deal in much more basic terms. I know that `scheduled pharmaceutical benefits' is the correct terminology, but it is more commonly known, and somewhat inaccurately, as the free list. I shall use the correct term-namely, `pharmaceutical benefits'. I want to make clear that what we are really talking about here are medicines and the cost of prescriptions. When the measures in the Bill are translated into those simple terms I think everybody will begin to listen. We all know that the cost of medicines has risen, and that being so it is quite obvious that the cost to the Government must have risen as well. In our first two Budgets of 1983-84 and 1984-85 this Government held the price of benefits under this scheme to $2 for concessional beneficiaries and $4 for the general public. The charge for the general public rose to $5 in July 1985. Then, in the 1986 Budget, we signalled some major changes to be implemented in November of that year. The major change was a very important innovation for families and the chronically ill, and I refer to the safety net provisions. I want to spend some little time on this because it is to important. It is a new concept in this area, and it is such a rational, humane and practical one that it deserves commendation from us all. The major problem facing governments is the need to contain costs. As the Minister said in his second reading speech: If these changes- that is, the November 1986 changes to which I have just referred- had not been implemented, expenditure on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would have reached an estimated $970m in 1987-88, an increase of 58 per cent in the two years since 1985-86. Responsible governments are always faced with cost-service dilemmas. We cannot ignore the cost of programs. But this Government is not in the business of harming those who are the most vulnerable in our society, namely, the ill and the infirm. It was necessary to come up with a way of protecting those needing constant medication from the cost burden of expensive drugs. Thus, the `safety net' system was devised. For both the general public and people who have concession cards, after a patient has used 25 pharmaceutical benefit scheme prescriptions in one calendar year any further prescriptions on the scheme will be provided absolutely free of charge. However, this does not happen by magic: after an individual or a family has been supplied with 25 pharmaceutical benefit scheme prescriptions in a calendar year, that person or family becomes eligible for the issue of a pharmaceutical benefit entitlement card, and after that, of course, any further prescriptions will be free. In other words, we have provided protection for the chronically ill by placing a ceiling on the amount that an individual or family will have to pay for pharmaceutical benefits from January to December each year. In fact, on average, the ceiling-that is, the full quota of 25 pharmaceutical benefit scheme prescriptions registered with a pharmacist for an individual or a family-should cost the patient about $185. At the same time, the Government has entered into a pricing agreement with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia which has ensured that a wide range of essential medication will continue to be available to the general public at sensible and affordable prices. Certainly, the rest of us will be sharing some financial cost because the charge for us was increased at the same time as the safety net provisions came into being. A maximum of $10-I say `maximum', because many drugs will be available for less than that-has been introduced for those of us who are not recognised as low income earners. I have no intention of being defensive about this extra cost to people like us. I contend that it is entirely appropriate that those of us who enjoy good health and good incomes should help to subsidise the costs of those who are less fortunate. The safety net is not a burden on those who are healthy, although it is available to all of us should we need it. Hopefully, most of us will not, but we should not complain about its provision for people who have enough to worry about in coping with their illnesses without having the extra burden of financial stress over the costs of their medication. I understand that around 92 per cent of general users of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme use only 10 prescriptions or less per annum. So the pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescription limit of 25 really does benefit those who suffer from illnesses requiring a lot of medication, as well as families with children, particularly young children with chronic illnesses such as asthma. The Government was concerned about increasing costs in this area but, instead of bulldozing changes through, the then Minister for Health, the present Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), did what no government had done before: he consulted the professional group which would be most affected-the pharmacists. The safety net scheme is, in fact, very similar to a proposal put to the Government by the Pharmacy Guild. Pharmacists are the ones who act as the Government's agents for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. They dispense the medication on supply of a doctor's prescription. The Government has come to an arrangement with pharmacists-it is a little too complicated to go into here-and that is a very pleasing result. In this Bill there are provisions to encourage pharmacists to use modern technology in their claims under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Government is providing a very real incentive for pharmacists. Those who choose to forward their claims using compatible computer equipment, either on floppy disks or by using a modem, will be financially rewarded. The Government is prepared to pay a cash incentive of 2.5c per pharmaceutical benefit. The return to the Government will be in the form of increased efficiency. Faster and more accurate processing will be a boon all round. Here is another example of this Government moving effectively following extensive investigations. The Minister has told us that this incentive arose from an efficiency scrutiny of the payment of pharmaceutical benefits. There is no doubt that the proposals will help in containing costs for the Government. To return to the Bill before us, I will quote from the Minister's second reading speech where he refers to the role to be played by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in also helping to contain costs. I imagine that Opposition members would be rather pleased about the containment of costs. It is usually their only consideration. The Minister said: The Government has no objection to paying high prices for new drugs that offer significant therapeutic advances over existing drugs or other forms of treatment. But it does not believe the taxpayer should foot the bill for very expensive drugs that offer only minimal advantages over much cheaper alternatives. This Government has actually taken a good hard look at the way the system works for providing subsidised pharmaceutical products to ensure that the price of a wide range of medication remains within the reach of those who need it. We have examined delivery of services to the Australian community, and we have looked at the delivery of services to pensioners and low income earners. We have come up with sensible solutions to the problem of containing costs, while improving the level of service to those most in need. I want to congratulate the Government on introducing all these changes and, in particular, I commend the Minister responsible-the Minister for Community Services and Health-for initiating many of them. As the Minister for Health, he has presided over some of the most fundamental changes in health care seen in this country. Medicare, the Government's universal health care scheme, is so successful that it has passed into the very fabric of the whole area of health. Some radical right-wingers on the other side of the House like to boast that they will enjoy destroying Medicare if they ever get a go at government. Not only do I not believe that they will get that chance, but I do not believe that the Australian community will allow them to touch Medicare. Ordinary Australian men and women know and value the Medicare system. Many health professionals support the Medicare system. It is the best system we have ever seen in this country. But it is not a static system. If changes need to be made-and just recently we saw some adjustment to schedule fees-this Government is always prepared to negotiate and consult to iron out problems or to make improvements. To return to the other matter in hand, I can give another example of this process at work in the area of provision of pharmaceutical benefits. I was particularly pleased, on behalf of many of my constituents, to see a partial reversal of the decision to take some over the counter items off the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits last year. In the main, the drugs removed were mild analgesics. The cost to Government of a prescription for one of these drugs which, of course, can be bought for a couple of dollars in supermarkets, plus the cost of subsidising a visit to the doctor to have the prescription made out in the first place, meant that excessive costs were being incurred by the Government for drugs which in many cases could be seen as of questionable value. Nonetheless, some people were quite seriously affected by this decision. When the Government realised that, the Minister announced an adjustment to allow some of these medications to again be available through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I note that this Bill contains proposals to give the Minister the power to act quickly to remove an item from the schedule of pharmaceutical benefits. I am sure that this will prove to be a valuable tool, given the rate of new developments in the pharmacological field. It is also important to note that the Parliament will be able to scrutinise any decisions which are made under this new provision, because a declaration to remove an item from the list must be tabled in the Parliament. Accountability of this sort, particularly when the decision making process lies directly with the Minister, is fundamental to the proper working of our democratic style of government. I recall an occasion when the present Minister for Community Services and Health, not long after introducing the November 1986 changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, was called to account, as it were. I had the opportunity to welcome him to my electorate of Ballarat. I asked whether he would be happy to meet some of my local pharmacists, and he readily agreed. I was very grateful for his courtesy, as were the pharmacists. In fact, the meeting took place over breakfast. It was generally conceded to be very successful. The pharmacists were able to approach a very approachable Minister and I am pleased to say that the Minister took the opportunity to listen to many of the points which the pharmacists felt were important to them. That breakfast brings me back to the point of this Bill. Ballarat pharmacists pointed out that there were problems with the flow of payments from the Government to individual pharmacists. This Bill, as we know, proposes a number of improvements to the method of payment and it also includes incentives for pharmacists to use computer systems compatible with those of the central claims processing facility. There have been problems in this area. I am particularly pleased to be able to support the Minister in his efforts to sort out these problems. I also take this opportunity to invite him to visit Ballarat or, indeed, Ararat-I hope that he will take up the invitation-another important part of my electorate, to do the same as his predecessor and visit that beautiful and historic part of Victoria to meet pharmacists. Of course, since he wears another hat, that of Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I am sure that we can incorporate some contact with the veteran community as well. I know that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who knows some members of my veteran community, will concur that they would be very happy to meet him. In conclusion, I reiterate that the provisions in this Bill have important consequences for health care in this country. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been particularly successful in meeting the needs of the targeted population. The amendments contained in this Bill should ensure not only the continuation of the Government's efforts in this area, but also that the cost effectiveness of the scheme is in accordance with the Government's economic responsibilities. Therefore, I support the Bill and I commend it to the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.19) —Madam Speaker, at the outset I say that I am delighted to see that you are occupying the chair at the moment. I know that the reason that you are looking so happy is the knowledge that the President of the Senate, once again, has to carry certain additional burdens associated with his office this year, as he did last year. I am sure that that is a very welcome fact. The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 relates to and arises from the Budget. It is an important piece of legislation which the Opposition does not oppose, but to which we will move amendments in the committee stage. I will comment briefly on the comments by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) in relation to Medicare now being part of the fabric of this nation. It may well be, at this time; but I have to add that it is a very expensive part of the fabric of this nation. It is a very large component of Federal Budget outlays and the section of the Federal Budget being spent on Medicare is escalating almost out of control. One of the reasons why this related measure is before the Parliament today is to try to wind back some of the explosive growth which has taken place in one area related to Medicare, namely, pharmaceutical benefits. I am delighted that students from Albury High School happen to be in the gallery today. Some interesting comparisons ought to be made in relation to what this country is spending on drugs and what the Federal Government is spending on drugs for its people, pursuant to various programs. The best comparison I can make is as follows: let us take as an example the country of Nepal, located between India, Tibet and China. The population of Nepal is 16 million. The population of Australia is 16 million. The total annual Budget of the Government of Nepal is just a fraction under $A1 billion. The expenditure of the Australian Federal Government on drugs for its people, pursuant to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, is $A1 billion. So, the Australian Federal Government is spending on drugs for its people the same amount as the Government of Nepal is spending in its annual Budget. I thank the dedicated staff of the Embassy of Nepal for making available to me this information relating to the most recent Budget in that country, presented on 9 July. This matter becomes more serious when we realise the rate of growth in expenditure by the Federal Government on drugs, pursuant to all programs for its people. In 1986-87, the total figure was $864,574,000. This financial year, even allowing for the wind back measures, the Federal Budget will provide for an expenditure of $994,484,000, or just a fraction under $1 billion. So, there has been an increase of 15 per cent in Federal Government expenditure on drugs for the Australian people, quite apart from the commitment required from taxpayers. I am not for one moment reflecting on the need for safety nets to be created for people in need, particularly for the quite separate category of veterans' affairs, ex-service personnel and disabled veterans. Nevertheless, it begs the question: has this nation turned into a nation of neurotic, subsidised pill takers? I make an appeal at this point: every time people feel the urge to take yet another round of drugs relating to their perceived or actual condition, in the interests of the nation and the national Budget and in the light of the very serious economic situation at the moment, they might try to hold off for 24 hours and stare down the problem that might be affecting them to see whether their own will power and psychological approach might enable them to avoid taking those drugs. Of course, as doctors tell us, drugs are not without their side effects and onward ramifications and do not always bring about improvement. Having said that, I am not running rough-shod over the need for Federal governments to accept a proper and responsible role in this area. I acknowledge that many Australians are unlucky enough to be reliant on taking pills and drugs of one kind or another throughout their lives. However, I wonder about whether this reliance is often self-generated and is necessarily essential or even in veterans' interests, but it is not for me as a lay person to make that judgment. It is incredible that this nation is reaching its 200th year, its Bicentennial, and the Australian Federal Government is about to cross the threshold and spend $1 billion on drugs for its people by way of subsidies. Of course, the total expenditure on drugs by Australians is very much more than that, the reason being that not everyone qualifies for, or is in receipt of, the various subsidies and programs under both the national health pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the quite separate and totally justifiable repatriation Bicentennial benefits scheme. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), in his second reading speech on this Bill, said: The Government has no objection to paying high prices for new drugs that offer significant therapeutic advances over existing drugs or other forms of treatment. But it does not believe that the taxpayers should foot the bill for very expensive drugs that offer only minimal advantages over much cheaper alternatives. I agree with that. There has to be an element of performance related to the expenditure on high cost, state of the art technology drugs. It is also a very difficult area because, when new drugs come in, often we are met with massive resistance from veterans and others who do not want to change from the drugs they have been using to the new drugs even though it may have reached the stage where the old drugs are no longer helping those veterans. Nevertheless, that effort must be made. I believe the Government has a right to monitor very closely the nature of drugs being distributed and the nature of the drugs it is subsidising in this country to the tune of $1 billion. Also embraced in this particular measure is a new approach to provide some incentives for the pharmacists to overcome the mass of red tape that they face in dealing with the Federal Government to obtain the refunds and payments for which they are eligible. The red tape often leads to huge delays and threatens the viability of so many small businesses throughout my electorate and throughout Australia. Embraced in this measure are a number of new initiatives which seek to overcome these delays and to simplify the system. One initiative I wish to highlight in this legislation-the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) also highlighted it in his speech-is the payment of pharmacists on the basis of a random sample of prescriptions submitted in each claim. This is breaking new ground, but the Government is not asking for actual accounts to be totalled or for actual amounts to be arrived at. It is merely taking a sample of the accounts and saying, `This is running at approximately this ratio and, therefore, we will pay taxpayers' money out to the pharmacists in question, based on that random sample'. I think Auditor-Generals of yesteryear would turn in their graves if they knew random sampling was being utilised for the payment of government moneys to, in this case, pharmacists. I say to the House, and to the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) who has taken a very close interest in this legislation, that this Government, this Parliament and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts need to monitor this initiative very closely to see that this provision does not lead to rorts, to see that it does not lead to a massive blow-out in expenditure, and to see why there has been the need to introduce, for the first time as I understand it, random sampling of submitted claims. The Government is exposing itself to the veteran community. The totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, I am sure, would like the Government to take a random sample to establish his claims for a special rate of pension. This approach, this aspect of the legislation, removes specific accuracy from the submission of claims for refund by pharmacists. I put it to the House what whilst there is precedent for this action-I understand that even Qantas Airways Ltd in its balancing operation each month with other international airlines now operates on random sampling in exchanging coupon values-the Government's adoption of this measure does require very careful scrutiny to ensure that it does not lead to the introduction of rorts and to an absolute blowout in costs. As the honourable member for Richmond suggests, it makes us wonder why the administration has reached the stage that we have to move to a random sampling method to arrive at what should be paid to the pharmacists. I know it is only one of the alternatives embraced by the proposals in this legislation, but it is an important one and it is for that reason that I highlight it for the House. To put this area of pharmaceutical benefits into perspective, the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been the subject of a number of changes, as well as the national health pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This Government-not under the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs, but his predecessor-chose to eliminate completely war widows from eligibility for the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I know that would have been of concern to you, Madam Speaker, as it was to many people around Australia and to war widows in particular. It also chose to cut back on certain other categories of eligibility to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme and a number of drugs available under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme have now been deleted from the list. Frankly, I supported the deletion of some because those changes reflected developments in the state of the art technology available and the types of drugs available to veterans, to ex-service personnel and indeed to the nation. The deletion of others may have been seen in a different light, and it has caused considerable concern and hardship to many war widows and ex-service personnel, and, of course, as Ben Chifley put it, this nation, this Parliament, has a responsibility to see that the right thing is done by ex-service personnel. I take this opportunity to say to the House, while the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is pre-sent, that in dealing with this measure we should not lose sight of the fact that it involves also the equally sensitive repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and it has a vital role to play in the well-being of our veterans, our ex-service personnel and our war widows. The Government needs to act very carefully in relation to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, quite apart from the changes it is implementing by virtue of this legislation in respect of the national health pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I am delighted that a group from the Albury High School has been present in the chamber for this morning's session thus far because I know that they also would share a deep interest in the proceedings of the Parliament, which they are lucky enough to see on this occasion. In conclusion, I just reiterate to the House my concern that this nation is not only turning into a nation of narcotic takers, a nation of people who take illicit drugs, but also it is turning into a nation of neurotic, subsidised pill-takers. That is reflected by the fact that the Federal Government is spending this financial year $1 billion on drugs for its people. We ought to reflect on that because it does not necessarily show the healthiest direction for this nation to proceed along so far as the health of its people are concerned, quite apart from the economic situation obtaining at this time. I do not oppose the passage of this Bill. I join with the honourable member for O'Connor in supporting the amendments he will be bringing forward in the committee stage. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.35) —In this debate on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, by way of introduction I will make a couple of comments on remarks made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). He was concerned about the cost of pharmaceuticals and their supply. I would have to agree with him. He was concerned with overall health costs. I share that concern too. However, I think that a few points should be made to put the matter in perspective. The cost of pharmaceuticals and health products in our community as a percentage of the total health bill has declined substantially. The cost of health itself has dropped as a percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP), and has stabilised under Medicare, compared with health costs under the Fraser Government. Whereas in Australia health costs as a percentage of GDP are in the region of 8 per cent, in the United States of America, with its freer and more privatised market, it is nearer 12 1/2 per cent to 13 per cent. I think that we should use those figures to put the matter in perspective when talking about accelerating costs. During the election campaign last July, Medicare was a significant issue. The people came out strongly in favour of the Government's proposal for maintaining Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. That was a point made quite forcefully by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) this morning, and I agree with him that Medicare and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have become part of the fabric of our health system which is supported by the people. I have to agree with the honourable member for Farrer that the average citizen is relying too much on the quick fix for either imagined or actual ills. Perhaps people are reaching for Aldous Huxley's Brave New World solution of soma as a quick fix. I was talking with the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) just before this debate and we discussed the very problem raised by the honourable member for Farrer. We thought it might be a good idea if consideration were given by the Government and by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to including on the pharmaceutical listing several placebos-the sugar-coated, lactose pills which are inert in their reaction on the body but which have a physiological effect-and perhaps in that way bringing about the desired improvement in the health of the individual. I return to the subject of the National Health Amendment Bill. I think that some very important changes associated with the pharmaceutical benefits system are included in the Bill. There has been much public debate recently about many aspects of the scheme such as changes in charges to patients. The honourable member for Ballarat dwelt for some time on some of the significant changes to charges that were brought in in the Budget last year. There has been debate about items on the list and I will return to that later. There has been debate also on how and when drugs should be delisted and the total cost of the scheme, including also payments made to the dispensers of our pharmacy products. The Bill touches on most of these changes. The Government is continuing its constant efforts to keep costs down and under control and to ensure that the taxpayers get value for their health dollar. It is ensuring that there is improved efficiency generally within the pharmaceutical dispensing industry, if I can call it that. We are facing significant costs. Last financial year the cost of drugs for pensioners alone, which averaged $8 a prescription, increased by 24 per cent on the previous year's cost. If the changes in the last Budget had not been introduced and accepted by Parliament, this financial year we would face costs for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of almost $1 billion-$970m. That would represent a significant rise of some 58 per cent over the last two years. Such cost escalation cannot go on. Certainly, such growth is not matched by our population increase or even in the growth in our age pensioner population. The cost of the drugs themselves and the cost of their delivery is increasing. The Government faces many different options in reducing costs. It can reduce the number of drugs available on the pharmaceutical list; it can drop unnecessary drugs from the list; it can clamp down on prices either of the drugs or the dispensing fees, or it can cut into administration costs. Any outcome is a compromise between making sure that all essential drugs are available to the public, ensuring that cheaper pharmaceutically equivalent substitutes are listed ahead of dearer drugs, and straight cost-cutting. In this setting, the Government has introduced changes to the charter of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In the past, the Committee has not been required, in its statutory charter, to take costs into account when making its recommendations. In practice, it has taken price into account when considering drugs of similar efficacy and toxicity, but that has been only a secondary consideration. The obligation to consider comparative effectiveness and cost will require the Committee to give consideration to alternative forms of therapy, of treatment, in making its recommendations. Under this Bill, the Committee will not be allowed to recommend listing of a particular drug which is substantially more costly, unless it is satisfied that, at least for some patients, the drug provides significant therapeutic advantages over alternative therapy. We have had moves by drug companies which wish to establish new patents to introduce to the market slight molecular changes to pharmaceutical compounds of drugs, which have had minimal improvement in their therapeutic effect. The job of the Government is to make sure that it is not caught up in the patents argument and into the argument about profits of the industry, but to concentrate upon providing, at the cheapest cost to the public, the most therapeutically desirable drugs. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has said that the Government has no objection to paying high prices for new drugs that offer significant therapeutic advances over existing drugs or other forms of treatment, but he does not believe that the taxpayer should foot the bill for very expensive drugs that offer only minimal advantages over much cheaper alternatives. We have some real problems there because it is very hard to measure what is meant by `significant'. It will be one of the jobs of the Advisory Committee to work that out. The Minister has quite properly enlarged the size of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to include more expertise. There will be three more doctors with expertise for specialist evaluation of the particular drugs that come on to the market. In addition, he has bolstered its work by the establishment of sub-committees, membership of which is not limited to members of the Advisory Committee. The Committee can draw on outside advice and expertise to work on what is `significant', what differentiates a new drug from an old drug and so on. I believe that there may have to be some examination of a system which takes account of the fact that some patients, there might be very few, do not have a similar therapeutic reaction with a substitute drug. This happens because individuals are individual in their reactions to drugs as well. They are all idiosyncratic. I would not like to see a position where individuals, and I am talking about a small number of people, have to pay privately for drugs because the dearer substitute, although not `significantly' therapeutically different in general terms, is denied to them on the list. That is a difficult question, and I do not envy the work of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. But I would not like to see those few individuals who, because of some allergic reaction or sensitivity, are not able to take the drugs that satisfy, for both cost and therapeutic efficacy reasons, the general population, being denied their drugs on the list. In addition, this Bill deals with the Minister's power to remove an item from the list of pharmaceutical benefits for any reason. The proposed amendment will enable the Minister to act quickly when circumstances change. For example, a cheaper alternative, a substitute or a generic may come on to the market. This amendment will encourage generic production in this country. I remind the House that the Government is conscious, as the Advisory Committee will be, that it has to be a therapeutically equivalent generic to be an acceptable substitute for the patented drug or the drug which is out of patent. It will also encourage drug manufacturers to operate under licence, if possible, in this country, to bring about cheaper production of a patented drug. All of this will lower pressures on costs. A year or so ago there was some debate in this House over many months about the dropping from the list of some mild analgesics and some antihistamine preparations. The then member for Petrie, Mr Hodges, who, like me, is a pharmacist, made quite a point about this. I think some of his criticism had merit, but the rest of it was political posturing. Of course, it goes with being in opposition that one must over-exaggerate, that one must be hyperbolic in one's rhetoric to try to make a point. But the fact is that following legal advice to the Minister and to the Government it was found that the only way that drugs could be put on or off the list was through the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It was interpreted by our legal eagles that as a drug could not be put on the list without the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee it followed that one would not be removed either. The Government accepted that advice and in fact did not contravene it. The then Minister for Health, the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), did not unilaterally or on his own initiative remove those drugs. He asked the Advisory Committee to review unnecessary drugs on the list and the recommendation came back that several of them should be removed. I was critical of that recommendation. My colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry approached me and said that they feared that doctors would be tempted to prescribe less appropriate and more expensive drugs which were on the list in order to save pensioners, in particular, money. Even though those drugs are available to pensioners relatively cheaply, it is not easy for these people to pay for them. That is exactly what happened. The Minister quite rightly asked the Advisory Committee to review its decision again. The Advisory Committee came back and said that certain of the milder analgesics and some of the antihistamines should be returned. Proper processes were adhered to. I have no criticism of the Minister. I have no criticism of the former member for Petrie for raising his concern. My only criticism was the way he went about it but I will not dwell on this matter because he is not here to defend himself. Mr Donald Cameron —I'll defend him. Mr LAMB —I thought the honourable member might do that. Another criticism is that there is no consumer representative on the Advisory Committee, that there should be someone to represent the pensioners and the patients who take pharmaceuticals for their health. The Minister has said that, if he should remove any drugs from the list, he will have to give the names of the drugs and the reasons why and place that before each House of this Parliament. His decisions will be subject to consideration by the Houses and possible disallowance. In other words, the opportunity is now there for the representatives of the people to become an indirect de facto consumer representative of the Advisory Committee. I commend the Minister and the Government for doing this. We can see that this is going to take the political opportunism out of the debate on what is being listed. It is quite proper that what is on the pharmaceutical listing should be at arm's length from government. Governments should argue and debate the costing, but a medical consideration of what should be available should be left to the experts so that what is listed remains at arm's length from government. Should the Minister, for many reasons which are desirable, decide to delist an item, he must do two things. First of all, he must have due regard to the recommendation, consideration, opinion and reports of the Advisory Committee. He will not be making decisions lightly or in a vexatious manner. At the same time, he has to table his decision in the Parliament, leaving it to further scrutiny by, shall I call it, the `patients' representative'-this Parliament. I now want to turn to a matter which has for some time disturbed my professional colleagues, not only during the period of this Government but as far back as I can remember. Although I have been in pharmacy for some 30 years I have not been active in the last nine or 10 years because of other duties. In fact, I sold my pharmacy to my partner for the very good reason-one which the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) would agree with-that one must be a full time member of parliament, that one should not have another professional occupation at the same time. One cannot divide one's attentions and one's responsibilities equitably and professionally. So I sold my share to my partner so that I could devote my time entirely to my parliamentary duties. But I declare an indirect interest before honourable members today. My pharmacy colleagues have been very concerned about the delays in payment. I believe the Government has taken two good steps to ensure that there is more rapid payment to overcome the delays of the past in paying pharmacists for the pharmaceutical products they have supplied under the scheme. The Government has chosen two very interesting ways of doing this. First, it has decided to encourage pharmacists to use computers to assist in the processing of their payments. Many pharmacists have installed computers for very good business reasons: it has made them more efficient; it has taken the tedium out of some of their activities such as repetitive typing, et cetera; it has improved their medical records system in their pharmacy and so on. Many computers had been installed before the encouragement to speed up payments came about. When the Government introduced the 2.5c per prescription incentive to increase the number of computers in the claim process, the proportion of pharmacists using computers for claims processing jumped sharply from 11 per cent participation in February to 37 per cent seven months later. I would not be surprised-the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said this-if the figure is now up nearer the 50 per cent or 60 per cent mark. When I was speaking to a pharmacist recently he said he had put in some expensive computer equipment just a couple of years ago. I reminded him that with the generous taxation write-off it had probably been paid for. He agreed with that but he said that he could not replace or upgrade it to participate in the new scheme. I pointed out to him that the 2.5c per prescription incentive was not to help him replace his equipment or to give him a capital advantage but merely to encourage people to participate and to forward their claims in computer readable form. But he will be able to participate in an incentive scheme to speed up his claims by going in for the sampling method. There was a lot of criticism from a couple of speakers in this Parliament about the sampling method. I point out that those who are not familiar with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would not realise that 70 per cent of items dispensed are dominated by 12 to 20 drugs and they cluster around a certain price. In fact, I brought along a table which I want incorporated in Hansard. I showed it to the honourable member for Farrer earlier in the debate. The table is taken from the draft Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical products of 1985. It comes from page 2.13 of the report and is table 2.9. It shows the distribution of PBS prescriptions by dispensed price. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE 2.9 DISTRIBUTION OF PBS PRESCRIPTIONS BY DISPENSED PRICE-SEPTEMBER 1984 Price range (cents) Benefit Prescriptionsa General % of total Concessional % of total Pensioner % of total 1-300 ... . . 0.1 0.1 301-400 ... 0.1 13.3 21.8 401-500 ... 36.3 35.8 36.3 501-600 ... 30.4 21.8 16.8 601-700 ... 11.1 7.8 5.9 701-800 ... 8.3 7.3 6.4 801-900 ... 2.6 3.2 3.3 901-1000 ... 4.5 5.1 4.8 10001+ ... 6.6 5.5 4.6 a At September 1984, PBS listed drugs costing less than $4 sold to the general public were not eligible for PBS subsidy. Source: Compiled from data supplied by DOH. Table 2.9 gives the distribution of PBS prescriptions by price range as at September 1984. The table shows a concentration of PBS prescriptions in the $3 to $6 price range. Drugs costing more than $6 account for less than one-third of total sales for each group of beneficiaries, and drugs costing more than $10 account for less than 7 per cent of total sales in all categories (and less than 5 per cent in the pensioner category). Mr LAMB —I thank the House. The salient feature of that table is the very thick clustering within a small band of prices of the majority of prescription costs in the general, concessional and pensioner categories. If one studied statistics, permutations, computations and the laws of chance one would realise that under this sampling method, there is a nine in 10 chance of a pharmacist being overpaid when the incentive payment is included but I would say that without that payment the costing would be almost spot on. There would be only a one in 1,000 chance of a pharmacist being underpaid by more than 50c in $100. No wonder pharmacists and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia have accepted this scheme as a fair and proper method of payment. There will be big savings-this is where the Opposition should be pleased-in the assessment costs that go with assessing each prescription individually by person. It is not a matter of poor administration; it is a matter of costing. These are progressive and desirable changes. The effects should be closely monitored so that if necessary fine tuning can take place. I am confident they will keep costs of the scheme within limits and expedite payments to pharmacists for professional supply of their services. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.55) —I thank the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) for his generosity, as quali-fied as it was, in recognising that the former member for Petrie, who is also a pharmacist, was spot on in his criticisms of the former Minister for Health, the present Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), for deleting 45 or 46 items from the pharmaceutical benefits list. On another note, I take issue with another comment of the honourable member for Streeton and indeed with the comments of the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). Both those Australian Labor Party members said that the election result of 11 July was an indication of the great support that the people of Australia have given the Australian Labor Party. Mr Lamb —A good win. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member says that it was a good win but the realities are that the Liberal and National parties received 20,000 more first preference votes than did the Australian Labor Party and even after the distribution of preferences the Labor Party received only 50.3 per cent of the total vote. Mr Humphreys —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think relevance should be adhered to, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DONALD CAMERON —They are very sensitive about this, Mr Deputy Speaker-this gerrymander business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. The Minister raised a point of order on relevance. The honourable member for Moreton said that the honourable member for Ballarat had made some comments when I was not in the chamber. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Moreton to the fact that there might not be much causal relationship between the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) and figures on the last election. He might continue speaking on what is before the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, with one more sentence I can conclude my reference to that subject. Government members are deluded by the fact that 50.3 per cent of the vote has given them more than 58 per cent of the membership of this Parliament. That is why I have been saying that there is something radically wrong with the redistribution; I will leave it at that. I turn to the Bill. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) said in his second reading speech that in the last two years there had been an increase of 58 per cent in the cost of supplying medicines. I want to refer to the fact that the Government has also slugged the people. It is not that the increased cost of medicine has been borne by the Government. When the Labor Government came to power people who bought medicine under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme paid $4 a script. The Government increased that shortly after coming to office to $5 a script. But then it introduced a system under which people did not qualify for free prescriptions until they had paid for 25 scripts. Therefore, when people were up for $5 previously, which was an increase on the level that the previous Government was charging, the Government brought in a system under which it was ripping anything from $7 to $10 a scrip out of the pockets of ordinary people. Honourable members opposite acknowledge that and I appreciate that. They should not make out that it is a great Santa Clause Labor Government, because it has had its hands into the pockets of the people ever since it came to power. The whole health system is crumbling by virtue of the weight of the cost. The Government has been putting more and more and more back on to the shoulders of the people; so it should not parade itself as being a generous government. Mr Lamb —What would you do? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I assure the honourable member that a Liberal philosophy would not be leading to a second rate health system. Some of the measures that are contained in this Bill are measures of desperation. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which decides which drugs will or will not be available under the scheme. He said: The obligation to consider comparative effectiveness and cost will require the PBAC to give consideration to alternative forms of treatment, for example, surgery . . . Never in the history of this country has the PBAC-which I think will now comprise a group of 10 doctors and one pharmacist-been required to sit in judgment in the nation's capital to decide whether the people in the far-flung regions of this country would be better served by having an operation than by being given a drug. Surely decisions involving surgery are best left in the hands of the individual's local doctor. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table may well have a problem; part of his body may not be working as well as it used to, and how would he like this Committee to decide whether it is out or it is off. I would say that that is a decision for his doctor to make. Whether treatment by drugs would restore him to his former position of activity of health is for the Minister and his doctor to decide. It is not appropriate for a committee to be given powers to enable it to start suddenly deciding whether surgery is better than the continuation of medication. These are some of the steps that the Government is taking as a way of trying to curtail the escalating costs of health care in this country. The next point that I wish to make is an extremely serious one. Last year we saw the charade when the Minister for Community Services and Health-a doctor of philosophy, not of medicine-virtually said to the PBAC, `Righto, the pensioners are getting into these drugs; you had better take those drugs off the list', and 45 or 46 analgesics and the like were removed from the pharmaceutical health benefits list. As the honourable member for Streeton generously conceded, the former member for Petrie who used to sit just behind me here, chased the Minister to find out what had gone on. As a result of severe speeches that had been made by the former member for Petrie the Minister came out and told this place during Question Time that is was all the recommendation of the PBAC. We were later to find that it was a recommendation of the Minister that was given to the PBAC, and four of the seven members voted for the Minister's wish to be endorsed. At that time the then member for Petrie said that it would cause doctors to start prescribing more expensive drugs-and that is exactly what happened. Then, in August this year the new Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) made a big man of himself by announcing to the world-on 7 August-in a news release: Free analgesics for pensioners. Pensioners will again be able to receive mild analgesics-aspirin and paracetamol-without charge. Veterans' Affairs Minister Ben Humphreys, who has responsibility for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, said today that these products would be available by prescription free of charge for all pensioners as from 1 October 1987. And it goes on. But I scribbled across the Minister's Press release at the time-a copy of which I had faxed down to me this morning-the following comments: Heaven help us if the PBAC couldn't have foreseen this-Government putting on screws-costing them more money. The Minister relented only because he found that all the predictions were right-and why were those predictions born? They were born as the result of Government interference. Government members sought to interfere to save money. They interfered with the scheme, but it cost millions more as people sought alternatives. The point that I am trying to make is that this legislation is building in permanent interference. The Minister will now have the right to decide which drugs will be available. We are spending up to half a million dollars to expand and to better equip the Committee and yet, at the same time, the Government is formalising interference mechanisms. I look at the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who is at the table-a nice guy, but heaven help us if he is to be the one who makes decisions on subjects like this. I have a lot of respect for him-but a former service station operator deciding which drugs will be good for the populace of this country? That is exactly what is proposed. I believe that it is very bad legislation which starts to transfer decisions such as this into the political field. The honourable member for Streeton referred to how democratic the legislation is because if the Minister interferes he will have to table his decision in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and there is provision for disallowance. So that was cited as democracy at work, and I think the honourable member for Streeton talked about where better could this matter be than in the hands of the members of parliament who represent the people. The honourable member indulged in fine words like that. But, quite frankly, with all the respect that I have for this institution and for those people who comprise the membership of his chamber and the Senate, when I look around at fellow members I am fearful about the proposal that we decide on the availability of drugs. What specialisation do we possess? If the Minister at the table is aware of the contents of the legislation he will know that even the recommendations of the PBAC are not to be made available to the Parliament. The Minister will go through the charade and the act of referring his decision to the PBAC and will take the view of the Committee into account, but if he does not like what it recommends he can ride roughshod over it and say, `No. I am taking this drug off the free list'-or the so-called free list, as there is very little left that is free these days. I plead with the Minister at the table to reconsider this matter. If in future we are going to have politicians deciding whether to allow or disallow the ministerial discretion that the Minister is granting himself-and heaven help us if we make as big a mess of medicine collectively as the Government has made of the economy-at least Parliament should be informed of the professional views of the PBAC. Will the Minister look up, please; he has his head down and is writing-I do not think he wants to hear this. Mr Humphreys —I am listening. Mr DONALD CAMERON —He says he is listening-well, I believe that, but I want him to take this point on board, because I believe that it is a vital point, an important point, as there is a lack of competence in this place in terms of being able to make judgments of the kind that are being thrust upon us. I again pay a tribute to the former member for Petrie for his relentless pursuit of Dr Blewett and the matter of all those drugs being taken off the PSB. Some 45 or 46 drugs were removed, but they are now back on the list. They should never have been removed in the first place. In the last few minutes available to me, I refer to the Government's intentions in relation to the new Pharmpay system, which reimburses pharmacists for prescriptions dispensed. We have been told that on average a pharmacist probably submits some 2,000 claims per month and is reimbursed an amount of some $14,000 to $15,000. Historically, and it is not the fault of the present Government, pharmacists have suffered in terms of reimbursement of outlays. The shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), told the Parliament last night that payments were being delayed for up to 102 days and, correctly, that that was not fair. I commend the Government for trying to establish a fairer system. This idea of paying 21/2c per prescription, in some instances, might be seen as generous, but the realities are that across Australia, I believe in every capital city, people were employed in the Department of Community Services and Health and their job, from sun up until dark, was to punch into computers the details of prescriptions that were forwarded from the pharmacies. Across Australia that would have amounted to millions per month. That system was costing the Government heaps. There was also the problem of repetition strain injury. Someone who sits in front of a computer from sun up until dark punching in the details of those scripts is probably a prime candidate for such a condition. The Government has largely taken away the function from the government sector and has gained the co-operation of the pharmacists, who will prepare computer floppy disks, which they will send to the Department, use the 10 per cent system or stick to the old system. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table, nods his head in agreement; pharmacists can choose to stick to the old system, or they can opt for the new system. Under one new system, they choose the top 10 per cent in terms of value of the scripts and send them to the Department; the Department exercises its discretion in picking out, at random, about another 10 per cent and pays the remaining 90 per cent in accordance with the level that is established on that random sample. I believe the Opposition wishes to insert a sunset clause in the legislation. Mr Price —Haven't you read the amendment? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes, I have, but sometimes one has to check to make sure that things are as they were yesterday. We seek to insert a sunset clause to ensure that, on 30 June 1989, the procedure is re-examined. What the Opposition is saying is that if the Government is going to use the Russian roulette system, it is crazy to legislate that it will never be reviewed. With all the goodwill in the world, in six months time the Government might be screaming about the fact that the system is working the chemists' way or the pharmacists might be screaming that they are not getting back what they are entitled to. In introducing an amendment to insert a sunset clause, all we are saying to the Government is that, as at 30 June 1989, we would like the mechanism to exist whereby the Government would be forced to review the system. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request. Perhaps it can even be met by the Minister outlining some alternative that the Government might have in mind, our having drawn the weaknesses of the Russian roulette system to the Government's attention. As I said earlier in my speech, I believe that it is totally outlandish and ridiculous that the Government, for the first time in history, has given the Minister the powers to decide which drugs will be available to the people. I have referred to the very generous abilities of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table. The Lord smiled upon him when He created him. But who is he to decide what is good for people when there is a body of 10 doctors and a pharmacist to decide? For the Minister to say in his second reading speech `the proposed amendment will enable the Minister to act quickly when circumstances change' indicates that he thinks we are devoid of intelligence. Nothing is that urgent that the alternative of convening a meeting of the specialist group to make a decision could not be used. Nothing is so urgent that the Minister has to move in and decide himself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.15) —I wish to respond to a couple of comments made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). First of all, I thought that he made a very ungracious remark about the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). He seems to feel that the Minister's background as a service station proprietor somehow did not befit him for his high office. Mr Donald Cameron —I did not say that. Mr PRICE —He seemed to imply that. I inform the honourable member for Moreton that not only has this Minister a small business background of which this Government is particularly proud but also many honourable members on the Government benches have a small business background and we feel that they make a very important and valuable contribution to the Government. The Minister is well fitted and suited to exercising his responsibilities in this area. The honourable member commented on the incentive or, should I say, incentivation of paying 2.5c per prescription perhaps being seen as generous. If he had listened to his shadow Minister, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), he would have heard his shadow Minister arguing that it was far from generous. The shadow Minister began his contribution to the debate by making some comments on the economy. Then he started to attack this Government for making, he claimed, a virtue out of correcting mistakes. It is true to say that this Government has had a lot of experience in fixing up the mistakes of those hard seven years of the Fraser-Howard Government. So to that extent, I think that we are very skilled. Frankly, I do not think that the shadow Minister has much to be proud of in terms of the previous Government's record. This debate is typical of most debates that occur in the House. Firstly, the Opposition attacks the Government, but it says, at the same time, that it supports the legislation. Even though there has been an election recently, in which the Government won an historic third term, the Opposition makes no contribution by way of offering alternative solutions or proposals. That is most disappointing. In the last election campaign, the Opposition undertook that it would commit radical surgery on the Federal Government's expenditures. So what would it do, what should it do and what must it do under its Liberal philosophy in respect of this area of Government undertaking? Anyone listening to the debate would be no wiser as to the Opposition's policies and approaches. The Government had to take the painful decision in November 1986 to restructure the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Government has introduced a scheme whereby families can submit 25 prescriptions at a maximum cost of $10 per prescription-the average cost of prescriptions in a calendar year is probably $7.00-and after that there is no charge. We did that on the very reasonable basis of fairness and equity. We have tried to provide maximum benefit to those who have had an extended period of ill-health. The measure has saved us some $100m. That is not an insignificant amount when one considers that the total expenditure in this area will be about $800m. I think it is a very effective measure; it certainly promotes efficiency. As I say, what would honourable members opposite do? Would they completely dismantle the scheme? Is that their idea? Would they try to privatise it? If so, how would they privatise it? We have no clear understanding of any proposals or policies. I take issue with some of the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor. He commented on the Pharmpay system. It is true-and no one seeks to deny it-that the delays in payments to pharmacists were intolerably long. I think the figure cited was 102 days. We ought to place on record the average time at present. I will give two examples: in Melbourne I think the current delay is about seven working days and in Sydney it is 13 working days. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. So there has been a considerable improvement. One of the key strategies, of course, is to get the pharmacists to supply the information, using compatible computer equipment, on floppy disks or by sending it via a modem straight into the mainframe. This is the trend for the future. I would like to think that it will not be very long before I will be able, using a modem in my electorate office, to tap into a Parliament House computer and extract parts of Hansard or insert some information. This is not a revolutionary approach. It is becoming increasingly prevalent, particularly in the government sector, and so it should. We should be efficient and effective if we are using the latest technology. That is a key factor in reducing these delays. The honourable member for O'Connor went on to argue that the 2.5c per prescription incentive that was being offered was not very cost-effective as far as pharmacists were concerned. He cited some figures. He suggested that the purchase of a computer would cost $8,000. I am inclined to disagree with that figure as it is too high, but for the purposes of the argument, I am happy to accept it. I would have thought that the honourable member for O'Connor, as the former shadow Minister for small business, would appreciate that one of the things that will revolutionise small business is the introduction of computers in regard to their day-to-day management, operations and planning, be they for budgetary matters, stock, sales or even prescriptions. Personal computers these days give small businesses the oomph and the power that only the large corporations used to have and at a fraction of the cost. That cost is coming down. I make the point that pharmacists would not purchase a computer merely to carry out this sole prescription transaction. That is a very unfair argument. The honourable member referred to other prescription costs. He suggested that pharmacists who process 2,000 prescriptions a month would get back $50 a month, and that the other costs would greatly outweigh that sum. The critical thing that he ought to look at-again, using the figures of the honourable member for O'Connor -is that if a pharmacist on average is getting $9 per prescription and he is processing 2,000 prescriptions a month, he is receiving about $18,000. If the delay in processing is about two months, the figure would be about $36,000, and that figure would increase as the delays increased. There are holding charges, and an overdraft that must be paid. If we can reduce the delay in payments, the holding charges will be reduced. That is the most significant area of advantage for the chemists. It is pleasing to see the rapid take-up of computers by pharmacies in meeting the Government's keen desire to provide the information on floppy disks or straight into the computer. It surprised me that one Opposition member referred to the alternative system as Russian roulette. Another Opposition member conjured up pictures of Rookwood cemetery and hordes of Auditors-General rolling over in their graves regarding the alternative system that is being proposed. They suggest that because there is an element of random sampling, it is somehow outrageous or would not be tolerated. Let me say that in my dealings with the Department of Finance, I have never seen the Department keen to permit any system that would lead to overpayments. I think that the Opposition is showing a lack of confidence in the Department of Finance and also in the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In this day and age, as the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) said, there is a clustering around certain drugs and a certain price, and we ought to be using this sort of approach. I point out that the pharmacist is allowed to extract up to 10 per cent from the sample, for full processing. This will usually concern the higher priced items. I am surprised that these issues have been raised. I thought that the most curious aspect of the Opposition's policy was to insert a sunset clause. One must understand what the alternative system is all about. It is to be used by those people who do not have computers. So the Opposition is happy about those pharmacies that have been able to install new technology and get all those benefits. But the Opposition says that the system for those pharmacies that, for whatever reason, have not installed that technology-maybe because of lack of money-will end on 30 June 1989. What does the Opposition have against those pharmacies that do not have computers? Does the Opposition see this as a way of forcing the industry, by using the brute hand of government, to be 100 per cent computerised? Is this the intention of the Opposition? Perhaps we will find that out during the committee stage. Most honourable members have commented on the other aspects of the Bill that relate to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The change proposed is that the Government, whilst not wishing to avoid the purchasing of the most expensive drugs, will now require that Committee to take account of costs. I am pleased that that is so. I conclude by mentioning one area that I do not think has been commented on by any other member-that is, the area of the person doing the prescribing. We have talked about the technology that pharmacists can use in managing their business. We do have a serious problem in Australia. Plenty of studies have been done in this area, that is, the ability-I think it is related to pressure-of general practitioners to be able to know and prescribe the best and most useful drugs. One will often find that there have been changes as far as the availability of drugs is concerned, but some doctors have not caught up with those changes. I am not trying to launch into a vicious attack on doctors. I am proposing that maybe we ought to start to think about how we can computerise a database of those drugs that are available under this service and, of course, those that are not available. Maybe we should allow doctors to use this facility to ensure that they have access at a moment's notice to the latest information on available drugs. I hope that, although the Minister has other matters to look after, he might look at that matter, talk to the medical profession and see whether he cannot bring about some changes in that area. I commend the Government and the Minister for introducing the Bill. I reiterate that I take particular pride in the fact that our Minister has a small business background. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.30) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) for his kind words. I also thank all the honourable members who participated in this debate. It is interesting to note that the Opposition is not opposing this legislation; but, as was pointed out by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the Opposition intends to move amendments to the legislation. I will refer to just a few of the things mentioned by honourable members, especially the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb)-it might also have been mentioned by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron)-in relation to Australia becoming a nation of pill poppers. I know that lots of people are concerned about that, especially people in the medical profession. The majority of doctors are responsible people. They do not go around prescribing drugs willy-nilly. We all know that lots of people do not feel that they have been treated correctly if the doctor does not prescribe a drug for them, but I do not think there would be too many occasions when members of the medical profession prescribe drugs on that basis. We all know that certain people would be happy to scribble out a prescription just to get rid of the patient, but that does not happen on a great number of occasions. I am very happy that the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Streeton and especially the honourable member for Chifley have taken part in this debate. I also appreciate the contributions made by the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Farrer. I will deal with some of the points they have raised. I will start with the comments made by the honourable member for Moreton because he suggested at one stage that if I had a problem with some part of my body-which I can assure him I do not-I would rather have my practitioner prescribing the type of medicine I needed than it being prescribed by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). I point out to all members of this House, especially the honourable member for Moreton, that, whilst I have been a Minister for only a very short time, responsible for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, I have the highest regard for that very responsible and eminent group of persons. We in the Government really appreciate the great work and dedication of that group in helping to work out the drugs that need to be on the pharmaceutical benefits list. That group spends a lot of time thinking about those sorts of issues. I know that the nation including the majority of members of this House and the other chamber, appreciate the great work that is being done. The honourable member for Moreton was worried about the powers that the responsible Minister has-that I have-and that because I was a motor mechanic I might make some desperate decision for him not to have a proper oil change, or something like that. I might prescribe a bit of olive oil or castor oil on occasions for the honourable member for Moreton. But, other than that, I assure him that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and I would not make any decision in relation to drugs unless we had some good advice from all those eminent persons we have to deal with from time to time. I will go back to the comments of the shadow spokesperson on health, the honourable member for O'Connor. He referred to the problems of Pharmpay and the serious backlogs that occurred during those times. The honourable member would know that the Government has acknowledged the problems that occurred with Pharmpay. But he should be aware that the Pharmpay process system was conceived in 1979 and was approved under the Malcolm Fraser Government, as he was reminded previously by some other members on this side. The Government had a tremendous task in tidying up quite a considerable mess when we took control of the treasury bench-and we are still trying to tidy up the mess. These amendments are just part of a strategy to overcome most of these problems. The honourable member for O'Connor also talked about a private member's Bill for interest to be paid on late payments by the Commonwealth. As a businessman-he heard that I was a businessman-I know that it is not normal commercial practice to pay interest on late payments. The honourable member knows as well as I do that when in business we used the old 30-day system as much as we could and a lot of our customers used the 90-day system on us. So, he is well aware of the problems associated with business. I do not think that we, as business people, would have been able to charge our account customers who were not paying their accounts on time interest on late payments. Nor do I think we should expect the Commonwealth to do that. As I explained, we had problems with Pharmpay. They are being overcome now; but we could not really pay interest. It is not normal commercial practice. It is interesting to note that the payment times for pharmacists now are quite acceptable. All processing centres are now taking less than 20 days to process claims fully. In the case of the Victorian processing centre, the delay is less than half that. These amendments, and other initiatives resulting from the efficiency scrutiny, will make it much less likely that payment times in the future will exceed 30 days. I am sure that all pharmacists will be very happy about that. The honourable member for O'Connor also asked why we should pay the claims transmission system incentives for only two years. I think he is of the opinion that pharmacists should get a greater share of the suggested $5.75m savings from the claims transmission system. I just point out that pharmacists participating in the claims transmission system not only receive the 2.5c initiative but also receive payments 10 days earlier. I am sure the honourable member acknowledges that, if he could have been paid 10 days earlier when he was sending out his accounts, he would have appreciated that. That is also quite an incentive. As I have also pointed out, if a person buys at the beginning of a month and does not have to pay until the end of the next month, and he is being paid earlier, he has that extra payment from the Government that can be used in his business to his best advantage. The honourable member used to do that. He would not have been a successful businessman if he had not done those sorts of things. Mr Tuckey —Not as good as that. Mr HUMPHREYS —He might not have been paid on time. But if he is a successful businessman he knows that he has to be up with all those sorts of issues. I also point out that, at the current overdraft rate of 19.5 per cent, this earlier payment is worth an extra 4.8c per prescription. On this basis, over the first two years the pharmacist is receiving some 90 per cent of the estimated 7.8c savings achieved by processing each script through the claims transmission system. I do not think that pharmacists will be too badly off. The incentive payment is not intended to cover the cost of purchasing or operating a pharmacy computer, but to encourage those people with computers to participate in the claims transmission system. There are many advantages to pharmacists in using computers, which is why the trend towards computerisation commenced well before the claims transmission system was established. The honourable member knows as well as I do that if we have a computer in our business we can get ourselves organised and become more streamlined in the business. We would not put in a computer just to help out the Government. We would put it in to help ourselves. As a business person, the honourable member knows that. He would not do something that would not help to put him on top of the pile. He would not do it just to help the Commonwealth, although as a businessman and a taxpayer he would probably be helping the Commonwealth quite considerably in his business. The efficiency scrutiny found that in February this year 43 per cent of pharmacists had compatible computers or intended to purchase them within 12 months, but only 11 per cent of pharmacists were participating in the claims transmission system. I am happy to announce that the proportion of pharmacists participating in the claims transmission system now is 44 per cent, which clearly means that pharmacists find the incentives sufficient to encourage them to use the claims transmission system. I think it is a great incentive. Hopefully, more pharmacists will use it. I am sure that it will be to their advantage to take up the Commonwealth's offer. I am sure that when that 44 per cent of pharmacists start meeting and talking at their different committees, many more pharmacists will take up the offer. Computerisation of pharmacists' claims for reimbursement under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme has helped the Department of Community Services and Health to achieve greater accuracy and to process claims faster. The Government appreciates the great work done behind the scenes by the Department in this regard. Far too often bureaucrats and members of Parliament are accused of spending taxpayers' money unwisely. But not enough credit is paid to persons working behind the scenes; they have to work just as hard as politicians to get everything in order so these systems can work. The success of the new claims transmission system has resulted from close co-operation between the Government, pharmacists and the computer industry. In order to qualify for the additional 2.5c per prescription, pharmacists must be ready to participate in the system by the end of the month-I stress: by the end of the month. The honourable member for O'Connor said that we should extend this period, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I hope that those pharmacists who are listening in today will take up the opportunity of using the system. If they do not have a computer I am sure we could be a little sympathetic in that regard, as the honourable member for O'Connor suggested. It is important that those who intend to take up the opportunity do so. As well as speeding up the payment of claims, computerisation has enabled pharmacists to maintain more accurate records of drugs dispensed. As the honourable member for O'Connor realises this is an important issue. As a businessman he would realise how hard it is to keep track of the stock in his hotel and in his other business. He would know what stock he had so that he could keep it topped up. I am sure he uses a computer in his business and knows exactly what he has in stock. The honourable member would know how handy it is to be able to press a button to see, for instance, that one has 24 bottles of scotch, or whatever it may be, in the hotel and to be able to tell from that information what is needed for the month. He would appreciate that computers are more than just being of assistance to the Commonwealth. I know I am giving the honourable member for O'Connor a work over today but he mentioned many issues and I think it is important to respond to his comments. He was worried about the Government closing down the Adelaide and Hobart processing centres. I can assure the honourable member that at this stage no decision has been taken to close down any of the processing centres. The honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Moreton were concerned about random sampling. This reflects a nineteenth century approach to government accounting. The honourable member for Farrer was saying that Qantas Airways Ltd and other international airlines use this system now. It just goes to show that the Government is on line and that we are taking steps to ensure that we can do the best possible for the Commonwealth, the taxpayer and for those people who do not want to participate in the computer system. As a result of the program of efficiency scrutinies, the Government has rejected the attitude that every cent has to be checked and double-checked, even if it costs the taxpayer dollars to check each cent. The fact that we are following Qantas in this regard-or probably it is following our example-proves that we do not want to be checking every cent. The honourable member for Moreton was worried that pharmacists will be forced to accept the sampling method of payment. That is not the case. If pharmacists wish every script to be checked that will be done. The honourable member for O'Connor said that requiring the PBAC to consider costs and benefits will mean that patients will miss out on necessary drugs and that by comparing the cost of drugs with surgery, patients might be forced to have surgery. I can assure the honourable member and the House that this amendment will not mean that patients will miss out on necessary medication. As emphasised in my second reading speech, the Government has no objection to paying high prices for new drugs that offer significant therapeutic advantages. I can give honourable members an assurance on this matter. I appreciate the Opposition's not opposing this legislation. I appreciate all the contributions made by honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.46) —by leave- I move: (1) Clause 6, page 5, line 21, omit ``An'', substitute ``Subject to subsection (6) an''. (2) Clause 6, page 5, at the end of the clause add the following subsection: `` `(6) No alternative payment election has effect on or after 30 June 1989.'.''. The purpose of the amendments proposed by the Opposition is to save the Government money in a positive way, not by the negative process that this Government relies on entirely by redu-cing services to patients or remuneration to the health providers. Through that approach the poor in our community suffer. Today, an example of this was brought to my attention. The life of a Tobruk veteran was saved purely by the provision of an intravenous drip. But because of recent changes to the Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits schemes the service which saved the veteran's life is no longer rebatable-in other words, refundable under Medicare. The veteran is a pensioner and has no funds to pay the doctor. As a consequence, the doctor is forced to make a commercial judgment in an area of life and death. Naturally, the doctor made the decision in the patient's interest and the patient still lives. It is clear that the blanket decision of government which has been made in these matters-I highlighted it in my speech at the second reading stage-will always create these isolated problems which could cause a death. I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) to take note of the example I have just given the Committee. In that case, Medicare has imposed a moratorium on the use of intravenous drips and is still making that service rebatable but the Department of Veterans' Affairs is not. The Minister should take note of that; this case was brought to my attention today by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I am sure he could give the Minister further information on this. To get to the specifics of the amendment, the situation is, as has been explained during the second reading debate, that the legislation brings three proposals to the fore for the payment of pharmacists in comparison with the old Pharmpay system. I remind the Minister that Pharmpay itself, whether or not the system was introduced in 1975, is not where the problem started. The problem started in 1984 under this Government. Under the system of payment that existed in 1984, the worst scenario throughout Australia was a maximum delay in payment of 28 days. By March 1985 that had drifted to 102 days-as the worst example. Contrary to what the Minister said about that, the payment time is after lodgment of the claim. The pharmacist has already been providing that service and those drugs for a month. He lodges the claim and it takes whatever period it may be to pay. Pharmacists do not make much out of this quicker payment system-except that anything is better than what they had with the 102 days delay. There are three proposals, the first of which is the claims transmission service which the Opposition thinks is an excellent proposal and which was supported and argued for by the previous shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). It is the electronic alternative which is straight-out data transmission via floppy disks or via a modem. That is very good and we understand that nearly half of the pharmacies in Australia have taken up that option. It is the alternative measure that the Opposition is greatly concerned about, the utilisation of random sampling to establish what the Government owes a particular pharmacy. We recognise that that will be a lot quicker, and we recognise that considering the disaster of Pharmpay it is an appropriate mechanism in the short term. We are not suggesting for a minute that it should be thrown out or deleted from this Bill. The amendment is quite clear, in that it says: No alternative payment election has effect on or after 30 June 1989. That means that the profession and the Government will be left with two options. I mentioned that there were presently three. The third option is the old established manual payment system. There has been plenty of evidence from both sides of the chamber that more and more pharmacies will take up the electronic option, the computer option or whatever, irrespective of the paucity of the Government's incentive. I am sorry, but I believe that, when a major initiative from Government providers, whether they be health providers or pharmaceutical providers, can be established that substantially pays the taxpayer money, there should be a good incentive for the innovator, or the co-operator, because if the incentive does not exist people will not take up the option. Whatever else happens, the community and the Government will be the loser as a result. I made the point yesterday that, if $5.75m is available out of this to the Government and around $1.25m is to go to the pharmacy profession, that is a pretty uneven balance because the pharmacy profession is investing in new equipment and having to undertake other manual labour tasks associated with this arrangement. If the Government wants the rest in the scheme-and I am sure that would be best for everybody not only in regard to the time it takes to pay but also because of the accuracy of records, which the Minister said is advantageous to other areas of small business-and if it wants that sort of co-operation from a conscripted provider, it should encourage the providers to co-operate. The Opposition is saying that, if its amendment is accepted, as of June 1989-and let us hope this very inexact method of random sampling has been removed by then and that 80 or 90 per cent of pharmacies are using the electronic method, the preferred method-assuming that the Government gets it right and bearing in mind this is only the alternative method to get the Government out of the disaster that was Pharmpay, surely the Government ought to be able to handle that final 20 per cent, which would involve all small pharmacies, by the manual method, which, irrespective of its slowness, is an exact method. I know all about cost benefit; I know that it pays sometimes to lose a little on one side to gain it on the other, but we believe that this particular system could be open to considerable distortion and, in fact, to rorting in the end and we will have some desperate government of the future coming in and explaining how bad it is. A couple of honourable members have chosen to talk about the safety net provision introduced into the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and that provision basically says that a person can pay for the first 25 prescriptions but get paid for all the others. There is evidence in the community that that provision is being abused. People have woken up to the fact that they can get 25 very low cost prescriptions, irrespective of whether they need them, and then, are free to have open slather on all the rest, which could be hugely expensive. These are some of the points that have to be raised. Whatever system we bring in that is not exact, that has a degree of flexibility in it, we will find sections of the community abusing it. It is the Opposition's view that the level of abuse will be such as to be quite expensive to the Government, and we do not see it as a long term alternative. We do not consider that this particular initiative needs to be in place for too long, and if there is a clear understanding in the pharmacy profession that after a period of time they will be left with only two options-namely, the electronic option or the manual option-that will be a further incentive for pharmacies to get into computer equipment which will enable them to get prompt payment and the Government to get an efficient and exact service. All of that seems to make a lot of sense to me and I hope, therefore, that that is what the Government does. I repeat the points I have made: this is not a negative approach, but it is not the sort of approach that has been taken by this Government to everything to do with the delivery of health services. The $8,200m total is the second biggest one line item in the Budget. It is now worrying the Government, but its alternative is to screw down on providers and consumers without looking at the other option of getting more efficiency into the system. This applies not so much in this particular area as to the general health area, where in fact, were the Government to make more use of the private sector instead of frightening people away from it and if it had less inclination to be the owner of the shop instead of the provider of assistance to people in need, it would have a much more efficient system. We would not have the situation that we have about us now. I refer as an example to the Tobruk veteran who could have died had it been up to the Government to provide the service that the doctor was forced to provide for nothing. If that situation continues it will be the very poor and the underprivileged in our community who will be the losers, because the wealthy will always find the funds to meet whatever costs they face. It is with pleasure that I ask the chamber to support these amendments. They are in the Government's interests, they enable more efficiency and less cost and they remove the long term opportunity for rorting the system. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.56) —I wish to respond to a couple of points raised in this debate. First, just as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) had something sprung on him yesterday, so too have I. The matter concerns the need for an orthopaedic procedure to be performed at a hospital. The specialist concerned is a visiting medical officer (VMO) at a public hospital and he also practises at a private hospital. He has informed the patient in question that the delay at a public hospital is 12 months. The procedure can be done immediately at the private hospital. This instantly conjures up great inefficiencies in the public hospitals, but of course that is terribly misleading. What he has not told the patient is that he has an operating list one day a month at that hospital. I happen to know, because the hospital is in my electorate, how desperate that hospital is, firstly, to increase the number of VMOs and, secondly, to increase the operating lists of those VMOs. But the specialist chooses to direct the poor, the rich or any patient that he has into a private hospital. Maybe he is a part owner, I do not know. The issue is not waiting lists at public hospitals; the issue is the amount by which specialists are prepared to increase their lists at those public hospitals. Like the honourable member for O'Connor, I do not want to wander too far in this debate. I want to try to understand the purpose particularly of the second amendment that the Opposition has moved. The honourable member for O'Connor said that there are three systems, the first of which is the computer system. I agree with him in that if every pharmacist were on that system we would have a more efficient system and everyone would be delighted. We are all pleased at the rate of take-up. I do not quibble with that. But the second amendment proposes to take away from those pharmacists not on the computer system by 1989 their option to elect an alternative payment system. It removes the alternative random sampling method and, as the honourable member for O'Connor has said, it leaves them with the third option-the manual option. Both the random sampling method and the manual option are manual systems. There are two differences. There is the incentive of 2.5 per prescription on the alternative system, and there is a quicker processing of bills. I agree with the honourable member that we ought to give every encouragement to pharmacists to move off manual systems and on to computer systems. I do not see it as the Government's role to force pharmacies that do not have computers to have computers or, alternatively, to penalise them after June 1989 if they remain on the manual system where every item is processed. I cannot understand the attraction for the Opposition in restricting these small businessmen, in their choice as to what system they have, by saying that if pharmacies stay in the manual system they will not benefit from the small remuneration of 2.5c per prescription and the shorter processing time. I would be most grateful if the Minister could explain why the Opposition is so down on those pharmacies that do not use computers. Why can they not be left alone to their own choice? If the Opposition is saying that it would like to have a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the alternative payment system, I am sure the Minister would agree to that. Why should we not look and see whether that system is delivering? It is part of the managerial task anyway. However, I cannot understand why we should take away that option and that freedom of choice from pharmacists. I cannot understand such a suggestion, especially when it comes from the Opposition. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.02) —I want briefly to take up some points raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in his speech earlier on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, in particular, as they highlight some of the weaknesses of the health system. Government speakers have pointed out again and again that there are certain abuses of the system. Everyone supports efforts to rid the system of those abuses. However, what Government members fail to understand is what is causing those abuses. Furthermore, having tried to cut out those abuses, Government members still fail to understand that the methods they are using in fact, in many cases, penalise the genuinely sick and, in particular, penalise those who can least afford to seek alternative solutions to their health problems. The honourable member for O'Connor raised the subject of a very interesting incident-it has just been drawn to my attention-which occurred recently in my electorate concerning one of the Rats of Tobruk, still a very famous group of people in our society. That veteran unfortunately collapsed and was taken to the hospital, where he was unconscious for two days. The only way the doctor could save his life was to give him intravenous infusions. I am glad to see that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is at the table because I am sure he will be interested in following up this case. The Repatriation Commission refused to recognise the treatment. In fairness to the doctor involved, I ask whether he has or has not performed his duty. The answer quite clearly is that he has. However, the Repatriation Commission refused to recognise what the doctor had done and said that the doctor was entitled to be paid only for an ordinary hospital visit. This doctor saved the life of a man who served his country at Tobruk, a very famous battle of the last war-something of which I am sure the Minister would be well aware. That is what happened. This is the way the system has refused to recognise the support the doctor gave to that sick person. The repatriation system has ruled that our completely. I think that incident is symptomatic of an overall problem in our society today resulting from the changes to Medicare in the May mini-Budget. In many cases the Government, in trying to stamp out abuses, will in fact encourage bad medicine. In other words, it will not reward doctors for doing what they believe is the right thing. It will penalise them because the Government is trying to stamp out abuses which a small minority of people is engaging in. The Government should look closely at why the abuses are occurring. The simple answer is that Medicare is failing. Medicare is failing because, as everyone knows, it was destined to fail right from the beginning. Such a system does fail. It has failed overseas. It has failed in Canada, on whose system we have modelled ours. However, we find now that not only are beds being closed in Canadian hospitals but, in fact, complete hospitals are being closed. There is no doubt that the case which I have just highlighted is a serious indictment of what is happening to the whole health care system in Australia and, in this particular instance, not only what is happening to Medicare but also what is happening to the repatriation system. I hope that the Minister will move very quickly to rectify the problem. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.05) —The Government cannot agree to the Opposition's proposed amendments to the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, as I am sure the honourable member for O`Connor (Mr Tuckey) would have known. In relation to the incident which the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has mentioned to the Committee, I will certainly check this matter. Although I do not think that it has a great deal to do with the amendment, I will take that matter on board because both the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Wannon brought the matter up. I assure the honourable member for Wannon that I will look at the matter if he gives me the names and addresses of the gentleman and the doctor concerned. The honourable member for O'Connor said that his proposed amendments would save the Government money. That is incorrect. The sample processing is estimated to save $3m per annum in processing costs. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) said that he did not know why the Opposition was not keen on pharmacies being allowed to operate in the way they have always done by, for example, taking part in the sample processing. I mention to the honourable member for O'Connor and other honourable members that the sample processing method has been checked by and agreed to by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Commonwealth Department of Finance. I am sure the honourable member for O'Connor will be interested to know that the sample processing method, in conjunction with the incentive payments being offered for this method, will ensure that over a two-year period pharmacists will have a nine out of 10 chance of being overpaid and one chance in 1,000 of being underpaid by more than 0.5 per cent. The pharmacists will be well in front in that regard. I do not think we will have problems there. The honourable member for O'Connor will appreciate that probably all pharmacists will not be able to hook into the system we are suggesting. A lot of pharmacists in country areas do not have a tremendous clientele or a big job to do. They have plenty of time to check their stock and therefore may not need the use of a computer. Although a computer may help them in some degree, they probably would not have the number of prescriptions of local large pharmacists. The honourable member mentioned in his speech yesterday that we used to be able to go into the small pharmacy to buy our medication but that now we are tripping over vitamin pills and toys and all sorts of other things. I think that the honourable member would appreciate that in business people have to diversify a little, otherwise they will not be able to survive in those small areas. Mr Tuckey —Not only in small areas! Mr HUMPHREYS —I mean in small country towns. Therefore, I leave the Opposition with my earlier remark, that once again the Government cannot agree to the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Sciacca, C.Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L.Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J.Johns, G. T. White, P. N. D. Jones, BarryProsser, G. D. Beazley, K. C.Cameron Ian Dawkins, J. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Duncan: That this House consents to termination by the Commonwealth of the Airlines Agreement 1981. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.17) —At the outset, let me thank the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) for facilitating a debate on this most important issue, which deals with the deregulation of Australia's domestic airline industry. Also at the outset, let me say that, as a result of this Government's policies, two great Australian institutions-Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd-are in desperate financial straits. The motion before the House represents a belated recognition by the Government that deregulation is the only means by which the airline industry can be competitive and efficient and be responsive to the needs of the travelling public. This motion has been a long time coming. Mr Lee —You did not do anything. Mr BEALE —I will tell the honourable member what we did. In 1981, we introduced a two-airline agreement which was a substantial improvement on the previous one, and we introduced legislation to turn Australian Airlines into a public company, legislation which this Government repealed in 1984. This Government has, after all, had the opportunity to terminate the two-airline argeement at any time since 26 January this year, but it is already nine months since that date, and only now do we have an opportunity to discuss this issue. For that reason, the Opposition is moving an amendment, which has been circulated in my name, noting the Government's delay in terminating the two- airline agreement and condemning it for certain aspects of the document which was released by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) on 7 October this year entitled Domestic Aviation: a new direction for the 1990s. I want to point out to the Minister that the amendment that we propose was carried in the Senate, and that clause 22 (5) of the Airlines Agreement 1981 makes it clear that termination can be completed only if both Houses of Parliament pass the relevant resolution. It seems reasonably clear, although no doubt the Minister will want to take advice on this matter, that termination can take effect only if the Government is prepared to accept our amendment. Although I recognise that, in some respects, the amendment is critical of the Government, nonetheless what we say is that it is accurate and the Government should accept the amendment so that termination can take place as soon as this motion passes this House. The coalition parties will not oppose the motion because the motion proposes a course of action that we have been advocating for some years now. In fact, very many of the phrases from the document on domestic aviation are taken almost word for word from the Liberal and National parties' domestic airline policy. Unfortunately, the document simply does not go far enough. I would like to spend some time detailing those areas with which the Government has failed to come to terms. It is a matter of too little too late. The two-airline system has served Australia well over the years and it has facilitated through successive governments the growth of a dependable, consistent and safe airline industry in this country. In fact, our safety record on commercial aviation is the envy of every other country in the world. However, times change and so have the circumstances surrounding the type of regulation needed in the airline industry in order to provide the kinds of services the travelling public wants. The 1981 agreement recognised that change and that there was a need for improved competition. That agreement has been only partially successful in meeting its objective. The coalition parties recognised some time ago that there was a need for change and for most of the period that this Government has been in office we have been pushing for deregulation of the domestic aviation industry. We have constantly emphasised the need for the Government to reduce its involvement in regulation of the industry. What we find very difficult to believe is that it has taken the Government so long to come to the realisation that deregulation is appropriate, and only then to come to it in half measure. This slow dawning on the Government that it can no longer afford the extravagance of interfering in the day to day running of airlines, let alone running an airline itself, is a recognition that the coalition's aviation policy has been the most appropriate one for Australia. Labor's attempts to deride what I have been saying have now shown themselves to be blatantly false. We condemn the Government for its failure to face up to one of the most crucial areas in the deregulation issue, and that is its failure to bite the bullet on what it plans to do with its own carrier, Australian Airlines. Deregulation of Australia's airline industry without any accompanying statement on what the Government intends to do with Australia Airlines is one of the most economically senseless and political cynical acts. The fact is that the Government knows it cannot promote an effective, efficient and competitive domestic airline industry without ensuring that Australian Airlines can compete on equal terms, and it knows this cannot happen unless the shackles of Government constraints are removed from that airline and that Australian has access to appropriate funding. The Government has put its toe in the water by conceding that it must convert Australian Airlines to a public company and I venture to suggest that the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) will not be taking too many copies of the Hansard of today around his electorate because if he does his constituents will be asking, `Why have we got that dill in the Parliament?'. I need hardly remind the House that this was the same Government that in 1984 repealed legislation that would have permitted the transfer of what was then Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) to public company status. The then Minister, in repealing the legislation, stated that public company status was not appropriate for TAA and that deregulation was not appropriate for the airline industry. It really does take some time for this Government to get its act together. In any event, the Government has almost certainly made up its mind to privatise Australian Airlines. There is simply no other solution to the problems raised by public sector controls and lack of funding that would enable Australian Airlines to compete in the domestic market. The Government, in an attempt to circumvent its internal factional difficulties, has created the smokescreen of an advisory group which will, within six months, report to the Government on the alternatives for the future capital requirements of Australian Airlines. The composition of that group is fascinating in that the five appointees all come from what I might loosely call special interest groups. Their recommendation on future financing for Australian Airlines will lock in those interest groups, so that the Government can say to its party room, `Look, we have had this expert advisory group which comes from a spectrum of interests. We are bound to accept its recommendation'. That recommendation almost certainly will be to privatise Australian Airlines in order to give that company access to the very substantial funds it needs in order to compete effectively. Of particular interest is the appointment of the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to that advisory group. In fact, the Secretary of the ACTU is becoming increasingly busy these days as he assumes a number of advisory jobs for the Government which, as we know, cannot make a decision in the economic area without the blessing of that organisation. The Opposition wishes the advisory group well. We have little doubt that it will recommend privatising Australian Airlines and our criticism of the Government is for building into the deregulation process a further nine months delay; that is, until after the Australian Labor Party conference in June next year. Then and only then, a year and a half after the Government was in a position to do so, will it commence the process of implementing the coalition's aviation policy. The delay also has some unfortunate side effects for competition in the industry. For example, any potential new entrant would wish to be very careful about the extent to which it commits itself to become involved in the industry before the Government makes clear its plans for Australian Airlines. Even Ansett Airlines of Australia, which has competed against Australian Airlines very effectively over the past few years, takes the position that deregulation cannot be effective without privatising Australian Airlines. The coalition's policy has specific provisions relating to the maintenance of air services to isolated communities; Senator Evans's `new direction' does not. The coalition's policy details a specific level of cross-airline ownership; Senator Evans's `new direction' does not. The coalition's policy gives details of how the nation's airports will be managed; Senator Evans's `new direction' does not. In fact, the Government's Federal Airports Corporation is still in limbo, inappropriately staffed or alternatively overstaffed, its commencement date deferred again and financing details still to be resolved. The coalition's policy gives detailed plans to make what was formerly the Department of Aviation more efficient and able to cope with a deregulated environment; Senator Evans's `new direction' does not. In fact, the Government has cast another smokescreen over this matter by saying that it will create a civil aviation corporation or a civil aviation authority, which is clearly designed to obscure its own inefficiencies. The coalition's policy outlines a review of regulations and Air Navigation Orders to improve their effectiveness and simplicity; Senator Evans's `new direction' shows hardly any interest in this area. In fact, in very many aspects the documents that the two Ministers have tabled are not `A New Direction for the 1990s' but `directionless' for the 1990s. One other very important matter deserves comment. The `new direction' fails to deal with the great difficulties being experienced by international travellers returning to Australia. Such passengers have been lying in the aisles and lounges of airports around the world because there have been insufficient seats on flights returning to Australia. Furthermore, for example, there is demand in excess of the available seats for 400 tourists each week to go to Darwin, and so valuable tourist dollars are being lost to Australia. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) is quarrelling not only with the former environment Minister about the monorail from Ayers Rock to the Olgas but also with the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) about the provision of additional international airline seats. At the very minimum, the matter could be partially alleviated by privatising a minority interest in Qantas to enable it to begin the process of spending the necessary $400m or more that it needs to spend in order to re-equip its fleet over the next five years, and so provide more seats. Again, I commend to the Government this part of the coalition's aviation policy. I point out to the Government that as a result of its policies and its failure to fund Australian Airlines and Qantas properly it has put these two great Australian institutions in desperate financial straits. Until the Government bites the bullet and decides what has to be decided about ownership of Australian Airlines and Qantas, until it comes to the decision to privatise Australian Airlines, and until it comes to the decision to privatise, at the minimum, a minority interest in Qantas it will leave these two most important and revered Australian institutions at desperate financial risk. It is all too little too late. The deregulation of the domestic airline industry will not be complete without privatisation of Australian Airlines and a more efficient Department of Aviation. The Government has failed in terms of time lost and it has failed in terms of plans to be implemented prior to the official termination of the agreement in three years. It has failed in terms of airport infrastructure, especially in Sydney, and it has failed in terms of air freight and the morale of the employees of Australian Airlines. Having given those reasons, while members of the Opposition do not oppose the motion itself, we commend our amendment to the House. I move: That the following words be added to the motion: ``, and (1) notes the long overdue adoption by the Government of a substantial part of the Coalition's aviation policy: ``, and (2) further notes the Government's de facto decision to privatise Australian Airlines, which is the inevitable and proper consequence of the deregulation of the airline industry; and ``, and (3) condemns the Government for: (a) the time lost since the first day that notice of termination of the Two Airlines Agreement could have been given (January 1987) and the effect this has had on the postponement of the commencement of deregulation of the Australian airline industry; (b) its inaction during this period in not preventing the removal of competitors in the airline industry, which will substantially reduce competition; (c) the repeal of legislation which the previous Coalition Government had in place to convert the then Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) into a company, thereby reducing the ability of TAA to readily adjust to the new deregulated environment; (d) the absence of pre-1990 informal measures to facilitate deregulation; (e) its failure to provide the necessary infrastructure at Australia's airports, especially Kingsford-Smith Airport in Sydney, so as to cope with present and, more importantly, future congestion; (f) not completely deregulating domestic and international airfreight carried by Australian airlines; and (g) creating unnecessary uncertainty amongst Australian Airline employees as to their future''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.32) —In speaking in support of the termination of the Airlines Agreement 1981 and the statement made by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), I point out that once again the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has claimed in this chamber that the sole purpose of Government policy in this matter is to pre-empt debate on whether the public enterprises of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd are to be sold off to private enterprise. I reject that claim as being sheer and unadulterated nonsense. The trouble with the Opposition in this House, and I refer to both the Liberal and National parties, is that it fails to grasp how the democratic processes in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) actually work. Of course, I am not going to deny that thoughts of privatising-what a terrible word that is-Australian Airlines are in the heads of some Ministers in the Government. Mr McGauran —Ha! Mr MILTON —Why does the honourable member not listen? He might learn something about the democratic processes undertaken in the Labor Party. A full scale debate on the issue of privatisation is presently taking place within the ALP and it will continue up to and including the June national conference of the Party. I have made no secret of my complete support not only for the retention of public enterprises in Australia but also for an extension of public enterprises to some of the commanding heights of the economy. I have no doubt that the supporters of public enterprise will win the debate. I have a notice of motion listed for debate in this House at a future time when I hope to be able to elaborate my views on this matter. Today, however, we are not debating the matter of public versus private enterprise; we are debating the termination of the airlines agreement and the new direction for domestic aviation in the 1990s. I consider that privatisation and the future of the aviation industry are entirely separate issues, and I intend to speak in this debate accordingly. Let me repeat: It does not follow that the ending of the airlines agreement will lead to the privatisation of Australian Airlines. I note that Australian Airlines has gone on record in its response to the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation as follows: Australian Airlines believes that its ownership is not relevant in any consideration of changes to the regulatory system. I must admit that prior to my election to this House on 18 October 1980, I had had little experience of aircraft operations, either domestic or international. It is true to say that the majority of Australians do not travel regularly on domestic aircraft, although I believe that the number of people who travel at least several times a year will rapidly increase over the next few decades. In my view, the ending of the airlines agreement will be one of the reasons for an increase in air travel. Since I became a member of parliament I have travelled on at least 60 flights each year, mostly, of course, between Canberra and Melbourne. My best experience of the operations of airlines was gained from 20 May 1983 to September 1985, as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation while the Committee was undertaking a three-year inquiry into the effect of aircraft noise on the Australian population. Our inquiry was preceded by a House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise and that Committee also made a number of recommendations, most of which had been implemented by 1983, although in the view of many people living close to or under aircraft flight paths not necessarily satisfactorily. By the time a report was submitted to the House in September 1985, the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise had taken over the work of the Environment and Conservation Committee of the Thirty-third Parliament, with myself as Chairman of that Select Committee. In the course of my remarks I will refer to some of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which entitled its September 1985 report Aircraft operations and the Australian community. I commend the report to those new members of the House who may not have read it, and this applies particularly to those members who live in the Sydney metropolitan region. Having established my credentials to join in this debate, I should also add that as Chairman of the Select Committee, I had the thrilling experience of attempting a simulated take-off and landing in a jet airliner-not too successfully I might add. I also sat in the cockpit with the air- crew on a number of Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines flights, and discussed the practical problems of aircraft operations. I also had many discussions in the control towers of our major airports with air traffic controllers, and as well I talked with airline operators and Royal Australian Air Force personnel. The most lively meetings of all were with the people who live close to or under the flight paths of our major airports. Unfortunately, I do not have time to detail some of those discussions, but I am sure that members of the House would find them most interesting. I believe that the report that was produced is one of the most comprehensive reports on the effect of aircraft operations on the environment surrounding airports, particularly in relation to aircraft noise. In this respect, I was pleased to read in the published response of Australian Airlines entitled Response to the Report of the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation the following comment: The 112 seat configuration of the Australian Airlines' Boeing 737-300 is an outcome of our desire to replace the 92 seat McDonnell-Douglas DC9 with a new, quieter, fuel efficient aircraft. The 737-300 was the only aircraft in production which met these criteria. Whilst I appreciate that seating density was an important factor relating to the acquisition of the Boeing 737-700, it is gratifying to note that the matter of quietness was also an important factor. It is interesting to note that the first airline agreement originated in 1952, and since that time there have been a number of contractual and legislative arrangements. It is a pity that the Hansard report cannot record, amongst all the black print, pictures of the different types of aircraft, representing stages in the development of aviation policy in Australia. It would certainly make the Hansard more attractive for future reference. The Minister referred to the 1972 airlines agreement and to the 1981 airlines agreement, and there is no doubt that those agreements have allowed the private aviation industry to grow to such an extent that by now Australian Airlines is smaller than Ansett, and it will need freedom to expand without the restrictions on its raising of capital which presently exist with the requirement that it be subject to the borrowing constraints exercised by the Loan Council. I have noticed that the Minister has said that the Government is examining the scope for removing the borrowing controls on Australian Airlines, among other controls on government business enterprises. I sincerely hope that the borrowing restriction will be lifted at the earliest opportunity to enable Australian Airlines to compete with some chance of economic survival against Ansett and any other business predator which may be seeking to make some privatisation gains at the expense of Australian Airlines. Australian Airlines has pointed out, and again I quote from its report: In contrast to Australian Airlines, Ansett, which is owned by worldwide media and transport interests with immense financial strength, has used its commercial freedom and great resources to move to a position from which it could dominate the domestic aviation market in a less regulated environment. It also said: Australian Airlines stands ready to compete in a less regulated market, but in order to do so it is essential the Government affords it similar commercial freedom to its competitors including access to capital. I will not repeat what I have said before in this speech, except to say that the Government's present initiative was something that had to be done to enable Australian Airlines to provide-and I quote the Minister-`effective competition across the travel route network'. I would now like to make some references to the September 1985 report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise and to express my regret that the Government has not yet responded to the 31 recommendations of the Committee. While I appreciate the difficulties for the Government with regard to the July election, it seemed to me not unreasonable for the Government to have made a considered response to those of the recommendations which were less sensitive in the policy areas, the implementation of which could improve the efficiency and safety of aircraft operations. I refer particularly to recommendations Nos 1 to 9 inclusive, requiring the introduction of various studies and surveys on the effects of aircraft noise levels on human health and the value of land and buildings, and possible damage to buildings. Other recommendations were related to aircraft procedures involving flight paths and others were related to land zoning. Many of those recommendations could have been implemented with little opposition from the major users of airports and people living close to airports. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that the Government would have gained approval for implementing the recommendations. I quote from the second paragraph of recommendation 11: The Department of Aviation investigate fully the feasibility of installing additional navigational equipment at noise sensitive areas which would enable flight paths to be designed to lessen noise impacts. I think that what that pointed to was the need for an upgrading of navigational equipment in some of the major airports in general and the control towers in particular. I have been advised, however, that the Government is sympathetic to the Committee's recommendations and that the reason for the delay is that the report addressed difficult and complex problems involving the three levels of government-that is, Federal, State and local. I understand that the Government considers that many of our conclusions are interrelated and believes that a single comprehensive response addressing all recommendations would be more appropriate than an incomplete interim response. I have noted specifically the Minister's comments on safety. Deregulation of the airline industry in the United States of America (USA) has resulted in a desperate shortage of experienced pilots, maintenance crews, accident investigators and aircraft controllers. The Minister has attributed the problems with the United States aviation work force as due to cost, but I think that they are also due to an intransigent government which refuses to recognise the dangers which cost cutting and the so-called free flow of market forces can cause in a deregulated industry. Several weeks ago I travelled on an aircraft which was held up for 50 minutes because it had suffered a hydraulic failure. In the deregulated aviation industry in the USA, that plane probably would have been used. But I am glad that in Australia we operate with a higher level of safety standards. Many accidents are occurring in the United States as a result of deregulation. I was most pleased to note the Minister's comments on safety regulations and the paramount importance of continuing to apply safety regulation and surveillance when the airlines agreement terminates. I congratulate the Australian aviation industry on its high safety standards. I trust that the proposed review of the legislative framework for safety regulations, which is to be undertaken by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), will ensure that `simplification and rationalisation' does not mean a lessening of the present safety standards. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If it is resumed, the honourable member for La Trobe will have leave to continue his speech. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr BURR(Lyons)(1.45) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull). I want to raise in the grievance debate today the very serious problem that is developing in Australia as a result of the Commonwealth Government's intrusion into land-use management, an area that has always traditionally been under the powers of the State governments. This is not happening just in one State and it is not happening just in one area. A fundamental change has come over the division of powers as between the Commonwealth and the States as a result of the High Court decision relating to what is known as the Franklin Dam case. In that particular case the High Court ruled that, in fact, the Commonwealth Government had the power to intervene in matters that had traditionally been the responsibility of State governments and for the Commonwealth Government to effectively take over the land-use management in what is now known as the South West National Park or the Wild Rivers National Park. As a result of that particular case, the precedent the decision created is now being taken to much greater extent, particularly now in relation to the forestry issue and in relation to other environmental matters where the Commonwealth Government is using the precedent of the Franklin Dam case to intervene and to pass legislation giving instruction to the States as to how their land areas should be managed, that is, effectively to take over the land-use management of those areas. We are seeing this in the case of Kakadu National Park, the north Queensland rainforests and in certain forestry areas in Tasmania. In relation to the forestry areas in Tasmania, I will be fairly curbed in what I say in that particular matter as the issue is currently before the High Court and I would not wish to make too pointed comments because the matter could very well be ruled to be sub judice until such time as the High Court has made a ruling. If we trace this issue back-I believe it is fair to trace it back-to the Constitution and to the point of Federation, if we read through the constitutional debates during the 1890s before Federation, we find that one thing overshadowed all those debates. It was the fear of the small States; the people representing the small States feared that if they came into federation as a country, as a nation of Australia, the interests of the small States would be overridden by the voting and numerical strengths of New South Wales and Victoria. It was because of that fear held by all the small States at that time that the Constitution was arranged in the way it was. It was the very purpose of having the Senate organised in the way it was: to give protection to the small States and to prevent those small States from being overridden by the interests particularly of Melbourne and Sydney, but generally of the larger, more populous States of Victoria and New South Wales. We see now, Mr Deputy Speaker, that because of interests in Melbourne and Sydney in particular, the interests of the small States-Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania-are being completely ignored; that the interests of people living in those States are being totally overridden because of demands of people living in Melbourne and Sydney. I do not think any of us in this Parliament would believe that the present Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, has suddenly had an insight and has become a born again greenie. None of us would believe that. Senator Richardson has looked at the political research, he has looked at opinion polls and has determined that there are perhaps votes to be won in Melbourne and Sydney if he overrules the interests of the small States and makes himself popular with the conservation movement. Because of that, because Senator Richardson and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) believe that votes can be won in Melbourne and Sydney, he is quite prepared to put thousands of people in Tasmania and north Queensland out of work simply to pacify those conservation people in Melbourne and Sydney. That was the very circumstance that people representing the small States so much feared during the 1890s when the constitutional conventions were being held. It was for that very reason that we had the Constitution framed in the way it is, the very reason for having the Senate arranged in the way it is: to give equal representation to the States and therefore give protection to the smaller States. But we are seeing all those constitutional and structural arrangements in Australia poured down the drain because Senator Richardson and the Prime Minister believe they can win votes in Melbourne and Sydney. It may well be that this is the way the Australian people want to go. But they should not go down that road blind; they should know what they are doing before they go down that road. It is my view, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if we do want so fundamentally to turn the Constitution over, it should not be done by back-door methods such as those being used by Senator Richardson and the Prime Minister. It should be done by a change to our Constitution, by proposing a referendum to give all the people of Australia the opportunity to say whether they want the Constitution changed. But as a result of the High Court decision in the Franklin Dam case, the Government found that it could use a back-door method through the foreign affairs power, which was never intended to be used in the way it is. The High Court ruled that the Federal Government could use the foreign affairs power to take over powers that had traditionally been the province of the State governments. If we continue down that road, we then have to question what will be the role of the State governments. What mechanism can we in Australia provide that will give comfort and security to people living outside the major population areas of Melbourne and Sydney. If no constitutional or institutional protection is given to those people, at any time their interests can be taken over and subsumed by the interests of people living in Melbourne and Sydney. It is a very dangerous situation and I would be surprised if my friend from the other side of the chamber, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), would not share some of these concerns that I have, coming from the area that he does. I think people who have a genuine and heartfelt interest in conservation should be reminded that in the case of the north Queensland rainforests, covering as they do an area 450 kilometres long by almost 100 kilometres wide at the widest point, only 20 per cent of that area is to be logged; 80 per cent of it will never be touched. In that 20 per cent that is to be logged, only four trees per hectare are to be taken and those trees will be nominated by officers from the Queensland Forestry Commission. Four trees will be taken per hectare each 40 years, which will give that area plenty of time to recover and to regenerate. I do not think any of us would consider that to be excessive use of the rainforest area. In the case of Tasmania there is a very well planned and designed forest management program in place that is designed very substantially to improve the quality of forests over an 80-year period. But we should also be conscious that in Tasmania 27 per cent of its land area is currently in the form of national parks-27 per cent of the land area of that State, which takes in huge areas of our natural environment. Those areas will never be touched for forestry, mining or any other form of development. So the emotions that are generated in Melbourne and Sydney in very many cases are misplaced, although I understand the heartfelt concerns of people living in those areas. What I believe is of more importance in this issue is the constitutional role and the protection under the Constitution that may or may not be given to the small States in the future. If the Commonwealth insists on taking over these areas of powers, traditionally the province of the small States, I believe it is running a grave risk of disintegrating the federation of Australia. I do urge my friends on the other side to think carefully about where they are heading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.56) —I enter this debate to raise an issue of particular importance to central Queensland but, I believe, also to the nation generally. I refer to the Byfield area, which is north of Yeppoon in central Queensland and which for the last 15 or so years has been proposed as a national park. It has been described by some who are involved in the environmental movement as the Cooloola on the Capricorn coast. I think this is understandable, because in comparison with Cooloola it is climatically similar and the area is rich in vegetation associations. It is an extremely interesting area, in fact. If you were to travel in the Stockyard Point area you would find part of it clothed in open and, in some cases, closed heath scrub. There are also the melaleuca open forests and low open forests and additionally interdunal swamps. In other parts of this 13,000-hectare area there are isolated pockets of rainforests, and many people appreciate now, because of the publicity given to the fact, that it is the home of the rare Byfield fern. The region is also notable because other plant species are found there including the rare grevillea venusta. Although it naturally occurs in the Byfield-Port Curtis area, it is certainly a very important species found in the Byfield section itself. The region butts on to an area known as Corio Bay which itself is an important estuarine area with significant tracts of well-developed mangroves thriving on the large volumes of fresh water that flow out of Water Park Creek. I suppose one could go on talking about the sea front, expanding upon the low open woodlands, the Wallum community the eucalyptus, the shrub lands, the sand masses, the mountains, the rocky headlands, the plains, the beaches, the fast flowing streams and so on. But suffice to say that it is an important area and it is an area that has land forms and vegetation patterns that should be preserved. I stress `preserved', not to the advantage of a few individuals but to the advantage of all Australians. The importance has been recognised by people from both sides of the political fence. In more recent times, there have been some promises by the Queensland National Party Government to declare the area as a national park. In fact, some of those promises seem to go back about 10 years, although it is very hard to tie them down to a time. Despite the promises there has been no action, although I think everyone has believed that something would eventually happen. Unfortunately now the question arises whether or not the declaration of a national park is assured, because there has been the exposure of a proposal by the Premier of Queensland to hand over about 8,000 hectares of this 13,000-hectare area to the Japanese tourism developer, Iwasaki. I note that today's Sydney Morning Herald denies this and the Deputy Premier of Queensland has come out and said that it is not on. However, claims have been made in the central Queensland area and they have now been made in the State Parliament, particularly by the Australian Labor Party spokesman on the environment, Pat Comben, that Cabinet is acting on this matter. In fact, a submission was put to Cabinet on Monday 31 August, which was taken to the Queensland National Party Cabinet by the Premier himself. This submission pushes not a national park but an environmental park in the Byfield area. It also proposes that land should be made available for port access if that is required. Some two weeks ago I was told by a very senior departmental officer in Queensland that a proposition was being put together by the Premier and Iwasaki whereby an environmental park would be developed; it would be declared and Iwasaki would be in charge of it. The management role would be his, he would be in charge of the running of the environmental park and he would meet the costs of the pathways, bridges and so on. It seems that that deal has been done despite the disclaimers. It seems that a scheme has been put together whereby a trustee arrangement has been prepared or proposed to get around Federal legislation. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) talked about the Commonwealth taking over State responsibilities and his words were `using a back-door method'. I would suggest that he have a hard look at what is happening in Queensland and the proposal by the Queensland Premier to get around the Foreign Investment Review Board rules, to get around the laws brought down in this Parliament by the previous Liberal and National Party Government in 1978 designed to prevent the Iwasaki group from acquiring more land. It seems that the Queensland Premier is trying to get around it through this loophole of setting up a trusteeship arrangement. Instead of having a national park, the idea is to have an environmental park under the control of the Japanese, to cast aside a national park to the advantage of all Australians and instead give it to a commercially oriented group that is foreign and over which we would have no control. The Queensland National Party member for Broadsound, Dennis Hinton, has said that the Premier has now changed his mind. I question that statement. Who would believe it? There is a commitment between the National Party and Iwasaki and I cannot see Bjelke-Petersen backing off. It may be just a coincidence that his own son-in-law, Lester Folker, is a director of the Iwasaki company. It may be just a coincidence that there has been this talk of an environmental park for some time in the hands of some commercial developer. It may be just a coincidence that there has been a push in recent times for Iwasaki to set up his own airport, which just happens to have a flight path that involves the Byfield area. The original Queensland International Tourist Resort Act does not provide for any further acquisition of land by Iwasaki but it does not prevent a trusteeship arrangement. Plans have been available for over 10 years that clearly show that Iwasaki has had plans and proposals over a long time to manage the area, or at least to use the area. Some of those plans go back to 1977-78 where there was a bridge from the Iwasaki side-that is the tourist side-across Water Park Creek to the Byfield Park area. Those same plans show a scenic fishing settlement on Corio Bay, outside the franchise area. Those plans also show a proposed road system. So I believe there has always been a move, for the Japanese if not to own the area, at least to control it. I can understand why, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this would certainly enhance the value of that tourist resort. The Byfield area is of international tourist importance. I can see enormous commercial advantages for Iwasaki if he is able to attach to his resort a magnificent area like the Byfield. I say through this chamber that the Premier needs to come clean. We do not want some denial by the Deputy Premier; we want the Premier himself to stand up publicly and say exactly what the plans are. I call upon him to release publicly the submission that he made to Cabinet. I call on him to state publicly his intentions and release the details of any deal that he has done with Iwasaki; and more importantly Cabinet, casting aside the Premier, should give an unequivocal undertaking that the Byfield will be declared as a national park. Cabinet should set down a specific timetable. I respect Bill Gunn and Mike Ahearn in their opposition to what they now say the Premier is intending to do. But that opposition is not good enough verbally; it has to be done legislatively, because we know of the powerful lobby group that influences politics in Queensland, particularly the National Party. I mentioned before that it is not coincidental that Iwasaki is now announcing that he wants to go ahead with an airport, to build a 3,000-metre airstrip to take wide-bodied jets. He is talking about international flights. There was talk that he had done a deal with Ansett but I have had that completely denied by the Deputy General Manager, Graham McMahon. He denies there is a deal or a signed agreement. But what we do know, because of a map that I have here, is that Iwasaki had selected a site which could be used for his own airport. The site has a flight path and site development area that could affect the Corio Bay and the fish habitat reserve there. It also could affect, in some ways, Water Park Creek and therefore the Byfield Park. I support development but not to the detriment of the region in the long term. I think few people realise how powerless this Parliament is, and this Government is, to stop airport developments, because if some private developers want to meet the technical and safety standards set down by this Government we cannot stop them unless it is on environmental grounds and unless we restrict their landing rights, that is, only international landing rights. We cannot stop the domestic landing rights. So we certainly need to review the Federal powers and amend the existing Act. Irrespective of the airport proceeding, the Byfield land should not be handed over to Iwasaki. The foreign investment rules that have been in place here for some time should not be circumvented and the Queensland Premier should not be putting his Japanese mates before the State of Queensland. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Lyons. It is quite amazing that on the one hand the Premier will oppose the World Heritage listing of rainforests in north Queensland, which is to give the area protection, yet on the other hand he is personally involved in moves to beat Australian laws in order to give away control of an important part of central Queensland to a foreign tourism developer. It must not happen. The Premier should come clean and Cabinet should move immediately to declare the Byfield area as a national park. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(1.6) —I first wish to acknowledge the generosity of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in forgoing his place in this debate to enable me to grieve on a matter of the utmost concern to my electorate, to concerned Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) viewers, all lawn bowlers, former bowlers, and their families and friends throughout Australia. The ABC recently announced that it is abandoning one of Australia's longest running sports programs in circumstances which bring the ABC little credit. The program that I wish to speak about is Jack High. Interestingly, when an honourable member asked me earlier today what I was going to grieve about in this debate I said to him, `Jack High' and he said, `The bowls program'. I was surprised in a sense how readily recognisable that program is to people who hear reference to it. I saw in a recent bowls journal-and I think it is rather interesting because even bowlers themselves thought a program on bowling would not greatly attract audiences or interest-this statement: `A TV series on bowls. It would be less exciting than watching paint dry.' That was the reaction of most people to the proposition that a 16-week television series on lawn bowls would be successful. Nevertheless, that program has become an annual world bowls event. It commenced in Victoria in 1980. Players in that year came from all around the world to Frankston. The program was televised by the ABC and it inspired a positive reaction from viewers around Australia. As a non-bowler but a long time supporter of this sport-and I must declare in this matter I have an interest; I am patron of the West Epping Bowling Club-I have personally watched the program and have come to know of its undoubted support in the community. The idea for the program was simple. Eight of the world's best lawn bowlers, four Australian and four overseas players, in two sections would compete in a round robin held over one week. They would then contest the semi-final with the winner going on to compete for the prestige trophy. In 1981 the competition moved to Beaumaris, also in Victoria. Its reputation grew and for several years the program was produced from that location. The ABC editing skills improved and the best action shots were creatively used with the most perceptive comments to produce a tight and action-packed program. The bowling movement was delighted because the program excited interest and increased membership of younger people. There was an effective promotion of the game of lawn bowls and a greater appreciation and understanding of it. We can appreciate why the bowling movement was so pleased with the television production. In 1986 a decision was made to move the event to Adelaide at the height of South Australia's 150th anniversary celebrations. Bowling fans from New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland travelled to Adelaide, particularly in 1987 when the Lockley's Bowling Club was the venue. For 1988, our bicentennial year, Sydney was chosen as the venue and the West Epping Bowling Club was chosen to host this unique event. The West Epping Bowling Club has engaged itself with great enthusiasm in organising and promoting the best Mazda Jack High event to mark Australia's Bicentenary. The ABC, having televised this yearly event, was also involved in the organisation of it. Interestingly, over 60 clubs in New South Wales applied to hold the competition. In that competition, West Epping was victorious. Provision was made at West Epping for access for television cameras and parking, as well as an attractive landscape to provide a most pleasant backdrop for the presentation on television. The local council-Hornsby Shire-the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association and the Australian Bowls Council were all involved and committed themselves at considerable cost, in terms of staff, their time and organisational skills, to ensure that the proposal was accepted. Information about the event was circulated widely and it promoted the ABC. In March, at the presentation dinner at the Lockley's Bowling Club in Adelaide, the ABC's Federal Director of Sport, Mr Kevin Berry, announced that Michael Shrimpton, Controller of Programs Nationally, had confirmed the timeslot for Jack High as a Bicentenary event. On 8 May at the West Epping Bowling Club, Al Mewett, an Executive Officer of the ABC, David Zweck, producer, and Peter Knevett, Executive Technical Producer, attended a meeting with representatives of the West Epping Bowling Club and the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association, as well as the national organisers. I would like simply to let the minutes of that occasion speak for themselves, and I quote: Len Bainbridge welcomed all parties and elaborated on philosophy of Jack High. It has to look right for television; it is a promotion of the sport. He explained that the meeting was convened so that all parties understood their responsibilities in accepting the event and hopefully within the next week a decision would be made on the venue. He explained that the meeting was convened so that all parties understood their responsibility in accepting the event and announced that next week a decision would be made. Dates advised were 14-20 March 1988. The ABC outlined their role in the event. $4m-worth of equipment was to be used. Seventeen edited programs would be produced. Move in on 12 March 1988 and rehearse on 13 March 1988. There would be a total of six cameras-four fixed-a cherry picker and a scissor lift and background music would be supplied for the lunch breaks. All that demonstrates that the ABC was privy to the discussions which followed, including the direction and organisation of the event, catering, parking, ticket selling, crowd control, on-site promotion and program advertising, as well as the hiring of grandstands and the like. Now we are at the point of time six months down the track, and the ABC, having participated in all these discussions, having allowed the organisers to commit themselves to money, time and resources, has not just given notice that in future years the program would not proceed, but has said by letter dated 27 August: `As advised to the Australian Bowls Council Jack High, although successful, will not be telecast during 1988'-the bicentennial year. I know the ABC has been concerned at its dismal performance in attracting television audiences for some of its other programs. I know that, notwithstanding my own avid watching of its excellent current affairs programs, its usually balanced news presentations, as well as its United Kingdom-produced comedy programs, the ABC nevertheless seems to be beset with declining audiences and the new desire on the part of its management to radically restructure its programming. Obviously Jack High has got caught up in this new hype. Rumours suggest that even at the highest levels comments were made that this `weirdo sport' could be easily sacrificed. I am astounded at this reasoning, Mr Deputy Speaker. Bowls has the support of some 550,000 participants throughout Australia. It caters for both men and women. On a non-racial basis, black or white, it provides support for the old and the young, the physically impaired and the able. Both as a social activity and as a competitive sport, it provides enormous enjoyment and satisfaction to a large number of Australians. I am amazed that the ABC should not only consider jettisoning this program but that it could also do so in such a shabby and commercially immoral way. Whilst a formal agreement for five years telecasting existed, with an option for year by year telecasting thereafter, surely it was not too much to expect that at least one year's notice would be given of the desire on the part of the ABC to withdraw from this arrangement. Surely it is not too much to expect from a publicly funded, responsible statutory authority, that ordinary Australians-your constituents, Mr Deputy Speaker, my constituents, other members' constituents and in this case, constituents at West Epping-should be reasonably dealt with. It is preposterous that the Shire of Hornsby, the Australian Bowls Council, the Royal New South Wales Bowling Association, Mazda as sponsors and West Epping Bowling Club in particular should have been encouraged and allowed to commit themselves to this new program and to have undertaken six months work, to have entered into contracts, to have publicly promoted a major sporting function, and to have the whole rationale stripped away without apology and explanation. I would implore the ABC at this late stage to consider again this decision at the earliest opportunity. It should not be difficult to redress the matter, to restore the ABC's reputation and to garner again the support of Australian bowlers. Should this not occur I would have to say that bowlers throughout Australia will mobilise. The ABC's reputation will be in tatters throughout the bowling clubs of Australia, and I am sure their members will want all members of Parliament in every electorate to make the same protest that I am making in this grievance debate today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.16) —Today I would like what I have to say to be given some consideration. I will start by saying that Nancy and I grieve today for the future of our great country. The Hawke Government has been a good government and it certainly came to power when the ship of state was without a helmsman and the captain and crew had shown themselves to be as incompetent a bunch of lily-livered landlubbers as you could ever find. Hauling the ship off the rocks, however, is only the first part of the job. Pumping the bilges, trimming the sails and setting them for new horizons and the promised land where prosperity, equity, dignity, compassion, optimism, good humour and confidence abound is the main task. The voyage to this new Australia is no journey for the faint-hearted, for it means avoiding the shoals of prejudice and preconceived ideas and not running easily before the winds of comfortable convention that often blow with gale force from the lush and mystical lands of myth and shibboleth, or being carried in the dangerous currents that blow from the isles of comfort and boredom. I have alluded to the dangerous myth of multiculturalism that is foisted upon us with fascist ferocity. I have spoken at length about the dichotomy that is developing between rural and urban Australia and which, if left to go unchecked, will divide and destroy this nation. But today I want to talk about trade. Unless Australia can recover its reputation as a bold, innovative fair trader, the vision of the Australia we all want will forever elude us. There is a danger that we are allowing the government of this country to be taken over by pressure groups. I know the enormous forces these people can exert. I believe some of them are not motivated by self-interest and some of them may even be right, but they should all be exposed to the clearing winds of the common good and irradiated by the clearing sunlight of rational argument. If they are allowed to go unchecked and get their grasping hands on the public purse, there is no long term hope for democracy, for nowhere in history has democracy failed in the long run against falling real living standards and inequality in the burden that is imposed by falling real wealth. This is something that those people who enthusiastically embrace trade sanctions against South Africa would do well to realise. I believe, and I speak with all the evidence of Hansard, that a few cliches are the salt and pepper of a good speech. If trade goods do not cross borders, armies will, is as hackneyed a saying as any, but it is no less true for that. We live in a shrinking world of which our nation is part and in which no nation is an island entire of itself. We have an obligation to ourselves and an obligation to this entire planet. There is growing concern about the real problems of the free chlorine radicals attacking the ozone layer and the growing evidence of dangers of the glasshouse effect caused by increasing carbon dioxide and other agents, principally from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. It is in that regard that I raise the enormous trade potential of our uranium wealth and the obligation we have to store high level nuclear waste in Australia. We have in synroc undoubtedly the best technology for safely encasing nuclear waste, and I acknowledge the great service to mankind that Professor Ted Ringwood and his team at the Australian National University have done, and the vital role being played by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights in developing this technology. What synroc does is to lock up in the synthetic rock, high level nuclear waste so that it cannot escape into the environment. In this regard it is as least one thousand times more leakproof than borosilicate glass, developed by the French and currently in use. Professor Ringwood suggests that after encapsulating the ceramic material it is encased in stainless steel cylinders and lowered into the bore holes that have been drilled 4 kilometres into the ground. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a very common technology in Australia today and one in which we probably excel. Honourable members will all know that Australia has the most arcane and stable rock formations in the world. It is in these solid granite or gabro belts where water seldom occurs and in any case is never found below a thousand metres that we should be looking for safe storage. When a cylinder of synroc is lowered into the hole it is surrounded by a high yielding benetonite clay. This material expands to twice its volume when it becomes wet and therefore acts as an extremely good sealing agent. The bore hole is then filled for a thousand metres with this material, then another capsule is added, and so on, until the hole is filled within one kilometre of the surface. The hole can then be filled with crushed and compacted sedimentary rock and the nearest anyone can get to this material is one kilometre. It is forever trapped in the most stable geological strata in the world, a geological strata that would look upon a million years as a mere flicker of an eyelid. Mr Deputy Speaker, to fulfil our obligations to the world, if only to the extent of taking back the waste generated by the uranium we sell, we would need a capital expenditure of about $9 billion. This could be easily provided by equity capital inflow from overseas. Countries like Japan, United Kingdom and others, have enormous need for the service that we can provide. The capital inflow would be used mainly for steel and concrete construction, technologies in which Australia is as good as any country in the world. It would create an enormous number of jobs in Australia in the construction and would provide for us an annual export income of close of $3 billion. This is only if we sell uranium at our current rate and take back the equivalent amount of waste from that uranium. If we were to offer this service to the world, undoubtedly we would increase our sales of uranium and consequently our export earnings would rise dramatically. This is a technology, I believe, that Australia for its own trade performance, for the future of our children, should grasp with both hands. It is an obligation that we owe the world. It is absurd for anyone to suggest that it is better, or more fitting, or more proper, for the Japanese to store nuclear waste in their fragile island, continually shaken by earthquakes. That material is far safer handled in Australia and I believe that we have an obligation to realise this truth. It is an emotional subject and is unfortunate that we do not give enough attention to the realities. Every member of this House will know, and I am sure every member of this House does know, that every day throughout the world, coal-fired power stations pump into the atmosphere radiation in the form of polonium 210, lead 210, radium 226, thorium 230, thorium 232, radium 224 and radium 228, often in excess of the radioactivity allowed from nuclear power stations. All those products are by-products of the breakdown chain of uranium-thorium. That is the sort of stuff that every member of this House would know, but is often not realised by people outside. In addition, the fly ash residue from coal stations contains florium and uranium decay products that are three to seven times as radioactive as the emission that would be allowed from a nuclear power station. No attempt is made to control how this material is disposed of. We could ask `how it is disposed of', whether it is disposed of by making cement, or used as land fill, in roads, in a filler as plastic from which are made lightweight cups, saucers and plates from which we eat, and many other things. The reality is, of course, that while this radioactive emission is greater than that allowed from nuclear power stations, it is in fact minimal. It is insignificant compared with the background radiation that we are all subjected to. When people can grasp this simple fact, I think we can start to get into perspective the whole uranium debate. We have this obligation to the world. I believe that we must reassess our position and we must confidently go forward using expertise developed by Australians, expertise in which we are world leaders, to provide for the world this service, and provide for ourselves economic salvation. It is not just in this area that we should be looking. The enormously good work being done by ANSTO at Lucas Heights illustrates the advances that Australia is making in nuclear medicine. There are some real Australian initiatives that will provide some of the greatest cures for cancer in the future. I find it rather amusing when looking at Chernobyl. We must realise that this was the accident that all the environmentalists were waiting for, indeed, hoping for. The reality is that the problems have been exaggerated. It was an enormously difficult thing; it was a very bad thing; it was an incompetent thing, and that, I think has now been recognised by the Russians. But the results have been accurately predicted and they will be contained. As a result of Chernobyl, Sweden, for instance, says that it will statistically suffer eight more deaths. In that time, of course, countless thousands of people will be saved by the actions of nuclear medicine. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is what has to be kept in perspective. I find it somewhat sickening that the United Kingdom is currently involved in expenditure of something like close to $300m to save what is statistically set at three lives. This seems to me to be a gross waste and a gross travesty. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(1.26) —I rise in this grievance debate to make an appeal to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr John Furness of Bowraville. Mr Furness, Mr Deputy Speaker, is dying of cancer. I wrote to the Minister early last week-and as yet I have not even had an acknowledgment-in the following terms: I am aware of the demands on your time and that in the normal course of events individual representations would not be brought to your personal attention. However this is an exceptional case in that Mr Furness has been diagnosed as having terminal cancer. Therefore, I respectfully seek your assistance in obtaining the Government's approval for Mr Furness to import 80, 30-gram I.V. ampoules of B17 Laetrile and 600, 500-mg oral tablets of B17 Laetrile in an endeavour to suppress the disease and thereby prolong his chances for life. I would be grateful if this matter could be given consideration, keeping in mind that time is of the essence in this particular case . . . I repeat that I know the demands on all Ministers, but I had hoped that I would have at least received an acknowledgment before this. In a letter to me dated 14 October, Mr Furness wrote: Thank you for your telephone calls and advice regarding our request to import laetrile. I am enclosing copies of letters from myself to the Department of Health (requesting the permit to import laetrile) and their reply to this. Also a copy of my proposed letter to the Department of Health in reply to their non-approval of laetrile import permit. Mr Furness continued: I am quite desperate to try the laetrile treatment, as I have read many books on the various types of cancer treatment available around the world, and am quite fully convinced that a strict diet therapy with extra vitamins, minerals and enzymes and the added help of laetrile will give me a much better quality of life than the orthodox methods of cancer treatment such as radiation and chemotherapy. I might say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not raise this matter solely on behalf of Mr Furness, but on behalf of the many other Australians who are suffering from cancer. Mr Furness continued: I have seen so many patients who have had chemotherapy treatment and their quality of life is just so bad that I really could not face it. The absolute agony they had to endure is quite unbearable and yet this, plus radiation (which has similar effects) is the only orthodox method of treating this fast spreading disease which is taking over our world. One in five persons will contract cancer! That is a phenomenal rate of progress for a disease that has not had any worthwhile breakthroughs in the last few years. Surely a person has the right to try to use a substance which they feel will be of assistance to them in overcoming this disease, or at least bearing the pain related to it. Orthodox methods cannot give any guarantees of success, so why should a person be stopped from wanting to do his very best to improve his health and quality of life! Mr Furness went on: It would seem to me that the government has decided it alone has the right to decide a person's method of treatment of cancer. That fact makes me so very angry. What are they afraid of when they won't give me a permit to import this substance so that at least I can try to help myself? All I am asking for is a permit. I don't want the government to pay for the substance, I am not asking for any financial assistance from them in any way, I just want the opportunity to try this for my own satisfaction-after all; it is my life, and the alternatives offer no guarantees. I do trust you can see this from my point of view Mr Nehl, as you put my case to the powers that be. I can assure Mr Furness that I do. He said: I have tried to look at it from the government's point of view and can see no reason why they can't let me try it! I'm not hurting them or anyone else-just want the opportunity at life! Of prime importance however, is the time factor as I do not have a lot of time left to try and help myself. Trusting you can be of assistance to me in putting my case to the appropriate bodies, and praying for your success. I am also praying for my success and I hope by my speaking in this debate the Minister might be able to assist. Mr P. Bohun, on behalf of the Assistant Secretary, Drug Evaluation Branch, wrote to Mr Furness on 8 October and said: I refer to your letter of 24 September concerning the proposed importation of Laetrile (amygdalin) for your personal use. Laetrile does not have approval for general marketing in Australia. He does not want to market it; he just wants to cure himself. The letter continued: The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and its Anti-cancer Subcommittee have recently again reviewed the status of Laetrile. The conclusions from this review only strengthen their previous advice that importation of Laetrile for the treatment of cancer should not be permitted because of the demonstrated lack of effectiveness, definite serious toxicity and absence of knowledge of metabolism, excretion and serum levels. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee is an independent body of clinical pharmacological experts which advises the Minister of Health on the availability of therapeutic substances in Australia. The Department has accepted the Committee's recommendation concerning Laetrile. I therefore cannot recommend that approval be issued to you for the importation of Laetrile. I would just like to go on a little further. Mr Furness wrote back to Mr Bohun on 14 October and said: I would like to thank you for your early attention to the important matter of my proposal to import Laetrile (Amygdalin). I would like to point out that the Laetrile is for my personal use only, not for general marketing in Australia. This poor man is dying from cancer. He believes there is a substance which might help him and we are not prepared to let him try it out. He said: The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee should get their facts straight about what is available for the `cure' of cancer. There are only two orthodox types of treatment for this terrible disease, and they are Radiation and Chemotherapy, and neither of these methods can guarantee a cure! They may put the disease into remission for a brief time, then the cancer rears its ugly head again in another form or place. Chemotherapy would have to be the worst treatment to give a human being. The success rate is minimal, not to mention what the patient has to go through with this type of treatment. Definite life-time serious toxicity on the whole body-not just the affected part. The type I would be administered would have the substance made from mustard gas, would you believe! I have had the orthodox methods of cancer treatment, so I am well aware of what is available in treatment of this disease. It is my life, my body, and I am the only person that has to answer for the type of treatment I choose. Mr Deputy Speaker, he is so right. He continued: If there is anyone on the Drug Evaluation Committee who can guarantee me a cure, then I will be delighted to hear from them! If not, then they don't have the right to dictate to anyone else who wants to try something alternative that might be of help. Laetrile just might be the answer to my problem, so why don't I have the right to try it-and maybe live a reasonable lifespan. I don't think any human being, group of so-called experts, or government, have the right to deny me this request. . . . . Time is of prime importance-I don't have much time to play with in terms of expectancy. Trusting you can be of some assistance to me and looking forward to your reply. I feel quite moved having read that correspondence, because I can understand what Mr Furness is feeling. I can also understand what thousands of others of our fellow Australians are suffering. As I said when I began my speech, I just want to take this opportunity to try to highlight the need for something to happen. Perhaps if some of the Minister's staff are listening-and I will certainly send them a copy of the Hansard report of what I said-they might be able to take some quick action because for Mr Furness, as for so many other Australians suffering from cancer, time is short, time is of the essence. Mr KERR(Denison)(1.36) —I rise to discuss the report of the Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management to the Constitutional Commission. I do so against a background in which the necessity for the Australian Government to have appropriate powers to allow it to respond to the international economic circumstances in which we find ourselves should be more self-evident than ever before. In this regard, the broad thrust of the Advisory Committee's report should be very much welcomed. The Advisory Committee proposes that, rather than power in relation to the national economy being shared between the States and the Commonwealth, on the evidence presented to it `it is essential, from an economic and business perspective to treat the Australian economy as one nation existing as a federal parliamentary democracy within a global framework'. It went on to say: The nation is subject to the economic vicissitudes of the framework, to which it is inseparably linked. Of course, recent events bring that fact remarkably clearly home. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Constitution be amended to confer on the Federal Parliament authority over the national economy by inserting a new provision, a section 51 (ia), expressed as `matters affecting the national economy'. That is a priority with which I fully concur and one with which I believe that most members of this Parliament would also agree. There is, however, a deficiency that exists at present in the Constitution on which the Committee was less able to form a substantive recommendation, and I refer to the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution. Section 92 represents an area of great uncertainty in a difficult document that already benefits lawyers substantially. In relation to this matter of uncertainty, let me refer to a recent judgment of Mr Justice Deane which is contained in the Advisory Committee's report. Mr Justice Deane, in his judgment in Miller v. TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (1986) 67 Australian Law Reports 321, at page 362, said this about section 92: This is another case about the operation and effect of s. 92 of the Constitution. Both sides argued with apparent conviction on the basis of existing authority to support diametrically opposed conclusions. Perhaps that should not be seen as surprising since the more one becomes immersed in the decisions of the Privy Council and this court on the subject of s. 92, the plainer the impression becomes that one has entered an area where the ordinary processes of legal reasoning have had but a small part to play and where judicial exegesis has tended to confuse rather than elucidate. Indeed, it is as if the many voices of authority have been speaking differently at the same time with the result that, putting to one side some basic propositions, it is all but impossible to comprehend precisely what it is that authority has said. This confusion would matter very little if the subject of section 92 had no impact on Australia's economic management. But section 92 is a provision that directly impacts on the capacity of the Australian Government to regulate the national economy. As Professor Colin Howard has observed, it is little if anything more than an impediment to the effective ordering of the economy on a nationwide scale. This is quite different to what section 92 was intended to be. The framers of the Constitution inserted section 92 to prevent different States erecting discriminatory tariff barriers between themselves. The prime concern of the framers of the Constitution was to prohibit border tariffs. Section 92 provides that trade, commerce and intercourse amongst the States shall be absolutely free. Unfortunately, the court never accepted from the outset that only border tariffs were to be prohibited by section 92. The courts have engaged in an almost theological debate about what the provision must mean if it does not mean what it says. From the outset it has been accepted that `absolutely free' could not mean `absolutely free' for otherwise, for example, it would authorise the transfer of drugs or prostitutes across State boundaries without any impediment. So the Court, in trying to frame a response to such difficulties, has been caught in a conundrum which is perhaps well illustrated in the language of Mr Justice Murphy in his landmark decision in Buck and Bovone. At page 135 of the [1976] 135 Commonwealth Law Reports 101, he said: The consequences of giving full expression to the words `absolutely free' used in a wide sense not restricted to fiscal imposts are so intolerable that a doctrine has arisen by which the words `absolutely free' have been converted to `relatively free', that is, `subject to permissible regulation' on grounds such as health and safety. And he continues- Such a meaning can not be given to `absolutely free'. Under the doctrine of permissible `regulatory laws', laws on interstate trade and commerce may be regarded as regulatory, and therefore permissible, if they conform to certain tests. The tests are so obscure that (like the prophecies of the Oracle at Delphi) they can generally be shown to agree with any outcome. The problem that this imposes for effective national regulation of the economy is that it prevents governments planning effectively because they must deal with an area of law in respect of which even those who work in the jurisdiction are unable to predict the outcome with any confidence. That situation plainly is unsatisfactory if one wishes to give, as the Committee obviously wishes to give, priority in the ordering of the national economy to the National Parliament. Unfortunately, the Committee itself has been unable to make a firm recommendation in relation to section 92. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Justice Everett, and Professor Coper recognise and accept that section 92 must be redrafted. They argue, as I do, that section 92 should be limited to its original purpose-that is, preventing States imposing tariff barriers-and that section 92 must therefore be confined to laws which discriminate against interstate trade. That is very important because at present many national economic initiatives may be struck down under section 92. That is a matter of concern because such initiatives can include very important national marketing schemes. Recently, a great deal of concern was expressed by those involved in the milk industry about the failure of governments to erect a suitable milk marketing scheme. Whilst there are very important schemes in existence at the moment which relate to industries such as the wheat industry-which benefits my State of Tasmania-the existence of section 92 is poised always as a prospective sword to strike down such arrangements. Such an impediment to proper economic management is something that really should be eliminated from the Constitution. The Constitutional Commission now has an historic opportunity to give to the national Parliament powers which it ought properly have to enable it to respond to its proper national role. I would strongly urge the Commission, in its review of the Advisory Committee's report, to accept the views put forward by the Chairman and by Professor Coper and to follow what was the original intention of the framers of the Constitution, a view which efforts have been made to readopt and which has been brought into focus again by the judgments of Mr Justice Murphy, but which to this present date is surrounded by a mass of confusion which is only to the benefit of lawyers. It is a submission that I hope finds favour with the Constitutional Commission so that when it reports by 30 June next year, this impediment to national planning can be removed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(1.46) —During the July 1987 Federal election, the electorate of Casey was one of the eight marginal seats targeted by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society in their so-called `Vote for the Forests' campaign. At a public meeting organised by these two major lobby groups as part of their campaign tactics in Casey, I made several comments and observations based on specific and sincere concerns that I would like to reiterate in the grievance debate today. I believe one of the most significant threats to both the short and long term protection and preservation of our fragile environment and irreplaceable natural heritage is that, unfortunately, some once reputable conservation and environment groups have been infiltrated-in some cases completely taken over-by activists and radicals who are motivated by political opportunism and party political loyalties rather than genuine care or concern for the issues and causes they espouse. Many of these groups were originally, and still claim to be, non-party political, but in reality they are now being used and manipulated by people who are prepared to sacrifice principles for political expediency. Claims by these irresponsible and very vocal elements that Liberals are unconcerned about environment and conservation issues are intentionally misleading, totally dishonest and demonstrably false. The facts are that Liberal governments have an excellent record in regard to conservation and protection of Australia's environment. That record includes: the proclamation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; the prohibition of sand mining exports from Fraser Island; the establishment of the Frost Inquiry into Whales and Whaling, leading to a ban on commercial whaling in Australia; the enactment of the Whale Protection Act and the active participation of Australia in the work of the International Whaling Commission; the proclamation of Kakadu and Uluru national parks; the observation of the environmental recommendations of the Ranger inquiry; the signing of the Convention for the Protection of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; the development, and formal adoption, of the national conservation strategy for Australia and the adoption of the strategy by the Liberal Party of Australia, the first political party to do so; the enactment of major pieces of environmental legislation such as the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 and the States Grants (Air Quality Monitoring) Act 1976; the decision to introduce unleaded petrol; the provision of grants for voluntary conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the World Wildlife Fund and the Australian Conservation Foundation; the establishment of the national tree program as part of the `Greening Australia' and bicentennial program; signing the World Heritage Convention; the nomination of the Great Barrier Reef and South West Tasmania for inclusion on the register; support for the recommendations of the Hope National Estate Committee of Inquiry; and action in support of the Australian Heritage Commission. The Liberal Party has, by any yardstick, a more than adequate, in fact, an excellent record in regard to seeking and promoting acceptable, realistic and responsible solutions to the important environment and conservation issues and challenges that have confronted us in the past. We will continue our proven commitment to the conservation of the environment and preservation and protection of our natural heritage in the future. It is, however, impossible to achieve positive and constructive government policies and community attitudes towards our environmental and conservation responsibilities by adopting divisive, confrontationist tactics. The not inconsiderable amount of money spent on party political electioneering by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Wilderness Society in the eight targeted marginal seats during the last Federal election would have been better directed towards an Australia-wide community awareness campaign, designed to encourage citizens of all political persuasions to contact their local members of parliament and aspiring candidates, irrespective of the party they represented, to impress upon them the concerns of the community about environment and natural heritage issues. By concentrating their efforts and resources on a spurious and misleading campaign in just eight marginal electorates, and overtly pursuing a pro-Labor, pro-Australian Democrat, anti-Liberal, anti-National Party line, the ACF and the Wilderness Society not only lost their credibility as non-party political organisations, but also lost an excellent opportunity to have presented a fair, factual and unbiased case to the electorate as a whole. Along the way they also succeeded in alienating many of their most ardent, active and sincerely concerned advocates, who also happen to vote Liberal. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have no difficulty whatsoever in equating their conservative and free enterprise political philosophies and allegiances with their commitment to, interest in, and concern and support for, conservation and environment issues. Those who are genuinely concerned about protecting and preserving our natural heritage-and I have no hesitation in including myself in this category-appreciate that the successful achievement of our objectives does not depend on the attitudes of one or two political parties but on all political parties; not on the policies of one government or one level of government, but on all governments at all levels; not on pursuing a partisan but pursuing a bipartisan approach. In short, we will not achieve our aims by confrontation but by co-operation. We may choose to close our minds to the opinions, the needs and the solutions proposed by others, but in doing so, we limit our ability to appraise objectively specific problems and issues as they arise. If past experience is any guide, we may also close off options which could potentially provide the basis for negotiating reasonable and acceptable alternative answers to difficult challenges. I would like to offer some constructive advice to the organisers of the politically biased, ill-founded and consequently unsuccessful ACF-Wilderness Society-sponsored, anti-Liberal crusade in Casey: There were many people who, because of their sincere and genuine concerns about conservation and environment issues were initially responsive to your campaign. They believed it to be legitimate but soon discovered that they were being misled. They were less than impressed to find you were prepared to use them as pawns in your party-politically-motivated activities. You have deceived and disappointed people who are loyal to the cause you claim to represent, and as a result have lost, rather than encouraged, their sympathy and support. Antagonism is not a recognised method of winning friends and influencing people. By involving yourselves, and more importantly, your organisation, in party politics you lessen-not widen-your support base. To increase it, you must concentrate on being non-party political, as alignment with one end of the political spectrum can very often and very easily result in alienation of the other. Your political impartiality must not only be a matter of fact, it must be seen to be a matter of fact. Finally, instead of pretending that there are only black and white-or in this case perhaps only green-answers to the questions regarding protection and preservation of our environment and the sensible management of our natural resources, be prepared to listen to and investigate the claims and opinions of others. They, too, have their story. It is by seeking and finding the common ground that we will successfully guarantee the long-term security and, therefore, the survival, of our fragile and vulnerable environment and our unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(1.56) —In this grievance debate I wish to raise an issue which I consider to be one which should be of concern to this country. We are part of South East Asia and we cannot afford to ignore signs of trouble in that region. I wish to focus on the internal problems of Burma and the effect those problems have on the refugee or displaced persons' problems in the world, and in particular, Thailand. Recently, in an address to the 78th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Bangkok, I made reference to one of the lesser-known minorities who are living in camps in Thailand. These are the Karens who have fled from Burma as a result of military operations against them from Burmese forces in a war which has been raging since 1949. In my address I pointed out that the Karen minority in Burma are being persecuted simply because of their nationality and that the numbers arriving in Thailand have greatly increased in the past two years. This is causing overcrowding in the camps located close to the Thai-Burma border. The Karens are of Mongolian descent and were the first settlers in Burma some 2700 years ago. Later the Burmese came and conquered the country, stripping the Karens of their land, depriving them of their culture and forcing them to flee to the mountains and the jungles. During the Second World War the Japanese took over, with the support of the Burma Independent Army. It should be noted that the Karens fought on the side of the Allies and some 2000 troops were evacuated to India with the British troops. As a result, many Karens left in Burma were arrested, tortured, raped and killed by the Burma Independent Army and the Japanese. After the war the Karens requested the British and Burmese governments to allow an independent state for the Karens to exist. This was refused and since January 1949 there has been a constant struggle between the Burmese military forces and the Karens organised in their National Liberation Army. The Karens have formed their own state, called Kawthoolei, which lies in south-east Burma, straddling the border with Thailand, but this state is not recognised in the international scene. The Karens are, despite their history of struggle, a peaceful race and a minority are very strong and committed Christians. They do not want to take over Burma, but they do want a form of federalism in Burma in which the different ethnic races manage their own internal affairs. There has been, since 1949, this struggle on their part to maintain their independence. These ethnic minorities, besides the Karens, include the Arakanese, the Chin, the Kachin, the Karenni, the Shan, the Labu, the Uon, the Pa-o, the Palaung and the Wa. They have combined in forming what is now called the National Democratic Front (NDF). The main goal of the NDF is the creation of a genuine federal union with a full guarantee of liberty, equality and social justice to all the ethnic races and individuals in Burma. Recently, I was able to meet representatives of the NDF and have a frank and full discussion with them on the issues involved. It was clear, from my discussions with them, that the people of Burma are weary of the civil war in their country. The NDF believes that since the civil war came into existence, due to political problems there is no way of solving it but by political means. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Deputy Prime Minister) —I regret to inform the House that the Prime Minister is still unwell and will not be here during Question Time today. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, will be absent from Question Time today for personal reasons. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, will answer questions normally addressed to Mr Brown. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to reports in the Press that foreign institutions are moving out of Australian dollar investments into `quality investments' overseas. Noting this, can the Treasurer indicate to the House why the Australian dollar has fallen against both the United States dollar and other major currencies in recent days? Mr KEATING —The House will be aware of the general exchange rate volatility overnight, when the volatility we have seen in the stock market moved into the foreign exchange market. In the belief that the basic tenets of the Louvre Agreement are at least ineffective, the markets have run past the policy makers and sought to take adjustments in the areas in which imbalances exist in the world. We have seen overnight the United States dollar fall further against the yen and the Deutsche mark, the European currencies depreciate against the mark, and the Australian dollar depreciate against the United States dollar. If one were to try to find some rhyme or reason for all this, I suppose one would argue that the markets believe that the United States current account will not adjust or they are trying to adjust around the intransigence on domestic policy changes so as to adjust the imbalance in their trade deficit. The depreciation of the European currencies against the mark is to try to repair the surplus that Germany enjoys against the other European countries. Australia is a commodity producer and we have a balance of trade deficit and a current account deficit. Of course, we will not improve our competitiveness unless there is a depreciation of the rate. More importantly, the general volatility we are seeing in the shake-out is because so many of the supposed objectives of the G5 are not being met and the markets are less than convinced that they will be met. This, of course, is a fall-out from the sort of success of the Plaza Hotel meeting a couple of years ago. Policy makers thought that all they needed to do was to sit together, have a cup of tea and a scone, decide what the exchange rates ought to be and all the world's economic troubles would be over. This Government never thought that that was the right solution. It thought that the way to address the imbalance was to address the underlying policy problems. Maybe now some of those problems will be addressed in light of this volatility in exchange markets and the stock market. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations: In view of the wide interest in the resumed national wage case and in view of the speculation about the Commonwealth Government's position concerning it, could he advise the House what position was adopted by the Commonwealth Government in the resumed national wage case this morning? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member said, the Government's substantial submission on the national wage case has commenced today, following the conclusion of the opening submission of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government has given support for a $6.50 increase from 1 January. Let me explain to the House that the $6.50 figure represents 1 1/2 per cent of the latest figure for average weekly ordinary time earnings for adults. We can only get to $7 by taking 1 1/2 per cent of full average weekly earnings, including overtime, and we do not think that that is appropriate. In our view, the flat rate version of 1 1/2 per cent is $6.50. We think that the 1 January start date is consistent with the position that we put in the national wage case earlier this year. It represents a variation from the Budget assumption, which, following the national wage decision to allow a second first tier increase claim by October, provided for a 1 1/2 per cent rise in mid-November. So that 1 January start date will mean a lesser wage outcome for the year as a whole than was forecast in the Budget. In light of recent events, the Government believes that it is even more important that its previously stated position as to date of operation, that is, 1 January, for this increase by adopted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I will briefly explain why we support an increase of this nature at this time. Firstly, our assessment is that, as the Treasurer has said, although, because of recent events, there is more risk associated with economic projections, current prospects for the Australian economy are not substantially changed from the assessment in the Budget Papers. Secondly, it must be recalled that second tier increases are coming through very slowly. Honourable members may be unaware of the fact that, although the second tier increase came from a decision of the Commission in March, with the technical possibility of such increases being obtained from July, in fact, at this stage, some months after July, only 11 per cent of the work force has so far received a second tier increase. Our assessment is that by 1 January only about 25 per cent of wage and salary earners will have a second tier increase. Thus, by the time from which we say this decision should apply, most workers will have had only the $10 increase, which came in March, since the previous increase which was in mid-1986. So, not to pay a wage rise now would mean a further fall in living standards that have already clearly been reduced by the wages policy pursued in that period. Thirdly, there is a clear need for balance between the need for wage moderation in our present economic circumstances, the need for a viable wages policy and the need for a fair income distribution. The balanced approach has been very much part of what this Government has pursued. It contrasts markedly with the approach of the Opposition which, of course, has always talked about the need to act tough, to pursue draconian wages policies, but, in government, of course, always produced most inappropriate outcomes which culminated of course in the spectacular failure of its wages policy in its final years in Government. The House may be interested to recall that in 1982, at a time when our major trading partners had an average wage increase of 6 per cent, the Fraser Government produced a wages outcome of 16 per cent-a massive 10 per cent more than that of our major trading partners. Quite clearly, the kind of wages policy produced by people who talked tough, but acted in a way which brought about disastrous wages policies, is not the kind of advice that we want to listen to. We are pursuing a policy which is a balanced and appropriate one for the economy at this stage. We hope that the Commission will give effect to our submission. Dr HEWSON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. How much further will our stock market have to fall, and how much further will our dollar have to fall, before the Treasurer will abandon his irresponsible support for the Australian Council of Trade Union's push for another wage increase? Mr KEATING —As the honourable member was one of the people who were around during the last big wage explosion, I would have thought that a little bit of modesty and humility at this time would have been a more appropriate pose for him than an aggressive question. Let me just make the point that the Government, over a period since 1983, has introduced a wages framework which has allowed Australia to adjust and maintain its competitiveness. It is the ongoing wages system and compliance with an effectiveness of that system which will continue to be one of the important agents of adjustment in the economy. My colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations has just given details of current support by the Commonwealth for the 1 1/2 per cent increase. Even with the 1 1/2 per cent increase, I expect that we will do better this year on wages than the Budget forecasts; that is, we will do better than 6 1/2 per cent. On real unit labour costs, we will still see a decline of about one per cent in 1987-88 compared with half a per cent last year. It seems to me that the effectiveness of the system over time is of more fundamental importance than the attitude we may take to one case. There is an interesting quote by the honourable member for Wentworth in an article which he wrote with Professor Nevile on monetary and fiscal policy in Australia. The article said: The policy conclusion is clear. Limit the rise in wage rates as much as possible. This does not mean striving for zero wage increases for a prolonged period. If too ambitious a program of wage restraint is pursued, it will break down and probably be followed by a wage explosion- how true, how true- which will increase inflation and unemployment. The appropriate policy is not to strive for the impossible but to see that genuine wage restraint is achieved. All I can say, dear boy, is that they were more opposite remarks then than the ones made in the question. Mr CUNNINGHAM —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. Against the background of the Minister's recent discussions in the Americas, Europe and Association of South East Asian countries, what further action can Australia take to ensure that fairness is restored into the world agricultural trade scene? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question, particularly having regard to his long interest in these matters and the fact that he led a delegation to the United States last year in relation to these issues. Australia has played a key role in trying to restore fairness in world agricultural trade. Last year, we succeeded in forming a coalition of fair traders in agriculture, which has become known as the Cairns group. This has become an effective third force in the international debate on trying to reduce agricultural subsidies and other unfair trade practices. The group has worked extremely hard preparing a proposal for world agricultural trade reform. That was the focus of recent discussions with Ministers in Canada, South America and Asia. As honourable members will be aware, the Prime Minister announced the proposal of the Cairns group in Geneva last week. The essence of the proposal is to get fairness back into world trade in agricultural products. We have argued more strongly than has any previous Australian government that our farmers should be able to sell products on overseas markets at fair prices and without unfair competition. The Cairns group has succeeded in advancing this issue more than ever before. We will continue to work with other countries to ensure that the words of intent which have been achieved after protracted negotiations are carried into effect. In addition, we have worked strongly to protect our farmers from specific unfair trading practices of other countries. The Minister for Primary Industries and Resources and I have just returned from discussions with the European Commission in Brussels. It was a pleasure to work in those discussions with a Minister who has worked as hard as he has for the farmers in this country. I well remember the time, probably 12 months ago, when our highly esteemed colleague the honourable member for Leichhardt described the Minister as the Bob Hawke of the bush. Having seen the Minister at work, I must say that that accolade is one which he justly deserves. Mr Kerin —I am the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Mr DUFFY —The Minister has just interrupted me. Administrative arrangements have not sunk through to me, obviously, as well as they should have. The Minister's portfolio is Primary Industries and Energy-not resources. I apologise. In those discussions we argued about the effect of the European common agricultural policy, not only on Australia but also on the Europeans. It was the Hawke Labor Government which achieved the Europeans agreement not to dump subsidised beef on Australian markets in Asia. That is one of the concrete results which are worth real dollars to our farmers. It was also during the period of the Hawke Government that our officials studied in detail and reported on the cost to the Europeans of their policies, how the policies affected their unemployment, taxed other industries and inflated the prices of food to their consumers. This has been a major factor in the pressure that is building up for reform of the common agricultural policy in Europe. Similarly, in the United States, we have taken every opportunity, through ministerial discussions and our Government's diplomats and officials, to minimise the effect of the now in place United States farm Bill and the impending United States trade Bill. The efforts of the Government were summed up in a Sydney Morning Herald report last Saturday in which a spokesman for the National Farmers Federation described the 10-year trade reform program announced by our Prime Minister in Geneva, and for which this Government has worked so hard, as `simply fantastic'. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr SHARP —I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Two days ago the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories referred, in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Robertson, to a monorail at Ayers Rock. He said: It has achieved a notable amount of support from the Aboriginal communities which have control of Uluru National Park. Yesterday in a television interview the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said: My office contacted senior officials of the Committee last night. They knew nothing about it and they were upset. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House who is telling the truth? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The type of answer which might be expected was suggested in the question. In other words, there was certainly some discussion as to whether the proposal had the merits that were suggested by a number of people. I am aware that various views have been put which clearly indicate that it would be an issue that would cause some controversy. I am also aware that my colleague the Minister did have some information-whether it was accurate or not I do not know-that there would be some support for the project. Mr Lloyd —Which Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Minister who is not here today, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. This was because it was the subject of some discussion at our own party meeting. I do not know whether the information he received was valid and I do not know the detail of it. It was indicated that there was some support for the project on the basis that it would not be a monorail in the normal sense, but something that would have a lower aspect from the point of view of visual effrontery and that it would be an effective alternative to the existing road. It was explained that there were some difficulties about the road also because part of the area is Aboriginal land. I can well understand why all Ministers concerned who have the respective responsibilities would be getting different advice. The matter is contentious. It certainly has not been resolved and I await with interest the final outcome of the deliberations. Mr SCIACCA —Has the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs been drawn to the marketing activities of a company, Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd, of 23 Marquet Street, Rhodes, New South Wales, which includes forwarding standard word processor letters addressed to consumers at random indicating that a first edition book is being published by the company specifically titled using the name of the consumer to whom the letter is addressed-for example, as appeared in a letter from the company received by me, the book was titled The Book of the Sciaccas in Australia? Further, does the Minister agree that such marketing practices are at best grossly misleading and at worst grossly deceptive? Will the Minister investigate the activities of Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd and ensure, if possible, that appropriate action is taken to warn consumers so that they will not part with the $39.90 payable for the purchase price of the so-called first edition book? Mr Tim Fischer —I raise a point of order, Madam speaker. I submit that the second part of the question which asks, `does the Minister agree', is clearly asking for an opinion, for a comment, and as such should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will take note of the point of order. Mr STAPLES —I am aware of Family Heritage Australia. As many honourable members in this House would know from letters they have received, it formerly operated as Halberts SA Family Heritage. Its product has been investigated over the years by the Trade Practices Commission and many other consumer affairs agencies in Australia. Many thousands of people have been approached by this organisation and it appears that the book it publishes offers no more than a general work on surnames and a brief family history. Much of that information, of course, would come from other publicly available sources. The organisation has had quite a deal of adverse publicity in a number of States and has been subject to numerous warnings by State consumer affairs agencies. As a result, the promotional material that is being issued now has been substantially modified. That action was taken by the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs. Probably because of such action, I have been advised that there have been very few recent consumer complaints. The indications are that consumers are now more aware of the value that such publications contain. The best thing that can be done about such products is publicly to advise consumers to be aware of the nature of the product and to be selective in their purchases. I thank the honourable member for the opportunity to do this. The honourable member for Bowman brought quite a deal of colour to this House in his maiden speech. In view of his subsequent contributions, by the time he decides to leave the House, which certainly will not be decided by those honourable members opposite, a substantial book may be written about him. Mr BEALE —Is the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support aware that 400 additional tourist seats per week on international flights into Darwin are required now to meet the current tourist demand in northern Australia? Has the Minister been approached to approve additional flights by airlines other than by Qantas Airways Ltd for a short term period to take advantage of this significant jump in demand? If so, what has been his response? If not, in view of the vacillations on Qantas's rights by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, will he either resolve the matter in Australia's immediate interests or admit that the Minister has annexed the aviation section of the Department? Mr DUNCAN —I certainly do not know what the honourable member was endeavouring to get at by his last comment and I will ignore it. However, this particular matter has been of some concern to the Government for some time. Every year, particularly at this time of the year, there is an increase in the demand for capacity for international airline seats into this country. The reason for that is twofold: first, spring and summer, of course, are the principal seasons for tourism to this country and as a result there is always a seasonal increase in airline business. Secondly, at this time of year approaching the high season, there are peaks because some of the discount fares that have been on offer in the low season must be used by a certain date. The result inevitably is that there is more demand for seats for people to come into the country just before the high season starts. We are having some of those sorts of problems at the moment. However, there is a considerable increase, a leap, in demand this year. We all applaud that. It is very good to see the benefits that flow to Australia from tourism. There is no doubt that it is of assistance to our economy. Given that, the Government has sought to increase the number of seats available into Australia. Honourable members may have seen the references in the Press recently to the fact that Qantas is looking at leasing a 747B jumbo aircraft and a 767 aircraft for up to six months. Arrangements, I understand, are in train. Qantas has contacted another airline company in Europe. I understand that those arrangements are well advanced. The effect will be that Qantas will be able to provide a considerable increase in the number of seats available into Australia over the next six months or so. Apart from that, negotiations are going on with a number of international airline companies in relation to the issue of increased capacity and additional flights by those companies into Australia, but as has always been the case in the past, under coalition governments and Labor governments, the bipartisan policy in this country is that Qantas should get approximately 50 per cent of the business. We are seeking reciprocal rights for Qantas in exchange for granting rights to other airlines to operate additional flights into Australia. I anticipate that some of these negotiations will come to fruition in the near future, and when those agreements have been reached obviously they will be made public. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House of what the Government is doing to encourage participation by local government as a positive response to the World Heritage listing of the north Queensland wet tropics? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable member and to other members from Queensland, particularly the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert, for their involvement in this most important undertaking. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that my Department is working very closely with the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and has prepared a draft regional plan for consultation with local government in the proposed World Heritage area. The plan identifies possible alternative employment-enterprise creation opportunities in that area. The Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, discussed the draft plan with 13 of the 14 local councils affected at a meeting in Cairns on 6 October. Officers of my Department subsequently met with all local government representatives, regional organisations and Aboriginal communities in the proposed listing area. Information was obtained on possible future employment projects and development strategies for each local area in the short, medium and longer term. The input of local councils and other community groups, as well as the advice of other Commonwealth agencies, will be incorporated into a revised regional plan. The completed plan, which will form part of the Government's consideration of positive adjustments in the World Heritage listing area, will set out an integrated strategy for the region and will focus on immediate projects aimed at providing employment during the wet season, as a self-help strategy involving local government to facilitate medium to long term opportunities, and a series of sectorally based programs to assist in the adjustment process. I also point out that whilst the Government has come in for much criticism in terms of the World Heritage listing of the area, a lot of exaggerated claims are being made by the Queensland Government about the impact of employment in this area. The Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, has made it quite clear that the evidence now being brought forward does not support the Queensland Government's view that all the job losses that may occur in that area will occur specifically because of the area's listing. In fact, the document prepared by the timber industry in collaboration with the Queensland Department of Lands, Forestry, Mapping and Surveying predicted that even at the current production levels 515 jobs, or 54 per cent of the work force, would be lost from November 1984 employment levels. So the industry has been in rapid decline since 1984, according to documentation which has now been sought from the Queensland Government. However, I think that in each of the exercises in which this Government has been involved, whether it be the Franklin Dam or the listing now of this area in Queensland, it has done everything possible to seek the co-operation of State and local governments by bringing forth some very expert views from our Department as to what can be done by local government authorities and other groups in those areas to make sure that we can have a great deal of impact on what job losses may take place as a result of decisions taken by the Government. To the extent that we have sought the co-operation of local government and to the extent that our members, including, as I say, the honourable member for Leichhardt, the honourable member for Herbert and other honourable members from Queensland, have been involved, I am sure that we will meet with the success that we have met in other areas throughout Australia. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. In respect of the heads of agreement for the proposed Christmas Island casino, will the Minister explain why annexure D strangely limits use of the aerodrome in its present form to only BAe146 aircraft when it is currently used by several other aircraft types? It is a fact that the only Australian company with present and future access to BAe146s is Ansett-TNT? Mr KERIN —In my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, I can inform the House that the developer has asked for approval of the use of BAe146 aircraft. That approval has been given. It does not preclude applications for other aircraft, and of course any aircraft of lesser specifications can land in any case. Mr Aldred —On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the heads of agreement document, which I have in front of me, clearly specifies BAe146s only on page 12 and annexure D. Other lighter aircraft cannot land there because of the expanse of water over which they have to go. Any heavier aircraft-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr MILTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Minister aware of the brutal killing of the lawyer Ernesto Anaya, President of the non-governmental Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, by the notorious death squads? Will the Foreign Minister express the abhorrence of the Government, and indeed of the majority of the members of this House, at this latest brutality in El Salvador? Mr HAYDEN —I am not aware of the particular case the honourable member raises but I will certainly check the matter. On the general matter of human rights in Central America, Australia is quite active through its ambassadorial representation in Mexico City. We do not have permanent representation in Central American countries. Our Ambassador and/or other representatives from our embassy in Mexico City go to Central America regularly and raise these sorts of issues. As I say, I will look at this particular case and if I find there is substance in it I will take the appropriate steps to have a representation made. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the environment, arts, heritage, monorails et cetera. Is it a fact that the agreement made between the Commonwealth Government and Christmas Island Resort Casino Pty Ltd, dated 4 June 1987, specifically provides that the aerodrome is approved for use by BAe146 aircraft only, subject to certain conditions? How does the Minister reconcile the answer that he just gave, which implied otherwise, with the express terms of the agreement made between his Government and the resort developer? Mr KERIN —Madam Speaker, I have before me the advice from the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to the Minister's Private Secretary. I do not have annexure D before me. The answer I gave to the honourable member for Bruce summarises the position. Annexure D merely sets out-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will honourable members please be silent. Let us hear the Minister. Mr Sinclair —He has just been misleading the House. Mr KERIN —Come on, George. Annexure D merely sets out the upgrading-- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr KERIN —`George'? Madam SPEAKER —He knows exactly which comment, and he will not repeat it. He will just withdraw. Mr KERIN —Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment `Come on, George'. Annexure D merely sets out the upgrading of the airport required by the Commonwealth for the use of the BAe146 aircraft, only during daylight hours. If the developer wishes to use any other aircraft or if his proposed BAe146 are to be used at night, the Commonwealth and the developer may agree on such other upgrading of the airport as is specified by the Commonwealth as being necessary to enable the proposed air services to operate. In other words, any other aircraft can be used if the airport is upgraded to meet whatever the requirements of the Department of Transport and Communications specify and the operation of the service complies with relevant legislation, international agreements and Government policy generally. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question to the Treasurer is a real question, unlike the surreal questions from the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to ask his question. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I ask: What co-ordinated action can the leaders of the major Western economies take to deal with the stock market collapse? Will Australia press for an international meeting to help achieve such a co-ordinated response? Mr KEATING —Over a period of a couple of years I have said that the policy imbalances in the United States, both in respect of the domestic Budget deficit and its broadening current account imbalance with other countries, in particular Japan, are of fundamental importance and can be substantially remedied only by both a combination of a depreciation of the United States dollar and more fundamental domestic policy shifts within the United States. That said, there has, of course, been some adjustment via the exchange rate and the United States current account deficit has been showing, until recently, signs of improvement. Also there have been attempts by the governments of Japan and West Germany to stimulate domestic demand to open up their domestic economies to a greater level of domestic product. To some extent, that has been successful. Also, there has been an agreement among the G5 countries for co-ordination in monetary policy and exchange rate interventions. All of these things have, in some way, tended to moderate imbalances which exist. In fact, they have not been cured and some imbalances are growing. Until there are fundamental policy changes, I do not think the markets will be pacified in terms of their current attitude towards them. What has happened is that the markets have stampeded on the major Western governments and have taken charge of the process of adjustment, both in the stock market and in the exchange markets. I do not think that will be cured until the United States is able to get together a decent fiscal package, until Japan starts to open up its markets further to imports, and until Germany continues to stimulate its domestic demand, which means keeping interest rates down. Then we might see some of these imbalances worked out. These views have been put. The honourable member for Calwell asked about a meeting of these countries. These countries tend to meet rather regularly. The G5 has a formal structure with a secretariat and meets intermittently. I suppose in the course of this current upheaval in markets it will meet again, if not as a group, certainly with some of the participants of the group meeting again. Australia's views are well known. I put all of these views to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1986. I put them to the International Monetary Fund at the end of 1986. I have put these views wherever I have had a chance in the course of the last couple of years. I think our position is well known. At this stage I do not think that we can do much more than that. Certainly, the meetings of the President of the United States with some of the senior policy makers in the United States such as Senator Byrd, representing the Democrats in the Senate, Senator Dole and senior members of the American House of Representatives, at least give some indication that the United States may be considering a package to try to deal with the problem. I merely make the point, which I made this morning in an interview, that in May this year we cut $3 billion out of recurrent outlays. The gross domestic product of the United States is 30 times that of Australia. It is the equivalent of a $90 billion cut to their Budget. Between August 1986 and May 1987 this Government cut outlays by $7 billion, which is the equivalent of a $210 billion reduction in the United States Budget. Now if the United States Government were able to bring in a package of those orders of magnitude it would dramatically transform the climate of confidence in the United States. I can only hope that at this late juncture there will be some progress on these changes abroad. However, not only should the United States be required to adjust but also Japan should be required to adjust, by taking a higher level of imports and trying to do what it can to moderate its imbalance, and Germany should be trying to lift domestic activity and demand to start to moderate its imbalance with the rest of Europe. I think that the fall in the exchange rates of the other European economies overnight is an attempt by the market to try to pull down the economic imbalance between Germany and the rest of Europe. I am sure that these issues now are uppermost in the minds of the policy makers in those countries. Our views have been put before. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The question is about the World Heritage listing. I ask: Does the Minister, as Chairman of the Australian Forestry Council, support the stated aims of the Council, which include advancing the welfare and development of industries based upon the forests and the formulation and recommendation of national forest policy for Australia? If so, can the Minister explain how he supports the Government's announced intention to nominate for World Heritage listing particular boundaries of north Queensland forests presently being selectively logged-the result of which will be to destroy the planned and supervised timber industry of that area? Can the Minister supply the House with any scientific evidence to support his views? Mr KERIN —As I understand, the wet tropical rainforests are presently being investigated for their heritage values to decide whether World Heritage listing should proceed. I was unaware of any World Heritage listing decision, as the honourable member's question implied. Yes, of course, we do have a Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council. My colleague the honourable member for Shortland will soon be chairman of the Australian Forestry Council. There are always many points of view about such issues. Of course the industry has a point of view. Of course people in the area have points of view. Of course people concerned about the environment in this country have a point of view. What the Government has put in place, after a very carefully thought through position, is a process whereby the heritage values of this area can be examined and assessed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 266g of the Companies Act 1981, I present the annual report of the Accounting Standards Review Board for 1986-87. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the National Health and Medical Research Council reports on the work done under the Act during the years 1985 and 1986. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present a corrigendum to Budget Paper No. 4-Commonwealth Financial Relations with Other Levels of Government 1987-88. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the 1986-87 Defence Report. 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 respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of food irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and Dr Wooldridge. 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' as there is a disturbing uncertainty regarding the possible health effects of this process on humans. This process has also been shown to reduce the nutritional value and affect taste, colour and texture of food, thus necessitating further unwanted additives. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate (a) the `food irradiation' process by State Governments, and (b) the dumping of irradiated food products on Australia, to the detriment of our food producers. We call on the Government to impose an immediate moratorium on all aspects of `food irradiation' in Australia. We urge extreme caution in processes involving radiation, where there is evidence indicating possible detrimental health effects. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of Cobalt 60, Caesium-137 or other radioactive substances. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and a war base. Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communication facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Mr Blanchard,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Snowdon. 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 Donald Cameron,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 experimentation on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron,Ms Crawford,Mr Lindsay and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr McVeigh and Mr White. 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 Ian Cameron and Mr Lloyd. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not 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 proposals. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: The Federal Government has done nothing to ease concerns that it will support Telecom's plans to introduce timed charges for local calls; and Call upon the government to undertake that such plans will not be implemented. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication is 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the exceptional qualities of the Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests. The rainforest and its adjoining reef are a priceless and irreplaceable possession of humanity. Unless this unique environment is protected by World Heritage Listing, its natural beauty and genetic diversity will be lost to future generations. Your petitioners therefore ask that: Government actions aimed at the earliest possible nomination for World Heritage Listing be applauded. The Queensland Government be prevented from allowing further environmental damage in the area to be nominated. Further logging be immediately stopped and alternative employment for timber workers be facilitated. The Cape Tribulation-Bloomfield road be closed and revegetated to protect an adjoining forest and reef. Increased scientific research into this unique ecological system be funded. by Mr Charles. 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 ID 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 you 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 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose the reductions in staffing of the Department of Social Security over recent years, and deplore the plans to reduce staff further. Social Security payments are the only source of income for many Australians. It is important that these people and their dependants receive their correct entitlement in a timely and efficient manner. This has been made difficult by the effect of widespread changes in the last Federal Budget and the May Economic Statement, combined with a continued reduction in staff. We believe that people who are dependent upon the Department of Social Security for their most basic needs of food and rent should not be expected to put up with inefficiencies in the Department caused by insufficient staffing and the resultant inadequate training. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to instruct the Department of Finance to accept the findings of the recent Joint Staffing Review (JSR II) and increase Social Security staffing levels accordingly. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cross. 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 the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Griffiths. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners hereby protest against the World Heritage Listing of North Queensland's Wet Tropics. Your petitioners humbly pray that this Listing be rejected, if not, it will have a detrimental affect on the Timber and allied industries and the economy of Far North Queensland. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposed nomination of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland to the World Heritage List. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area, including areas of State Forest scheduled for Timber Harvesting on a sustained yield basis, will have a detrimental effect on the Timber and Allied industries and on the citizens and economy of North Queensland. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area will inhibit the future development of North Queensland on a broad economic base. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the listing of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland as a World Heritage. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 justification 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 Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's `Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: `The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2,000 public servants within the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack of the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners in duty-bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory shows: That we are totally opposed to the imminent construction of a highrise hotel on the parkland area between the Boulevard and the CAGA Centre and Akuna Street and Allara Street. Your petitioners therefore request that the development of this hotel not proceed and the further destruction of parkland and recreational areas within the city cease. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory shows the attention of the House: To the erosion of City Hill for car park construction. Your petitioners therefore request that further destruction of parkland and recreational areas within the city cease. by Mr Langmore. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's support of the vandalising Ayers Rock monorail proposal which would destroy the primitive and sensitive environment of Uluru National Park. 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 SHARP(Gilmore)(2.55) —Over the last 4 1/2 years, Australians have become rather shell-shocked after the flood of hare-brained, stupid and illogical proposals that this Labor Government has put to them. However, despite the fact that we are getting very used to these stupid ideas being put to us, over the last few days of this Parliament we have seen the one that takes the cake-the proposal put to us by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). He is proposing to the Parliament and to the people of this country that a monorail be built at Ayers Rock in Uluru National Park to take tourists between Ayers Rock, the Olgas and the Yulara resort. I want to say to the House that the Minister has been able to achieve something that his Prime Minister has been unable to achieve, and that is universal consensus among the people of Australia because every person in Australia whose comments I have read or heard in the last 48 hours condemns the proposals that this Minister has put forward in relation to this monorail. One has only to look in the newspapers today and yesterday to see how true that statement is. I say that it is true because the whole concept of a monorail at Ayers Rock is ludicrous. A number of things will happen. First of all, it will quite seriously damage the environment. It will certainly destroy the wilderness atmosphere at Ayers Rock, and it will be a complete and utter blot on the landscape. Do not let anybody try to tell you that it will be anything less than that. The other thing is that it will be incredibly costly. I predict that this project will cost, if it is implemented, anything in the order of $300m to $500m to put into practice. Of course, on top of that, the whole idea is totally impractical. There is just no justification, on looking at this proposal, on which one can base any logical argument. In the process of trying to argue the case, the Minister has, quite deliberately, I am sure, misled the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gilmore cannot make that sort of allegation against a member without doing it by substantive motion. Mr SHARP —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will rephrase that. In the last couple of days, in order to justify his proposals, the Minister has given the House answers which I believe are totally wrong. I will substantiate that by quoting the Minister. Two days ago, when answering a question from the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) about the monorail, he said about the monorail: It has achieved a notable amount of support from the Aboriginal communities which have control of Uluru National Park. We take that on its face value. But yesterday morning, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), in a doorstop television interview with Peter Harvey, told him in answer to a question about the monorail: My office contacted senior officials of the committee last night. They knew nothing about it and they were upset. In other words, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is saying that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is completely wrong. There was no consultation with the Aboriginal people in Uluru and he was saying something that was not correct. Those are words that have come from two Ministers on the Government side. Those words are condemning. One of those two people is wrong, and we all know who he is. Another point is that, during yesterday's Question Time, I asked a question of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. He was talking about sealing the road. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) interjected, `Seal it'. The Minister said: The Leader of the National Party says that we should seal it. It is impossible to seal it. What the Minister was referring to at that time was the sealing of the road to Mount Olga. The Minister tells us that it is impossible to seal it. I refer the Parliament to a Press release dated 7 March 1986 from the then Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Environment, the honourable member for Robertson. In that Press release the former Minister said that the cost of sealing and realigning the Ayers Rock-Mount Olga road would be $3m. The statements of both those honourable members are opposite. The former Minister said that it can be sealed and it will cost $3m; the Minister just yesterday in the Parliament said that it is impossible to seal it. Either one of the two is wrong. Once again, I suggest to the House that the Tourism Minister is the person who is wrong. So in other words that honourable gentleman has misled this House and I would say that that is cause for the sacking of that Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is all right for the honourable member to say that someone is wrong; it is another matter, under the processes here, to suggest that a Minister has misled the House. I would draw the honourable member's attention to that and ask him to ensure that he does not make that allegation any more unless it is by way of substantive motion. Mr McGauran —Say that he has given the wrong impression. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Honourable members on my left know what I am saying and the honourable member for Gilmore knows what I am saying. He might proceed now along those lines. Mr SHARP —Okay, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the ability to seal and realign the road to the Olgas. It is quite obvious that this can be done. The Tourism Minister is not right when he says it is impossible; it can be done. I was there two months ago and I can assure the Minister that the road, called the Lasseter's Highway, to Ayers Rock is sealed all the way to Ayers Rock. The soil type underneath is the same as that which runs from the rock to the Olgas. The Minister tried to tell us that the road to the Olgas is somewhat different because it is on shifting sands. It might be appropriate in future that this Minister be titled not the Minister for office furniture but the Minister for shifting sands. He is trying to shift the argument in this House away from the truth of the matter. On top of that, he has tried to justify the need for a monorail on the basis that prospective visitors to Mount Olga cannot get there because the road is often so wet that trucks and buses are getting bogged in it every day, according to him. He says that people cannot get there: it is inaccessible because of the condition of the road in the wet season. I remind the House that we are talking about one of the driest regions in Australia. It rains very rarely indeed there and when it does rain it is usually during the months of January and February which, for the information of the Minister, is the low season for tourist visitors. So there is really no need to be so concerned about the inaccessibility of the Olgas at the wet time of the year because the visitors are not there in their usual numbers. The Minister said that he wanted to get people to the Olgas so that they could see the waterfalls that run off them after it rains. I point out to him that there are only two or three occasions during the year when the rain is heavy enough to cause the waterfalls to run-and when they do run they last for only a couple of hours. So the Minister's whole argument is completely spurious. There is no justification for arguing that we need a monorail to get visitors there when it rains. It does not rain very often and when it does there are not many people in the area who want to go to the Olgas. That is a ridiculous argument. I have been looking through the Hansard records of all the Minister's comments and I can assure honourable members that there is no logic in what he has said over the last few days. He tried to tell us that the monorail would be unobtrusive. He said in the House the other day that it will be two feet to three feet above the ground and it will not be seen by people. If it is to be two feet to three feet above the ground and 42 kilometres long how will vehicles cross over it? They could not cross over it and there is a need for them to cross over it. How would animals such as kangaroos, camels and donkeys that live in the area get from one side to the other? Would they learn to limbo? Would they hurdle it? How would they get across? How would people get across? Obviously the Minister is wrong. It would not be two feet or three feet above the ground; it would have to be 10 feet or 20 feet above the ground as the one in Sydney is. If it were that far above the ground it would be very obtrusive. The Minister has even suggested that it be painted a buff colour so that it would blend in. That is as ridiculous as any of the statements he has ever put forward. I was also interested to note that in the defence for a monorail proposal put forward in the last few days, Professor Derrick Ovington, who is the head of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, has claimed credit for the original proposal to put a monorail there. Professor Ovington is a well known conservationist-some would call him a greenie. He is so much of a conservationist that he is not prepared even to allow anybody to build a dunny at the foot of Ayers Rock. Yet he is the one who proposes that we put a monorail at Ayers Rock. For goodness sake, where is the logic in that? I also noticed that Professor Ovington said that it would not be intrusive because the monorail would be run parallel to the sand dunes and that if one stands back from it one will not be able to see it. I inform the House that the sand dunes run perpendicular to the direct route from Ayers Rock to the Olgas; so the monorail would have to run over the tops of the sand dunes-or perhaps the good Professor thought that he would snake the monorail around the sand dunes and make the trip a really worthwhile journey of several hundred kilometres. That is the sort of argument that is being put forward to try to justify this proposal. I turn to the cost of the proposal. I have had some fairly accurate estimations of what it would cost. On capital city prices, without a carriage or any engine to drive it, it would cost $4m a kilometre. The direct route involves at least 42 kilometres and that would mean the monorail would cost $168m-without any carriages. And of course to build anything in that part of the world costs twice as much as building the same thing in a capital city. So we are looking at a figure in the order of $300m to $500m to put the monorail into place if it goes over the tops of the sand dunes. How many visitors a year would we be building this very expensive monorail for? About 250,000 visitors will go there this year. Mr Beale —About $1,000 a ticket. Mr SHARP —It would be about $1,000 a ticket, as the honourable member for Deakin suggests. Perhaps that will be the way we will promote tourism in this country. It is totally ludicrous on an economic basis to argue that we should have a monorail out in that part of the world. The interest cost on that amount would build four, five or six new roads to the Olgas every year and there would still be enough left to provide helicopters at the Yulara resort to fly everybody out on the odd occasion when it did rain and there was a waterfall at the Olgas. There is no argument that can be sustained that is based on logic for this monorail. I have to ask: How would the monorail be powered? All monorails that I have ever seen or heard of are powered by electricity. Mr Howard —Solar power. Mr SHARP —It could be solar powered, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests. It is a very good suggestion but the one failing in that is that of course on the days when it rains and we have to get people to the Olgas the clouds will be over and there will be no solar energy. What would we do about that? Perhaps the Minister has thought of a better idea and he would run those big high-power transmission lines all the way from Alice Springs to the Olgas and right through the wilderness to provide the power. The proposal does not add up to anything that sounds sensible. I could go on about the economic and impractical insanity-- Opposition members-Go on! Mr SHARP —Honourable members want me to go on but time does not permit me. Unfortunately, I have been interjected on a few times from higher authorities and I do not have time, but I have not even spoken about the environmental aspects, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gilmore must not reflect on the Chair, either. Mr SHARP —I will not reflect on the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. So far I have not even mentioned the environmental aspects of this proposal. The monorail would damage a sensitive and primitive environment. People go there for that very reason. They go there in large numbers because they want to get away from such places as Surfers Paradise and the capital cities and because it is the heart of Australia. It is where the wilderness exists and it is accessible. People do not want to go out there to find that they have arrived in Disneyland with state of the art technology all around the place. It is part of the wilderness of Australia. So despite all of these fairly convincing arguments that the monorail cannot be built there in the first place and that it should not be proposed, there is still one failure in the Minister's argument and that is that there still has to be a road to service the Olgas; there would still have to be a road to service the monorail if it were constructed because the road from the Olgas goes on to the Docker River settlement, where people live. People need to drive along that road anyway. The road has to be maintained. So there is a need for a road. Let us not be silly about this: why does not the Government just take up the proposal and the pleas of the Northern Territory Government and build a bitumen sealed road? It is the logical, sensible thing to do. These silly arguments about monorails just do not stand up to the test. I say that one cannot sustain any argument that will support the construction of this monorail. It is environmentally crazy; it is economically insane. All we have to do is what the Northern Territory Government suggests-build a decent, bitumen sealed road and the problem will be solved. I suggest to the Minister that he tear himself away from his desk, get out in the real world and discover what real people think about his stupid, crazy, bizarre ideas. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(3.10) —It is most significant this afternoon to get an indication of the priorities of the Opposition in this place. Given some of the events of the past few weeks, one would think that honourable members opposite would not bother to trivialise the forms of the House and to take up valuable time in the House today on the discussion of a matter of public importance. In his opening remarks, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) talked about hare-brained, stupid and illogical proposals: If ever there was a hare-brained, stupid and illogical matter of public importance before this House it is certainly the one that is before us today. I want to make it clear that there is no firm proposal before the Government for a monorail at Uluru National Park. I cannot understand why people are getting so excited about something which, essentially, as the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) said in the Senate yesterday, `is a gleam in the eye of some people in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service'. However, it must be recognised that there are many steps to be taken regarding a suitable alternative, if it is to be developed, to the existing road from Ayers Rock to the Olgas. The principle in this whole debate is very clear. Any solution to the problem-and all members in this House would concede that there is a problem-on a long-term basis must take into account the need to protect the environment but at the same time it must provide suitable access to the thousands of Australians, and, indeed, the thousands of international visitor who want to go to the Olgas, Ayers Rock and the Uluru National Park. It must also be recognised that the road which goes beyond the Olgas and to other places is in bad condition at present, as the honourable member for Gilmore indicated in his remarks this afternoon, and, clearly, an alternative has to be found. So far, budgetary constraints have meant a lack of funds for realigning and sealing the road. From this afternoon's comments I take it that perhaps the Opposition is suggesting that the Government, during this difficult time of budgetary constraint, should spend money here, there, and everywhere else on some sort of project that the Opposition thinks is very important. But everyone on this side of the House knows that at times of difficult budgetary restraints priorities have to be reassessed. The cost of the project is estimated at $6m. I make the point that since 1980 the Commonwealth has spent about $1.5m in upgrading and sealing the road around Ayers Rock, as well as the access roads within the Park to Yulara. This year the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service will spend $300,000 on the road. Mr Brumby —How much? Mr SIMMONS —An amount of $300,000-a fairly significant amount, given the difficult circumstances of budgetary restraint. It is planned to spend another $200,000 next year on the upgrading of the facilities there. So, the Government is not simply turning a blind eye to the difficulties associated with the bad road conditions in the area but is taking a very responsible attitude. The Government recognises that a problem does exist in relation to the current road and it is trying to do something, gradually, about it. Surely, by his comments, the member for Gilmore is not suggesting that the Government should rush in and spend $6m straight away in upgrading the facilities. As much as we would like to do that, I think that all governments must recognise that in difficult economic circumstances they have a responsibility to plan priorities and to do things when they can afford to do them. I think the important thing to state at the outset, before the imagery of sweeping monorail towers gets too strong and the proponents of a monorail are accused of having some sort of one-track mind, is that before a decision on anything like a monorail, a new road, or any other form of access to the Olgas were made, several very important steps would need to be taken. So, at this time, any talk of a monorail suddenly appearing at this prime spot of natural beauty and tourist interest is, quite clearly, premature. Mr Brumby —It is an Opposition beat-up, the whole thing. Mr SIMMONS —Absolutely, as my good friend the honourable member for Bendigo has said. Members opposite have no policy development: we never see any initiatives brought forward in this House to debate seriously the key economic issues that are before the Government at this stage. All we get is the trivialising of the time available for debate in this House with such ridiculous matters of public importance as this. Several options are being considered in general terms by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as part of a plan to improve access to the Olgas. Since freehold title was granted to the traditional owners of the area, it should be borne in mind that there has been a 30 per cent increase in the area. Obviously, this great increase in tourism has done considerable damage to the existing road structure in the area. Over the past couple of years over 200,000 visitors have visited the national park. That is a very significant number of people coming into the area. As I pointed out in my initial comments, any decision made in respect of increasing access at Uluru National Park must take into account the need to protect the environment. But there is no firm proposal. The various options have not been discussed in detail as yet with the traditional Aboriginal owners. I understand that there has been some informal discussion with some of the people in the area. However, options have not yet been discussed by the Uluru Katatjuta National Park board of management. Once the different options have been evaluated and the benefits and disadvantages critically assessed, details of those options will be submitted to the national park board for its consideration. The board will then advise the Minister for the Environment and the Arts of its views on the options put forward. As the next step, the Minister will then put forward a proposal for an environmental impact statement. A further matter should not be overlooked, namely, that there is a plan of management for the Uluru National Park, and it is operative for about another four years. So, it may or may not be necessary to alter the plan of management. As I said earlier, the Government is trying to improve access to the Olgas in a way that will be cost effective while at the same time ensure the protection of the delicate and sensitive environment, and also, of course, the cultural values that are part of this very important region of Australia. The traditional owners of the region are concerned about the present alignment of the road, and I guess that anyone who has been there would come to the same conclusion. Obviously, the present alignment of the road makes its upgrading difficult and extraordinarily costly. As members of the House would recognise, there are difficulties involved in changing the alignment because of the necessity to protect the Aboriginal sacred sites which, quite clearly, would be threatened if the road alignment were altered. So, it is not quite as simple as the good natured and humorous approach taken by the honourable member for Gilmore this afternoon would perhaps suggest. He made a quite entertaining speech; we had a laugh here and a laugh there, and he had a large number of people behind him cheering him on. I am not sure whether he is a member of Actors' Equity-he may do that as a sideline, I do not know. However, his performance again suggested something about the Opposition's priorities in this area. Another option provided in the plan of management is to construct a sealed road on a new alignment, which minimises the possibility of environmental damage and which meets with the approval of the local Aboriginal community and the board of management. That is another option. A whole series of options has been talked about, but because of the blind and very narrow vision of some Opposition members they just focus on a particular issue and run very hard with it. There is no firm proposal. There is no reason for the honourable member for Gilmore to get carried away with that idea, or any other idea, at this stage. He is being a bit premature. It is important to keep that in mind. The honourable member said that the proposals were `hare-brained', `stupid' and `illogical'. I find it amusing that he, of all honourable members, the shadow Minister for tourism, should talk about vandalising primitive and sensitive environments when he was a proponent of that wonderfully sensitive structure known as the Big Merino at Goulburn! For the benefit of the House, I will read out a couple of remarks made by Mr Ian Warden in an interesting article in this morning's Canberra Times, because they place the honourable member's comments this afternoon in a laughable context. Mr Warden wrote: When Mr Sharp calls anything `bizarre' it is timely to remember that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the construction of the Olga-proportioned Big Merino in environmentally fragile Goulburn. It comes as a surprise to find that a man who can be enthusiastic about placing a replica of a ruminant, three storeys high, beside a busy highway would find anything untoward about a discreet monorail. Mr Warden later continued: I have not seen the Opposition so passionate about a subject since the recent nation-racking issue, which set father against son, wife against daughter, cat against budgie, of whether the Speaker's chair should be moved from the old Parliament House to the new. It is refreshing to find, after all the disunity we have seen among Opposition members in 1987, that they are finally united about the two most significant issues that have come before this chamber in 1987: the first being whether or not the current Speaker's chair should be moved, and the second being whether the Opposition should support or oppose the concept of a monorail at Uluru National Park. In summary: The terms of this afternoon's matter of public importance seriously misrepresent the position in that they suggest that the Government has suddenly decided in the last few days, to construct a monorail at Uluru National Park when the actuality is that no such decision has been taken. There have been no formal consultations, no talk about environmental impact statements and no talk about anything else that is necessary in the steps leading up to such a decision, if it were ever to be taken. Secondly, the matter of public importance assumes that the Government may do as it pleases at any time in an area that is owned by traditional Aboriginals; in other words, that it can brush aside any consultations and not seek advice on the various options available and proceed without an environmental impact statement. It also smacks of hypocrisy coming, as it does, from the honourable member for Gilmore, who wholeheartedly supported, as I have just suggested, vandalising the historical Southern Tablelands City of Goulburn with the Kitsch Big Merino. The matter of public importance deserves to be condemned by all responsible honourable members because it has taken up the valuable time of this House. The Opposition will, at all times, trivialise the forms of this House as a very poor substitute for any economic or other policy development. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. For 11 years the Commonwealth and the States have been negotiating for a reference of powers from the States in respect of family law matters. Last year four States-New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania-enacted legislation referring to the Commonwealth powers over the maintenance, custody and guardianship of, and access to, all children and for the payment of expenses in relation to children and child bearing. The references of power do not extend to children who are the subject of orders under State welfare laws. The amendments being introduced in this Bill give effect to those references of powers. This means that in those States, and the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Norfolk Island, where the Family Law Act 1975 also has application, all children will be subject to the same law, and the procedures under the Family Law Act, including the provisions for counselling and conciliation, will be available in disputes concerning ex-nuptial children. Queensland and Western Australia will be outside this uniform scheme. The provisions in this Bill applying the Act to ex-nuptial children will not extend to Queensland or Western Australia. In Western Australia, the State Family Court has jurisdiction to deal with all of the children in a family unit. It applies, as appropriate, the Family Law Act and the State law. In Queensland, however, it will still be necessary to bring proceedings in the State courts in respect of children who are not children of a marriage and in the Family Court in respect of children who are children of a marriage. The Bill seeks to avoid jurisdictional problems in some of these cases by giving the Family Law Court of Australia jurisdiction in matters concerning ex-nuptial children where the parties to the proceedings are residents of different States. In doing so, the Bill relies on the constitutional power in section 75 (iv) of the Constitution. In exercising jurisdiction in such a case, the Court would apply the relevant law of the non-referring State to those cases not covered by the Family Law Act as amended. The Commonwealth is still hopeful that Queensland and Western Australia will refer similar powers to the Commonwealth. Alternatively, and the Bill provides for this, those States may adopt the provisions of this Bill in respect of their ex-nuptial children to ensure that such children are not disadvantaged compared with children in the referring States and the Terri- tories. In the present Act the provisions relating to children are scattered throughout a number of parts of the Act. The opportunity has been taken to restructure the Act to bring most of the provisions relating to children together in the one part, new part VII. That new part will operate in general terms in the referring States, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island, but with no alteration to the substantive law in the non-referring States. Amendments to the Law The amendments to the Bill will change the present law on guardianship, custody and access in two ways. First, in the referring States and the Territories the provisions of the Family Law Act will apply to ex-nuptial children in the same way as those provisions now apply to children of a marriage. In the four referring States and the Territories there will be a uniform law for the guardianship and custody of all children. At present the parents of an ex-nuptial child have, under State and Territory law, varying status as guardians and custodians and these may differ from the guardianship and custody rights of parties to a marriage in respect of children of the marriage. This can create complex legal problems and parents of ex-nuptial children may be uncertain of their rights and responsibilities, particularly if one or both parents move interstate. The Bill provides that both parents of a child should, until a court orders to the contrary or the parents file a child welfare agreement in the court, be a guardian and share custody. Secondly, the Bill provides for the registration of enforceable agreements between the parents in respect of the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child. The new procedure will simply involve the parents in filing the agreement at the court registry thus removing the need for expensive court hearings. The Bill introduces Federal laws in the area of child bearing expenses. The States and Territories have long provided, not uniformly, for such expenses. It also provides for presumptions of parentage and paternity for the purpose of determination of these issues under the Family Law Act, thereby replacing for those purposes the operation of the common law presumptions and the non-uniform statutory presumptions that apply under State and Territory status of children laws. The Bill makes substantial changes to the Family Law Act with respect to the main- tenance of children. The Government's proposals in respect of maintenance were spelt out in a ministerial statement to the Parliament by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on 24 March 1987. The Government will be introducing separate legislation to establish the Child Support Agency in accordance with that statement. The Bill effects a number of changes to the Family Law Act that were foreshadowed in that statement. In particular, the Bill seeks to ensure that children will receive a proper level of financial support from the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of both their parents and that both parents share equitably in the support of their children. The Bill provides that the duty of parents to maintain a child takes priority over all other commitments of the parent, other than commitments enabling the parent to support himself or herself or any other person or child that the parent has a duty to maintain. In developing its proposals for child main- tenance, the Government has been concerned at the very high level of social security payments being made to divorced parties who have not made adequate provision for spousal main- tenance in the course of conclusion of their financial arrangements. Section 75 (2) (f) has facilitated the drain on the revenue by allowing courts to take into account, in both spousal and child maintenance proceedings, the eligibility of either party to a marriage, to a pension, benefit or allowance. This Bill provides that in any future proceedings for spousal or child main- tenance, the court must disregard the eligibility for an income-tested pension of an applicant for maintenance. The Bill will still leave room for parties to reach their own agreements on child maintenance and spousal maintenance. Those agreements may be enforced so long as the effect of the agreements is not to cast a burden on the revenue by maintenance being so designed as to qualify the party concerned for an income-tested pension or benefit. The Bill also inserts new provisions to enable the income testing, for social security purposes, of maintenance received other than by way of periodic sum. These provisions require the court, in ordering the payment of a lump sum or the transfer of property in satisfaction of main- tenance, to specify the proportion of the payment or the value of the portion of the property which is attributable to the provision for maintenance of the party to the marriage. A similar requirement exists in relation to maintenance agreements. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his statement that the Government would consider changes to access laws and the enforcement of access orders, after it received the reports to be made by the Family Law Council on access and the Law Reform Commission on contempt of court. These reports have now been tabled in the Parliament and the Government will be assessing the public reaction to the reports. Further amendments may be made to the Family Law Act in the light of that consideration and of the Government's consideration of the separate report on matrimonial property by the Law Reform Commission. Financial Impact Statement Implementation of the references of powers will result in the transfer of work from State welfare departments and State courts to the counselling, conciliation and judicial services of the Family Court of Australia. The effect will be to transfer most jurisdictions in custody and guardianship cases affecting ex-nuptial children in the referring States from the State courts to the Family Court. There is expected to be some transfer of maintenance cases affecting ex-nuptial children from State magistrates courts to the Family Court. It is difficult to predict the extent of the transferred work, but potentially this could increase the cost of the operation of the Family Court in a full year by some $3.5m. To the extent to which matters now coming before State courts would come before the Family Court, there would be a corresponding decrease in the work load of the State courts. The amendments to be made by the Bill that relate to the child support scheme may result in increased litigation in the Family Court in maintenance matters. The extent to which this may occur is, however, impossible to predict, given the number of factors that are likely to influence decisions to litigate maintenance applications. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian produced crude oil from a regulated to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984. The three Acts constitute the Bass Straight freight adjustment scheme. This scheme provides partial compensation to refiners for the cost of transport by sea or pipeline of allocated crude oil-Bass Strait crude oil purchased at Western Port in those volumes and at the import parity price determined by the Government-to their refineries for processing. The amount of compensation is based on the actual transport cost incurred by refiners in transporting their allocated oil from Western Port to their refinery. While the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act falls within the portfolio responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), I shall also address the proposed amendment to that Act which is contained in this package of Bills. Under the existing marketing arrangements, refiners are subject to the requirements of the crude oil allocation scheme, under which they are obliged to lift over a calendar year an average of 350,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Bass Strait and the total production of crude oil from other producing areas, excluding Jabiru. Each refiner is required to purchase a share of the total allocation obligations, with the share determined according to its market share of sales of specified petroleum products. Crude oil purchases are made at the prevailing import parity price for the relevant producing area. As announced on 21 June 1987 by the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, the allocation scheme will terminate on 31 December 1987 and be replaced by deregulated marketing arrangements from 1 January 1988. However, it is possible that a number of refiners may not have lifted their share of 350,000 barrels per day-that is, the 1987 target for Bass Strait crude oil-by 31 December 1987 and it is therefore necessary to implement some transition arrangements to ensure equity between all refiners. Refiners who are underlifted against their Bass Strait allocation obligations on 1 January 1988 will need to clear their underlift in 1988 before being permitted to purchase Bass Strait crude oil on the free market. This Bill provides for the continuation into 1988 of the collection of the Bass Strait coastal freight adjustment levy, at the same rate that will apply during December 1987. This levy, which is paid by producers, will apply only to liftings by refiners that have not met their allocation obligations and until such time as these obligations have been met. The Bill also provides for the Minister to set a nil rate of levy. This rate would be set after all refiners have met their liftings obligations and thus effectively terminate the scheme. Amendments to the other Bills in this package remove the liability from the producers to pay the levy on exports and free market sales after 1 January 1988, and for the disbursement of the funds in the Foreign Adjustment Trust Fund that have been collected under these arrangements. It is envisaged that the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act and the other two associated Acts will be repealed in 1988, following finalisation of all outstanding payments. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian produced crude oil from the current allocation scheme to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984. The amendments in this Bill are consequential on those to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill, the purposes of which I have previously addressed in relation to that Bill. The amendment contained in this Bill will remove the liability on the Bass Strait producers to pay the Bass Strait freight adjustment levy on all exports and free market sales of crude oil made on and after 1 January 1988. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(3.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian-produced crude oil from a regulated to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984. The amendments in this Bill are consequential to those of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Amendment Bill, the purposes of which I have previously addressed in relation to those Bills. The amendments contained in clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill, in conjunction with the proposed amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collections Act, provide a mechanism by which the Bass Strait producers will be deemed to have paid the levy on free market sales, including exports made on and after 1 January 1988. Clause 4 provides that, where such amounts are deemed to have been collected, then they are also deemed to have been paid into the Freight Adjustment Fund. These amendments contained in clause 6 of this Bill will allow disbursements from the trust fund to be made at the end of January 1988 to the Bass Strait producers on the basis of their exports and domestic free market sales during December 1987 and to those refiners that exported allocation sales of Bass Strait crude oil. Disbursements from the trust fund to refiners, on the basis of their purchases of allocation sales of Bass Strait crude oil, will be deferred until all refiners have met their 1987 Bass Strait allocation obligations. At that stage, the Minister shall set a nil rate of levy to apply to future sales of Bass Strait crude oil, which will effectively terminate the coastal freight adjustment scheme. The base period for the calculation of these disbursements from the trust fund to eligible refiners will be extended from 1 July 1987 to the month in which this nil levy rate is set, in accordance with clause 3, while the amounts paid to refiners will be made in accordance with the provisions of the new sections 8 and 9. Sub-clauses 6 (3) and 6 (4) also allow for any arrears of levy, that is amounts of levy that should have been paid in previous periods, to be paid into the Freight Adjustment Fund and for corresponding disbursements to be made to the relevant parties on the basis that would have applied if the arrears had been paid at the time the liability became due. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that no disbursements from the freight adjustment fund will be made at the end of December 1987. Payments of the amounts that accrued during that month are to be made in accordance with the provisions of clause 6 as outlined above. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(3.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains a range of measures which have been the subject of announcements of changes to the income tax law by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Three proposals included in the Bill are Budget initiatives. They are the removal of the `negative-gearing' limitation in relation to rental property investments, reduction in the rate of write-off for capital expenditure on new income producing buildings and income tax averaging arrangements for artists and sportspersons. A number of provisions in the Bill are intended to deal with arrangements to exploit the operation of the income tax law. The most significant measure in this area is the introduction of thin capitalisation rules to limit interest deductions of foreign investors in circumstances where their investments are highly geared. Other anti-avoidance provisions deal with financial instruments in the nature of deferred annuities, discounted securities and similar instruments issued to non-resident associates and excessive private company dividends and non-arm's length income of approved deposit funds. The Bill also includes measures relating to the supervision of occupational superannuation funds, facilitation of shelf companies, extensions of the investment allowance and gift provisions and a number of technical amendments. Thin Capitalisation Measures The Bill will introduce the income tax law rules against thin capitalisation to prevent significant losses of revenue that can arise where foreign investors do not maintain an appropriate balance between debt and equity in respect of their income-producing activities in Australia. The thin capitalisation rules contained in this Bill were foreshadowed by the Treasurer on 30 April 1987 and generally have effect from 1 July 1987. They will replace an administrative measure that had previously been imposed as a condition for approval of investments under foreign investment policy. The proposals are directed at those foreign investments in Australia that are excessively geared up through the use of in-house loans, that is, loans made available by associated persons such as foreign parent companies and other related entities off-shore. The measures will effectively impose statutory debt:equity ratios in relation to funding of foreign investments from non-arms' length sources where a non-resident has a 15 per cent or greater interest in an Australian entity or business. Where foreign debt from such sources exceeds debt:equity ratios of 6:1 for financial institutions and 3:1 for other investors, deductions for interest payments will be reduced to the extent that the relevant ratio is exceeded. While the amendments generally apply from 1 July 1987, under transitional measures borrowings that were approved under foreign investment policy and which exceed the new debt:equity ratios are to be free from the new rules. Transitional provisions are also to apply to companies engaged in mineral exploration. Special provisions will also apply in the initial period of operation of the legislation in relation to the measurement of the level of foreign debt. As the level of debt will generally be taken at its highest point during the year, affected taxpayers are being allowed until 30 November 1987 to make adjustments to their financial arrangements to ensure that their in-house debts comply with the applicable debt:equity ratio. Asset revaluation reserves are to be taken into account in determining a company's equity for the purposes of the debt:equity formula and will, in the first year of the new rules, be valued as at 28 October 1987, rather than at 1 July 1987, to ensure that foreign investors are not unduly disadvantaged by the new rules. Associated measures, also announced on 30 April 1987, to counter tax avoidance arrangements arising out of certain kinds of corporate restructures, will be included in a later Bill. Income Averaging for Artists and Sportspersons The Bill will also introduce a new system of tax averaging for the specialist income of artists, composers, inventors, performers, production associates and writers. This measure will give effect to the proposal announced by the Treasurer in the 1986-87 Budget to provide, with effect from the 1986-87 year of income, special arrangements designed to smooth out tax liabilities where fluctuating incomes would push such people into higher tax brackets. The provisions of the income tax law which currently provide special treatment for the income of authors and inventors are to be repealed, although a taxpayer eligible to benefit from those provisions will be able to apply, in respect of the 1986-87 year of income only, for those provisions to apply in lieu of the new arrangements. The estimated revenue cost of the new arrangements is $2m in 1987-88. Negative Gearing The Bill will also give effect to the 1987-88 Budget announcement that the income tax restriction on the deductibility of interest associated with the negative gearing of rental property investments is to be removed, with effect from the commencement of the 1987-88 income year. Restoration of full tax deductibility of interest on rental property borrowings will mean uniformity of tax treatment of interest costs for all types of investment. This measure has been made possible only as a result of the Government's comprehensive tax reform program-in particular, due to the implementation of a capital gains tax and the reduction of the top marginal tax rate to 49 per cent. That reform program has brought a new integrity to the tax system and in so doing has relieved the tax paying community generally of the burden of the excessive tax benefits that negative gearing offered high income earners prior to July 1985 when the restriction now being lifted was introduced. Deductions for Capital Expenditure on New Income-Producing Buildings The Bill will also reduce the rate of annual deduction allowable for capital expenditure on the construction of new income producing buildings, from 4 per cent to 2 1/2 per cent. This reduction, which was announced in the 1987-88 Budget Speech, is complementary to the Government's restoration of full tax deductibility of interest on rental property borrowings. The reduced rate of deduction will apply to new buildings, as well as to extensions, alterations or improvements to buildings, that commence to be constructed after 15 September 1987. Special provisions will preserve the 4 per cent rate for buildings commenced after 15 September 1987 in any cases where the taxpayers who incur the capital expenditure had effectively committed themselves to the construction project on or before that date. These changes are estimated to produce revenue savings of $3m in 1988-89, $10m in 1989-90, $29m in 1990-91 and $54m in 1991-92, continuing to rise significantly for many years and exceeding $500m per annum after 25 years. Discounted and Other Deferred Interest Securities The Bill will also make changes first foreshadowed in an announcement of 19 September 1986 to ensure that the investment return under certain financial instruments which are in the nature of deferred annuities, and provide substantial tax deferral advantages, are taxed on an accruals basis rather than under concessional measures applicable to annuities generally. Although the financial instruments in question are considered to fall within provisions that require the application of an accruals basis of taxation to discounted securities and certain other financial securities, amendments are to be made to remove doubts that have been expressed as to the operation of those provisions in their case. The advantages of dressing up loan arrangements as annuities can be twofold: firstly, lower amounts of interest are assessed in earlier repayment years than would be the case if the money was lent by way of a loan with fixed equal repayment terms and, secondly, there can be a significant deferral of assessable income in the case of deferred annuities. The amendments will ensure that the income element of affected annuities are taxed on an accruals basis and will apply respectively to relevant deferred annuities issued after 19 September 1986 and to immediate annuities issued on or after today. A later application date is proposed for immediate annuities because the announcements of September 1986 were primarily concerned with the tax deferral advantages of deferred annuities. The amendments will not affect the existing concessional tax treatment of traditional annuities such as those issued to individuals by life assurance companies. The Bill will also modify the provisions that apply an accruals-based method of assessment of yields on discounted and certain other securities, to correct a feature that is capable of being exploited so as to give an unintended tax result. This proposal was announced on 23 April 1987. As long as an affected security is not issued off-shore nor made payable to bearer, the existing law entitles the issuer to deductions for payments of discount or other deferred interest payments on an accruals basis that generally parallels the basis upon which the holder of the security is taxed on those amounts. Amendments in this Bill will preclude the allowance of deductions on an accruals basis where the security is issued in Australia after 23 April 1987 to or on behalf of a non-resident associate of the issuer. That associate would typically bear tax only by way of interest withholding tax at redemption or prior transfer of the security on-shore. The Bill also incorporates some minor technical adjustments to correct formula calculations for dealing with discounted securities and similar securities. `Shelf' Companies The Bill will also implement a change to a number of company grouping provisions of the income tax law to give effect to an announcement of 29 June 1987. The purpose of these measures is to permit a newly incorporated company, commonly referred as a `shelf' company, to satisfy the 100 per cent common ownership test that is applied in various company grouping provisions of the law. Those provisions permit transfers within company groups of deductions for company losses, excess foreign tax credits, rental property interest and capital losses and for the roll-over of assets for the purpose of deferring liability for tax on capital gains. The shelf companies affected by these amendments are ones introduced into a company group during an income year but which, although previously incorporated, had been dormant before their acquisition by the group. The changes will apply to shelf companies first acquired by groups in the 1986-87 income year. Investment Allowance The Bill will give effect to the decision announced by the Treasurer on 12 June 1987 to extend by six months, from 1 July 1987 to 1 January 1988, the date by which eligible property must be used, or installed ready for use, if it is to qualify for the investment allowance. The Government has decided to extend the investment allowance in the light of unavoidable delays that have occurred in the completion of some projects that in all other respects are eligible for the allowance. In the absence of an amendment the delayed projects would have resulted in a windfall gain to revenue of an estimated $30m in 1987-88, with a corresponding loss of the same magnitude to the taxpayers involved. Extension of the cut-off date will defer to the 1988-89 financial year the cash benefit to taxpayers and the cost to revenue. Gifts Amendments are also being made to the gift provisions of the income tax law to permit gifts to the Ninth Australian Division Memorial of Participation (Alamein) Fund and to the Korean and South East Asian and Vietnam War Memorials Anzac Square Trust Fund to attract deductions. Gifts made to these two funds on or after 15 June 1987 and on or before 30 June 1989 will be deductible. The estimated cost of admitting the Ninth Australian Division Memorial of Participation (Alamein) Fund is $100,000 in each of the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and that for the South East Asian and Vietnam War Memorials Anzac Square Trust Fund is $50,000 in each of those years. Approved Deposit Funds The Bill also introduces measures announced on 12 January 1987 to tax excessive private company dividends and non-arm's length income of approved deposit funds (ADFs). The amendment will ensure that approved deposit funds do not abuse the tax-free status they were given when established as part of the Government's 1984 tax package for lump sum superannuation and other retirement payments. Income affected by this measure will be taxed at the rate of 50 per cent for the 1986-87 income year and 49 per cent for later years. Occupational Superannuation Also contained in this Bill are measures to effect the handover to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner of responsibility for supervision of certain aspects of the activities of superannuation funds and approved deposit funds currently undertaken by the Commissioner of Taxation. As foreshadowed by the Treasurer in his second reading speech on the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill earlier in these sittings, these amendments are part of the legislative package necessary to establish the new supervisory arrangements for superannuation funds. Superannuation funds and approved deposit funds which comply with operating standards and other relevant conditions administered by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will continue to be exempt from tax on their investment income. The Commissioner of Taxation will retain responsibility for the assessment of tax on income of non-complying funds, certain private company dividends and excessive non-arm's length income derived by funds and where any excessive or unauthorised benefits are paid from funds. The Commissioner of Taxation will also retain responsibility for allowing income tax deductions for contributions made to superannuation funds. To facilitate these changes, the Bill will also amend the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 to remedy certain technical and drafting defects as well as enabling a de facto spouse of a member of a superannuation fund to receive benefits from the fund in the event of the member's death. Amendments of the Taxation Administration Act will permit the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to utilise the prosecution provisions of the income tax law against fund trustees who breach requirements in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act relating to the provision of information and documents. The amendments proposed to the occupational Superannuation provisions of the income tax law are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. The Government has also decided that, in view of the substantial increase in recent years in the number of superannuation funds and employees covered by funds and the possible significant revenue implications arising as a result of any across-the-board increases in the level of maximum permissible benefits, responsibility for fixing superannuation reasonable benefit limits will be transferred to the government of the day. This change will allow the Government to determine the reasonable benefit limits in the light of its budgetary and other priorities and is consistent with its policy of subjecting tax expenditures to greater scrutiny. An explanatory memorandum which comprehensively explains the measures contained in this Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(4.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will amend the fringe benefits tax and income tax laws. It will implement a large number of fringe benefits tax changes of a concessional kind that were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 26 August and 29 October 1986. It also contains income tax amendments announced on 29 October 1986 to exclude from substantiation claims against travel allowances paid under award conditions where the amount of the allowance is not greater than was payable under the award on that date. When introducing the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill last year the Treasurer described it as a major part of the Government's tax reform program. He did so against the background that for some years the income tax law had been increasingly exploited by predominantly higher income taxpayers converting substantial parts of their remuneration into non-taxed fringe benefits. That course had been open to them because there were technical deficiencies in the income tax law itself and because previous governments had displayed little enthusiasm to remedy them. This Government had no such hesitation. The fringe benefits tax legislation, therefore, was a very important measure both in its content and its contribution to restoring public confidence in the equity of the Australian tax system. Like other tax reform measures, it has been more successful than we anticipated. At the time of its introduction, the revenue gain from the imposition of fringe benefits tax was estimated at $300m in 1986-87 and $540m in 1987-88. However, excluding payments by Commonwealth Government departments, actual revenue collections for 1986-87 were $535m, some $200m more than originally estimated. The estimated receipts for 1987-88 are $750m. These results demonstrate forcefully the merit of the Government's actions to correct the costly inequities that had arisen from the growing use of fringe benefit packages. The measures contained in the Bill reflect a response by the Government to community concerns that the car log book and certain other record keeping obligations contained in the original legislation were overly burdensome, that some benefits-particularly those of a minor or compassionate nature-which were technically taxable should have been exempt, and that a greater degree of discounting was warranted in taxing remote area housing and other remote area benefits. I emphasise that while the Government has shown its willingness to respond to reasonable community representations on the operation of the fringe benefits tax law, it has not and will not yield to pressures to alter the basic structure and principles of the tax. The general effects of the amendments being made by the Bill were set out in the two announcements mentioned earlier, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House in discussing them in detail at this time. In giving effect to the announced measures it has been necessary to modify the operation of one of the proposals. On 29 October last year it was announced that the general rule for determining the reduction in taxable value arising from employee contributions was to be changed so that any contribution by an employee was first set off against the private component of the benefit. While that will continue to be the general rule in practice, its operation could have produced inequitable results in cases where the contribution was not in fact related to the private component. As explained in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill, the reduction rule now being introduced will apply flexibly to reflect the particular circumstances under which employee contributions are made. A further reduction rule applies under the law to ensure that employee expenses borne by the employer are not subject to fringe benefits tax where the expenses would otherwise have been deductible for income tax purposes in the hands of the employee. Presently, expenditure of a kind that would otherwise be subject to the negative gearing rules is excluded from this `otherwise deductible' rule. Consistent with the Government's decision to remove the negative gearing rules for income tax purposes with effect from the 1987-88 income tax year, the exclusion will cease to apply for fringe benefits tax purposes with effect from the 1987-88 fringe benefits tax year, which commenced on 1 April 1987. Before concluding I draw attention to two proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax law that have not been possible to include in this Bill due to time constraints. In his announcement of 29 October 1986, the Treasurer said that the fringe benefits tax liability arising from any discounts of purchase price under home ownership schemes in remote areas was to be amortised over the period, if any, of the relevant purchase contract until unrestricted title passes to the employee. These rather complex proposals have been the subject of lengthy discussions between officials of the Treasurer's Department and representatives of the Australian mining industry. While it will not now be possible to bring the amendments forward until the autumn sittings of the Parliament the industry has been advised in detail of the arrangements that will apply. The second matter arises from discussions in the tax liaison group. As noted in the 29 October 1986 announcement the liaison group, which was established in 1984 by the Commissioner of Taxation with the major legal and accounting bodies, was to be used as a forum for further consultations with tax practitioners on technical and practical aspects of the tax reform package. The Government has decided to accept the proposal emanating from that group to introduce amendments that will facilitate genuine arrangements under which employers may be reimbursed by employees for the whole or a part of the fringe benefits tax liability attributable to the employee's benefit, or from a third party such as a manufacturer who arranges incentives for employees of a retailer. These amendments will be introduced in the autumn sittings of Parliament next year. I commend the Bill to the House, and in doing so I present for the information of honourable members Part A of the explanatory memorandum on this Bill, which contains a general outline of the amendments and a comprehensive explanation of the operation of the main features of the Bill. As honourable members will see the Bill is a lengthy one reflecting the number of concessions granted and the structural features of the existing law that have made it necessary, at a technical level, to repeat a number of the revised reduction rules. Nevertheless, the details of the changes are, as explained in the explanatory memorandum, relatively straightforward. Detailed clause notes will be circulated to honourable members in the next few days. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations)(4.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a part of the package of sea installations Bills-the first of which were introduced into the House earlier this month. The full package of Bills will extend the application of Australian laws regulating customs, migration, quarantine and taxation to installations in Australia's off-shore waters. The measures proposed by this Bill are two-fold. First, the Bill will extend the coverage of the sales tax law to areas within 200 nautical miles of the territorial limits of Australia, the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the Coral Sea Island Territories-in some areas this will extend beyond the present boundary of the outer limits of the continental shelf. The reach of the existing sales tax law does not generally extend outside geographical Australia, although since 1982 it has had a limited application within the Australian continental shelf area in relation to installations attached to the seabed for the purposes of exploring for or exploiting natural resources. The second measure contained in the Bill expands the types of off-shore installations which will be subject to Australian sales tax law when installed in these areas. Broadly, this is when they are either attached to the seabed or are in these areas for a specified duration. The amendments will apply to off-shore installations that are located in Australian waters for a number of specified purposes, including tourism, recreation, business activities, marine archaeology, fishing, scientific activity or transport activity. The effect will be that any installation used for the purposes of any of these prescribed activities will take on the status of a place in Australia from the date of its installation in Australian waters. As a consequence, any transaction or act affecting goods on such an installation which would be taxable if the goods were in geographical Australia will be taxable as if those goods were in Australia. In addition, any installation which is brought from overseas to be installed in Australian waters, and any goods on it at the time it is brought in, will be deemed to be imported into Australia and on that basis, will be subject to the sales tax law in respect of that importation. The amendments made by this Bill will, in relation to installations that are attached to the seabed in Australian waters, operate with effect from 21 January 1987, the date these measures were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In the case of other installations, the Bill will apply on and after today. The revenue impact of the measures proposed by this Bill will depend on the development of such installations in our off-shore areas and so cannot be determined at this time. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 6 of the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979 to fix the overseas students charge rates for the 1988 academic year. The levels of charge are indicated in the Bill. The increase in the charge, proposed in the Bill, for university, advanced education and technical and further education (TAFE) courses, raises the contribution of a student who commences the course from 1 January 1988 to 55 per cent of the full average cost of a place to the Commonwealth. Charges for university, advanced education and TAFE courses commenced before 1 January 1988 will continue at the current percentage rate of the full average cost of a place to the Commonwealth. The actual increases in the charges for these continuing students reflect the increase in cost to the Commonwealth. The increase in the secondary level charge from $300 to $328, which will apply to both continuing and new students, reflects the movement in the consumer price index. The amount of the overseas students charge for university and advanced education courses will be reduced by $263, the amount of the higher education administration charge payable to institutions by all higher education students in respect of the enrolment. The net overseas students charge-the higher education administration charge not included-raised $49.6m in 1986-87 and is expected to raise $64.8m in 1987-88. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.15) —Prior to the luncheon recess I was indicating my support for the ending of the two-airline agreement and my support for the statement made by the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). I had also made mention of the fact that the statements by the Opposition that this was an attempt by the Government to privatise Australian Airlines were sheer nonsense. Whilst it was true that there was a debate on privatisation going on within the Australian Labor Party, so far as I am concerned I am fully in support of public enterprises and will be fully in support of Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and, indeed, a number of other public enterprises, remaining in public ownership and remaining the property of the Australian people. I made mention also of the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise entitled Aircraft Operations and the Australian Community. I am glad to note that the Government is sympathetic to a number of the recommendations contained in that report-particularly as I was Chairman of that Committee. I note also that the Government eventually will be responding in a very comprehensive manner to those recommendations. In the very short time that I have left to me to speak in this debate I would like to mention that it was a bit disappointing to us that the Department of Aviation had rejected better air traffic control radar as a solution to some of the problems arising from the noise levels from flight paths. We were very impressed by the demonstration of the Australian Electronics Industry Association of various on-board navigation systems and a number of other navigational aids which certainly could assist, not only in regard to noise level, but also in regard to the safety of aircraft. Indeed, it was a bit disappointing that the Department did not appear to appreciate the benefits that might be derived in redeveloped air routes by the installation of additional navigational beacons and radars in locations such as Launceston and Perth. Mr Smith —Launceston is a good city. Mr MILTON —Yes, indeed. I enjoyed my visit there with the Committee when we talked about aircraft noise. The Department's planning philosophy has to include environmental considerations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JULL(Fadden)(4.18) —In one of my first speeches in this House after entering Parliament in 1975 I recommended the sale of Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), the deregulation of the Australian airline industry and the abolition of the two-airline agreement. I suppose that some 12 years later I should stand up here and say that I am proud that finally this has been achieved. I have stood on my record over that 12 years because I have mentioned this proposition on a number of occasions and even at one stage voted against my own Party in the re-creation of the two-airline agreement in legislation in 1981. Therefore, although I have some joy in what we are debating today, we must be absolutely certain that this is not all we do. We have to go a great deal further down the road before we get a totally efficient and fully effective and properly priced airline system in Australia. But this is the first move. I fully support the comments that were made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), today in this discussion, when he pointed out that it was absolutely essential that Australian Airlines, formerly Trans Australia Airlines must be sold, must be privatised, if we are to get a true competitive airline system in Australia. This is one of the things that greatly concern me because, through the media and through this place, as we have just heard, there has been a great debate in the Government concerning the privatisation of Australian Airlines. One of the very great difficulties in the whole airline industry, right from the time of the creation of TAA, has simply been the fact that that organisation has been grossly undercapitalised. It is a fact that air fares in Australia have had to be set on the least efficient operator. I say this as no particular criticism of the management of Australian Airlines, but rather as a criticism of successive governments. Nobody has ever been prepared to put TAA, or now Australian Airlines, in a position where it really could effectively compete against private enterprise. The cheapest way is to allow Australian Airlines to be privatised, to make sure that it has enough capital to get in there and compete in terms of equipment, promotion and efficiency against what we have now in Australia, one major domestic operator. There is a great deal of concern throughout the community that if Australian Airlines is not properly capitalised, we could well have a situation where very much the major routes of Australia would be confined to a monopoly situation in the hands of Ansett Airlines of Australia. I am sure that that is the last thing that any of us in this House would want, and I am sure that we on this side of the House will do all we can to make sure that that does not happen, because Australia very much needs competition in the domestic airlines services. In the early days of 1976, when I first advocated deregulation of the Australian domestic airline industry, we could see the problem that had been building up over a number of years, and this decision by the Government is probably only about six or seven years too late. Over the past six or seven years we have seen a situation where Australians have very much been disadvantaged through lack of deregulation in terms of what they pay and what they get in their domestic airlines services. I have a particular interest in the tourism industry and during a period when I was not in this House I worked with one of the State tourist promotional bodies and had a great deal to do with airlines and airline negotiations. To show what effect the lack of deregulation has had on the Australian domestic airline industry, let me cite a couple of things. One of the things that happened was that, some three or four years ago, we had an attempt by the then management of East-West Airlines Ltd to get into the cheap air fare market, and I was involved in some of that. East-West Airlines put in for charter operation between Sydney and the Gold Coast at a return fare of $99. This was hailed by the tourism industry as a major breakthrough, because I think at that stage the cheapest fare that was available between Sydney and the Gold Coast on the scheduled carriers of TAA and Ansett was $213. We all know what happened. It took a matter of days before Ansett managed to come into the market with a fare of $106. It could do it because under the situation that we had, the Independent Air Fares Committee, which thankfully is going, set the fares, and the fares had to be set on the least efficient operator. That is one of the things that have happened in the past few years. We have had a situation in which Ansett has very much had an advantage. It really had room to move if it wanted to, if it was ever faced with any competition; and it did move, at no real effect to itself. The second thing that happened was the prospect of putting in charter operations domestically in Australia. The two major domestic airlines quivered and quaked a bit about this because they thought it may have been an attack on their scheduled services and their high priced fares between some of the major points in Australia. A great number of studies were done on what would happen if, for example, one put an Airbus on a charter operation between Melbourne and Cairns late on a Saturday night, returning early Sunday morning to Melbourne. The effect there was a return fare from Melbourne to Cairns of $199, and there was still a profit in it. However, under that system, we did not have the capacity for flexibility, we did not have the availability of these fare levels, which could really boost domestic tourism. If one looks at domestic tourism in Australia and the way that people travel to and from their domestic holiday destinations, it is interesting that better than 80 per cent still use their cars. The reason why so many of them do not fly is purely a matter of cost. It is fascinating that surveys have revealed that only 14 per cent of Australians have ever been in an aeroplane and there is a massive market sitting out there of about 85 per cent of Australians, which a cheap domestic operation could capture. That could be a real stimulus to the domestic tourism industry. Of course, under this highly regulated system, the majors were not interested in tapping that particular market. Both of them were prepared to go for that high dollar market, and especially the business market where the major profits are. I hope that, as a result of this move to deregulate the industry, we will see a return to innovative fares and the emergence of operators prepared to go into the low fare holiday market and open up the skies to all Australians. It is essential that we make sure that not only do we capitalise on the big influx of international visitors who are coming into Australia but also that we stimulate the domestic market as well. I mentioned that 85 per cent of Australians have never been in an aeroplane. What is even more horrifying is that 42 per cent of Australians do not have an annual holiday. One reason for that is simply the fact of cost. I believe that airline operators wanting to get into that low fare market as a result of deregulation after 1990 should look at areas like the western suburbs of Sydney, which potentially is a huge market, which could give added stimulation and an even more solid base to the Australian tourism industry. We have to look at other areas as well. We have to look at the whole operation of Australian airports, which must be deregulated. We have this proposed Airports Authority staggering away at the moment, trying to find out what it is all about. There are some great arguments for opening up the whole of that airport scene and looking at the prospect of privatising airports. If we do privatise airports and get rid of some of the bureaucratic red tape that exists around these things, we will be helping the industry to expand. There are some interesting cases involving places overseas. The one that I always mention is the situation in Manchester, in the United Kingdom (UK), which is not part of the British Airports Authority. Manchester Airport is an independent; it goes out there and promotes itself as an ideal centre for airlines to operate in and out of, and it does tremendous business. To a very great extent, Manchester has become the headquarters of the whole of the UK charter business. It is also worth looking at what the United States airports do in terms of promotion. If we could look at that sort of deregulation for the Australian airports and make that an industry within itself, we would be further along the road of getting true value for money back into air travel, which is really what it is all about. We should be talking about consumers and what they pay for their air fares and the right to travel. Before somebody accuses me of doing away with safety regulations, I would be the first to say that we must ensure that we maintain the safety standards that have been enjoyed by Australia. It is simply not true for honourable members on the other side of the House to come in here and say that we have to be very careful of deregulation because in the United States safety standards have dropped dramatically since that came in. In actual fact, there have been fewer deaths through air accidents, and fewer major accidents in the United States in the period since deregulation. I would suggest that there would be very few airlines in the world, and certainly not in Australia, which would be prepared to forfeit their safety records, because one fatal air crash can write millions off their income. I suggest that most international and domestic airlines would not be looking at any major safety sacrifice. That is not to say that we must not be vigilant in Australia. We should maintain the safety standards that we have enjoyed. When one looks at what has happened in the United States, at the stimulation that has been brought about by deregulation, at the variety of air fares that are available to the people of the United States, it is amazing what can be done. As an exercise earlier today I went to the Parliamentary Library and saw that an airline such as Alaskan Airlines was offering in last weekend's Press tickets anywhere on its network for $69. That is not bad because one can fly from Alaska to Los Angeles for $69. PSA, the airline that operates through California, has been offering fares anywhere on its routes for $40. Southwest Airlines was offering fares anywhere on its routes for $49. One could even fly from Los Angeles through to Chicago on Southwest for $65. Sure, there are some restrictions on those fares; sure, not everybody has such offers available, but by golly it has been an incentive for people to book early or to take midnight flights to get value from the fares that have been offered. Whilst we do not have that sort of competition in Australia, I think there is a facility, if we can get our airport situation right, to provide major excursion areas at low cost. I come to the sour point that is often raised here-I see the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) opposite-about the whole situation of airport curfews. Perth Airport will be curfew-free, Melbourne Airport will be curfew-free and the new Brisbane airport will be curfew-free but we are stuck with the situation of Sydney. That really is a worry. However, I make this point: it was admitted from the other side this morning-I think by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton)-that aircraft are becoming quieter and quieter. The honourable member for La Trobe promoted the fact that Australian Airlines had gone for the Boeing 737-300 series because of its quiet operation. With the increasing introduction of low noise aircraft we have the wherewithal to consider easing the curfew restrictions even in Sydney. We have to be able to give the two major domestic airlines and anybody else who might want to come into the game as a result of deregulation the opportunity to achieve maximum utilisation of their aircraft and airports. I hope that part of the deal involved with the Government's deregulation will be a loosening up of the curfews. While the aviation discussion paper on the Government's decision does not refer to international operators, they have been mentioned previously in the debate. The restrictions on international services to and from Australia are of great concern to a number of us on this side of the House. We heard a pathetic answer from the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) today during Question Time about passenger delays on flights from overseas. The plain facts of the situation are that the inter- national airlines industry in Australia has been strangled through indecision. The indecision has come from the Ministers, the Department and Qantas Airways Ltd. We have to get that protection out of the way as well. It is ridiculous that an inter- national carrier that wants to bring visitors to Australia-they are all presently bringing in more than they are taking out-has to wait three or four years to get approval to operate into Australia. Now that the Government is coming around to supporting a freer market I hope it will look at making sure that it does as much as it can to free up the international aviation market as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(4.34) —I am sure the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) would not be surprised that I disagree with a few of his comments. Whilst I am sure he is not promoting such ideas, those who will benefit financially will seize on his comments about deregulation and air safety as some vindication of what can eventually result only in a lower safety margin for air traffic in this country. The concept that somehow the American system can be brought here seems to me to be risky to say the least. The concept of cheap tickets and cheap airlines is really cheap thrills because what it would eventually mean in this country, as it does in America, is, `buy a cheap ticket and see if you make it'. The air transport situation in and around Los Angeles at the moment is a disaster. There are near misses on almost a daily basis there and I would not have anything to do with going anywhere near that situation. The honourable member's comments about a curfew-free environment for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport are quite interesting. It should be known to the honourable member that his coalition government between 1975 and 1983 did absolutely nothing about trying to find a second Sydney airport site. If they had got on with the job and done something about it, it would probably be up and running today and it could have been the curfew-free airport that the honourable member talks about. Indeed, the Sydney second airport program that this Government has embarked upon can eventually, in my view, lead to such curfew-free operations. But to suggest that Kingsford-Smith Airport, with 1.1 million residents immediately surrounding it, could be curfew-free or anything like it is to propose an absolute travesty of justice for the people who have to live there, with all the well-documented health effects and so on that they already suffer without having to be woken all night by jet aircraft. This Government is doing something about the airport needs of Sydney. It will take many years to solve the problem. It has to be pursued logically. It will take a long time to alleviate the problem because those opposite, when they had the opportunity, did nothing. Having said that, it is with some sense of history that I rise to support the legislation before the House. It was 35 years ago in this very chamber that the then Minister, the Hon. Paul Hasluck, rose to introduce the Civil Aviation Agreement Bill which is the forerunner of today's two airlines agreement. When that Bill was introduced some 35 years ago it was said as a prelude that it was attempting to secure a competitive domestic aviation industry for Australia. Unfortunately, the Menzies Government, in trying to protect against a public or a private airlines monopoly, helped to create what we have today as a duopoly-a situation where there are only two operators in a market both of whom operate together as if they were a monopoly. In attempting to secure competition, the Menzies Government obviously failed miserably. In fact, in the debate on that very same Bill, the Hon. Dr Evatt, the then member for Barton, observed: This . . . scheme is the very anthesis of active and competitive air services . . . in fact, for all practical purposes, the agreement will put an end to real competition. But criticism has not been limited to debate 35 years ago. In 1979 the editorial of the Australian Financial Review made this observation: There is little doubt the two-airline policy as it operates now is strongly inimical to competition, cheaper air fares, and cost efficiency in both the major airlines. The situation that exists today in our domestic airlines industry is in fact very similar to the situation that existed in Australia's banking sector prior to Labor taking office in March 1983. Before deregulation of the Australian banking sector, the banking sector was dominated by only four major banks, including the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. There was no real competition, no initiatives and no incentive to service customer needs. The answer there, as it is in relation to the domestic aviation industry, was not to privatise the only government operator in the market; the answer was to open the market up to new competition to allow more operators in the existing market. Changing the ownership of one of the existing competitors will achieve absolutely nothing to the end suggested by those opposite. In 1983-84 the Hawke Government issued 16 new bank licences, thus allowing more banks to operate in the market. In this way, a closed market was opened up to competition. Mr Beale —And repealed the legislation to turn TAA into a public company. Mr PUNCH —I do not know whether the honourable member opposite is trying to buy one of the airlines with his spare cash but I do wish that he would be quiet and listen. Privatising the Commonwealth Bank in 1983 would have achieved nothing-just as privatising Australian Airlines will achieve nothing today. By scrapping the two airlines agreement, Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia will be forced to compete to become more responsive to the needs of consumers. Notwithstanding all this, the Hawke Government is aware of the fact that the free flow of market forces will not in itself provide the total answer. Even so, it is clear that the present regulatory system is not economically efficient or economically appropriate. The scrapping of the two airlines agreement will create a more competitive environment. The benefits to the Australian economy and Australian consumers will include: greater incentives for existing and new participants in the industry to become more efficient and response to consumer needs; a wider range of air fares, including a greater availability of discount fares; growth, particularly in the price sensitive leisure travel market; and a greater variety in the types, standards and frequency of services provided, as well as the use of more appropriate aircraft on some routes. While no-one can predict what will occur following deregulation, if the deregulation of the Australian banking sector is any guide, this initiative of the Hawke Government will be an outstanding success. Just as deregulation of the banking sector allowed new and existing operators greater scope to pursue new opportunities, so will deregulation of the Australian domestic airline industry. The independent review of economic regulation of domestic aviation-the May review as it is more commonly referred to-found that there were a large number of routes that are presently infrequently serviced. Such routes will provide scope for new operators to service them using more appropriate aircraft. Deregulation will also provide greater benefits in the area of price quality trade-offs. Currently, both Ansett and Australian Airlines are obliged to operate on identical economy fares, and because these airlines are virtually guaranteed 50 per cent of the market there are few incentives for competition on the basis of price. Competition has been based effectively on the areas of standards and frequency of service-rather than on price and consumer needs and demands. After 1990, the airlines will be free to offer a wider range of fares and to place fewer conditions on them. Experience overseas has suggested that once airlines can compete on the basis of price, and not on the basis of non-price considerations, more consumers will take advantage of the services provided by the airlines. In addition, a deregulated environment will bring greater efficiency in a number of important areas. For example, in relation to timetable scheduling, the ending of the two airlines agreement will mean the ending of the inefficient practice of parallel scheduling. In turn, this will mean a more efficient use of airport facilities. It is a pity that the honourable member for Fadden is still not in the chamber. I suggest that that particular impact of deregulation will ease a lot of the problems that currently exist at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. In relation to aircraft utilisation, in a deregulated market there will be a greater incentive for airlines to serve all segments of the Australian market, rather than concentrating on the high yield air routes of Sydney and Melbourne. In addition, there will be a more effective utilisation of existing aircraft resources. Further, airline deregulation will not mean an abrogation by the Government of its traditional responsibility in the area of airline safety. In fact, if it were to mean that, I would oppose any deregulatory moves. As a member who represents the area in which is located Australia's biggest airport I am well aware that any diminution of air safety processes is hazardous not only for those who undertake air travel but also for those people who live in the vicinity of airports, located in electorates such as the one that I and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Bowen), who is presently in the chamber, represent. In fact, Australia's already outstanding aviation safety record will be strengthened by several new initiatives of the Government. The Government will also continue to play an important role in a number of other important areas. First, the deregulated aviation industry will become subject to the operation of the Trade Practices Act, especially sections 46 and 50, which deal with anti-competitive activities resulting from monopolistic activities or anti-competitive mergers. Secondly, air fares will be scrutinised by, and be subject to, the Prices Surveillance Authority. Thirdly, to ensure that airport facilities are utilised to further the Government's policy of airline deregulation, the Federal Airports Corporation will move to ensure that new operators have equal access to airport facilities. The removal of the two airlines agreement will be welcomed by Australian consumers, who for too long have had no choice in relation to air flights. The death of the two airlines agreement, I am sure, will be mourned by no-one. Indeed, its constitutional validity has been in doubt from the very day it was introduced. In fact, had the Hawke Government not moved to scrap the agreement it would probably have been only a matter of time before its validity was challenged in the High Court of Australia. In conclusion, I shall make this final point: the deregulation of Australia's domestic airline industry has been achieved by the Hawke Labor Government. It was not achieved by the Liberal or National coalition, which had seven to eight years in government to do so; it was not achieved by the so-called advocates of free enterprise, the deregulators, about whom the biographers now argue. It has, in fact, been done by a Labor Government. It was this Labor Government which floated the Australian dollar, which de- regulated the Australian banking sector, and which introduced company dividend imputation. The deregulated environment that the Labor Government is hauling Australia into is of immense benefit to all our citizens, and the ending of the two airlines agreement will be no different. The deregulation of the Australian airline industry is an exciting initiative of this Government and one that I hope will be supported by all Australians. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.46) —In practical terms, it is true, I believe, that the regulated two airlines agreement served Australia fairly well over quite some time. Originally, Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) was formed in Australia by the Commonwealth in about 1941. At that time the population of Australia was about 8 million and because of the advances in aviation it was necessary to have services available to the people of Australia, particularly those who lived in the remote areas. So, over the years, and until a few years ago in fact, the two airlines agreement certainly served a purpose. I concur in the Government's opinion that it is time that the agreement was terminated, and I am sure that all members of the Opposition have a similar view. Perhaps it should have been terminated three or four years ago. The previous Administration had seen the opportunity to do that and had legislated accordingly in making TAA a public company, with all the shares initially owned by the Government. That was a step in relation to deregulation that was taking place in a very positive way. I am sure that it was acceptable to the aviation industry generally in Australia and certainly to the Australian consumers. We must remember that, from a geographical point of view, Australia covers a very large area and that it has a very scattered population. As every day advances with the progress that we are making there will be a greater demand for the provision of services for the travelling public and for the traffic of goods. So we have a responsibility to legislate accordingly. The present measure may be acceptable, although not completely acceptable, to the Opposition. I shall point out some of the matters that concern me greatly. I believe that it is the intention of the Government to privatise Australian Airlines. I think that this measure is simply another step down that path. I point out that the Government is five years behind the Opposition's policy on Australian Airlines. Since the review that was undertaken in 1981 the Liberal and National parties have had a clear policy on this matter. In 1982, the coalition incorporated this policy into legislation, about which I have already spoken. That entailed the gradual transforming of TAA into a public company, with all shares initially owned by the Government. Some five years later the Government is now saying that it will do the same thing. It has repealed the legislation that we passed previously. Further, the Liberal and National parties' election aviation policy in 1984 advocated progressive deregulation of the airline industry. It should be noted that the first day on which notice could be given to terminate the two airlines agreement was 26 January 1987, and yet the Government has not done so until now-some nine months later. Nine months ago East-West Airlines Ltd operated many services around Australia, and gave consumers more choice at a lower cost. In the interim, East-West has been purchased by the Ansett Transport Industries group and, as a result, consumers have less choice, not more. It is interesting that Ansett would not have been able to purchase East-West if the Government had not awarded its Coastwatch contract to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. Skywest's loss of the Coastwatch contract forced its owner, Ric Stowe, to sell East-West and Skywest to Stan Perron, who on-sold, within 10 days, to News Ltd and Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, both of which have shares in Ansett. Subsequently, the Coastwatch contract was awarded to Skywest. If Ansett's takeover of East-West is given the go ahead by the Trade Practices Commission, Ansett will possess nearly 60 per cent of the market share. That is rather alarming. With the recently concluded Christmas Island Casino agreement specifying the use of BAe146 aircraft, it now appears that the Government is doing Ansett another favour, given that Ansett has an option on the entire BAe146 production run for the next five years. The outcome of the termination of the two-airline agreement, which we are currently discussing, will undoubtedly make Ansett the dominating airline in Australia. Mr Millar —Is the Labor Party doing that? Mr COWAN —The honourable member for Wide Bay asks whether the Australian Labor Party is doing that. It is startling that that is occurring in Government ranks. Fortunately, the Left at least, and Mr Halfpenny, are aware of what is occurring. That is why Mr Halfpenny is seeking an inquiry. Incidentally, Ansett is also tipped to get the contract for the next VIP fleet. An article in the Age newspaper of 1 October 1987 states: The TNT-Ansett group is well position to win a $10 million-a-year contract to provide five new VIP aircraft for the RAAF, to be used to ferry politicians and dignitaries around Australia. The Defence Minister Mr Beazley, yesterday announced that the Government would soon call tenders to replace the existing VIP fleet of seven 20-year-old aircraft. Mr Beazley said the Government wanted two large jets to carry 30 to 40 passengers in a ``VIP configuration'' . . . . The publisher of the authoritative `Australian Aviation', Mr Jim Thorn, said yesterday there were a number of aircraft which could meet the requirements, but TNT or Ansett or one of its associates was very likely to win the contract because it had the aircraft, the aircrew and the ground maintenance and crew facilities needed. Other likely contenders were Pacific Aviation, Skywest and Lloyds Aviation, all owned or part-owned by TNT, which in turn is half-owner of Ansett. Issues raised in that article concern me. I am most concerned about the actual developments that will take place over the next three years. An advisory group is being set up under the arrangements to monitor the transfer of Australian Airlines into this deregulated reorganisation. The Government, in its plan, seeks, firstly, to allow Australian Airlines to become incorporated; secondly, to remove the day by day restrictions on the company and, thirdly, to set up the advisory group comprising five members. What will be the outcome of this measure? At present the airlines involved enjoy a 50 per cent share of the market. I am concerned in that one of those must become the major airline of Australia. We hope that the airlines will operate hand in hand, in competition, and that they will offer a service at a fee which we believe is appropriate to the travelling consumer. I wonder how the Government intends to apply the Trade Practices Act in terms of unfair competition. I hope that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) or somebody on the Government side will say whether or not the Government intends to sell Australians Airlines. I know that the shadow Minister has made such a request before. He has not received an assurance that that will not happen. There are indications that the Government will do so. A committee of five members representing different groups within the Australian community, who are knowledgable on these matters, will be locked into a position. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you not see the Government using the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Mr Kelty as tools to lock the unions into the sale of Australian Airlines? Will this committee not make up its mind and recommend to the Government what should be done with Australia Airlines over the years ahead? We will wait and see. I do not want to see Ansett's position jeopardised in any way. If the Government decides to sell Australian Airlines, as I believe it will, in the years ahead and Ansett or Australian Airlines at that stage owns 70 per cent of the market in Australia, what will be its position in terms of the Trade Practices Act? In the last Parliament we considered the television legislation. The Minister responsible, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), is in the chamber now. We saw the open issues. I am not taking the Government to task on that, as I thought that it was quite all right, but we must consider future developments. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) told us very proudly how the Government had deregulated the banking sector and so on. How far down the line does the Government propose to go? I am concerned that the travelling public in Australia should be beneficiaries of the competition that we expect them to get. The Opposition wants to make sure that, as a result of the termination of the two-airline agreement and the possible sale of Australian Airlines at a later date, there will be fair competition between airlines servicing metropolitan areas and the various country centres of Australia. It is quite all right to say that there will be room for competition. At times I draw a parallel between the airline industry and the print media. The bigger media groups have taken over newspapers. In country towns there is no opportunity for anybody to start up a newspaper in opposition to the major newspaper. The same situation applies with airlines. The Government might say, `What is to stop them?'. The first thing that will stop the little fellow is the bigger fellow cutting his prices. It will not be long before the bigger fellow in the newspaper industry or airline industry forces the little fellow out of the field. Those are the things which we face in this country. As I said earlier, there was something in favour of the regulation of airlines up until now. The proposal will be all right if we repeat what the British and the Americans have done. Under the provisions of their trade practices legislation, no company can own more than 30 per cent of the market. That is important. I plead with the Government to heed that and to not be influenced by union pressures or by big business in Australia. Let the Government give everybody a go. I am pleased that the earlier legislation provided that this measure would be introduced over a three-year period. We know what happened in America at the time of deregulation: everybody welcomed it. I understand that some provincial cities within America with a population of a quarter of a million, after a few months of deregulation, did not have an air service. We do not want that to occur in Australia. I conclude by mentioning Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, because the honourable member for Barton raised the matter this afternoon. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport needs attention. The House will know that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport carries more traffic than any other major airport in Australia. Of all tourists who arrive in Australia, two out of three travel through that airport. It handles at least 50 per cent of air freight in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.01) —I was interested to hear that my friend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) is pleased that three years notice must be given before the two-airline agreement is terminated. I find that interesting because the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who is also present and who is at the moment congratulating the honourable member for Lyne on his contribution, made some different comments. He suggested that this Government has been moving too slowly. I feel that there is a bit of a contradiction between the views of the honourable member for Deakin and the views of the honourable member for Lyne who thought that it was good that three years notice must be given. But I am sure that the Liberals and Nationals will try to sort that out. I am very pleased to support the motion which is before the House. I wish to take up some comments which have been made in this debate by members of the Opposition. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin, put out a Press release on 7 October this year on this question. That Press release had the following headline: `Deregulation a Smokescreen to Hammer Labor's Factions'. As an aside, if the honourable member for Deakin has watched Yes Minister, he would be aware of a character called Bernard who is the private secretary to the Minister. If the honourable member had someone like Bernard in his office, he would point out to the honourable member that a smokescreen cannot hammer anything. I am sure that in future the honourable member's Press releases will not contain mixed metaphors such as that. In that Press release the honourable member for Deakin is quoted as making the following statement: Mr Beale, speaking in the House of Representatives on a Matter of Public Importance, said that the Government had delayed deregulation by over 9 months, as January 26, 1987 was the first day that notice of termination of the Two Airline Agreement could have been given. It is interesting to look at the history of the two-airline agreement. It was not a Labor government which introduced the two-airline agreement. As the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) has suggested, in 1952 the Liberal Minister for Aviation, Mr Hasluck, introduced the legislation which established the whole philosophy and basis of the two-airline agreement. In 1972, when the Liberal-National Party coalition had the smell of death about it, legislation was rushed through the Parliament, because the election of a Labor government was imminent, to extend the life of the two-airline agreement by many years. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) made the comment in today's debate that this decision by the Government to terminate the two-airline agreement is six or seven years too late. It is interesting that he should pick that figure of six or seven years. Which parties were in government six or seven years ago? The Liberal-National Party was in power at that time. In 1981 there was a very vigorous debate within the coalition as to whether the two-airline agreement should continue. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was no public inquiry. There was no great examination by some independent group of the major issues. The Government of the day, the Executive, simply took it upon itself to sign a new agreement which locked future governments into the two-airline agreement for many years. The Liberal Party in those days was quite faction ridden between the wets and the dries. Some people who were on the back bench in those days, and quite often these days can be seen on the front bench, sought to use the two-airline agreement as a way to establish their dry credentials and to use this matter to further their career. If I remember correctly, certain backbenchers appeared on Nationwide night after night, explaining why the two-airline agreement should not be extended. Yet, when it came to a vote in this chamber, when they were put to the test, they went to water. Only the Western Australian Liberal Party members were allowed to cross the floor and vote with the Australian Labor Party, with the addition of the then National Country Party member for the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who is at the table, was not a member of parliament at that time so I do not blame him for the lack of courage shown by the other members of the Opposition. When the actual vote was taken in this chamber on 3 June 1981, the result of the division was 54 ayes and 55 noes. So the amendment moved by the current member for Tangney (Mr Shack) was defeated by one vote, because a few members on the conservative side of politics decided to abstain during that crucial vote. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), who served with great distinction as this country's Minister for Aviation, in those days was Opposition spokesman on aviation. He moved an amendment which would have provided for the imposition of a five-year limit on the two-airline agreement. If that amendment had been accepted by the Liberal and National parties, the two-airline agreement would have ceased to exist on 26 January this year. For years and years, the Liberal and National parties have claimed that they were the ones who wanted to deregulate; that they were the ones who wanted to create more competition. Yet, as far back as 1981, they were blocking attempts by the Labor Party to seek to place that five-year limit on the two-airline agreement. Claims by the honourable member for Deakin that in 1981 there were major changes to the two-airline agreement are absolute nonsense. In fact, he has gone so far as to move an amendment today. He has included in this amendment some outrageous sub-clauses which condemn the Government. In his contribution today, the honourable member for Deakin said that he has a legal opinion to the effect that since this outrageous amendment was carried in the Senate, if this chamber does not agree also to accept that amendment, both Houses of Parliament will have failed to give notice that the two-airline agreement has been terminated. The honourable member for Deakin, by using a sneaky tactic, is seeking to delay further this Parliament giving notice of termination of the two-airline agreement. So I am starting to doubt the motives of the honourable member. On the other hand, this Government commissioned the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation in March 1985, which worked very hard over two years. It received more than 80 submissions and by January 1987, the then Minister for Aviation was able to call for public comment on the five options that were given to the Government by the May Review. I am very proud of the fact that this Government, before the 11 July 1987 election, announced to the people of Australia that if the Labor Party was returned to government it would introduce legislation to terminate the two-airline agreement. That is what the legislation before the House does. The Government is taking action on four fronts. I will go into detail on the decision that the Government has taken. First, we are eliminating the controls which currently exist on the importation of large sized aircraft. At the moment a detailed determination is made by the former Department on the amount of passenger capacity on all the major trunk routes. That is something which has hindered market forces from encouraging the major airlines to provide sufficient seating capacity on the major trunk routes. Eliminating these capacity controls will ensure that there is much more genuine competition between the two major airlines. The Government has eliminated the Independent Air Fares Committee and, in its place, it is giving the Prices Surveillance Authority the responsibility to ensure that fares are set at a fair level. In addition, we are extending the powers of the Trade Practices Act so that they will apply to the aviation industry, to ensure that no one company can develop a monopoly on the domestic aviation service. Obviously, that has the support of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), who is in the chamber. Mr Humphreys —A very good member, too. Mr LEE —He is a very good member, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table, suggests. The Government's decision also will allow the entry of any new operators who wish to take the commercial risk of starting up a new airline. These decisions as a whole will result in several benefits for people who travel by air. There will be a greater range of air fares and packages available to consumers. I believe that there will be a significant expansion in the number of discount air fares and special holiday packages which can be purchased by consumers. It is very interesting to compare the extent of discounting in Australia with that in the United States because in the US about 90 per cent of air travellers receive some discount. If we look at the average discount received by air travellers in the United States, there is a benefit of approximately 60 per cent off the standard air fare. By comparison, in Australia only about 45 per cent of air travellers receive discounts. East-West Airlines Ltd has shown that there is a market in Australia for a no-frills service, if it is matched by a no-frills price. I hope that choice will be offered to more air travellers in Australia. The Government has also announced that it is establishing a civil aviation authority which will have responsibility for air traffic control, communications, navigation, fire fighting at airports, and other important matters. Air travellers can be very certain that that civil aviation authority will ensure that safety standards are not compromised by the Government's decision to relax the two-airline agreement. The honourable member for Barton earlier in today's debate mentioned that many questions have been raised about safety standards in the United States, following the deregulation of its aviation industry. Contrary to comments made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), there has been a great reduction in safety standards in the United States. He claimed that there has not been an increase in the number of deaths or aeroplane crashes in the US since the aviation industry was deregulated. However, I make the point-and it has received a great deal of publicity in Australia-that many airlines in the United States have received very substantial fines from the organisation that monitors airline safety standards. Several airlines have received fines amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars because they simply have failed to carry out routine maintenance, which has placed their passengers at risk. The Government has announced that Qantas Airways Ltd, once again, is to be allowed to provide travel on some domestic routes for international passengers. That is an important concession which will be of great benefit to Qantas. In addition, indirectly it will have some benefit, for example, to Australians who might fly with Qantas to overseas destinations. It works the following way: if someone is purchasing a ticket to the United States some of the American airlines can offer additional flights at a very cheap price. For example, if a person flies with Continental Airlines Inc. or United Airlines, the airline might say that for a very small additional cost the person can also receive some travel within the United States. Under the current American-Australian agreement, Qantas cannot provide seats on United States internal air travel. Qantas, in the future, will be able to negotiate deals with airlines such as United and Continental on domestic Australian flights. I hope Qantas will be able to offer its Australian passengers flying overseas special deals which will be very beneficial to those passengers. The last point I want to touch on is the claim made indirectly by the honourable member for Lyne and other honourable members in this House in recent days; that is, this Government is doing special deals with Ansett Airlines of Australia. Several people have hinted that, because the Chief Executive Officer of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, has a special relationship with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), this Government is making decisions which are in the commercial interest of Ansett. The people who make those allegations quote some Press reports but do not have the guts to say what they are really trying to hint at. Are they suggesting that in some way this Prime Minister is doing special deals with Ansett because of that relationship? If they have the guts to say that, I simply say: why did this Government take the decision to grant Qantas these interlining rights when Ansett Airlines strongly and strenuously opposed that? In addition, why did the Government decide not to grant Ansett the contract for providing blocks of Public Service travel rights within Australia? These are two examples in which Ansett has not been successful. Yet honourable members in this House have the gall to allege that Ansett gets some special treatment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you would be aware that this Government would ensure that the proper standards always apply and that Ansett is treated in a fair way but does not receive any special treatment. I support the motion before the House. Mr SMITH(Bass)(5.16) —In order that other members get a chance to speak to this motion, the Government has arranged that we speak for a limited time. I thank the Government for that but, of course, I would prefer to have the opportunity to speak for a lot longer. What we are doing today is assembling to bury the two-airline agreement. There is joint agreement on both sides of the House to do that. All of us, for different reasons, welcome it. The two-airline agreement has outlasted its useful purpose. There have been many comments today from many speakers. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), on this side of the House, made a very important contribution. He is recognised as having a detailed knowledge of the area. Since I have been in this place-and I am only in my second term-I have had a very keen interest in airlines. During the last Parliament I served as secretary and chairman of our aviation committee. It was always interesting to meet people from Australian Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia, Qantas Airways Ltd, the then Department of Aviation, budget air services such as East-West Airlines Ltd and many others. All of them had a realistic view that one day this two-airline agreement would have to come to an end. But the interesting thing is that many people on the other side of the House have done a complete back flip. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), the former Minister for Aviation, was very slow to come to the trough of deregulation. He set up the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation. For that, I applauded him. When one looked at the submissions to that inquiry, they were interesting. Not one member of this chamber, or of the Senate, other than me, put a submission to that inquiry. With all the posturing and screaming from both sides of the House, I found it very interesting that no one took the opportunity to make a detailed submission. It can be said that the final decision on this matter is really a triumph for the theory of contestability, because that is what the deregulation arguments are all about. We are trying to make markets contestable; in other words, level the field so that anyone can get in and have a go. There is an adherence to the maintenance of safety standards. Honourable members on both sides of the House have emphasised that. No one, in any way, is indicating that there should be a diminution of safety. The amendment moved by the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), is in three parts. The first part notes the long overdue adoption by the Government of our policy-it was our policy that the Government has adopted. The second part of the amendment states: . . . further notes the Government's de facto decision to privatise Australian Airlines . . . Australian Airlines will need to be privatised in one form or another-call it commercialise, or what one likes. The existing arrangements, its $300m capital starved condition, cannot go on if the airline is to be viable. The General Manager, James Strong, has been telling the Government that for some time, as, indeed, has the Board. The Government must listen. The third part of the amendment condemns the Government in a number of areas. One important area that no one in this debate has yet mentioned is in relation to the staff of Australian Airlines. They want to know what is going on and what will happen to them in the future. It is about time the Government made a commitment to them by setting out its future policy options. I am a Tasmanian-and proud of it. We have suffered under the two-airline policy for far too long, so I am exceptionally pleased to help throw a handful of dirt on the coffin of the two-airline agreement as it disappears out of sight. I am unsure as to whether the Government will change its mind and try to bring an early termination before 1990. I hope that it will be able to do so. Under the agreement, that can be done with the concurrence of the parties to the agreement; that is, the Government, Australian Airlines and Ansett. The concern about airline purchases needs to be addressed in these few minutes available to me. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) mentioned this matter and I have had a considerable amount to say about it. It is important to note that Lloyd Aviation Group, Australia's fourth ranking airline, is now effectively controlled by Ansett. East-West Airlines, the third largest airline in this country, is effectively controlled by Ansett. Kendall Airlines, the largest regional carrier in New South Wales, is controlled by Ansett. Mr Tim Fischer —New South Wales and Victoria. Mr SMITH —New South Wales and Victoria. At present 60 per cent of airline passenger traffic is now controlled by Ansett. When we take into consideration the power it has through computer networking and booking systems this control gives Ansett immense market power. Certainly, this concern needed to be addressed before the Government permitted one airline company to have a very large dominant position. There has been some mention of the role of the Trade Practices Commission. I wrote to the Commission to ask it what it was doing. It wrote back to say that it was conducting an inquiry. But we have not heard what it is doing. What is Mr McComas doing? We want to know. From the abolition of the two-airline agreement we want to see a substantially increased level of competition. We do not want to go from a duopoly to a monopoly. That is what we will see happening unless we have some answers and some action from the Government. Until the Government responds there will be a very big degree of uncertainty about the future of the aviation industry in this country. It is an industry that has great potential for growth. The honourable member for Fadden pointed out that about 80 per cent of Australians have not travelled with an airline. There is great potential for growth. There is room for the Mayne Nicklesses, the Brambles budget air services, the Ipecs and many other operators, all Australian companies, to get in there and provide services. We have to sort out the problems with airports. We must have some decisions from the Government. We cannot just sit back for the next three years and hope it will all sort itself out because whilst we are waiting, as the honourable member for Deakin pointed out, the existing major operator will get streets in front and that, I believe, denies what the Government is trying to do, and that is get rid of the two-airline agreement. I appeal to the Minister that we get some decisions, that he make them soon, that he let us know what is happening with Australian Airlines. At the end of the day I welcome the fact that the motion has been moved. We have wasted too much time already; we ought to stop wasting time and get on with looking after the consumers. People want to fly. I can cite costs that people are paying in this country. We did some surveys in Tasmania. Do honourable members know that airline fares rose by 99 per cent over a given period as against the inflation rate of about 45 per cent? We have an Independent Air Fares Committee which is effectively a cost-plus air price setting mechanism. As the honourable member for Fadden said, the least efficient sets the price for the rest. We have had windfall profits taken by Ansett because of that system. It has to come to an end. We in this place are charged with looking after everyone in this community. We have to put in place a system whereby the consumers get the opportunity to utilise that system. The two-airline system got the airlines running in this country. They are running well; now it is time for a new system. Let us not waste any more time. Let us get on with it and do the job properly and give the consumers of this country what they want. After all, is that not why the Government is introducing this legislation? Is that not why the two-airline agreement is now being buried? The ground swell of community opposition to seeing competition only on biscuits, coffee and uniforms has to come to an end. People want price competition-real competition. The only way we can get that is to embrace contestability theories and get rid of this two-airline agreement. We have to do it quickly or Australia will get left behind, as we are in so many other fields. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(5.24) —In speaking to this motion to deregulate the Australian airline industry, I am delighted to support the action of the Government which is finally implementing Opposition polity, a policy that we have had since 1984. It is somewhat interesting that a government that for so long ridiculed the Opposition's policy should finally find itself implementing aspects of that same policy. It is relevant at this stage to look at the statements made by members of the Government as to how they once viewed that policy. In 1984 the then Minister for Aviation stated: If the Opposition goes the whole way with its enthusiasm . . . deregulation will be thrown in for good measure. If the Opposition follows this scenario there is every chance that Australia's aviation system would slide into chaos. And what was that policy that was going to slide Australia's airlines into chaos? It was a policy that states: Negotiations would take place between the Government and the airlines for the purpose of obtaining agreement to the early termination of the two airlines agreement. In the absence of agreement, three years notice will be given to . . . terminate it as soon as possible . . . It seems that even in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) ideology and realism can eventually collide with sufficient force to change at least some of the most committed ideologues. Indeed, it is very pleasing to see a change in the traditional Labor Party opinion, opposing anything that would weaken government intervention in the airline industry. Even so, the document fails through indecision over the future of Australian Airlines and, apart from that, it is at least nine months too late. The regulated environment in which airlines in Australia have traditionally operated has long outlived its usefulness. This environment has cocooned Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines for 35 years and stifled efficiency. If one compares Australia with the United States of America and uses the standard industry measure of passenger kilometres per employee, Australia is less than half as efficient as United States airlines, and that is taking only major trunk routes into account. What of the two domestic airlines themselves? There has been much controversy as to the relative efficiencies of public and private enterprises in a regulated environment. The controversy of 15 years is summed up in the economic record detailed by Michael Kirby. When talking of airlines in Australia, he concluded: While there may be some empirical evidence that the state firm is less efficient than the private one, this difference is likely to be small compared with inefficiencies of both operators, which are due to the current policies of economic regulation. It is the regulation that is the main culprit in Australia's relative inefficiency and, thus, I wholeheartedly support the change the Government is proposing. When the two-airline agreement was first introduced, it was to protect Ansett airlines from undue competition from Trans Australian Airlines. Today, the situation has been reversed. With the purchase of East-West Airlines Ltd and the likelihood of combining with smaller commuter airlines, with the possibility of expansion overseas and with expansion into tourist resorts, Ansett is now in an exceedingly strong position, a position that is a compliment to its managers. It has just spent over $1 billion on 27 new aircraft and has ordered the entire five years new production of BAe147 aircraft. What of Australian? The General Manager of Australian, Mr James Strong, recently stated that Australian could compete against Ansett only if it received adequate capital. With its recent decision to defer its $650m purchase of the airbus through lack of funds, this issue is absolutely critical. Its present capital base is a mere $130m and, with this low government furnished capital base, it simply cannot afford the new aircraft. This under-capitalisation forces Ansett to borrow and pay large interest bills. If it is to compete adequately, it is essential that it receive sufficient capital to remain competitive with Ansett. Senator Walsh understood the implications of this when he stated on 20 October: Australian and Qantas would become an increasing burden to the public sector and, under the present arrangements, Australian Airlines and Qantas would add substantially to the public sector borrowing requirements. This is quite correct. The May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation recognised Australian Airlines' position when it stated: Australian Airlines was commercially and financially disadvantaged by its Federal Government relationship. On this background, what is the Government's response? Quite simply, it is indecision. The Government's response has been to establish an advisory group to frame options for capitalisation of the airline; a committee that is to report back within six months-just in time for the ALP National Conference in June 1988. There is no reason whatsoever for an advisory committee to report on the glaringly obvious requirement for an expanded capital base for Australian Airlines. This dithering and indecision will further stifle Australian Airlines in its attempt to compete effectively with Ansett. The airline cannot push ahead with investment decisions until it knows who will be owning it. With this delay, Australian Airlines will be far behind Ansett in preparing for the new airline environment. Its ability to retain its market share against Ansett must be seriously in doubt. We run the very great risk that, instead of a two-airline policy, we will be left with a near monopoly of one and a bit airlines. What do we hear from the Government on the point? We hear very little. Perhaps we are to have a corporate structure. However, there is no obvious reason why a corporate structure should suddenly make Australian Airlines competitive with Ansett when Ansett is already removing Australia's market share from underneath its feet. If Australian is to compete effectively with Ansett, the Gov- ernment has no choice but to push ahead with privatisation. Senator Gareth Evans realised this point when he stated in his original announcement: The announcement today on the deregulation of the airline industry will further commit the Government to the privatisation road. If the Government dithers any further and capitulates to its left wing, it will not be the privatisation road along which we move, it will be one more step down the Argentinean road. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.30) —In speaking on this two airlines agreement and the deregulation of the industry, I just pose the question why the matter was not completed on 26 January when that date was available to the Government to institute deregulation. Nine months later we see this deregulation taking place. Members of the Government have mentioned the massive deregulation they have introduced in this area and that area, but I believe that if deregulation is to succeed in the airline business, as is suggested, the Government ought to do something in connection with deregulating the industrial situation in Australia in order to make the airlines properly competitive in the future. But we know that that is one area in which it will not deregulate. The industrial situation has the Government by the throat, and it will stay that way. The document produced by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and his Department indicates that the Government's objectives are the increased responsiveness of airlines to consumer needs, a wider range of fares and types of services to provide enhanced travel opportunities, increased competition and pricing flexibility leading to greater economic efficiency in the industry, and a continuation of Australia's world-renowned aviation safety record. I believe that these objectives can be achieved and, speaking in relation to Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, deregulation of fare structures should be a boon. For that reason I believe that those States will accept the proposition. However, one thing has to be borne in mind. If we are to deregulate and get the benefits from that, the Government has to realise that the airports throughout Australia have to be of a standard that enables them to take the aircraft available. That is essential if these particular benefits of deregulation are to be achieved. I can speak only of a couple of airports in the north that at this stage will not have adequate capacity: one is Darwin, which has been badly neglected-it will be a port of convenience as far as deregulation is concerned-and the other is Townsville. Of course, there are many others right throughout the north. We are looking at deregulation through termination of the two airlines agreement, but I suggest that the nine months delay in bringing this forward has given an opportunity to one airline and not the other. It is no good deregulating the system if one major airline-Australian Airlines-is put in a disadvantaged position. Over the 4 1/2 years this Government has been in office Australian Airlines has not received the support, particularly government support, to enable it to capitalise and reap the benefits that have been available to Ansett Airlines of Australia. For comparison, I shall make a list in this regard. Most of these things have happened over a period of years. Ansett has upgraded its resorts right around Australia. It has embarked on the acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and I understand that at the moment it has some of those on lease overseas, waiting for this deregulation to take effect. It has interlining rights with Qantas Airways Limited, and it now participates with Cook Island Air, Air Vanuatu, Ansett New Zealand and Air Pacific. It has acquired East-West Airlines Ltd, and with it Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. My colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) has already indicated the surveillance contract aspects of that. Also, reading from the newspapers, it has cornered the market on the BAe146-200QT aircraft for production over the next five years. This is a fine aircraft but the fact that Ansett has been able to corner the market indicates that it has been prepared for this event. Members of the Government say that Ansett has not been given special deals, but I draw attention particularly to all the aspects of that list which suggest that there has been some assistance. Meanwhile, although the profit of Australian Airlines last year was good, it is undercapitalised. It is operating in a declining market but there is no doubt about it, with the privatisation which is now as much a part of this agreement as any there will be no problems in that regard. But can Australian Airlines become a more efficient competitor under the threat of privatisation and the stumbling that will take place in the intermediate period? There will be little time for other airlines to compete throughout Australia, and so what is now a two-airline policy could well become a one-airline policy. The advisory board investigating what will happen with Australian Airlines is made up of a rather interesting panel. It is supposed to be able to provide the answers to Australian Airline's particular problems. First of all, Qantas is not regarded as being suitable for merger with Australian Airlines at this time, and one can only wonder why, particularly with the interlining rights that will be given under the new agreement. The members of the board are of interest. They are a Mr Ted Harris, who I am told is a sometime tennis partner of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); a Mr Carter; a Mr Bill Kelty, who is the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Mr Peter Redlich, who is a former President of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party, from the left wing, and Dr Peter Wilenski, a former Private Secretary to the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Mr Whitlam's time. So I think the conclusions of this board are foregone, and its attitude on the unions is locked in, bearing in mind that there is still some debate on privatisation. Of course, Mr Kelty is known to be not only the beneficiary of a large salary from his own organisation but also as a member of boards, including the boards of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Economic Planning Advisory Council and quite a few others. One wonders whether he is on this advisory board for any reason other than to make sure of the decisions it makes. One must also look at the specialisation of Ansett staff over a period of just a few years. In an article headed `Sir Peter's cabin crew', reference is made to Terry Burke, older brother of Brian Burke, of Western Australia, who is going to be admitted as a director of Ansett W.A.; Mr Neil Batt, now Opposition Leader in Tasmania but a former senior executive of the TNT group; David Hurley, Neville Wran's ex-Press Secretary; Emmanuel Klein, former senior private secretary to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown); and Barbara Ward, who has turned financial analyst with TNT. Mr Beale —Is there anyone left? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I do not know whether there is any room left on the board for anyone else. It is important to point out that Ansett has had particular benefits from this Government and it is also being assisted in this deregulation. Finally, in connection with deregulation, this afternoon the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) asked a question about the future of Christmas Island. I have seen the heads of agreement which specifies that approval will be given for BAe146 aircraft only and, bearing in mind my earlier comment in connection with the full run of that aircraft for the next five years being available to Ansett, I believe that what we are seeing here is a deregulation on the one hand but a very regulated market in one area on the other. My time has been limited. There is a lot more I would like to say but I will be satisfied with those few points. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.39) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, am I to understand that the Minister for Veterans Affairs is replying to the debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HUMPHREYS —I point out to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) is not well and is not able to be here. I apologise on his behalf. I think I am quite capable of taking this matter through the House. I know quite a bit about the airline industry. I have been travelling on the airlines for the past ten years and I have been looked after well by both Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. They both employ people, and I am happy to fly on either one. I thank all honourable members for their contributions, especially the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) who made a very worthwhile contribution. It always amazes me that when the Government puts forward a proposition such as the termination of the two-airline agreement, the Opposition comes forward and implies that it has all the wisdom and knowledge and that nobody on this side of the House has any knowledge and that we are not able to manage the affairs of the nation. I want to remind honourable members opposite that they were in government for 23 years and did nothing about the two-airline agreement. However, they are in here today telling us what we are doing wrong and that they have all the wisdom. They had plenty of opportunity to change things, but they did nothing. I ask them not to come into this House claiming that they know everything. I close my remarks with a few words relating to the comments of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Whilst I have a lot of respect for him, I think that he should be more careful about casting aspersions on the members of the boards of organisations such as Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines. Those board members are all very honourable Australians. They are very capable and highly qualified. I can assure the honourable member that I know quite a few of them and I do not think they would do the wrong things. I do not think the Australian Labor Party would be trying to influence their views. Those people will be running Ansett and Australian Airlines. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I advise the Minister that I was not casting aspersions; I was just making comments on how members of those boards were appointed. Mr HUMPHREYS —I think that everybody listening to this debate will know what the honourable member for Dawson was doing. Once again, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The Government will not be accepting the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Mr Beale's amendment) be added. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steel Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Jones, BarryBurr, M. A. Brown, JohnSinclair, I. McC. Beazley, K. C.Porter, J. R. Dawkins, J. S.Cameron, Ian Snowdon, W. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.49) —The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and cognate Bills contain a number of significant amendments to legislation affecting our great livestock industries. I will briefly detail these amendments, to put the debate in perspective. First, there is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill. That amends the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 and includes the involvement of the Australian Pork Corporation with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) to develop marketing schemes for meat and livestock, such as computer aided livestock marketing (CALM) and Ausmeat. It includes a requirement for the AMLC to consult with the industry in its corporate planning process, changes to the operation of the AMLC annual general meeting, introduction of equal employment opportunity policies and removal of redundant provisions from the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act. It also amends the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985, with changes to the operation of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation's (AMLRDC) annual general meeting, and introduces a requirement for the AMLC to consult industry in its corporate planning process. Then there is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Policy Council Act, and amendments to that include removing the requirement for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council (AMLIPC) to hold an industry conference every two years. The AMLIPC will still retain its power to call conferences when required. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984 is being amended as well, and these amendments include provision for Committee members to be appointed for periods of up to three years, and remove the requirement for preparation of an annual report. The second major amendment concerns the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, which increases the maximum levy rates for both the AMLC and AMLRDC components as follows: cattle from $6 to $18; sheep from 60c to $1.50; lambs from 60c to $1.50; buffalo from $6 to $18; goats from 60c to $1; calves from $2.10 to $6.30; and bobby calves from 60c to $1.80. The Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill brings the same increases in the maximum levy rate as potential export charges. In addition, there is the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill. These two Bills seek to improve existing arrangements for the collection of registration charges in establishments processing fish and poultry for export. The amendments allow more equitable arrangements for registration charges to be collected from small establishments. These are technical amendments which have the support of the industry and the Opposition, and I will not refer to them again. I wish now to concentrate on the major issues in this series of Bills. First is the change to the annual general meeting voting procedure. In 1984, the then Minister for Primary Industry, the present Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), introduced a requirement for an annual general meeting for the meat and livestock industry of Australia so that there could be a form of participatory democracy whereby the AMLC was made accountable to the meat producers of this country. I believe that it was an honest attempt by the Minister to provide the possibility of a mass form of accountability and democratic participation. However, it has not worked. In fact, it has now become a farce. It has not worked for two reasons: First, the problem of the level of industry participation in it, and secondly, the voting procedure used. With the level of industry participation, there are about 76,000 meat producers in this country eligible to participate in this annual general meeting, so one can understand that if they all wanted to participate, it would be rather hard to find a meeting place. In 1985, there were 36,000 voter registrations-registrations of producers which would entitle them to vote. By 1987, with the annual general meeting coming up in December, it is now under 20,000 and the number of those who in any way took advantage of this, either by proxy or attendance in the last annual general meeting was, I understand, about 10,000. There is also the additional problem, as there always is with proxies, that there is no flexibility to participate in the process of the debate and any sort of amendment that might be possible. Overall, on that basis alone, the scheme is impractical. The absurdity comes in with the voting procedure used. There are two separate rolls-one for producers and one for processors. At present, 75 per cent of producers registered and 75 per cent of processors registered must vote against a meat and livestock levy motion to defeat it, and that is a completely impractical voting procedure. The amendment that we are considering today is that 75 per cent of those voting-that is, by proxy or in person-must vote against the AMLC proposed motion for a levy increase to defeat it. In practical terms, that means that only 25 per cent of voters on one of the two rolls-the producer roll or the processor roll-needs to support the motion for it to be carried. If we apply that back to the 1985 annual general meeting, when, I am advised, 29 processors were registered, one would need only eight of them voting in favour of a motion to carry it. At the same time, one could have 22 registered processors basically against the motion, let alone all the unregistered processors, and 76,000 meat producers against the motion, but eight processors carry the day. That is the height or the depth of absurdity, and what is more, it is wrong in principle. Surely, the standard procedure, if one is to follow the annual general meeting principle, is 50 per cent of those voting, either present or by proxy and voting in favour-in other words, a simple majority of those entitled to vote-must carry the day. I hope that the Minister has the ability to admit that the experiment has failed. So far, by this amendment, that does not appear to be case. Parts of the industry were always opposed to this proposal, but were prepared to accept it as a pilot. That is fine, but it has now failed, and it is significant that the Minister, to my understanding, has not extended that same concept to any of the other statutory marketing authority rearrangements in which he has been engaged. There are other problems with this annual general meeting concept. There is the cost of maintaining the register and of holding the annual general meetings. There are the restrictive requirements, because of the way that the levy motion debates are structured. The industry wants an accountable procedure so that it is possible to have practical arrangements for the discussion and the determination of levy motions. It does not want tinkering from one level of absurdity to a slightly lower level of absurdity, which is what we have with this amendment. My predecessor, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), when he was referring to this absurdity, on a number of occasions indicated that the coalition parties in government would consult the industry to change the present absurd voting requirements and procedures to a system which was practical. In an amendment which I shall be moving at the end of this second reading debate, I shall be showing that the coalition parties believe that a more sensible arrangement is one somewhat similar to that already in place with a number of other statutory marketing authorities. We give notice to the appropriate organisations, that is the Cattle Council of Australia, the AMLC, the Sheep Meat Council and the processors that we will be discussing a more appropriate form of industry accountability and determination than is presently the case. For that reason, at the end of this speech I will move for substitution of the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that recommendations for levy changes in future should be made direct to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation only after it has consulted with the appropriate industry organisations. I now move to the overall major problem facing the livestock industries of this country at present; that is, the proposal to increase the maximum levy rate from $6 to $18 per head for adult cattle, or more correctly, the reason why such a dramatic increase in the maximum rate is contemplated and is not being opposed by the Opposition or the industry. The current operative levy rate is $3.30 per head for adult cattle and the maximum rate is $6. It was known before the residue problem occurred that increased promotion expenditure was necessary and therefore one could understand that the $6 maximum rate would probably not be sufficient and if ordinary practice were followed and ordinary conditions applied the new maximum rate would be doubled by legislation, to $12. But the chemical residue problem has altered the situation. Hence, we now have the frightening prospect for individual cattle producers in this country of moving at some stage potentially to paying up to $18 per head, because the proposal that is before the industry at the moment for residue testing and potential buy back et cetera, over a three-year period, could involve over $100m. However, the levy proposal itself is the least frightening aspect of the total residue problem. First of all, there is the potential problem of our export markets. Beef in particular is one of the great export industries of this country. It has a very big potential in the future because there is an ability to increase export tonnage and there is a growing world demand. So the threat to this industry is the first great problem that this residue problem has created. The second is the reduced prices to individuals. Even if the markets remain open-and thank goodness they have, and they will-there is still a reduction in the market price. The graphs in some of the weekly rural newspapers show the impact of that already because the image of Australian meat overseas has been damaged and logically there is a discount by buyers in the market because of the uncertainty and because of their cash flow problems coming from the cost of testing and so forth. There are already 340 farms in Australia which have been quarantined because of the level of chemical residue in their soil. Those farms have a frightening future of dramatically reduced income because they really have no future in the medium and short term for producing and selling livestock. This carries with it the potential of devastation to rural communities where the cattle industry is important and where processing works are an important part of town employment. It has to be understood by people who are not actively affected by the chemical residue problem that the standard of living of all Australians is reduced if our export markets for this great industry are affected. When the industry was faced with this residue problem it responded magnificently and it is responding magnificently now. It got on with the job of restoring the credibility of the product and guaranteeing the purity of the product. A voluntary levy has been put in place to cover the cost of residue testing until the AMLC annual meeting in December. That, incidentally, highlights again the lack of flexibility of the annual general meeting procedure and requirements. There is a co-operative attack on the problem. The Australian quarantine service, the Cattle Council, the Meat and Live-stock Corporation and the exporters all have co-operated and responded remarkably well. The procedure being followed involves testing of every lot of livestock sold for export, at a cost of about $40 per lot. That highlights the extra cost that is incurred by the industry, particularly in some States, including my own, where the average lot size is quite small. That follows through the tail tagging and the tracing back to the properties, which in turn is building up a computer picture of the level of chemical residues on every farm in Australia from which livestock is sold. As I said earlier, my understanding is that well over 300 farms have already been pinpointed as having such levels of chemical residue in their soils, and they have been quarantined. Those measures have been put in place rapidly and once the process has been finalised Australia will be able to guarantee the purest meat products of anywhere in the world. That will be in the next few months. I think that is a tremendous achievement by an industry. That brings me to the specific motions on the levy at the AMLC annual meeting to be held on 3 December. As I said, the voluntary levies in place at the moment vary from, I think, $1.50 in one State to $3 in several to $5 in Queensland. The AMLC proposal is for a levy of up to $5 for residue testing and buying back as necessary of any meat exported before 25 May and $3 for promotion. Once the residue testing requirements are reduced, the level of the levy will be reduced to reflect that. That will provide a total operative rate of $11.30 out of the maximum possible rate of $18. If this legislation is passed the levy will commence on 1 January and I think it will be about April next year before any of the moneys start flowing back through the system. That will be a heavy burden on producers. It will mean that the total commitment by the livestock industries to the AMLC in one form or another will increase dramatically to about $75m per year, of which about $35m per year-at least in the first year-will be for residue testing. At the meeting in December the Sinclair Hill proposal for boosting promotion also will be considered, as will changing the way in which levies are collected from a per head basis to a percentage of sale value basis. I understand that there is support for investigation of what the percentage method would bring and what equity it would give to those in the industry. I would support the investigation of that method. The fundamental question that the cattle and sheep producers-particularly cattle producers-meat exporters and primary industry people in general are asking is: Why should the meat producers of this country have to pay the full amount for that testing? If the coalition were in government, they would not be paying for any of the export testing costs, including those increased residue testing requirements which are essential for export and therefore are an integral part of the export inspection system. There are two reasons why the coalition supports industry people in saying that they should not be required to bear the full cost: first, even with the present Government's policy-I noticed the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy evidently does not like this so he is leaving the chamber-for export inspection charges, the Government states that it will meet 50 per cent of the cost. That is Government policy and residue testing is an essential export inspection procedure. It has been put into place in the export works and therefore the Government, with its existing policy, should automatically cover 50 per cent of that additional cost required for residue testing. On 22 September I asked the Minister in this place: `Why has the Government not automatically accepted its responsibility as it should? Why has it not acceded to the request made by the Cattle Council to do so?' At that stage the Minister indicated that the Government was still considering the matter. Some five weeks later the Government has given no indication that it will live up to its level of responsibility in meeting 50 per cent of the export inspection charge. The Government has to understand that if it wants to regain and maintain good relations with farmers and farmer organisations it must be consistent with its policy. If it indicates that it will meet 50 per cent of the inspection costs it must stick to that. When it comes to other things, like wool promotion, when it says one day that it will meet a certain percentage it must stick to it the next day. If the Government does that it might once again achieve some sort of credibility with the farmers of this country-which it does not have at present while it keeps breaking its promises. I refer again to the policies that were separately enunciated by the National Party and the Liberal Party during the last election campaign-which were identical-namely, that a coalition government would cover 100 per cent of export inspection charges, because we recognise that it is a national responsibility as part of improving and assisting the export capability of this country. Who created this residue problem? It certainly was not the farmers. They are not to be blamed in any way for the residue problem, because they were carrying out the recommendations of the State departments of agriculture on the use of chemicals which were legal and which they were advised by those State departments to use. A really genuine and severe criticism of the State governments of this nation and of the State departments of agriculture is necessary for what could at least be called lethargic behaviour and for what could also be called irresponsible behaviour in not moving to ban certain chemicals such as DDT and dieldrin which have been known for some time to not be acceptable in the United States. The Federal Government should also be blamed, because through the Australian Agricultural Council and other means it should have been pushing harder on these points. This raises the second reason for being sympathetic towards and assisting the meat producers. They are also being forced, as part of this increased levy, to provide compensation for the buy back of certain types of meat that might not meet overseas requirements or which might not be cost beneficial if put through the testing regime. I think that the request by the industry for some form of government assistance is legitimate, particularly when it comes to the disposal of livestock on quarantine properties. I think it is a legitimate request for State governments to provide some compensation because, after all, it was the actions of those State governments which created the problem. With this in mind, at the appropriate time I will move a further amend-ment. This brings me to another point of complaint by the industry and the lack of responsibility shown by the Government. I refer to the Government's forked tongue attitude on export assistance and the national residue survey. This is a national survey of foodstuffs undertaken by the Government. It covers both the domestic market and exports and, according to the Minister's Budget Statements it will cost $5m in a full year because of upgraded residue testing necessitated by the residue problem. I understand that tomorrow, following the Budget announcement, the Minister will put in place a ministerial order, reducing the percentage of the cost of that survey to be covered by the Government from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. I think that that is unbelievable, coming at a time when the meat industry in Australia is being faced with dramatically increased charges and when the Government claims that it is assisting export industries, and where for the domestic industry, just as much as for the export industry, it has a public health responsibility. The Government should accept that and it should not be imposing a sudden additional charge on the meat industry at this time. Briefly, in conclusion, the legislation also allows the participation of the pork industry, the Australian Pork Corporation, with the innovative marketing arrangements of CALM and Ausmeat. I certainly congratulate the AMLC and the industry for bringing in these innovative marketing initiatives. I refer the Minister to a problem with a group of pig producers in the central west of New South Wales who feel that they are not getting the financial reward that they should from the Ausmeat trims that are allowed. I have raised this matter with the Ausmeat people, and they have assured me that they will be doing their best to overcome the problem. Mr Cobb —They are very concerned. Mr LLOYD —I understand from the member for Parkes that they are very concerned. One amendment to the legislation ends the requirement for the Ausmeat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee to produce an annual report. The most recent report that I have in front of me indicates that for the 1986-87 year it cost $63,000 to run that Committee. With the abolition of the requirement for this report, I hope that that does not mean the end of accountability for the cost of that Committee which would be available to the average meat producer. I hope that something appears in the AMLC annual report that continues to indicate that. The legislative amendments also bring in the same equal opportunity-`equal opportunity' being the words of the Government-provisions which are already in place for wool and which will be coming in with wheat. As I have indicated earlier, the Opposition is unhappy with aspects of the legislation but is not opposing it as such. The exception to that involves the affirmative action clauses. They are completely unnecessary and they are an insult to the people in the designated groups, because anyone who is appointed from such a group would be considered to be a token appointment. It also interferes with employment arrangements for the specialist type of staff that are needed for such organisations. The Opposition makes a clear distinction between equal opportunity, which we support, and affirmative action or positive discrimination, which we oppose. Therefore, in committee we will move amendments to assert the clear distinction between equal opportunity which is the removal of discrimination and the provisions in these clauses of affirmative action which actually enforce discrimination. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that recommendations for levy changes in future should be made direct to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation only after it has consulted with appropriate industry organisations'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cobb —I second the amendment. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(6.20) —The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the associated Bills make a number of amendments to legislation affecting Australia's meat and livestock industry. I cannot help but begin my speech by referring to some of the latter comments by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) on the equal employment opportunity provisions that are part of this important package of legislation. As the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said when he introduced the Bill in the House a couple of weeks ago, it is part of the Government's policy on the reform of statutory marketing authorities that there be a provision for an equal employment opportunity program. This program is to be incorporated in the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation's corporate plans and a progress report is to be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. That is no only a sensible course of action but also a very long overdue action in recognition of the place of women in Australian rural life. This Government's attitude stands in marked contrast with that of honourable members opposite. Opposition members tend to overlook the very simple statistic that probably at least 50 per cent of Australian farms are run by women. The reality is that most farms are run as family farms and there is a partnership arrangement. The woman who performs part of that partnership is an integral part of the success of that operation. I believe it is appropriate to recognise that contribution. It is for that reason that the Government has moved, with the reform of statutory marketing authorities, to create a program of equal employment opportunity. Of course, we know the attitude of the National Party of Australia on matters such as equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. We have heard some almost landmark speeches by prominent members of the National Party in that respect. I remember the contribution some time ago by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). His attitude on affirmative action and equal employment opportunity was summed up by his phrase that a woman's place was in the kitchen or the other room, or a similar remark. It seems that the influence of the honourable member for Maranoa and some of the other troglodytes as to the place of women and their contribution to Australian agriculture is still very much a prominent part of National Party thinking when it comes to deliberating on such important legislation. I do not want to dwell on this aspect. I simply make the point that I find it amazing that in this era, in 1987, that attitude still pervades the National Party. Perhaps that is part of the reason why the National Party suffered very profoundly in the recent election. The honourable member for Murray said that our relationship with farmers and farmer organisations may be placed at risk because of certain provisions that are included in the Bill; that somehow we have lost a great deal of credibility with farmers, farmer organisations and the rural community generally. The honourable member conveniently forgets what happened in this country on 11 July. On that date the Government not only was returned to office with an increased majority but also held all its rural seats, many with an increased majority, and gained at least three other rural or semi-rural seats-Hinkler and Fisher in Queensland, and that of the Northern Territory. If that does not suggest that we have credibility in our relationship with farmers, farmer organisations and the rural community generally, I am at a loss to understand what the word `credibility' means. This Government, largely through the efforts of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, has established a great deal of credibility among people in the rural scene. I pay particular tribute at this stage to my friend and colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who was the chairman of the country task force established by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The honourable member played a very significant role during the period of the last Government and led, significantly, an all-party delegation to the United States of America at a very critical time. His role in terms of credibility in the rural sector is worth remembering. The question of statutory marketing authorities has exercised the Government's mind for a number of years. We consider that effective and innovative marketing is essential to ensuring that we have a better and sound performance by the farm sector. Obviously, we have to react to changed circumstances and, sometimes, circumstances that are cruelly inflicted upon us. The honourable member for Murray drew the House's attention to that point with his reference to the chemical residue difficulties that this nation faces. I think that all honourable members would recognise that that is a cause of great concern throughout rural Australia. It is certainly an issue that has not made for partisan politics. I think that, generally speaking, that is the way in which it has been viewed by people on both sides of the House. It is a national problem. We recognise that we need to react to it and do something about it if we are to preserve the integrity and the important export performance of our livestock industries. It is a serious matter that does not have any simple or short term answers. I commend the Minister on his initiatives so far. I also congratulate the industry generally on the responsible manner in which it has accepted the challenge to react to the very cruel circumstances in which we find ourselves. The question of livestock export charges and slaughter levies is one that has always been contentious in this House. It has certainly been the case during the 4 1/2 years that I have been a member of the Parliament. National Party representatives in the Opposition have offered simplistic suggestions from time to time. Again, that demonstrates that promises are extremely cheap to deliver in opposition but, in very difficult economic circumstances to which the Government cannot necessarily find an easy solution, the Government cannot accept those simplistic solutions. The question of livestock slaughter levies and export charges certainly falls into that category. The National Party's standard response to such problems is to suggest that somehow or other the Government must react immediately and that it must bear a significant proportion of the responsibility. We certainly recognise our responsibilities, but we do not react in what I would call an agrarian socialist way, as we have seen on many occasions in this House by National Party members. The solution is not an easy one by any means. But to suggest that the Government should react to the difficulties that have been thrust on us as a result of discoveries of chemical residues by suddenly going off on a new tack in terms of responsibility for these charges does not have any credibility. We need to examine the issue sympathetically; we need to monitor what is happening, and we need to consult with those in the industry who have been affected by what has happened. In the end, I do not think that simple solutions put forward by Opposition spokesmen will necessarily be embraced by the Government. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SIMMONS —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner this evening I had an opportunity to comment on two matters that I think are important in the consideration of this legislation. One related to clause 5 (g) of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill and concerned the policy of equal employment opportunity. The second matter about which I had a chance to make some remarks related to the whole approach to the very vexed question of the chemical residue problem in Australia. The Minister, in his second reading speech on the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill on 7 October, stated: On the matter of pesticide residues, I would like to congratulate the industry on its preparedness to tackle the problem. The industry, apparently universally, accepts the need to get its house in order and to take whatever steps are necessary to re-establish its reputation as a supplier of nutritious product to the world's markets. I think that those comments certainly would be echoed by members on both sides of the House. I refer also to the Government's economic and rural policy document of 15 April last year on the consideration of the whole area of statutory marketing authorities. In that very well researched and well received document, the comment was made that for many years the issue of statutory marketing authority (SMA) reform had bedevilled governments which had been unable to strike the right balance between the conflicting interests involved. SMAs have been unsure as to when their accountability lay to Parliament and the Government, and when to industry. On the matter of identity crisis, and the whole approach to statutory marketing authorities, while it has not been necessarily solved to everyone's complete satisfaction, this Government can hold its head rather high. While some comments were made about changes in respect of some of the matters relating to the annual general meeting of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, most honourable members would agree that, overall, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation has acted very responsively, under the leadership of Dick Austen, to innovative marketing. Certainly, the whole question of red meats in particular has been put back on the agenda. I congratulate the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for its efforts over the last few years. I know the Chairman particularly well. He brings to that position a very fine record in terms of his expertise in marketing. Generally speaking, most people would applaud the efforts of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for doing its very best to promote the whole question of marketing of our livestock industries. (Quorum formed) Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.07) —In speaking in the debate on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill and the other Bills in this package, I would like to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I would also like to draw attention to a few points which have been raised by previous speakers about the importance of the livestock industry and also about how the industry has coped with a very difficult problem over the last few months, namely the residue problem. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) congratulated the industry. I endorse those words. I also bring to the attention of honourable members a very interesting point that was raised in the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. That report highlights the very aggressive role the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation is taking in its attitude towards research in the meat industry and the way in which it is trying very hard to direct research into what would be normally called the applied area rather than the strategic area. One of the very interesting points that is raised in that report is the fact that the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation would like to reduce the cost of meat inspection by 30 per cent. It has set itself an objective which, obviously, it has not yet realised. In fact, the work has not even been started. It is very interesting that over some years it has been pointed out to this Government, and to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in particular, that the cost of meat inspection has been excessively high. It has been apparent to anyone who goes to an abattoir anywhere in the country that there is overmanning. We still have to do something about reducing that cost. I draw attention to that point. The other point to which I refer in regard to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill is the amendment that is made to the voting procedure at the annual meetings of both the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation and the Meat and Live-stock Corporation. At present 75 per cent of both the producers group and the exporters group must be present in order to negate a move to increase the levies or to pass a motion of no confidence in the Chairman of either Corporation. This has been changed to 75 per cent of those producers present, either in person or by proxy at the annual general meeting. I raise this point because I well remember in 1984, when the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill was introduced, I pointed out to the Minister in the clearest possible terms that what he was proposing was unworkable. I guess it is to the Minister's credit that he acknowledged this point after the Bill had been passed by both Houses. He dropped me a line to say that, if the situation proved to be unworkable-which is what I suggested would happen-the Government would be prepared to review it. I guess it has taken three years, but at least the Government has belatedly recognised that point. Certainly, we welcome that fact, although I still question whether the procedures that have now been adopted will prove to be the ideal situation. I recognise that it is not easy to get the perfect situation, knowing full well the concerns that the Minister expressed in 1984 about the voting procedure. I guess that this is a move in the right direction. I still wonder whether it will prove to be the best possible solution. I think it is important to realise, though, that this residue problem has caused considerable consternation to individual farmers. Some farmers have had their properties completely quarantined because of this problem. It has proved to be a very serious and financially costly handicap-or will be, if a solution is not found. I suggest that, while it is very important for the industry as a whole to clear its name on this residue problem so that our export markets will be maintained and can be kept open, it is equally important to help individual farmers who, in many cases through no fault of their own, are paying a very heavy price for the residue problem. I also emphasise very strongly to honourable members that this so-called residue problem, while serious, should not cause concern to the general public, to the consumers, because there is no doubt that, by any measure, the residue levels that are tolerated in meat are at a very low level, of the order of 0.3 parts in a million. At that rate, even if people were eating meat right on that level, they would have to eat about a tonne at a time, almost at a sitting, for it to have any real effect on them. So, this matter has been blown up out of proportion in some respects. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that the industry has moved very quickly and very effectively to correct the matter. There is another matter I would like to raise, which the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) drew to the attention of the House last night; that is, the misconception that has been going around the community for some years now about the fat and cholesterol levels of red meats compared with those of chicken. Unfortunately for the Australian consumer and the Australian meat producer, a myth was created which was based mainly on American figures produced mostly from lot-fed beef, namely, that somehow Australian beef would be the same and therefore would have higher fat and cholesterol levels than those in chicken. At long last, some of those figures have been exploded very effectively, so effectively that I notice that spokesmen for the chicken industry are screaming because it is hurting. I will give a couple of quick examples. A piece of cooked rump steak, in the category of lean beef-which is grass-fed beef-has a fat content of about 6.7 grams per hundred. This compares very favourably with chicken breast with the skin on-which is the way most people eat it, although the chicken industry is very quick to say otherwise-which has a fat level of 12.7 grams per hundred. That is almost double. It is very important that consumers be made aware of this. Also, comparing lean beef in a piece of rump steak with chicken, the cholesterol levels in milligrams per hundred grams are 82 for rump steak and 99 for chicken breast with skin. In other words, a piece of rump steak has lower fat and cholesterol levels than ordinary breast chicken. When it comes to the iron level, there is a much higher iron level in beef than in chicken. Iron is very important in everyone's diet. Rump steak has 3.9 milligrams of iron per hundred grams, compared with 0.7 milligrams for chicken. By any measure, not only are red meats healthier than chicken; they are also far more nutritious. Hopefully, that point will now be brought home to the Australian public. Meat producers have been made to pay for a myth that was created but is quite erroneous. I would like to remind honourable members about the importance of the beef industry. To put it into perspective, it is one of our biggest export earners. In fact, it is our third biggest primary producing industry, earning last financial year $1,900m in export revenue. This was up 23 per cent on the previous year, which in turn was up 23 per cent on the year before that. Not only is it a good export earner; it is a growing industry, increasing its earnings for Australia, particularly overseas earnings which are so important because of our balance of payment problems. The industry needs all the encouragement it can get. There is a move to increase levies for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, for its general operating expenses and promotion. It is important that producers support the levies at the coming annual general meeting which will be held, I think, in Albury in early December. It is also extremely important that producers be prepared to support the increase in levy for research because, again, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation has demonstrated in a relatively short time that it is determined that research will be very much directed towards what I call the applied area; in other words, somewhere in the short to medium term results will be achieved for the industry. I congratulate the Research and Development Corporation on the way it has moved from straight production research and is shifting 50 per cent of its effort towards marketing. It is quite clear that already we are starting to see results from that. It is to be encouraged. I do that with the proviso that it is still important that Australia maintain a very strong strategic research effort, the sort of research we are looking at in the longer term, the sort of research on which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has established its world-wide reputation. Obviously, it is very difficult when a project is started to know what the pay-off is going to be. Results may not be found for 10 to 15 years. That sort of research still has to be encouraged, but the present moves by the Research and Development Corporation into getting better direct results will build the confidence of producers who are paying 50 per cent of all the research fees and will encourage them to support more research. There is no doubt that the industry will reap the rewards in the medium to long term. Some of the developments that have already occurred really are quite astounding. There is no doubt that, as they unfold, the industry will benefit. If the industry benefits, obviously Australia will benefit. In concluding these remarks, again I remind honourable members of the importance of the meat and livestock industry. It is one of Australia's great industries and great export earners. Its contribution has been very positive over a number of years. It has demonstrated its resilience and ability to cope with the very difficult residue problem. All parts of the meat chain are to be commended for the way they moved so swiftly to rectify that problem. I am sure that, with the ability and drive of the people who are now leading the industry, it will go a long way. But I just point out that some producers have been hit very hard financially because of the residue problem-in many cases for reasons not of their making. It is very important that those producers not be penalised for something they did not do. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.18) —As honourable members will be aware, my electorate of Capricornia is centred on the cattle capital of Australia; that is, Rockhampton. So, it is understandable that any legislation which affects the meat and livestock industry is of special interest to many of my constituents and to me. I have had the opportunity to canvass the amendments now before the House with leaders of the cattle industry, in particular. I refer to the Cattlemen's Union of Australia (CUA) and the United Graziers Association (UGA). I am pleased to say that there is general support for the Government's proposals. There is a clear appreciation within the UGA and the CUA that levies on producers are necessary if certain industry roles are to be carried out and performed by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) on behalf of those producers. Moreover, cattle producers appreciate the need to provide additional funds as this time for residue testing. This matter was canvassed by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). It is certainly necessary, in view of the events that we have experienced recently. I have noted, too, by talking to some grass roots members of the cattle industry, that there is strong criticism prevailing of the way the United States of America has applied the rules in the latest meat crisis. This teaches us a few lessons about the way the United States of America operates. However, graziers accept the need to give the Australian meat industry a clean bill of health on our international markets. That is why they will support and accept, regardless of the cost, the financial impediments placed upon them, and the levies, to ensure that our meat is clear of any residue. The producers I have spoken to accept the Government's decision to set a maximum levy for residue testing on cattle producers of $5 per animal slaughtered. They made the point that that is a lot of money but they are also very hopeful, as they believe the problem will be overcome in a matter of two or three years, that that levy should drop. They have also suggested, because of that expectation, that there be some type of review or sunset clause. I have explained to them that the AMLC does have that power, that what the Government has done is set a maximum, and that it is up to the AMLC, on behalf of those producers, to assess what is the financial requirement, what revenue they shall need, and set the levy accordingly. There is a belief that the residue will be eliminated and therefore the cost of testing will fall. I certainly hope that that is true. I think that will come about not only because of increased testing but also because of a new commitment amongst cattle producers. I hope that commitment flows across the general community because it has been demonstrated in recent times that it is not the graziers, it is not those on the land, who are necessarily causing the problem. The Government has shown great wisdom in giving the AMLC the option or discretion to vary the breakup of the levy. It is always easy to criticise governments and say they are out of touch. When we give such a power to an organisation that truly represents producers, those who have to pay a very substantial part of this levy, that criticism is minimised. The Government certainly has set the maximum levy to be paid-I think that is proper-but it is up to the AMLC to set the levy components within that maximum and that is what this legislation is all about. The proposition has been put to me that because of the need to give special emphasis to residue testing, maybe there is a case for the marketing and promotion component to be lowered at this time. Whilst I do not have any facts and figures to substantiate that argument, I promised the graziers to whom I spoke that I would at least put the argument forward. They are saying that the maximum cost of $8 is a burden upon them and whilst they appreciate that they need the $5 a head slaughtered, the idea of imposing a cost of $3 a head for marketing and promotion may not be necessary. They certainly felt that there was an argument for reducing that cost if the marketing and promotion component was dropped. This is up to the AMLC. I am sure that the Cattlemen's Union of Australia and the United Graziers Association of Queensland and their counterparts in other States would be only too pleased to argue this point at the AMLC level. Clearly, it is up to that body to balance the needs and set the priorities. There is a body of opinion which says that because the priority at this time has to be testing, that is where the money shall go. Another area of interest that has been raised with me by the producers is funding options. This is a very important area because we are talking about the way the levy is calculated. Again I stress that the AMLC has the power to consider any alternatives to the present per head of cattle slaughtered system. As honourable members will be aware, what happens now is that the individual producer pays a levy based on the number of cattle that actually get slaughtered. Many people believe that is unfair. One might say, `As you sell your cattle and you have them slaughtered, you pay your way'. I accept the simplicity of that argument because it means that there is only one point for the collection of the levy or revenue. It is certainly easy to monitor. It can be done through the slaughterhouses or abattoirs. It is certainly easy to collect but we have to consider whether it is fair. A number of people have said to me that under the present system, regardless of what the graziers' financial return is on the animals sold, they pay the same levy. For example, someone could sell a 300 kilogram beast on the supermarket trade and get a certain figure for that beast. Another grazier from the same district could sell a 700 kilogram beast on the Japanese market. One can imagine that the returns would be quite different. Those involved in the export markets in Japan would get a substantially different return. Yet the producers still pay the same levy on the beasts. Whether they get hundreds of dollars for the sale of one animal or whether they get double that, they still pay the same levy. There is a great difference in return to the graziers yet the same levy is paid. I urge the AMLC to consider the alternatives. Some of these alternatives have been well presented by Sinclair Hill and others. They have suggested that we could have some type of system based on the dollar return to the grazier-an ad valorem approach. Others have suggested that there ought to be a combination of weight and cash return. It has been suggested to me that there ought to be some type of levy payment based on cents per kilogram rather than per head slaughtered. Whatever we come up with, we have to make sure that the administrative costs do not outweigh the advantage of the lesser payment by the producer. At the same time, we must be looking for a fairer system and I hope that the AMLC, as it does have discretionary power, looks very carefully at the alternatives that exist, without incurring exorbitant administrative costs. It is always the fear that if we introduce a system we might bring in something that is very complex, that is very hard to monitor. Whilst it might be fairer up front in that one pays on the cash return one gets, or the weight of the animal sold, the final costs of running the system could be so high that it is not worth pursuing. The industry seems content, otherwise, with the amending legislation before the House but I have been asked to raise a couple of other issues that affect it. I refer particularly to the ongoing moves by the southern States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to bring to a head on 1 January next year a significant change in the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign (BTEC). The eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis (TB) is a very important campaign that has been supported right across the board by all sectors of the Australian cattle industry. The costs have been carried evenly across the industry, though I realise that a major part of the actual costs have been met by the Federal Government, and as well there has been a contribution from the States. The target for total eradication is 1992. I accept that the impending date of freedom status for New South Wales and its southern counterparts has long been recognised to be 1 January 1988; in other words, January next year. But many producers in Queensland are questioning the timing of this. Admittedly they are taking a hip pocket approach, and a very parochial approach, but they are claiming, and I believe them, that this will adversely affect Queensland producers. It will certainly affect their costs in comparison with their New South Wales counterparts. We will find that whilst New South Wales will continue to pay the levy, there will be no testing fee. That testing fee has been worked out at about $10 per head. When one considers at the moment that there are 260,000 head of cattle crossing the border between Queensland and New South Wales, if it costs around $10 per head we are talking about an imposition of $26m on the Queensland cattle industry. I suggest that not only is this an impost on the Queenslanders but also it could be an impost on the northern New South Wales meatworks at Casino, Lismore, Guyra, Gunnedah and even, apparently, Homebush in Sydney, which takes a lot of Queensland cattle. They will have to pay comparatively more for Queensland cattle than for New South Wales stock. I do not believe the store cattle they want will be available in New South Wales; they will still have to draw on Queensland supplies, and that means they will have to pay more. We will see a virtual closure of the border between New South Wales and Queensland. Any stock coming from Queensland will have to be tested. The reason will be that New South Wales will have freedom status but Queensland will not. In a way, it is saying that Queensland as a whole will be declared dirty as far as brucellosis and TB are concerned. This will affect even those graziers who in some cases have been free of TB for 10 years. They will lose that individual free status. They are going to suffer the extra cost that that will mean, and they will also have to bear the cost and inconvenience of holding their cattle for two or three extra days. It is understandable why Queensland graziers are concerned about this. I accept the fact that maybe the Queensland Government and primary industry Ministers over the years should have argued a lot harder against what was proposed, because it has been known that this new rule would prevail on 1 January. They have known, too, that some sort of cost would be borne by their producers. But we question-and I question on the industry's behalf-whether or not the rules will make the competition fair. I could argue against my own Queensland Government, saying that it ought to have been moving towards some sort of intermediate freedom status so that those areas that are free of tuberculosis and brucellosis would still be allowed to move their cattle into the New South Wales market; and I could argue that now that South Australia and the Northern Territory have come to some special arrangement providing the cattle move down one track, such an arrangement should be established for Queensland. But if we move ahead on that date, 1 January next year, which is only a few months away, there is a $26m cost on the Queensland market. That is the estimate of the Cattlemen's Union and it is backed up by the United Graziers Association of Queensland. I know that the BTEC groups have looked at all this and I know that this has been for years in the planning stage. I suggest that there is another way. It has been estimated that there are only 200 to 300 properties in the far north of Queensland which still have a problem. I believe that somehow we could isolate that area and separate it from the rest of Queensland. We could set up an interim or intermediate status arrangement so that cattle can still move freely between Queensland and New South Wales. It is in the interests of the meatworks and the economies of the townships I mentioned before, and in the interests of the hundreds of graziers in Queensland in the south, central west and east of the State who supply the New South Wales market. Because of the effect on trade generally, I believe that this matter should be looked at. I appreciate that Queensland is outnumbered because this matter will be decided by the primary industry Ministers in the various States. As one comes from the Northern Territory, one from Queensland and three from the south-one in South Australia, one in Victoria and one in New South Wales-with three against two, Queensland cannot win as it is in the minority. I query also whether the possible flow-on effect-and I suggest that it is a possible effect-is fair. If Queensland is declared effectively `dirty' when it comes to tuberculosis and brucellosis, because the border will be closed and there will still have to be testing, will that have any sort of effect on international marketing? Will it give New South Wales and the southern States a competitive marketing edge over Queensland? It has been suggested to me by advisers that that is not the case, but it is a concern and fear of producers in my electorate. I know I can be condemned for taking a parochial view, but I do not apologise, because $26m is involved just as additional cost. When one works out the value of 260,000 head of cattle to the State of Queensland, we are talking about a lot of money. I reiterate that there is an important need for an interim status for parts of Queensland. There is one other aspect that I want to raise in closing my remarks. I refer to the financial problems that are being faced by Queensland graziers who have affected herds. This Government has been very forthright in providing supportive compensation for those who have had to test and destroy and those who have to destock. But if a producer or grazier destocks his property, there is a time lapse that could amount to two or three years before that property is viable again. There could be three years of operating and maintenance costs before the property is back as a goer. Although the compensation is quite significant, it is whittled away. Therefore, there must be a new approach, a more flexible funding arrangement, a change in the rules, to allow these producers-and there are not many of them, but they are caught up in difficult financial circumstances-to draw on the rural adjustment scheme. At the moment they are not eligible. This proposition has been put forward by the Cattlemen's Union and I think also by the United Graziers Association, because they have as their objective the simple but proper task of trying to keep these producers in the industry. I thought that was the final matter I wished to mention, but there is one other matter I wish to mention in the few final minutes I have left to me in this debate. It is also a matter that affects people in my area. This arises from a problem that has arisen from an interpretation by the Australian Taxation Office as to the application of capital gains on renewed leases. I am sure that this matter has been raised with most members of parliament who have rural electorates, but there seems to be some confusion and an anomaly developing. A lot of the problem arises from the Queensland land Act which provides that when a lease expires there is an immediate expectation that that lease will be renewed, that a new lease will eventuate. But, because of an interpretation by the Taxation Office, the new lease is being seen as a newly created asset. Even though it is the same property with the same owners, the interpretation now is that capital gains shall apply. Mr Cadman —What! Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member interjects, but I suggest that he talk to some of his own colleagues from country areas. I spoke to the United Graziers Association about this matter today. I talked to Baden Cameron, to Peter Morris in Longreach, and to Sean Coffey in Rockhampton. They all concur that this is a very serious problem that confronts them, because they are getting all kinds of different interpretations from the Australian Taxation Office. What is happening is that when they get a new lease that might cost $300 or $400. That is set down as the cost of the new lease. It may be a situation that will not happen very often but if in a year's time that property is sold for $250,000, that $250,000 is deemed to be total profit and will be subject to capital gains tax. I do not think that is what this Parliament meant when it introduced the capital gains tax. I totally support the concept of a capital gains tax, but I suggest that we need to clarify the situation. We need to review the application of the capital gains tax. Where leased land remains the property of the previous owner, capital gains should not apply. Where no new asset is created the capital gains tax should not apply. In conclusion, the proposed amendments certainly have the support of the cattle industry, the Cattlemen's Union and the United Graziers Association of Queensland, and they have my personal support. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.36) —The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) raised a problem concerning pastoralists. I think he will find that that situation is exactly what is meant to apply. In fact, I remind him that immediately after the capital gains tax was introduced it was established that if a person operating a freehold business were to sell a lease of that business, the value of the lease premium would be deemed to be a capital gain on the day the business was sold. Mr Wright —You are wrong. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member tells me that I am wrong. The fact of life is that that has been publicised in a number of publications of leading accountants. That is the way the Commissioner of Taxation is dealing with that matter. It is not a matter of my being wrong; I am absolutely right in regard to the way the capital gains tax will be administered. We in the Opposition say that the capital gains tax was wrong. I do not know which matter the honourable member for Capricornia was referring to when he said I was wrong. Maybe he too is now coming to believe that the capital gains tax has implications for ordinary small business that he did not understand previously when the concept of the capital gains tax was sold to him by his Treasurer. Of course, tonight we are speaking in the second reading debate on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. These Bills all relate to increasing the cost of producing livestock in Australia. These Bills relate specifically to increasing costs resulting from the problems we are again having in that area. I have stood in this place time and time again to criticise the Government's meat inspection service. I am now directly involved in the business of health and day after day I say that Medicare is a disaster. However, the operation of Medicare is reasonable compared to the activities of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and its export inspection services, which are a double disaster. What a wonderful situation! It is much like the operation of this Government. The Government makes massive mistakes. It puts the country into debt. When it takes steps to reverse the horrible mistakes, it says that it is leading the world with its wonderful initiatives in running the country. We know all about that too. We find that the foreign investors are voting with their feet. They are leaving this utopia that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tells us they have got. Those investors believe that quality investments today exist in other parts of the world. When we were in government the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) apparently managed to let people export kangaroo meat. That was eventually deemed to be the fault of the Minister, because of the old-fashioned principle of the Westminster system of government-a principle completely killed by this Government. The reality is that we got more DPI inspectors. The fact that the DPI had messed it up in the first place apparently qualified it for more jobs and more charges. Of course, now we have the problem of chemical residues. We see the Commonwealth Government running around to States such as Victoria and Western Australia and saying, `We have got the solution. We are going to give you more of our people. Let us take over'. In the case of Victoria, the Commonwealth is even offering the service at a discount compared to State charges. In fact, it will be more of the same incompetence. We have to look at the evidence of incompetence in this particular area. I have a copy of the audit report of the Food Safety Inspection Services (FSIS) of the United States of America published in January 1987-six or seven months before the disaster of the discovery of chemical residues struck our meat industry. As I will show in a moment, it refers to things that it was doing out here in Australia in 1979, but the Department of Primary Industry still could not get it right. The Department is criticised at length in this report, which is signed by Robert E. Miller, Acting Assistant Inspector-General for Audit, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector-General. I will read a few extracts from this report. Quite frequently it mentions the FSIS. Page 9 talks about risk analysis of foreign inspection systems. It states: If controls over these areas were sound, the Foreign Programs Division would have reasonable assurance that the meat products processed and exported from these countries to the United States were wholesome. The development of ``systems approach'' resulted from recommendations in an FSIS November 1979 Task Force Report. This is when it told the rest of the world how it expected things to be managed at home. It goes on: Other information, such as a country's yearly residue testing results submitted to FSIS by foreign officials, would also play a major role in the assessment process . . . Our review of Foreign Programs Division files and discussions with Division management officials showed that the ``systems approach'' had been implemented for approximately 24 countries. On page 10 this report goes on to tell us: We noted several systemic problems during visits to Australia and New Zealand which, in our opinion, were attributable to the lack of continuing work using the risk analysis systems approach. In other words, FSIS was out here a year or so ago-this report was published in January 1987-noticing that things were not right in this country. No one can tell me that its officials came out here wearing trench coats and fedora hats. Our people knew they were here and no doubt told them of their concerns. Under the heading `Residue contamination: Use of Chemicals that were Prohibited or Restricted in the US' the report states: We found that Australia and New Zealand were routinely using and, in some cases, not testing for animal drugs and pesticides which were not permitted for use in the US . . . In 1984, the Food and Drug Administration determined that Albendazol was carcinogenic, and its emergency approval was withdrawn effective January 15, 1985. Yet in this paragraph the report tells us that Australia was still using that chemical during the time of the officers' visit. On page 12 under the heading `Differences in Residue Tolerance Levels' the report goes on: Products exported to the United States must meet U.S. standards for residue levels. During our review in Australia and New Zealand, we compared the U.S. and foreign countries' tolerance levels for various substances. We noted differences in the tolerance levels for six chemicals. For example, the U.S. tolerance for DDT was 5 parts per million in a sample of fat, and the Australian tolerance for the same substance was 7 parts per million in a sample of fat. Honourable members should not think that the officials did not tell us that while they were here. On page 13 the report states: Department of Primary Industry does not- it is talking about Australia here- monitor or follow up residue abuses reported to the individual states. We visited two Australian state government agriculture departments. We noted that in the State of Western Australia, suspect herds were not being quarantined. In the State of New South Wales, suspect herds were occasionally quarantined; however, there was no monitoring of the herds in quarantine by the state authorities to ensure that suspect herds were not moved or sold for slaughter. Also on page 13 under the heading `Effectiveness of Foreign Sampling Plans' it states: In Australia and New Zealand, we also examined the process by which samples for residue testing were determined. Both countries selected areas for sampling based on substance usage in a particular geographic area. However, the sampling plans do not meet FSIS statistical requirements. The people criticised in that report are the people who are asking this Parliament tonight to give them higher inspection charges so that they will do the job better. There is not much evidence that they have done the job well in the past. They are a disaster, as are their efforts to take over Australia. They are trying that now, and they will win in Victoria because the farmers are letting a few lousy cents overcome their common sense, and that means that we will not even have a yardstick. What are the costs? They were not even able to take notice of what the American importing officials required when they were out here and wrote this report, but now they tell us that they want to double and treble all the costs. That is their solution, just as it is that of everybody else in the system: `When we make a mess of it, give us more money and we will fix our mistakes'. We have this Treasurer who tells us the same sorts of things: `When we make a mess of things, give us the credit; in fact boom us up. I am the world's best Treasurer because I am now running around trying to patch up the mess I put Australia into'. What are the costs? At the moment, farmers pay a maximum $6 export charge-the old livestock inspection fee-on cattle. The meat inspectors want that increased to $18 maximum. They want that level of flexibility and there is only one certainty about that. We have been told before in this place that we do not have to worry because the figure is only a maximum and it will be a long time before we get there; but they always seem to get there in a heck of a hurry. It is not an amount of money that the farming community can afford. I heard today that apparently the Government is relaxing a little bit as to whether it will contribute to the residual testing program and the compensation for the meat that is currently stacked in America because the Americans do not want it because we ignored the recommendations and the discussions that we had with the American officials; we had to wait until we had container loads of contaminated meat in America to take any notice. Now we want to blame the farmers for the inactivity, and the continued encouragement of, and allowance to use, chemicals that other parts of the world, particularly the importing countries, have banned. More importantly, while all that is going on, an efficient service is provided in my electorate. It probably does not include residue testing, but one can get a bullock inspected for local consumption in my electorate, by the Shire of Northam, for $3.20, not the $18 that this Bill suggests is necessary to meet half the cost at Federal level. One can get sheep tested for 40c whereas the maximum requested under this legislation is $1.50 to cover half the cost. The point about it all is that the wrong people are being asked to pay. It would not be a bad idea if we had a levy on meat inspectors, and every time we allowed these horrid mistakes to occur, they paid the levy, they paid the increased cost. It is not a case where we should have to have the farmers of Australia paying to check every piece of meat-I know that it is not that, but lot testing-when it is a long time since they should have been encouraged to stop using these chemicals and the proper tests should have been done, and they should be done on the property. We have discovered in Western Australia that where power lines pass through farmers' properties, frequently the residue levels of dieldrin and other such chemicals are five times as high around those wooden electricity posts as they are on any other part of the property. That is, of course, because, as is typical, the electricity authority went through and all it was concerned about was protecting its posts. The cattle have grazed on that, and that has contributed to the quarantine of certain properties and a total loss of income for certain farmers. It is a problem, and the problem is increasing. Now we have this quite remarkable situation in Victoria where the State Government, or more importantly, the State Parliament, because the Parliament threw the proposal out previously, is going to reconsider and do a New South Wales and hand the whole thing over to the Federal authorities. They are the people who have been responsible for all the things that I have just read from that American report. It is about time that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) let all Australians read that report. As I understand it, it has not been tabled and it has not been published, yet it would certainly have been in the hands of the Department since February, many months before the problems concerning this residue in meat in America, and subsequently in Japan, were actually identified. The Victorian State Government tried once to get this somewhat expensive little problem off its hands-it was contributing 25 per cent of the cost of the fees and the rest of the costs were being met by the industry-and it failed, because at that time the farmers had the good sense to know that they needed a yardstick for efficiency and a yardstick for cost. But things did not work too well for the farmers because the Government had the last say. It took away the 25 per cent contribution and has now created a situation in Victoria for the farmers and the industry whereby inspection fees are higher than the half-price equivalent offered by the Commonwealth. But just how long do farmers think this half-price will last, and for how long will the half price that they are being promised be cheap? I implore any farmers in Victoria who are listening to the debate tonight to rethink the position of their representatives, because their representatives and the leaders of the farming community in Victoria are now demanding that the Opposition reverse its position and vote for this legislation. They say that it will be cheaper. If they think it will be cheaper, they should talk to some of the people around Australia whose properties have been quarantined and who have no living at all because of the mess-up by the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy and its Export Inspection Service. It is a case of too little too late. The problem has to be resolved by the taxpayer, and on this occasion a very specific part of the taxpaying community; namely the meat producers and processors. The Commonwealth Government, to empire build, is taking over the responsibility of a State government. There is no good reason why the Commonwealth should be involved in the inspection of locally consumed meat, particularly when there is evidence that, at a 100 per cent charge, certain authorities around Australia can do a good job. Let me assure honourable members that nobody has been in any health difficulty as a result of the inspection services of the Shire of Northam. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should take over that service. It is estimated that it will cost $6m or $7m to do so-and we are being told how hard things are. Things are not too hard when Commonwealth departments want to increase their sphere of influence. How many Victorian meat producers have thought about the problem that they will have when there is one meat inspectors union in Victoria? We saw the tragedy of the Mudginberri abattoir where the workers wanted to work, where there was a market for the meat and where the State Government was prepared to give financial assistance in the circumstances. Who stopped it all? The Federal meat inspectors. They would not go on to the property and could not be forced to do so by this Minister. He was too frightened to do anything about that; Bill Kelty had told him that he was not allowed to. We know that the Federal Government even broke the law in that case, as was proved in the courts of this country. It then tried to sneak in through the back door and change the law. Thank goodness we have a Senate that was able to stop that. What will be the reality if the Victorians give away this inspection service? I know that Mr Burke, the Western Australian Premier, would dearly love to give his meat inspection services to the Commonwealth also, but I think we in Western Australia have a bit more intestinal fortitude to fight it a little longer at least, and it will certainly be what I urge. If the Victorian farmers think they can save a few cents now and that they will get in front by accepting the services of the Commonwealth, they have another think coming. They will see ever-escalating costs. The Minister has been reported in articles in the National Farmer as saying that it is his intention eventually to achieve a situation where 100 per cent of inspection charges are levied against the farmers. That is the message, and one never knows how far the Government will get. It is unbelievable that the Victorian industry would be so foolish as to contemplate giving away its independence in this way and hand it over to a group of people who have consistently failed Australia on these matters. They failed Australia on the substitution racket; we know how many of them were in it. I remind the House that I went to the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry and gave my evidence in relation to solutions that might come forward. I was attacked by the Queen's Counsel representing the meat inspectors, who said, `But look at all the corruption you would have if there were private enterprise meat inspectors'. I said, `What do you think this inquiry is all about? Taking the Government dollar certainly has not guaranteed the integrity of your members'. They let us down then, and the evidence in this American audit report is that they let the Australian farming community and the Australian nation down again over chemical residues. Through this legislation they want the producers to pay up to fix the problem. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(8.56) —I support the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-Stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill. The introduction of these Bills is further proof of this Government's efforts to increase exports by reducing red tape. Australia's overseas trade can only be improved by moves to make statutory authorities more responsive to market demands. In this cognate debate, I wish to direct my remarks to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. This is due to the importance of the beef industry to the Australian economy and within my own electorate of Rankin. During 1986-87, export revenue from the beef industry amounted to about $2 billion-an increase of 23 per cent on the previous year's figures. Two of the main factors accounting for the improvement was the industry's ability to take advantage of a devalued dollar and improved marketing campaigns. Over 550,000 tonnes of beef and veal were exported last year, with the majority going to four major markets-the United States of America, Japan, Canada and Taiwan. The United States is by far the largest market, importing 340,000 tonnes of beef in 1986-87-an increase of 19 per cent on 1985-86. I am sure that the future outlook of the Australian beef industry is bright. Exports are running strongly, domestic consumption is improving and the size of the national beef herd is increasing steadily. The industry seems to be in a good position to utilise any further fluctuations in our exchange rate and openings in foreign markets. However, the image of the industry has been dealt a severe blow with the discovery of pesticides and antibiotic residue in shipments of Australian beef to both the United States and Japan. The first shipment of contaminated meat was found in the United States on 30 January of this year. Nine shipments were rejected before the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service implemented a more stringent testing system on 25 May. By comparison, there was only one detection of chemically contaminated meat in the United States in 1986. Following the findings in America, Japanese authorities discovered five residue violations in Australian beef. Four of the cases had been produced prior to 25 May and contained dieldrin and DDT. The other shipment was produced just after that date. While no export restrictions were imposed by either the United States or Japan, the chemical residue crisis posed a serious threat to the meat trade. I am pleased to say the Federal Government was quick to act on this issue. A national action plan has been implemented and it provides $600,000 for publicity and testing of meat in America. A program co-ordinator has been appointed in the United States and inspection staff have been employed to supervise sampling. The States have passed laws concerning sales and use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT, and a procedure for testing and traceback of infected stock has been introduced. The Federal Government has also increased funding to the national residue survey as another means of tightening up on testing of Australian meat. The survey was established to ensure that Australian beef met American requirements, and over the past two years over 3,400 tests have been carried out. Last year's budget for the survey was only $1.3m, and this has been increased to nearly $6m for 1987-88. The three livestock Bills currently before the House are also part of the Federal Government's strategy of improving the image and efficiency of the Australian beef industry. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill's main aim is to streamline the operation of the Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Both the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill will impose charges-one on the export of livestock and the other is to be levied on slaughter at abattoirs. The charges will raise funds for increased market promotion, research and, in the case of cattle and buffaloes, bovine disease eradication. Funds raised under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill will also enable the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to purchase and dispose of meat which runs a high risk of being contaminated by pesticide residue. Money will also be provided for any programs which the Corporation undertakes to avoid a repetition of the chemical residue crisis. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation has developed a five-year plan to take advantage of the extra revenue raised. The plan calls for a more efficient marketing and promotion system. Moves have been made with the establishment of two systems-Ausmeat, an organisation responsible for quality standards, and CALM, computer assisted livestock marketing. More emphasis needs to be placed on the need to identify and develop new marketing opportunities. To this end, promotions will concentrate on foreign markets. This accounts for about 53 per cent of all beef and veal sales. Successful domestic advertising campaigns which have increased meat consumption will be used as role models. Priority will be given to advertising in the four major meat markets-the United States, Japan, Canada and Taiwan-and also in developing markets such as South East Asia and Africa. It is a good insurance policy for Australia to develop further markets, particularly in light of the increasing protectionism of many of our major buyers. One outstanding possibility is the Pacific region, destined to become one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world. For example, Korea has been importing in excess of 50,000 tonnes carcass weight per year. There is also an increasing demand for Australian beef in Japan and the United States, despite import controls. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has already introduced an advertising campaign for the Middle East. The campaign is similar to the successful short cuts campaign in Australia. Advertisements will appear in all media emphasising the quality of Australian beef. If successful, the campaign will regain ground lost to subsidised imports of the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1977-78 the Middle East imported 75,000 tonnes of Australian beef, a figure which had decreased to only 2,500 tonnes in 1985-86. Unfortunately, the Australian beef industry's long term prospects will be affected by factors over which it has no control. Protectionist measures are currently being considered by the American Congress. The United States Trade Bill contains provision for extension of rural subsidies, import quotas on lamb and further reduction in the purchases of sugar cane. Many Australian farmers and marketing authorities blame the undermining of world prices of grain, especially wheat, on the readiness of the United States to subsidise domestic produce. The same undermining is likely to happen in the international beef industry if the United States subsidies are approved. The United States has already cut imports from September of this year. The Australian Government agreed in September to cut back on beef exports to 327,500 tonnes. By agreeing to the restriction the Government stopped the imposition of an import quota which would have cut Australian exports to the United States to 282,500 tonnes. Another destabilising factor on the world markets may be the changes in dairy policy, particularly from the United States and the European Economic Community, which both face the major problem of oversupply of dairy products. The EEC has decided to reduce this problem by slaughtering 2.5 million dairy cows. This will lead to an increase in the amount of manufactured beef on the world market. There is a long term need for the reform of world agriculture policies. Australia has taken a leading role in this area with the formation of the Cairns group. At this point I pay tribute to the previous Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, for the efforts he put into the formalisation of the Cairns group. However, despite the fact that international markets are dominated by protectionist policies, Australia still managed to increase its sales of beef last year. This is due in no small part to the forward planning of both the Federal Government and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation in protecting access to Pacific markets. It is vital to the future of the Australian beef industry that the Andriessen-Kerin agreement continue. This agreement prohibits the EEC from selling subsidised beef in a number of our major markets in the Pacific region. It is expected that Australia's beef production levels will be around 1.5 million tonnes in the 1990s. This is some 50,000 tonnes more than at present. New markets have to be identified and developed to absorb the surplus. Australia needs to export more beef to convince the world that we have the best beef product available. It is particularly important in Japan, where the Japanese consumer has been given the impression that grain fed fatty beef is preferable to the lean beef that comes from the Australian market. I am sure that if the Australian Government put that effort into making the Japanese buyer aware of the much higher quality of Australian beef, that market could develop considerably. However, we have to be very conscious of the enormous trade pressures on Japan from the United States to accept imports to bring about a balancing of the trade differentials between those two countries. I am pleased that this Government has taken the necessary steps to increase the funds available to Australian beef authorities to allow this to happen. Money raised from the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill will play a great part in promoting the public image of Australian beef. If we are to remain a major world trading partner we should promote our beef throughout the world, not only in our existing markets but also in new markets. Promotion is the key to success. I commend the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) for introducing these Bills, and I commend them to the House. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.06) —We are discussing a raft of Bills tonight-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill-concerned with amending much of the legislation dealing with the meat and livestock industry in Australia. Central to these discussions is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) and all the bodies and organisations that go with it, such as Ausmeat, computer aided livestock marketing (CALM), the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation was established in 1977 under an Act of Parliament and has a full time staff of 185, which is up from 168 last year. Basically, the AMLC has as its goal to set up the best marketing system it can for those in the livestock industry, whether they be producers, processors or sellers. This involves activities such as identifying both present and potential consumers of our livestock products, and supplying them with the product they want in the best and most efficient manner possible. Not only do Australian producers supply virtually all of this country's domestic market, but Australia has become the world's leading exporter of both meat products and livestock. In the 1986-87 financial year the value of our meat exports reached $1,900m, which was an increase of 23 per cent on the previous year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two short tables from the AMLC annual report showing the beef and veal export markets and the lamb export markets for the last financial year. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- BEEF AND VEAL EXPORT MARKETS, 1986-87 % Tonnes USA ... 61 340,000 Japan ... 20 112,000 Canada ... 6 34,000 Taiwan ... 5 25,000 Other ... 8 43,000 Total ... 100 554,000 LAMB EXPORT MARKETS, 1986-87 % Tonnes Middle East ... 41 21,500 USA ... 16 8,200 Japan ... 12 6,300 EEC ... 10 5,200 Canada ... 4 2,100 Other ... 17 9,600 Total ... 100 52,900 Mr COBB —I thank the House. When we look at those tables we can see that we exported some 554,000 tonnes of beef last year, which was up from 468,000 tonnes the previous year, which is a healthy lift. However, there is one note of concern in the beef table, in that 81 per cent of our exports went to just two countries, and 92 per cent of our exports went to just four countries. Therefore we are somewhat vulnerable to having our exports slashed if one or two of those countries withdrew or substantially wound back their imports for whatever reason. I believe the AMLC should give a high priority-as I am sure it does-to expanding exports to other countries as rapidly as it can as some sort of insurance policy. It is interesting to note that apart from the four main countries listed in the table, that is, the United States of America, Japan, Canada and Taiwan, only three other countries, namely the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and interestingly enough, Papua New Guinea, take more than 5,000 tonnes each. The lamb industry increased its exports marginally last year from 49,350 tonnes to 52,900 tonnes. That industry is not in quite the same situation as the beef industry. It exported 79 per cent of its product to four countries. I believe there is enormous potential for it to export to many other countries in increasing quantities, particularly once we can educate countries, such as Japan and the United States of America, which seem to have some prejudice against eating lamb, which is only very slowly being broken down. It is interesting to note that the United Arab Emirates is now Australia's biggest purchaser of chilled lamb. Mutton exports last year were up from 94,000 tonnes to 110,000 tonnes, and Japan and Iran are by far the biggest importers of our mutton. We exported 3,000 tonnes of buffalo last year, mainly to West Germany. We exported 4,900 tonnes of goat meat, mainly to Taiwan and the Caribbean. We exported only 3,356 tonnes of pig meat, although that was triple the 1,032 tonnes of the year before. Most of last year's tonnage went to New Zealand, interestingly enough, and the United States. So I think there is big potential to increase exports of pig meat. We exported 49,000 tonnes of fancy meats, which was up 9,000 tonnes on the previous year's effort. In total, we exported over three-quarters of a million tonnes of meat, the exact figure being 770,579 tonnes, which was up from the 658,035 tonnes of the year before. As well as in carcass meats, we lead the world in livestock exports. Last year we sent 7.7 million live sheep, mainly wethers and a few rams, to the Middle East for slaughter. That figure was up from 6.3 million the year before. Most of that increase came about because Libya re-entered the market with an order of 780,000. Also Algeria came in for the first time with an order of half a million. I believe that that figure could be doubled in the near future. As well as live sheep for slaughter, we sent away a modest 12,600 breeding sheep, which consisted mainly of first-cross ewes to Algeria. Some 60,000 cattle went away for slaughter. Most of those would go through a feed lot before they would be slaughtered overseas. Twenty-one thousand breeding cattle were sent away. Forty-four thousand goats went overseas, which is a surprisingly high figure. This returned something like $15m, so that is a growing industry. As well as that, we exported close to 4,500 buffaloes. The domestic market, of course, is still our most important market. Last year we slaughtered 630,000 tonnes of beef, 240,000 tonnes of lamb and 120,000 tonnes of mutton. It is interesting to note that the average Australian now eats 39 kilograms of beef and veal each year, 15 kilograms of lamb and seven kilograms of mutton. That adds up to 61 kilograms of red meat per year. I am pleased to note that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is trying to reverse the steady decline in consumption, especially in beef, that has been taking place in recent years. It has been doing this in a whole host of manners, which is quite impressive when one reads its annual report. For example, its short cuts advertising program, as it was called, which was mainly shown on city television over the last 12 months or so, is now starting to bear fruit. It is taking note of the fact that 60 per cent of married women now work full time or part time and that 50 per cent of homes have a microwave oven installed in them and that, therefore, meal preparation these days must be increasingly geared for speed and convenience. This advertising program has been directed towards those ends. As well, the AMLC has been pushing the nutritional value of red meat in particular. Contrary to popular belief red meat has on average only about half the fat and cholesterol of chicken meat. I spoke in the adjournment debate last night about that matter and I have noticed that speakers, I think on both sides of this House, have highlighted it in this debate tonight. This is simply a myth that has been perpetuated in this country over the last three or four decades. I am delighted to see at last that accurate scientific studies have been done in Australia and that the reverse has been established. No doubt it will take some time for the message fully to sink in, but the Australian people can eat trimmed red meat with full confidence. The aim of the AMLC is to increase the use of meat served in meals per household rather than increase the amount of meat eaten per meal. To that end, the AMLC has used a lot of promotional material. I see that it sent out such material to 85 per cent of the fresh meat retail outlets in Australia, which includes 6,800 butchers and some 1,500 supermarkets. In addition, material has been sent to schools, which I think is a good, long term investment. Material has also gone to 40 per cent of the waiting rooms of general practitioners' surgeries around Australia, which is some 3,200 waiting rooms. The Corporation has been involved with sporting bodies and it has consulted the National Heart Foundation of Australia, which, I am delighted to see, now endorses the desirability of having red meats in a balanced diet. I wish now to make a few comments on Ausmeat, which is the official national organisation for quality standards of meat and the accurate description of meat. The aim of Ausmeat is to ensure that when someone buys meat of a certain description, he can be confident he will get what he pays for. That is particularly important for our reputation in export sales. To do this, Ausmeat is rapidly moving towards establishing a standard carcass for the beef and sheepmeat industries and, more recently, for the pig industry. I think that everybody would support that move towards standardisation. However, the legislation has some disquieting aspects regarding the provision which formalises the ability of the AMLC to work with the Australian Pork Corporation in the development of marketing schemes for the pork industry. According to page 36 of the AMLC's annual report, the Attorney-General's Department has indicated that the inclusion of the pig industry's activities in computer aided live-stock marketing and Ausmeat are in breach of the AMLC Act. This legislation overcomes that. However, as the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) said, a large number of pork producers from the central west area of New South Wales have complained, particularly to me, that they were not consulted regarding these changes. They are particularly upset about the changes to the carcass trim definition being suddenly implemented without them knowing about them. The pigmeat industry has had its act together, as far as a standard carcass goes, for some years now. But now that standard is to be changed and parts such as the foretrotters, kidneys, kidney fat and flare fat will be trimmed from the carcass at Ausmeat-accredited abattoirs. That includes all export abattoirs, and will eventually embrace most, if not all, other abattoirs. This extra trim, which used to go with the carcass to the butchers, is now thrown down the chute at the abattoirs to be processed into meat meal, which sells at a much lower price. The complaint I have been getting from the central west producers is that they will only get the same price per kilogram for the remainder of the carcass, even though it is upgraded, as they get for the less heavily trimmed carcass. Mr Peter Fisher —Isn't that being passed on? Mr COBB —It is not being passed on, as yet, in the central west, which may surprise some people. That is unfortunate. As 2 kilograms or more of trim is being removed from each carcass, the producers in the central west have suddenly found that they are getting $2 to $3 less for their carcasses. The butchers are not paying more for the upgraded carcasses. That is something that producers cannot afford in these tight financial times. As something like 98 per cent of pigs killed in Australia end up on domestic tables, perhaps a compromise can be arranged, through discussions between Ausmeat and the producers, so a satisfactory arrangement can be reached, without jeopardising the Ausmeat concept, with which I think everybody is in agreement. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) will take time to listen to these complaints and facilitate this, as many producers, such as John Wardle, John Neels, Tony Cheshire, and Des Reynolds, have contacted me with their very genuine concerns. I now say a few words about CALM-the computer aided live-stock marketing concept-whose aims are: an accurate description; direct sales; better transport co-ordination; less weight loss of beasts sold; less bruising, and less handling stress. CALM kicked off with sales in November of last year. I note that the Minister launched the national commercial operations on 1 July this year. The sales through CALM have grown steadily from a modest but promising beginning. Many are still waiting on the sidelines to see how it goes. There have been some teething problems in setting it up, getting the computers in place and programming them, et cetera; but these troubles are gradually being ironed out. As at 30 June this year some 402 cattle assessors and 307 sheep and lamb assessors had been accredited, so there is no doubt that the CALM system will continue to grow. I would like to make some comments about the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. I have in my hand its annual report, in which it states that it spent $16 1/2m last year. The Research and Development Corporation has been concentrating on areas of livestock production, processing, storage, transport and marketing. It is starting to range fairly widely with its research projects. Looking through some of the titles I see that it is all good research but, as I have said, it is ranging widely and I am starting to wonder whether some of it would be best done by other organisations. The Corporation is doing projects on sowing salt bush in salty sites, investigating plant poisonings and developing vaccines in trying to improve pastures around the country. These are all worthwhile projects but I wonder whether they are best done by this organisation. I hope it does not grow into a bureaucracy. I would like to make some comments, as did the shadow Minister for primary industry, on the equal employment opportunity clauses in this Bill. This is the first step towards quotas. An annual report will have to be brought down each year, which will be an extra cost on the industry. While none of us in this chamber is against equal opportunity, nevertheless I believe that the clauses are so worded that the legislation will discriminate positively towards women and other groups. This will only bring tokenism into employment opportunities for women and therefore in the long run it will be degrading for women. I shall say more about that matter when we get to the committee stage of the debate. There are clauses in the legislation regarding the annual general meeting that the AMLC holds every year at which registered producers and registered processors may vote. I am sorry to see that it appears there is waning interest amongst the producers. Not long ago 36,000 were registered. I believe the number is now down to about 20,000. I would encourage as many producers as possible to register because some matters which are vital to the hip pocket will be raised at the annual general meeting not only this year, which I believe will be held on 3 December in Albury, but also in future years. The voting procedures have been a shemozzle until now and, while there are improvements in the Bill, there is still lots of ground for improvement. For example, the amendments specify that a motion to impose a levy will be defeated if, and only if, 75 per cent of those people present, either in proxy or in person and in each register, oppose the motion. The Cattle Council of Australia quite rightly has pointed out that the onus is on defeating, rather than supporting, the motion-which is, of course, a flip-flop on what would normally apply under the Companies Act. A minority of shareholders on one or other of the registers could ensure that a motion was carried even though a clear majority was against it. One need only refer to the 1985 annual general meeting, when 10,300 producers were registered to vote-they either attended the meeting or gave their proxy vote-but only 29 processors were present. Of course, if all 10,300 producers had voted against the increase and 21 out of 29 of the processors had also voted against the motion, it could still have been carried, even though the overwhelming majority would have been against it. I would like the Minister to clarify whether a simple majority of the processors and the producers is needed, or whether a 75 per cent majority of those on both registers is needed. I think that that needs to be explained. There seems to be some confusion about it. Lastly, I comment about the Selection Committee, which appoints people to the Research and Development Corporation and the AMLC. It does not now have to bring down an annual report. Last year's annual report, which shows that $63,000 was spent to re-elect four people to both of those corporations, was only two and a half pages in length, and was printed on very simple paper, and would have cost only a few cents per copy. It is a disturbing trend and I cannot see the logic of it. I cannot see how costs would be cut in that area. Other honourable members have spoken about the levy increases and residue increases, so I will not speak about those matters on this occasion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(9.26) —Over recent years the primary industry commodity sector has undergone very major changes. Farmers have recognised the need to improve their efficiency. In more recent times the same can be said of the processors and sellers. The Government has played its part, in partnership with the farm sector. Its record, I believe, is second to none. Of course, it is part of the Government's overall program for Australian industries generally to ensure that they are in the best possible position in this latter part of the twentieth century to take advantage of the markets that are emerging and the ones which we already have. The statutory bodies have been restructured in all commodity areas. This action has given them the opportunity to serve the industry more effectively. This has clearly been of benefit not only to all sections of the industry but to the Australian economy as a whole. Now, according to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC), its long term goal is to create an optimum marketing environment for producers, processors and sellers of Australian meat and livestock, and thereby to enhance their profitability. In a climate that can be fairly described as difficult, the AMLC, in carrying out its charter, has, I think it must be accepted, achieved considerable success. It would be remiss of us not to mention the splendid efforts on behalf of the industry of its Chairman, Mr Dick Austen, and the Managing Director, Mr Peter Frawley. During the recent problems caused by the detection of unacceptable levels of pesticide residues in Australian beef exports, to the United States in particular, these men exercised a disciplined leadership role in the industry. Working in co-operation with the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, they were able to take the heat out of the debate. Negotiations were worked through to achieve the most satisfactory result which could be expected in the difficult circumstances. There has been a very wide-ranging debate on the package of legislation that is before us. I would like to address most of my remarks to the amendments which form the major thrust of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the four Acts associated with the meat and livestock industry to incorporate a number of minor changes to the consultative process and the procedure at general meetings, and also to implement an equal employment opportunity plan for the AMLC. It also formalises the arrangements of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to work with the Australian Pork Corporation in the development of marketing schemes for meat and livestock. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, which was established by legislation in 1977, was amended in 1984 to give the organisation the primary function of facilitating the marketing of meat in Australia and overseas. Therefore, it is principally concerned with commercial matters. Having a strong element of accountability to the industry, it receives most of its funds from the industry. Two recent and very innovative projects initiated by the AMLC that are having, or no doubt will have, a major impact on the industry are, as has been suggested before in the debate, the computer aided livestock marketing system (CALM) and Ausmeat, which is a marketing tool designed to allow a buying system to operate across the industry. The aim is to make the industry more sensitive to consumer and processor needs. A very competitive market, direct delivery and reduced handling stress on livestock are the results. The benefits are obvious both to producers and to buyers. It is particularly pleasing to note the progress of the CALM system, bearing in mind that it was only in November 1986 that developmental sales commenced. During this introductory period-over 500 producers, 180 agents and 80 buyers used CALM. The experience gained in the use of the system and the interest generated has enabled the commercial stage of the operation to be established on a solid base. To 30 June 1987 the sales figures through the use of CALM were $8.75m for cattle, $2.88m for sheep and $0.15m for pigs. I do not think that there is any doubt that this system soon will become a major influence in keeping the industry competitive. The second major initiative is the national produce distribution system, which is part of the major role of the Ausmeat national committee. As with a number of initiatives the Government has taken, the AMLC's Ausmeat is composed of a very comprehensive representation of industry interests. It has two major responsibilities. Firstly, in recognition of the Government's determination to encourage Australians to be conscious of quality standards, Ausmeat is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that all meatworks throughout Australia operate according to rigidly defined standards of quality. Secondly, Ausmeat has responsibility for establishing a uniform, descriptive language for meat and ensuring that all accredited meat establishments work accurately within a standard measurement and according to correct description. Once again, there is now strong evidence that, as a result of Ausmeat's activities, the marketing system for the meat and livestock industry is increasing in efficiency and effectiveness. While the Australian Meat and Live-stock Act 1977 is being amended by the House, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 also affects the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. The four bodies covered by the Bill were established as part of the revised industry structure set in place by the Government. Given the level of co-operation shown by the industry generally, there seems little doubt that these changes were long overdue. I just want to say a few words about the role of the former Minister for Primary Industry, now the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Since the Labor Government took office in 1983, the Minister has been responsible for more constructive measures to enhance and support the role of primary industry than has any other Minister for primary industry. I have no hesitation in saying that. In any discussion with farmers in my electorate of Ballarat the comment is heard over and over again that this Minister is an outstanding Minister and a good bloke. He is generally recognised as being well informed, diligent and sympathetic to the farming community, but determined to act on behalf of the industry for the good of Australia. These comments are often expressed even by farmers whose political viewpoints are diametrically opposed to those of the Australian Labor Party. They know value when they see it. Furthermore, I doubt that any other Minister in this portfolio has been more prepared than this Minister to meet farmers and farmer groups on their territory. That the bodies I mentioned earlier must be efficient, streamlined and in keeping with a strong market orientation goes without saying when their contribution to the economy is taken into account. For instance, it is anticipated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that in 1987 beef and veal exports will gross $1,185m. This represents 580 kilotonnes and, by any standards, the cattle industry is a major contributor to the economy. It is imperative that it functions efficiently in the market-place. When sheep meat, pork and goat meat are added, the picture is even more dramatic. Therefore, in the context of the international market-place, one can see how significant these developments that have been put in place by this Government really are. In many respects this package of legislation is mainly housekeeping in nature. I wish to make a few comments on the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. It was first introduced before the recent election, but since then the problem with pesticide residue has forced the industry to take stock of itself. I guess that it was a great shock to most Australians, many outside the industry, to learn of the very sad situation that had arisen. Possibly, in some respects, it might have been a salutary experience for all Australians although one which we would rather not have gone through. The major purpose of this Bill is to bring changes to the per capita slaughter levy. The original legislation increased the slaughter levy from $6 to $10. At the time it was felt that this would be enough, but the new residue testing regime and marketing program that has been required means that it will increase from $6 to $18. I suggest that the increased levy has the support of the major producer bodies, such as the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia. The levy rates on the slaughter of sheep will increase from 60c to $1.50, and for lambs 67c to $1.50. For the slaughter of calves the levy rises from $2.10 to $6.30, and for bobby calves from 60c to $1.80. Levy rates of slaughter for buffaloes and goats will also be increased. While the Bill increases the maximum rates, it does not necessarily mean that there will be an immediate increase in the operative levy. The current rates must remain until the decision to increase the levies is approved at the annual meeting of the AMLC to be held on 3 December this year. If the meeting agrees to approve these increases, that decision is required to be submitted to the Minister. It will then be put to the Parliament by way of regulation. Obviously, it will be some time before the levies take effect. It probably will not be until the first quarter of next year. I believe that the industry should be commended by the Parliament for the very responsible way in which it has accepted the need to move very quickly to tackle the problem caused by the pesticide residues. I would like to make a few comments on the pesticide residue problem. In the aftermath of the discovery of the pesticides in May, much has been done to screen products for both the domestic and export markets. It must be said that the controls put in place since May are beginning to pay dividends. The testing programs now show where the contaminated meat is coming from and a number of properties already have been quarantined. All sectors of the industry have demonstrated their willingness to monitor the issue. One thing which people outside the industry do not recognise is the high cost of the testing program. The AMLC has sent out a notice of motion suggesting that $5 per head of the increase be set aside for residue testing. Again, this demonstrates the bona fides of the industry. I have an export abattoir in my electorate-Glenburn Estates run by the Siegel family. I think it is only appropriate to commend all those involved with the firm, employers and employees, unions and management, for their willingness to tackle the problem head on. Because so many of the stock received by the abattoir come in small lots, or from small small lots, the cost of testing to this firm is considerably higher than it would be for a plant in a major beef producing area of the country. Apart from the fact that the company wants to stay in business and is therefore prepared to meet the cost, the proprietors also have a genuine concern as responsible Australians for the state of the industry and, in particular, our standing as an exporting nation in world markets. In spite of the residue problems, I do not believe there are reasons for being pessimistic about the industry. The United States of America and Australia have negotiated a voluntary restraint arrangement for the year, similar to arrangements we have already entered into. We have lived with these conditions before and there is absolutely no reason to doubt that we can live with them again. All sectors of the industry and the Government recognise the importance of maintaining US market access. The Japanese market appears also to be sound, as Japan has indicated it is prepared to take more than previously negotiated. The European Economic Community has indicated that it will not be shipping subsidised meat to the Japanese markets. Our responsibility as good marketeers is to provide quality and appropriate cuts at the right price. If we are successful, we will be able to compete against the US. Again the Bills are not controversial; they are necessary to help the industry and I commend them to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(9.41) —It is always a pleasure to speak on agricultural Bills, particularly of this nature. Of course we are reminded that the calling of the premature election resulted in this legislation not being debated early in the year, which probably would have been of greater benefit to the industry. It is appropriate to remark that the results of the arrangements put in place by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) a couple of years ago have shown some good results and, unfortunately, some bad results. The fact that there have been some bad results has led to the Minister coming to the Parliament to effect these changes. I compliment him on having the courage to come here and admit he was wrong. It does not give us in the National Party of Australia any great personal pleasure to say that we told him a couple of years ago that his proposals for annual meetings were just based on academic theory and would not work out in practice. We told the Minister, and we have been proved right. At the time he brought in these proposals there were 170,000 cattle units in Australia, and 36,000 people sought accreditation. At present, we have only 10,300 producers. We told him at that time that he could not transpose theory from academics into a practical situation as far as rural industry was concerned. Had he taken the trouble to look at the voting results of primary industry statutory authorities he would have been only too fully aware of the fact that farmers will not vote in elections like those he proposed, and they will not attend meetings. The annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation summarises its annual meeting in Perth on 2 December last year. It is a cause for great concern that only approximately 350 producers attended that meeting out of 170,000 cattle units in Australia and 10,300 registered producers. We talk about co-operation and consensus-and I do not oppose the implementation of increased funds for promotion; I am happy to support it-but I have great difficulty in understanding how we can have legislation based on consensus and yet we had at a meeting in Perth in December last year a motion opposing significant increases in promotion levies being passed by 12,611 votes to 4,708. The only other comparable figure that I know of is the majority I get in my own electorate. It would be wrong of me to put a view different from what that very high vote indicates I should put and different from the vote of opposition to significant increases in promotion levies given at a public meeting set up to get a consensus point of view. I make the point that at that meeting, following a report by Dick Austen, the proposal for increased funds for promotion was defeated. The meeting endorsed a proposal which increased funding for promotion when the Corporation, after consultation with the industry, put forward and justified its proposals. This brings me to the core of this legislation. Should we be wasting producers' funds in having an annual meeting which producers will not attend and which passes resolutions of which the Minister takes no notice? I find difficulty in understanding the sense of that. If I were a less kind and less reasonable person, I would say that the meetings are sheer nonsense. The facts speak for themselves. I believe that the hard-earned producer's dollar would be better spent in having a type of regional conference or seminar which would not be as costly for people to attend, and at which decisions could be made after an educational program had been set in place. One would hope that decisions having been made on a reasonable basis, at meetings attended by more than 350 people out of a total membership of 10,300, those decisions would be taken note of. Surely that is a reasonable and logical argument to advance. I do not want to be unkind in saying that annual meetings are a nonsense, but I want the facts to speak for themselves. It is appropriate to recall the remarks of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who said that the meat industry was doing pretty well at present. I smiled wryly when I heard Labor members recounting the significant export value and domestic value of our industry. They seemed to get an attack of the jitters. They did not mention that exports of live sheep for slaughter were up by 14 per cent to 7.7 million head. I wonder why they get nervous when they talk of the export of live sheep. That figure has increased by 14 per cent, and in meeting tough competition in national market-places one would produce the article that people want. I say on behalf of the National Party that we want to ensure that the industry gets the maximum return for the minimum cost. Obviously, the way to do that is to increase the number of live sheep and live cattle that are exported. Alternatively, one must do something to increase productivity in the processing works. I do not want to do away with jobs, and I am fully aware of the fears and frustrations of the wives and families of meatworkers who are worried about losses of jobs in the processing industry. Equally, I am aware of the fears and frustrations of the wives of cattle and sheep producers who are faced with declining returns, because of increased costs and because they cannot export to the best markets. I think I can be excused for smiling wryly when I find Labor members talking about the export of processed meat products but not giving equal emphasis to what I believe to be the significant trade in live cattle and live sheep. I would like to see that section of the industry increased. I get concerned when I see ever-increasing costs. When one totals the increased costs contained in all these Bills, one finds that the processing and marketing cost of a steer being processed for export, which brings $500 per head, is $40.55 per head. That does not include yard fees. It does not include transport costs. Of course, it does not include the costs of getting the beast up to the processing weight. It is an enormous cost. We have to be aware of costs, particularly the costs incurred in developing what we might term the upper section of the market, because that is where the competition really is. That is the competition we have to meet if we want to get into those high-priced restaurant markets in the rapidly growing, affluent markets of the Middle East and South East Asia. That places an extra burden on what we might term the feedlotters because they have to purchase what we in the trade call forward stores. Therefore, we have to contain the costs. Of course, promotion is very important. It is necessary to realise that overseas markets will look for a product that is good, appears good and is marketed and packaged in an attractive way. I again want to be honest and acknowledge the significant achievements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in the international market-places. Perhaps they could have achieved more, but at least they have had the courage to put before the leaders of the United States of America, the European Economic Community and Japan our belief in fair competition. I happen to be of the opinion that some of the tenders for the better cuts of meat for the Japanese market are written in such a way that the American market automatically supplies the product. One can understand the leverage that the United States uses on Japan, given the favourable terms of trade that Japan has with America. I compliment the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) on his logical and obviously knowledgable contribution about red meat. Of course, he was supported by the honourable member for Wannon. One of the very good things that research and promotion has done is in the nutritional and educational areas. It is interesting to note that red meat has been endorsed by the National Heart Foundation, which has included six cuts of red meat in the Heart Food Festival. As the last two speakers from the Opposition have said, those cuts of meat were endorsed on the basis of their low fat and low cholesterol levels. I was particularly taken by the slogan that the meat industry adopted for that particular exercise. I would like to repeat it. Some Government members, as they move around the cities, may repeat it and it might become contagious. The slogan is `Eat these to your heart's content'. The short cuts advertising program was also excellent. The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), who spoke previously, mentioned the many splendid achievements of the computer assisted livestock marketing system (CALM). I wonder why honourable members opposite always seem to be selective in their quoting. I would have thought that a very essential part of the CALM program was the assessors, both for the cattle section and for the sheep-lamb section. The honourable member talked about the producers, the agents and the buyers, but the assessors also have a very important job. They have to know their job and also have to establish credibility. I think that, in addition to the statistics cited by the previous speaker, the 402 cattle assessors and 307 sheep assessors should also have their contributions recorded. As far as research and development is concerned, I think that one of the great things that has happened in the cattle industry has been in the area of what we might term the embryo transplant program. Of course, that was developed by a great veterinary surgeon from Warwick in the electorate of the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall). I refer to Sid Miller, who worked in close association with the Inverary poll hereford stud operated initially by J. H. Anderson and now by his son Don Anderson. That has had great economic advantages for the cattle industry where, in effect, in the final analysis, the `poorer relation' of the sexes in the breeding program becomes of equal value to the male. The female is able to produce almost as many cattle in a year as the male animal. That has been of great advantage to the industry. We can adapt better feed to beef conversion ratios and we also have the ability to improve the quality of stock by access to higher quality breeding stocks. Obviously, I want to talk about chemical residue. It needs to be clearly understood in a debate such as this that the problem of chemical residue is basically not one caused by the industry that has been afflicted with the problem. It is what we might term a global problem, caused by chemicals used basically in the sugar, horticultural and grain industries. I am not making any charges against these industries as they used these chemicals in good faith. These chemicals were used on the advice of well known scientists and were approved by various State Departments of Agriculture and Primary Industry. But the problem is there and I now have some difficulty in accepting a proposition that a section of an industry that is affected, through no fault of its own, is called upon to bear the full burden of the cost. It seems to me that it would be a more reasonable arrangement if the Commonwealth Government, consistent with its approach of paying for 50 per cent of export inspection services, also contribute in a more meaningful and significant way to the costs incurred in chemical residue testing in State and Commonwealth laboratories. I offer that as a constructive comment in justice and in logic. I am not really sure what is happening under the present voluntary arrangements. The most recent information that I have is that 70,000 tests have been carried out at a basic cost of $50 per test, making an overall sum of $3.5m. Residue Testing Pty Ltd, the company involved, has only about half that amount in its coffers. Where will the extra money come from to pay the accounts sent out for tests done by various State and Commonwealth laboratories in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia? I understand that the arrangements are slightly different in Western Australia and Tasmania. I ask the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to give serious consideration to that matter because in the final analysis a government has some responsibility when an industry is unfortunately-through no fault of its own-afflicted with very heavy costs. That is particularly necessary when one considers that perhaps there is a valid claim by the industry that the Federal Government did not react quickly enough in recalling chemicals that were already distributed through other industries, and did not advance educational programs quickly enough. Mr Kerin —States, Tom. Mr McVEIGH —I am just offering what I believe is a constructive suggestion in a very difficult situation for many people, Minister. The Government is increasing the costs of promotion, research and disease eradication to a total of $15.55 per head under the present arrangements. That is a significant drain on ordinary cattle producers. I believe that it is consistent with the established arrangement of the Commonwealth meeting 50 per cent of export inspection costs that the Government consider helping an industry which is a victim of unfortunate circum- stances outside its control. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.00) —In view of the hour, I shall be brief. I understand we shall be having a debate in the Committee stage, when I shall be speaking about other matters. I rise to support the Opposition in its attitude as outlined by the shadow Minister for primary industry, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in relation to this group of Bills, and to make a couple of other points. In March 1985 we debated in this House certain Bills relating to the meat and livestock industries and the annual general meetings of industry members. Those subjects have been canvassed at length in the debate today and I want to refer briefly to the circumstances of the Acts that brought about the amendment that we now consider. In March 1985 the Hawke Government had not been long re-elected and the then Minister for Primary Industry stood fairly high with primary producers, and particularly with members of parliament from his own side of the House who represented rural industries. I remember members on that side being extremely intolerant of any criticism of the proposals being put forward by the Minister in this place. Criticisms of the meat and livestock Bills that were being debated at that time were swept aside. The central issue that we debate in these Bills is that those criticisms have been vindicated. We pointed out the shortcomings of the legislation at that time, and we were scornfully rejected by the Government, but they are being revealed more and more. Finally, producers are realising that they were sold a pup back in 1985. Some positive benefits came from the arrangements made at that time, and they were acknowledged then by the Opposition in the debate, but there was an element of delusion in the ready acceptance by certain members of the industry of the proposals put forward. Put simply, it was that many producers who were consulted prior to that legislation simply did not understand the mechanisms of government and of statutory corporations. Dissatisfaction with those mechanisms now surfaces, and producers are increasingly critical of the accountability of organisations such as the Australian Meat Livestock Corporation (AMLC) and those who fund the organisation. I would like to refer to a couple of things that I said in the debate on that occasion. I said: There are some positives in this Bill but there are also some negatives. I believe that the negatives could be substantial if the meat producers are not vigilant in their cause. My concern was that it was all too easy to dazzle producers with the science of corporations and annual reports, without them realising what the substance was. I went on to say: I think that the meat and livestock producers, who expect quite a bit from the changes that are contained in this package of Bills, may be expecting a little too much. Events have vindicated my view, as I outlined them then, and as they have been demonstrated in recent debate. I went on: . . . the industry had been sold a bit of a pup . . . When I hear a member of the Government saying to producers `Look, you are going to get the annual report, then you are going to have an annual general meeting, and this annual report is going to be the basic document for that meeting; this is how we will be accountable to you', I think there really is something the producers are not being told, and I want to tell them. I want to tell them that it is highly likely that by the time that annual general meeting is held, with them arriving at it with the Corporation's latest annual report in their hands, that report is likely to be 12 months out of date. The procedure for annual reports is as specified in the Audit Act, and there is reference to that in this Bill. But all that the Audit Act requires is that, as soon as possible after 30 June, the Corporation must present its annual report to the Minister who, within 15 sitting days of Parliament after receiving the report, must table it in Parliament. In the normal course of events, that is usually about eight months after the end of the financial year accounted for in the report . . . This Bill provides approximately three months after the tabling of the Corporation's report in Parliament there will be an annual general meeting. It is very easy to see that we are really running into about a 12-month time frame following 30 June of the previous year. The report is going to be quite out of date in terms of its reporting of the activities of the Corporation. The meat and live-stock producers are going to attend this annual general meeting-I believe at a cost of about $200,000 out of the Corporation's budget, and they will also have paid for the report they have in their hands-it is not going to be a gift; its cost will also be paid out of the funds available to the Corporation. I say to the meat and livestock producers that they are not getting very much accountability. That is the basic reason for the crankiness of producers at the moment. They have discovered that they have been sold a pup. Only those very close to the central decision-making process have a real say in the procedure. That is the reason that we have calls from producers for real decisions to be made at annual general meetings; not just an opportunity to say yes or no to AMLC decisions, but to participate genuinely. For a genuinely participatory scheme there must be ongoing consultation with the organisations that represent producers. I will say now, as I was not quite so crude in 1985, that in those terms the annual report is not worth a tinker's damn. The facts are that the annual report contained things that are well out of date. In terms of monitoring what a corporation is doing with the producers' money, it is really a farce to suggest that this would have ever been so. Those criticisms were made at the time. I am pleased to see that we are making some limited progress on the subject. But two and a half years later it seems that our progress is at about the rate at which annual reports are issued-rather out of date and a little too little too late. I hope that the Government will seriously address the concerns of producers to make sure that they get true accountability for those measures for which they are paying, and I hope that the Government realises at last that those who are paying the bill, in the case of the Corporation, for research in the area, are quite dissatisfied and they are entitled to better results. I will speak only briefly on the beef residue problem. It is, I understand, a very real problem for the Federal Government but it is a tragic problem for beef producers. Some very sad stories have been documented in the newspapers of people who have been really destroyed by the beef residue problem and who seem to have nowhere to turn. I note that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), by way of interjection on a previous speaker, referred to the responsibilities of State governments and I would like him to know that I do not totally disagree with him. However, this is not an issue for point scoring between Federal governments, State governments, or anyone else. It has the potential for creating a social disaster as well as an industry disaster, given that many towns in this country are dependent on the beef industry. I refer particularly to those towns in which the major employer is the local abattoir. Of course, there are two in my electorate but I will not pump the local electorate issue tonight because I know that many members on both sides of the House have that very real concern. Whatever the politics or the political complexions of the State or Federal governments in question, I only hope that their No. 1 priority is not their party political allegiance but their very real concern for the people whose welfare they are charged with caring for, and that that will be the prime issue in our meeting the challenge of the beef residue problem for our beef export industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(10.08) —I would like to make some comments on the debate. First of all, I would like to thank all those honourable members who have spoken. I believe that the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), made a well-reasoned contribution to the debate, putting forward many concerns that are relevant to the industry at this time. In general, although the Government disagrees with the amendments he foreshadowed, we believe that there is a large degree of concurrence about the way the parties in this chamber see the beef industry. I would like to thank, in particular, my colleagues the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) for their contributions and just briefly touch on some points made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). He touched on the question of provisional freedom under the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. That was discussed at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting and the special meeting dealing with the milk question in a more informal setting. Correspondence is under way between the State Ministers to see whether we can get a resolution of that problem. Similarly, with respect to the capital gains tax and the question of how that may apply to leases, I have made representatives to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as have other parties. I would like briefly to touch on some points made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). I do not want to go back into the history of all this but I actually went through that very long period of negotiation with the industry against a history in that industry of distrust between the producers and the processors that had reached such a point that the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) was rendered almost useless as an effective body. The discussions and negotiations I entered into with the Cattle Council of Australia, with Maurice Binstead; the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, with Mr James; and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council with Mr Bowtell, were long and I think all points of view got through. Of course, we had to reach a lot of compromises and there was a lot of discussion on the way. What we set up with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation led to part of the model for the statutory marketing authority reforms, with all the work we put into this whole concept of accountability after a lot of discussion in the Parliament, particularly in the Senate. The annual general meeting is one way of dealing with this accountability. The reporting back by people elected to these boards is always very difficult; the reporting back by industry leaders is always very difficult; the whole concept of consultation is very difficult. Of course, the board members themselves have an obligation to put forward what is happening to the industry on every possible occasion, and they do this. In the other mechanisms in place under the general statutory marketing authority reform, and the way in which the Wool Council of Australia, the grain industry and the dairy industry operate, there are all sorts of variations of models, with their pluses and minuses. Quite frankly, we will never solve the problem. Anyone who goes to the annual general meeting of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation believes it is a very successful way of getting discussion of industry issues on the day. I should tell the honourable member for Moncrieff that the annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1987 has already been tabled in this Parliament and it will be discussed at the annual meeting to be held on 3 December. That is not too bad compared with what happens in other industries. It is evidence, of course, that this system is working. I shall focus on this annual general meeting because it has been an issue of contention for a long time with the industry. I state that the existing provisions were included at the request of the industry. In the first place in all those negotiations the big fear was that a radical group would take over the annual general meeting. We found that maybe the provisions were a bit too tough and that is why we have moved this far now. Under the current provisions relating to the annual general meetings of the AMLC and the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation, a motion of no confidence or a motion to reject an increase in levy rates requires a majority of 75 per cent of all registered `shareholders' on each of the producer and processor registers. The proposed change to allow 75 per cent of those shareholders voting in person or by proxy to achieve the same result will give to such motions a reasonable chance of success. As I said, the original provision was included at the request of the industry. The proposed changes move some way to free up the situation, as sought by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray. He also made some comments about Ausmeat, and the carcass definition for pigs. The concern expressed was regarding the standard Ausmeat definition for pigs. I am aware that some sectors of the pig industry in the central west initially believed that they had been disadvantaged by the Ausmeat definition and, as a consequence, the Australian Pork Corporation negotiated with the Ausmeat committee of the AMLC for an additional category of carcass which includes many of the components required to be removed under the standard carcass definition. Both the Australian Pork Producers Federation and the Australian Pork Corporation are supportive of the pig industry's participation in Ausmeat. I simply say to the honourable gentleman that if further difficulties do arise they can be sorted out promptly between the appropriate bodies in the above manner. Mr Lloyd —Ausmeat has assured me that it is taking that matter further. Mr KERIN —That is interesting. On the whole question of chemical residues, as everyone has conceded, the Government acted quickly in conjunction with the States and the industry to implement an integrated action plan to prevent recurrence of the recent meat residue problems and it sent a delegation of senior officials to the United States, Canada and Japan to address those countries' concerns. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! It being 10.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGES COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 EXPORT INSPECTION (ESTABLISHMENT REGISTRATION CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1987] Debate resumed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —On the question of assistance, the Government has already provided $10m to the integrated action plan, and I have indicated to industry leaders that I am prepared to look at any proposal on its merits, but that any further government assistance would have to be well targeted at a substantial problem area. The fifty-fifty cost sharing arrangements proposed in the Opposition amendment would disburse assistance in a broad, untargeted manner, irrespective of need. Given the Government's funding commitment, I will not go through all the details now but it is only proper that industry funds its share. As we already know, in these Bills there is a capacity for the industry to take a decision in this regard, at the annual general meeting, about how it wants this matter addressed. Again, we are trying to give the industry the chance to make more and more decisions. The National Party's move to taxpayers funding 100 per cent of inspection costs just highlights the differences between the Liberal Party and the National Party. I just would not know where Senator Stone would swim in all of this business. Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Both the Liberal and National parties have exactly the same policy, that is 100 per cent payment for export production. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —Comments were also made in the debate, particularly by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who made his characteristically nasty approach to the debate. I would just like to address the question of costs and some of the allegations he made about the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service. Over the past three years the initiatives by the Inspection Service have enabled the number of inspectors to be reduced by some 230. This has resulted in substantial savings to the industry of well over $7m. Dual inspection in export works has been completely eliminated at a saving to industry of some $5m to $6m. The honourable member for O'Connor might be very proud of the system in Western Australia, but there were three systems there, plus one, and that was the nil system. Every report and every resolution by people on both sides of this House about a national inspection service, going back to 1956, including reports such as the report of the Kelly Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems, have always said that it is essential to have a national meat inspection service, and that that is by far the best way to approach this problem. While ever we export meat we need a Commonwealth stamp on the meat, because that is the requirement of the countries that buy our meat. The honourable member for O'Connor can indulge in all the fantasies he likes, but that is the fact of the situation. The meat export charge has been held at the 1984 level. The slaughter floor charge this year will be some 2 per cent below the level in 1984. The real level of the charges is some 25 to 30 per cent below that prevailing in 1984, when the split charges were introduced. Further studies are continuing in an effort further to reduce meat inspection costs, with emphasis on ancillary inspection in the export area. As we all know, the introduction of a fee for service charges next year will provide incentive for the industry to use the inspection resource more efficiently and further reduce costs to the industry. There is unequivocal evidence that the Commonwealth provides a cheaper service, contrary to the statements of the honourable member for O'Connor, even if the Commonwealth's recovery was at 100 per cent and not at 50 per cent. He raised Victoria's move towards a single meat inspection service, where the industry has requested the Victorian Farmers Federation to support the move to a single meat inspection service because of the cost savings to the industry. I know one firm whose savings will be in the order of $600,000. Just because there was a bit of vested interest in the opposition to the first move by the Victorian Government, there is no reason to penalise the industry in the way that the honourable member for O'Connor would seek to do. He also raised the report of the United States (US) Office of the Inspector-general (OIG) on the Food, Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). I would like to stress that Australia has received no official request from the FSIS for changes to the Australian system. The OIG's report was an audit of the FSIS inspection system as it applied to overseas countries and it commented on FSIS systems, not Australian systems. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy inspections systems are based on FSIS requirements, and they are equivalent to the US meat inspection service. I would also add that the FSIS itself also disagreed with a number of the OIG criticisms before the Congressional hearings in the US. Finally, where any of the points raised in the OIG's report pointed to improvements to be made to the Australian system these have been implemented on Australia's initiative. We have not been requested by the US to implement those changes. I do not have time in this debate to go through this whole question of chemical residues. But, of course, it was very relevant to raise the general concern. The honourable member for O'Connor is trading a little bit of dangerous information and he wants to use it to denigrate the Australian product. I could tell honourable members a lot about statistical requirements. If we really look into it we see that the requirements in the US for addressing the problem that we have had to address are exactly the same as we adopted. We could look at statistics until we were black and blue in the face. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) inadvertently had the wrong figures, but the most recent figure for the number of tests we have now conducted is 128,269. From all of that data we have found a violative level of 0.31 per cent. I have already said that I will not go into details, but I will just tell honourable members that we rely on a national residue survey which has now been enhanced. There is a lot of confusion in the minds of the public about what is a maximum residue level. That level has very little, if anything, to do with health. If we want to look at the health aspects of that maximum residue level we have to calculate average daily intakes and do studies into toxicity in species that may be affected by that average daily intake. The maximum residue level is an assessed level of insecticides that one could expect to be in the general environment as a result of the use of those chemicals. It has nothing to do with health. Australian Meat and Live-stock Bill Australian Meat and Live-stock Bill There have been criticisms that we have not put enough pressure on to the States with respect to registration and deregistration. We in the Australian Agricultural Council have been putting on the pressure-and the minutes will record that-for well over a decade. Even at the last Agricultural Council meeting, when I put it to the State Ministers that our Directors-General and my Deputy Secretary should meet to see what we could do about uniform registration and deregistration of chemicals, of course, the State bureaucracies wound up their Ministers when they finally sat down and said, `We will not make much progress in this area'. But I hope we will eventually. It is absolutely essential that, when we get a system of agricultural and veterinarian chemical registration, we have a uniform central point of notification and a central point of clearance with the States then going on to register and deregister. They should fully live up to what would be a sensible system throughout Australia and not go their own merry way with or without resources. There is a heck of a lot I could say about this whole question of the chemical residue problem we have had, but the attack on the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service by the honourable member for O'Connor was quite intolerable. I will write to him, as I will to other honourable members, attacking any point that was made in respect of which the comments were just plain wrong, vexatious or in need of some clarification. The only other question I want to comment on concerns the equal employment opportunity provisions-and we went through all this the last time we put in amendments relating to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act. I would just like to advise honourable members, with respect to the other statutory authorities where such provisions have already been incorporated, that the sky did not fall in. There is no sense in some people trying to disguise rather primitive or old-fashioned attitudes about this matter. I simply say that both the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act clearly state that nothing in the Acts shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit, as does the legislation relating to statutory marketing authorities. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L.Harvey, E. R. Simmons, G. W.Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Sullivan, K. J.Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W.Fisher, Peter Webster, A. P.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Halverson, R. G. Woods, R. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hewson, J. R. Beazley, K. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Brown, John Peacock, A S.Dawkins, J. S. Porter, J. R.Snowdon, W. E. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.34) —At the opening of this Thirty-fifth Parliament, the Governor-General, speaking on behalf of the Government, referred to an `agenda of reforms' which the Government claims are designed to build `a fairer and more compassionate Australian society'. Actions speak louder than words and, unfortunately, the manner in which the Government is implementing some of these so-called reforms bears no relation to its stated objective, as one of my constituents, Mrs Rosamond Ewan, has recently discovered. Mrs Ewan is studying part time for her Batchelor of Arts degree at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education. She is doing this course by correspondence, and is majoring in politics and psychology. She has successfully completed 15 of the required 24 units. In her endeavours to complete her degree, Mrs Ewan has faced many challenges, including a continuing battle with severe arthritis, and having to defer her studies owing to injuries resulting from two unfortunate accidents-neither of which was due to negligence on her part. But she has persevered and has conquered these not inconsiderable difficulties. Now this so-called fair and compassionate Government has confronted her with a further obstacle which even her considerable determination and courage cannot overcome. Mrs Ewan is over 65 years of age. She is a war widow, and her pension is her only income. From the $184 she receives each week, she must pay $80 per week rent for her flat. The remaining $104 must cover all her other living expenses, the cost of maintaining her car, and the costs associated with her studies, including books, accommodation on campus during weekend and vacation schools, and travelling expenses. Mrs Ewan has been refused exemption from the $250 per year higher education administration charge. Last month the Department of Employment, Education and Training informed her that exemptions from the charge were based on need, and that the age of students was not a consideration. The same letter also states that in deciding its priorities as to which needy students could be granted exemption, the Government was most concerned about people needing work skills. Obviously, some people over 65 would not meet this requirement. This written version of the Government's policy is, however, less brutal than the earlier verbal advice received by Mrs Ewan-and confirmed in a phone call from my office to a senior departmental officer-that mature age students would not be granted exemption from the tertiary fee because they are only benefiting themselves in furthering their education and there is no flow-on advantage to the rest of the community. Mrs Ewan is involved in a wide range of activities which benefit the community. She is a justice of the peace, President of Lilydale Voice of the Elderly, and a member of the Lilydale Consultative Committee, a group providing a valuable liaison service between local citizens and their shire council, and involved in the work of local church and youth groups, children's services, senior citizens, family and personal support groups, and other community-oriented activities. She is a member and past President of the Lilydale Returned Services League Ladies Auxiliary, which Government members do not know anything about. She is a member of the Combined Pensioners Association and President of the Yarra Valley Branch of the Pensioner Party of Australia. She serves on the State Executive of that Party, and has stood as an endorsed candidate on its behalf in elections for the House of Representatives in 1984 and the Senate in 1987. She is also a member of the Walking Stick Club, which, through a program of regular outings, assists house-bound and disabled people, and lonely senior citizens, to remain involved in their community. Mrs Ewan is a student member of the Australian Psychological Society, and on completion of her studies, intends to continue and extend her voluntary community work by assisting people who need, but cannot always afford, the services of a trained psychologist. But first she needs to obtain her degree. The remaining nine units will take her just over two years to complete, and she will have to pay out $750 in higher education administration charges-$750 she simply does not have. Honourable members should compare this $750 with the $250 it would cost a full time student to complete eight units. Is this a commonsense and reasonable policy? Where is the compassion when a war widow is told her pensioner status is not regarded as sufficient or legitimate grounds to exempt her from a fee that other pension recipients do not have to pay, because, despite the clever use of words by the Department, she is too old? Is it fair that part time students, even if studying only one subject a year, pay the same fee as their full time counterparts? There is no excuse for charging the same fee for totally different services, and no justification for denying older people in necessitous circumstances the opportunity to further their education on the basis that once one is over 60, one is a useless non-contributor, unable to give anything back to the community. I am appalled by the insensitive, insulting treatment Mrs Ewan has received. No doubt others in the same boat have suffered similarly. If this Government is as fair and as compassionate as it claims to be, I urge the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) to take immediate action to reconsider the plight of my constituent, and others similarly affected and waive the higher education administration charge in their cases. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.40) —During Question Time today I mentioned the goings-on of a company by the name of Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd. I thought that the House might be interested in knowing what was in a letter sent to me by that company. I understand that similar letters have been sent to a lot of people around Australia. What this company seems to do is simply send a letter to random people. It picks them out of the phone book or from the electoral role. This is the sort of letter sent-this one addressed to me: Dear Mr Sciacca, Did you know that a first edition book entitled ``THE BOOK OF THE SCIACCAS IN AUSTRALIA'' is about to be published and you are listed in it? A great deal of time has been spent to search through several million public records to locate and compile an extensive registry of Sciacca families living in Australia. I do not know where the company got the information because it cost me $50 just to get a birth certificate. I had to wait about two months because I had to get it from the little town in Italy where I was born. So it is an absolute con job; that is probably the best way of saying it. The letter continues: In addition, you will find general and informative chapters about the origin and meaning of names, the history of our Australian forefathers, coats of arms and heraldry, as well as practical guidelines about how to research your own family genealogy. Then it says: You'll learn:- How the Sciacca family got its name and what it means, as well as historical spelling variations. Where the Sciacca population resides in Australia with a household count . . . About a coat of arms granted to an early Sciacca. Besides its original heraldic description, there is also an interpretation and illustration of this Sciacca coat of arms, which is hundreds of years old. How to document the Sciacca family tree and research your ancestry. ``THE BOOK OF THE SCIACCAS IN AUSTRALIA'' is sure to be a valuable addition to your living room library. . . . . This remarkable collection of information is available only in ``THE BOOK OF THE SCIACCAS IN AUSTRALIA' . . . It is an absolute con job on the public of Australia. I understand that this matter has been mentioned on The Investigators. It has been the subject of inquiries by the Consumer Affairs Bureau in New South Wales and a number of other States, but these con people are still selling these things and finding people who are prepared to send the $39.90 for the book. I am particularly concerned to take these few minutes to urge the public, the consumers in Australia, not to be conned by this Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd, not to feather the nest of this company that uses terribly deceptive ways to con people into buying its product. If we read through the fine print, we see that the company can probably get away with this because it says such things as, `If you don't like it send it back'. How many people would take the time and trouble to repack the parcel, address it, pay the postage, and do everything else involved in sending it back? This is the biggest con job that I have come across, even in my time as a solicitor. As a solicitor, I saw a lot of con jobs and the way people sometimes rip off other people. But this must take the cake. In conclusion, I say to the House that the main reason I am so concerned about this matter is that it lies very close to home, because both my cousin and my brother sent away and purchased the book. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(10.44) —During the last election campaign, I received a letter from the Right to Life Association, New South Wales branch, which included a questionnaire designed to assess attitudes to pro-life issues. Although it is not my usual custom to answer questionnaires during election campaigns, I did so on this occasion. There was a misunderstanding by me as to the form the answers should take. Due to this misunderstanding, the direct opposite view was formed-quite understandably, I now see-by the New South Wales Right To Life Association people. I was very disturbed by this and gave an assurance not only to Mrs Kath Harrigan, the Honorary Executive Secretary, but to a great number of my constituents that I would be making a statement to the House to publicly state my views. The questions asked were as follows: If elected will you support or initiate moves to prevent the use of taxpayers' funds through Health Legislation for reimbursement of the costs of deliberately induced abortion? My answer to that is yes. The second question: If elected will you vote for legislative moves to prohibit destructive experimentation on human embryos as sought in the majority report of the Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985? My answer to that is yes. The third question: If elected to Federal Parliament will you support or initiate measures to ensure that Human Rights Legislation provides for the protection of human life from its beginning at conception to its natural end? My answer to that is yes. And the fourth question: If elected will you support or initiate moves to stop Australian Aid Funds being directed to Government Agencies and International Family Planning organisations involved in the provision or promotion of induced abortion? My answer to that is yes. I very much regret the concern this misunderstanding has caused a great number of my friends as well as certain other constituents in the electorate of Cook. I believe strongly in the answers I have now given to these questions and apologise for the inconvenience it caused many people. I make this statement of my views not because I was then a candidate, but because I hold the views as a matter of deep conscience and belief. While on my feet, I would also like to raise the issue of film and video classifications. I guess, Madam Speaker, you could say this is my puritan speech tonight. Not owning a video machine, I am not in a position to know what really goes on in video shops, because I never have cause to enter them. But recently I want to a local cinema to see an M-rated film called The Untouchables. For a mature audience, this is a very entertaining film, although containing what I consider to be an unnecessary level of blood and gore. I was interested to note, however, that when I saw it, a group of young sub-teenagers were present. Judging from their reactions to particular scenes, it was obvious to me why this film had an M-rating. In some scenes, I thought it should have had an R-rating-judging by the scenes which excited the sub-teenagers present. Upon inquiry I find there is still no way cinema management or their staff can enforce the guidelines associated with the PG and M classifications. Only with R-rated films-and in the case of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, X-rated films-are cinema and video shop owners legally bound to observe the classification guidelines. The Film Censorship Board definition of PG is parental guidance recommended for persons under the age of 15. The definition for M, or mature, is suitable for persons 15 years and over. It seems ludicrous to me that if we go to the trouble of instigating a film classification system which determines that an M-rated film is suitable for those over the age of 15, we do not make this legally enforceable. It seems to me that if a film is deemed unsuitable for young people, they should not be given access to it. What is the point of classifying a film if no one takes, or is allowed to take, any notice? Perhaps this is one area to which this Parliament should turn its attention. As we look around us today, it would appear that society is being engulfed by waves of violence. Certainly this is the case in the Sydney metropolitan area. I would hazard a guess in suggesting that the level of violence may just have something to do with the glorification of violence we are seeing on the small and large screen. The adverse effect of violence amongst the impressionable minds in our community is obviously not being given enough weight. Let us not be tolerant. Violence is obscene. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.48) —During the recent municipal council elections in the city of Ballarat, a Mrs Cathryn Laffey was successful in being elected as the representative of Parkwood. Apart from congratulating Cath I want to make a couple of comments. Cath is a financial counsellor with the Ballarat Children's Home. She has assisted many hundreds of people, particularly those with very low incomes, to manage their budgets. A very interesting postcard came across her table recently. I comment on this because quite often people are very critical of public servants. People do not believe they are very diligent or set out to overcome any difficulties they might encounter. I want to give the lie to that. The postcard was written in Katmandu but was posted from Britain. Unfortunately, it does not give any address. It is a little difficult for a postcard to be delivered to the appropriate address when there is no address, not even a country. Obviously the British postal services thought there was someone in Britain who wanted to congratulate this Mrs Laffey for having been elected to something. It did not say what she was elected to, but that she was elected to something. The only clue they had, apart from Mrs Laffey's name, was the name of Ballarat on the card. The card said: Congratulations on your election. If I have not already said, I expect great things for Ballarat. The postal services in Britain thought she might have been elected as a member of parliament, so after Mrs Laffey's name they put `(M.P.)'. They looked up somewhere, in some register of towns, the town of Ballarat. There are two Ballarats-one in California, and the real Ballarat, in Australia. Mr Duffy —You would have been worried if she was the MP for Ballarat. Mr MILDREN —She is a very fine woman. The postal services looked it up and decided to try Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Sure enough, it came to Ballarat, Victoria, Australia, and Mrs Laffey received her congratulatory card. I want to congratulate the British postal services. I am sure all concerned are waiting out there to receive their copies of this address. A similar sort of thing happened some time ago concerning Australia Post. I notice that the erstwhile former Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy), is here, and no doubt he will be somewhat warmed by the comments I am going to make. I travelled to Britain a couple of years ago and was slightly remiss in that I forgot to put the postal address on a card, although I did actually address the card to my staff. I also put Ballarat somewhere on it, and it arrived. It arrived at the Ballarat Post Office and, because my staff are so well known, it was delivered promptly. I must admit that I got a bit of ribbing from both my staff and the employees of Australia Post. I just want to say that public servants are often criticised, and rarely are they praised. I believe that this indicates that we have people who are at least as conscientious and who serve the people, as public servants, just as well as those who work in private enterprise. I might say that that is a very good reason for maintaining organisations such as the postal services in government hands. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.53) —I wish tonight to take this opportunity afforded me to speak on the adjournment debate to present to the House a legitimate area of concern which has been brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, Brother Barry Lamb from Toowoomba. It is indeed enlightening to be presented with such a well thought out and comprehensively argued submission which is the product of a truly caring mind. Brother Lamb's concern focuses specifically on the limitations placed on unemployed people having a voice in national wage case hearings. Unemployed people within Australia now represent almost 8 per cent of our work force and on the basis of this figure can quite rightly be termed a majority group. It is therefore curious why a majority group would be denied opportunity for direct representation within this forum. In response to the concern aired by Brother Lamb, the Government argued that the unemployed are neither ignored nor overlooked in national wage case proceedings. It further cited section 39 (2) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 as evidence of this. Based on this Act, the Commission has an obligation to take into consideration the public interest, and subsequently it has regard to the impact of the state of the national economy on the level of employment and inflation. However, once one considers the position of the groups represented at the hearings, it is clear that what is needed is an avenue for the unemployed to speak on behalf of themselves with the same privileges extended to them as to other member groups. First of all there are the trade unions which, while representing the interests of their members, necessarily present their arguments with the underlying view of gaining maximum wage increases and job security for those already gainfully employed. Trade unions do philosophically represent unemployment as a part of the working sector. However, as I have already stressed, their representations are geared more toward better working conditions for the workers. So too, the Government responses to represent the unemployed in this forum. However, let me suggest that the Government cannot hope solely to represent the views of the unemployed and must deal with the state of the economy as a whole. The third and final group encompasses the employers. Yet, as is indeed predictable, it is in the best interests of this group for there to be a pool of unemployed maintained so as to keep wages and inflation down. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) stated that the Commission makes its decision based on the merits of the material put before it without regard as to the source of such material. I would suggest, however, that clearly, the quality of the material and arguments presented to the Commission will directly reflect the priorities of each group. In the light of this argument then, I seek to echo Brother Lamb's call for a group to be established which can be directly representative of the unemployed. The Government has acknowledged the chronic unemployment problem, yet it consistently denies this large group a voice in a public forum. It is about time that the Government decided whether it is merely resorting to using pious rhetoric which serves only to ease its conscience or whether, this time, it is prepared to take some constructive action to relieve this alarming problem. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.57) —Recently in my electorate there have been a number of demonstrations and protests at the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base. The latest demonstrations were timed to coincide with protests at Pine Gap. They were intended to highlight and protest the through-flight of United States transport planes to Pine Gap. Those involved in the demonstrations demanded the Government terminate the agreement with the United States which provides for the joint intelligence facilities at Pine Gap. I want to raise issues in response to these protests. On the whole, and to their credit, many involved in the protest have made use of their democratic rights of association, assembly and free speech within the boundaries of the law. For others the symbolism of their protests must be dramatised by transgression of the law, provocation of the police and defiance in the courts. Some of these people are naively over-zealous; others are consciously involved I believe in political subversion. A recent work on nuclear deterrence and morality had this warning for those who feel obliged to participate in protests over this issue: Anyone considering engaging in civil disobedience must keep vividly in mind that the law of the land is the principal protection of the weak against the strong. Whatever threatens its fabric threatens the weak, the helpless and the innocent and gives reign to the strong, the ruthless and the immoral. Hence, lest other citizens be encouraged to violate the law for private and non-symbolic purposes civil disobedients must acknowledge the public interest, and the bonds of fairness which linked them to the law-abiding, by accepting arrest, fair trial and any lawful punishment that may be imposed. I would add that protesters must also consider whether they would be happy to see their political strategy adopted by other groups. They must ask what the outcome would be for order and democracy if every other interest group in the country took to the streets to force, by numbers and non-co-operation, their views on the Government. The philosophers I have quoted also raised another problem for protesters. They wrote: Above all one must remember that the maxim `evil may be done that greater good may come of it' is what underpins most attempted justifications of the proposals against which one is protesting. The use of that maxim must be resolutely shunned. Some campaigns of so-called civil disobediences have been corrupted and corrupting because at least some of the campaigners did subscribe to that maxim. I make reference to these comments above in a spirit of dialogue with those in my electorate who protested at the Richmond base. I do so as well because there are some in their number who do in fact subscribe to the maxim referred to above and who are willing to subvert the law. The second issue I wish to raise is the question of Pine Gap. I have no problem with the Richmond connection with Pine Gap. I support the presence and functions of the joint facilities based there. Of all the joint US-Australian defence facilities, Pine Gap is the one I believe most easily justified in terms of prevention of nuclear war and the progress of disarmament. The Pine Gap facilities are crucial to the processes of disarmament. They cannot be located anywhere else. In terms of the satellites with which they communicate, disarmament negotiations would simply not proceed without these facilities. During any crisis these facilities would provide the intelligence necessary to prevent misadventure. They provide a source of intelligence to the President to allow him to judge the advice of the military in any such crisis. No other single diplomatic action by Australia could destabilise super-power relations and create United States paranoia as would the closure of the Pine Gap facilities. There would not be a more powerful catalyst for regional instability and adventurism. The presence and retention of the facilities contribute to our efforts to prevent nuclear war. Their removal would more than likely be a cause of nuclear war. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 2 November 1987 Mr Peter Morris to move- (1) That all proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, be referred to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and, when conferring with a similar committee of the Senate, the Committee shall inquire into and report on all such proposals. (2) That the Standing Committee on Infrastructure when inquiring into proposals for modification or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs 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. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 October 1987: Christmas Island Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 3-Juries. No. 4-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment). No. 5-Supreme Court (Amendment). Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 244. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 243. Defence Act-Determination-1987-No. 72-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance and other allowances. First Home Owners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 240. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 247. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 241. Meat Chicken Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 242 Patents Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 248. Trade Practices Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 245, 246.