Wednesday, 25 November 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.01) —The Opposition seeks to delay the passage of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 until the autumn session to give customs agents and industry time to make appropriate representations. If we are unsuccessful in doing so, we will move amendments at the committee stage. The Bill seeks to reintroduce some provisions of the Customs Act which were deleted in a Bill in June. I refer to section 163 which allows the making of a regulation specifying the time in which applications for refunds, rebates and remissions of duty can be made, effectively imposing a fee of $200 on such applications. The Government is seeking to reintroduce the penalty by deleting the safety we had added in the June amendments. It is a difficult problem for importers and agents, who will be penalised where overpayments are made in reasonable commercial circumstances. It would be far better if the time of application had been set in the Act as is proposed for the recovery of short pay duty. We also have an argument with the $200 fee. I raise that as the first item because the President of the Customs Agents Federation of Australia, Athol Flynn, states in a letter: The current legislation re-introduces the abhorrent penalty conditions for lodgement of refund application, which was subject to our concern when introduced to Parliament in July. You will recall a successful amendment was moved in the Senate to make these conditions more realistic. We do not believe importers or agents should be penalised where over payments are made in reasonable commercial circumstances. This Bill indicates an acceptance that the agents themselves are put in the inappropriate position of making false entries and yet are adjudged in some respects to be guilty of misadventure without a reasonable position being taken. I have been advised-and from what I have seen of customs agents this is so-that customs agents have to declare goods both from ships and airports in a relatively quick time. At the point of entry the process of documentation and classification can be difficult. Honourable members would no doubt all be aware that on the importation of certain goods the bill of lading, and the documents associated with the items, have to be entered with the Australian Customs Service and the appropriate entry has to distinguish the classification. The classifications for entry of any range of goods can vary enormously up and down the scale. They are directly related to making a judgment, particularly in some areas dealing with aircraft. In other areas a classification under one item can produce a very different result, in terms of duty payable, to a classification under another item when the article is essentially the same. As a consequence, proposed section 163, in relation to refunds, on the face of it imposes an unreal expectation of commercial reality at the time. The second area which we ask the Government to pay attention to is proposed section 165, under the heading in the Bill of `Short paid duty . . .'. The existing legislation allows for the short payment of duty to be collected retrospectively for a period of one year unless fraud is involved, in which case no time limit applies. The intention in this Bill is to extend that period to three years in relation to overpayments. That means, as the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) would be well aware, that, in the case of overpayments, claims can be made only for up to one year, and in the case of underpayments, as proposed new section 165 (a) (1) (b), claims can be made retrospectively for up to three years. This is inconsistent. Apparently it is good enough for someone to claim an overpayment only within one year, but it is good enough for others to claim for a short payment within three years. I think it is probably well known that the Opposition will not support retrospective charges, be they taxes or charges imposed in this way. It seems that there is an undue weight there towards the payment area. On the assumption that the Bill will be passed, the ability to collect retrospectively for three years means that the agent, and therefore the importer and subsequently the retailer, or the final user, is liable to pay three years tax. Can the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) expect that customers or even retailers in his electorate would be able to retrieve duty paid on an import three years after they had bought it? Not even the honourable member would be able to find that particular sum at that time. If the honourable member for Calwell could not find it, I doubt very much whether any citizen of Australia would be able to trace that figure around for that length of time. The third aspect we mention relates to proposed section 243t. The Minister, being meticulous in his detail, will no doubt recall readily that this section means that it is intended that penalties be imposed on customs agents for lodging incorrect customs entries. These penalties will be set at twice the amount of duty concerned, whether the agent makes the error `knowingly, recklessly or otherwise'. The Minister would not do things like that, and I am quite sure that as a consequence of that, no reasonable agent would make claims under those headings, which then gives the Department of Science and Small Business the right to impose penalties under circumstances which are a bit hard to follow. Mr Barry Jones —That is 243t? Mr MOORE —Section 243t; it is intended that the penalties imposed on the customs agents for lodging incorrect customs entries will be set at twice the amount of duty concerned, whether he makes the error `knowingly, recklessly or otherwise'. I quote from the Executive Director's letter: While the Bill provides for the Collector and Comptroller to have some flexibility in these matters, a capricious act of a Collector could cost a Customs Agent in excess of a million dollars for perhaps an incorrect decimal point which would undoubtedly be discovered and corrected before the duty was proffered. Even in less dramatic circumstances a penalty of $50,000 for a simple error could bankrupt a Customs agent. It is suggested that this is similar to legislation to cover Tax Agents. It should be noted in the first instance, Tax Agents have some months to prepare tax returns while Customs Agents are pressed by the Customs system to present customs entries within hours. I am aware from past experience that sometimes customs agents are not up to the line in presenting their papers as quickly as the member for Calwell would. As a consequence, when they present their papers the Customs office has a limited time to process the paper and get the goods cleared from the airport or wharf. All these matters, to my mind, have never been a one-way street. A lot of blame has flowed to the Customs office which is not appropriate. I say that because of my high regard for the Customs office over many years. I suspect, from a reading of the letter from the Customs Agents Federation and having some knowledge, imperfect as it might be, of the processes of Customs, that there is a half-way house. Because of those circumstances the Opposition seeks to defer this Bill until the autumn sittings so that some further consultation can be had with the agents who have represented to me and to other Opposition spokesmen in this area that the actions in sections 243t, 165 and 163 have been introduced quickly with inappropriate consultation. In respect of section 243t, the analogy drawn between the ability of the tax agents and the customs agents is worth considering. The Executive Director points out in his letter: Secondly Tax Agents are able to overcome this obstacle- that is, the obstacle of correctness, and therefore passing on the obligation- by sending returns to taxpayers to sign. This not only takes away the responsibility but also provides the opportunity for the taxpayer to check the calculations. Customs Agents would love this luxury. I do not shrink from the responsibility of the customs agents; they have a responsibility to be accurate. But the agents represent to me that in the time frame of getting the documentation and in view of the necessity to clear the goods from airport or wharf to meet customer demands speed is important. In view of commercial reality, sometimes mistakes will be made and as a consequence agents should not be subject to such a wide bracketing as `knowingly, recklessly or otherwise', and therefore open to penalty. There is no excuse for sloppy paperwork. At the same time, there has to be a commercial reality about it all. I continue to quote from the Executive Director's letter: If this legislation is introduced obviously Customs Agents would follow the example of Tax Agents and insist on customs entries being sent first to importers for signature and checking, before lodgment. If this comes about the entire waterfront and airport system will choke with cargo and all the proposed electronic systems for early lodgement of import information and speedier clearance can be forgotten. Customs Agents are anxious to support more modern systems but not those where the Australian Customs Service simply abrogates its responsibilities and loads these onto the public sector. The more I read the letter and the paper provided by Athol Flynn, who is known to me, the more it seems that the course proposed by the Opposition is correct-that this Bill should be deferred until the autumn session. If we do that, the operators in the area and the Australian Customs Service who, over many years, have had a very good relationship, can get together and sort out the most appropriate response to this matter. Only a month ago I attended the annual dinner of the Customs Agents Federation, with the Comptroller-General of Customs and his deputy, Mr Frank Kelly, both of whom are well known to me. At that stage it seems that there was a great deal of agreement on all the approaches being made and the outcome of that night was particularly satisfactory. Therefore, it came as some surprise to me to receive this letter from Athol Flynn relating to this legislation, in which he claimed that there had been inadequate correspondence and contact. I hope that this can be overcome. By accepting the Opposition's proposition that this legislation be deferred until the new year and adequate consultation carried out, the Government will ensure that all parties are satisfied and happy with the outcome. Nothing proposed in the legislation is to the detriment of revenue and there is nothing in the Opposition's proposals which would impinge upon efficiency within the area-either the agents or the Australian Customs Service. The agents are seeking consultation because of their regard for what they see as the particular penalties in this area. Because of that I intend to move the second reading amendment, the text of which has been circulated in my name. I move: That all words after `that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until customs agents and the industry have had sufficient time to make appropriate representations in relation to the Bill'. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Carlton —I second the amendment. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.18) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is the second instalment of the Government's strategy to combat commercial practices designed solely or predominantly to understate the value of imported goods in order to minimise or avoid Customs duty. This Bill is long overdue. For many years we have had, amongst customs agents and importers, practices which have understated the value of goods and have avoided duty. This situation became absolutely rampant during the last couple of years of the Fraser Government when imports poured into this country at an unprecedented rate. At that time we had statements from the now Senator Stone and others that more imports were good for Australia-that we should keep bringing in more and more imports. Nothing was done to regularise this process and to ensure that the duties and tariffs that were supposed to be paid were actually paid because a number of practices developed over this period for the understatement of the real value of the goods. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) seeks to protect the situation of the customs agents as though what the Government is proposing is somehow unreasonable. I put it to him that the Government has been very reasonable in the way in which it has treated the customs agents and their requests. The agents came to the Government with a request that a quick clearance method for imported goods be introduced. The new system that has been introduced is such that the customs agents have to rely on the statements made by the importers being true. Each importer states what he claims to be the value of the goods. It is quite unreasonable for the customs agents to say, as they are saying, on the one hand, `We want quick clearance. We do not want anything held up. We want these goods to go through on the basis of a statement by the agents', and, on the other hand, to say, `But, of course, we should also restrict the capacity of the Australian Customs Service to check back to see whether those statements are correct and that the importers have not understated the value of goods and thereby avoided duty'. That is why we reject the proposal by the honourable member for Ryan for a reduction from three years to one year. With the greatest of respect to him, his argument was a foolish one. He said that the customer, the retailer, the wholesaler, and whoever is involved, would be responsible after three years. That is not correct. Under proposed new section 243t, the person who made the statement will be liable. If, after three years, two years or one year, it is discovered that that person made a false statement to Customs, that person will be liable, not the customer who received the end good; good luck to the receiver. Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member for Ryan, his argument is not correct. I could have said something else about it, but it is certainly not correct. Indeed, it is a bit foolish in this context. There are very good reasons for retaining a three-year rule because it may take that amount of time for information to come to Customs about shonky practices on the part of some importers. I put it to the honourable member for Ryan that this proposal is not unfair to the customs agents. It is a fair proposal, especially given that changes have been made to ensure quick clearance, which is what the agents and importers wanted. I do not know what the honourable member for Ryan is seeking in wanting to make these changes, except that he may have been a bit over-influenced by the submissions of the Customs Agents Federation of Australia. Obviously, everyone wants to minimise their difficulties and to have it both ways. But the customs agents cannot have it both ways. If they want quick clearances, they will have to allow for the possibility of examination after the event to ensure that, if there have been understatements, there will be penalties. In this sort of process one is relying on the honesty of the people concerned. As I have said, this is not a light matter. If people are able to import goods, understate their value and pay less duty, they are then in a much better position, competitively, than Australian manufacturers and producers. In this current economic climate, when we are trying to increase import substitution and get more Australian industries to compete with imports by manufacturing here, it is not fair that our industries should have to compete in an unfair way with shonky practices on the part of importers. Surely the honourable member for Ryan accepts that. In that context, the submissions of the Government are entirely reasonable and fair. As I said at the outset, there is no reason to delay the Bill further. Indeed, on the contrary, I would argue that the Bill is overdue and that we ought to institute these processes and ensure that importers and customs agents who are not following the rules or who have perhaps-especially, as I said, during the period of the Fraser Government-taken the view that they can virtually declare almost any value that they like for goods and pay whatever duty they wish are brought into line. That situation must and will change. It is estimated that, in the last year alone, $146m of duty-that is a conservative estimate; I would say it was much higher than that-was lost to the Commonwealth from the understatement of values by importers and customs agents. In that context, therefore, this undervaluation must be challenged, and it will be challenged under this Bill whose clauses are important for achieving the situation that the Government wants. I have already answered the other argument presented by the honourable member for Ryan about some amendments to the various clauses-in particular, the one concerning the three years. Matters concerning a couple of other clauses will be answered by the Minister. But, in general terms, we believe this to be an important Bill. I want to address the claim by the Customs Agents Federation of Australia that it was not sufficiently consulted. I point out that this is the second part of these changes and since the beginning of the year the Federation and other importers have been on notice that these changes were coming through; so I do not know where the honourable member for Ryan gets the idea that customs agents were not sufficiently consulted. They have known since the beginning of the year-- Mr Moore —I will show you the letter. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I am sure that statement is made in the letter, but the fact of the matter is that these changes have been notified since the beginning of the year, and the first set of them went through this Parliament earlier in the year, so I do not know how the Federation is now saying that its members believed these changes would not come through this year. Indeed, we are right at the end of the year, so they have had virtually the whole of the year to make representations in relation to these matters. Representations are one thing, but getting everything that one wants is another. Even if the customs agents had had a much longer period in which to make representations, they would not have been satisfied. I put it to the Federation and to other importers that this is a fair set of measures. The honourable member for Ryan mentioned that the $50,000 penalty could bankrupt some agents. Indeed, it could, but nobody will be bankrupted who has not deliberately gone out of his way to understate the value of goods and therefore to avoid duty. People who have not deliberately set out to do that or who have not done so in an entirely reckless manner will not be penalised, so I do not know why the honourable member for Ryan should seek to protect people who engage in shonky practices. As I said before, this is not a small matter of just catching some tax avoiders. It is a matter that has an impact on our domestic production because people who are understating their duty and are not paying enough duty on those imported goods are thus in a position to compete unfairly with Australian production, and Australian producers are unable to compete with them on fair terms. Australia wants increased manufacturing production. If that is to be the case, we are not going to say to importers that they cannot import, but we are saying to them that they must import on fair terms and not on shonky terms, terms on which they are avoiding duty and which allow them to price goods in a way that undermines the Australian market-place and Australian production. Madam Speaker, I support the Bill. I do not think the honourable member for Ryan has given us any reason to delay the Bill. Indeed, I think it is important for the Bill to go through and for us to eradicate these shonky practices. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(10.30) —Madam Speaker, first of all, on behalf of members of the House, I am pleased to see you back after your recent indisposition. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr BARRY JONES —I was hoping the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) would have gone on for a few more minutes, but he has obviously felt a call to be elsewhere. I wanted to respond to the points made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and to indicate why we reject his amendment. Closing loopholes has to be seen in the broad context of the Government's reforms of revenue laws generally over the last five years to curb evasion and avoidance. I was a little surprised by Mr Athol Flynn's letter of 23 November to me, quoted by the honourable member for Ryan, which suggested somehow that the proposals in this Bill had been sprung on him. That is simply not correct. The Bill follows inexorably from the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987. It is reasonable to say that fair notice of this proposed legislation was given then. If I may quote myself briefly from that debate recorded on pages 2200 and 2201 of Weekly Hansard of 29 April 1987 where I said: The measures in this Bill are the first stage of the Government's two-pronged legislative attack against certain avoidance and minimisation practices used by importers in valuing goods imported into Australia. I further said that the matter has been the subject of: a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of the valuation provisions in the Customs Act. That examination has brought to light a number of apparent loopholes . . . I also said: . . . we have decided to correct the inadequacies in the Act that have been revealed to date. Because of the complexity of some of the arrangements, it is necessary that the amendments be done in two stages. The first stage is covered by this Bill. We expect to introduce the second stage during the next sittings of the parliament. Then, leaving out a few paragraphs of my deathless prose-- Mr Moore —It was so good, too. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, and very characteristic of me. I went on: As indicated earlier, I give notice that the examination of valuation legislation is continuing and, as a second stage in the Government's strategy, we intend to introduce further amendments in the Budget sittings this year to eliminate any opportunity for avoidance or minimisation of the value of imported goods. That was a reasonable indication of what we intended. The implication in Mr Flynn's letter on behalf of the Customs Agents Federation of Australia is that the Federation only found out about the legislation last week. That is not correct. This has been part of the continuing process, and it is not intended to apply the new proposed legislation in an arbitrary or capricious fashion. No doubt it will take some time for the system to work in. I take the point made by the honourable member for Ryan that there is always a conflict between wanting to finish customs transactions very quickly and to put goods in the hands of importers. Of course, the pressure to speed up the process imposes additional obligations on the customs agents to get the paper work correct. I repeat to the House and the Customs Agents Federation of Australia that the measure will not be imposed in an arbitrary or capricious way. Ample notice of the Commonwealth's intention has been given. Since this matter was dealt with by the honourable member for Ryan in his speech on the second reading, I will say just a few words about the Opposition's objections to sections 163 and 165. Amendments to section 163 relating to refund, rebate or remission of the duty provision in the Act make some minor changes to the exemption circumstances for the payment of the $200 fee, for the processing of refund applications and the like, introduced last sittings as a cost recovery measure only for the anticipated number of applications lodged, which was in excess of 30,000. Honourable members will recall that the Government proposed certain exemptions from the payment of the fee, that is, in circumstances essentially where the overpayment of duty was through no fault of the importer or where the Australian Customs Service made an error. Where the Customs preferred option was to prescribe the exemption circumstances by regulation, on the grounds that the exemptions were of an administrative nature and the Customs regulations already carried the administrative provisions concerning refunds of duty in five regulations, we accepted the Opposition amend- ments made in the Senate last sittings-what else could we do?-to place the exemption circumstances into the Act. Mr Moore —It is like Hawke and privatisation. Mr BARRY JONES —Or the Queensland Premier. It should be remembered that the provisions inserted in the Act allowed for the prescription of further exemption circumstances by regulation. This was done on 16 October this year by statutory rules No. 244 of 1987 which prescribed three additional circumstances, again where an overpayment was made through no fault of the importer, where the refund application fee would not be payable. However, the proposed amendment removes two exemption circumstances introduced by the Senate amendments last sittings, which were so broad and vague that, in practice, they could virtually make the imposition of the fee, in most circumstances, impossible. The Government accepts that there are legitimate circumstances in which an exemption from the proposed $200 fee should apply, but it also believes that these circumstances should be carefully worded so as not inadvertently to create a loophole which could effectively be used to avoid the intent of the fee in the first place. Mr Moore —Give 165 a run now. Mr BARRY JONES —I have just remembered the central point about section 165. The amendment, which will be moved in the committee stage, proposes to limit the time within which Customs might recover duties short paid or erroneously refunded to the same time period which applies where an applicant for a refund applies for such a refund, that is, 12 months after the duty is paid. This argument misses the essential point that the applicant for a refund and the persons who supply information to Customs on which it then values goods are the custodians of the information on which the duty can then be assessed. They have the information; Customs has not. It is quite consistent with other legislation, notably the bounty legislation, that when a claim-- Mr Moore —Customs has the papers. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, but, in a sense, the papers are produced by and through the agents. In terms of access to knowledge, Customs is not on level ground. If claims are to be made on the Commonwealth, they should be made within a reasonable administrative time. We think that 12 months is quite consistent with precedents. However, it is quite another question to consider how much time should be allowed for the authorities to recover money or duty short paid. Often Customs investigations take in excess of 12 months to reveal a shortfall in duty paid. It is, therefore, quite appropriate to be able to protect the revenue for longer than a period of just 12 months. I note the point made by the honourable member for Ryan about the penalty for making false statements, which relates to an amendment to section 243t of the original Act. He is concerned that the penalty is imposed whether the false information is made `knowingly, recklessly or otherwise'. He feels that that is far too broad. I note that the penalty requirement says: . . . the collector may, by notice in writing served on the person who pays or paid the duty, require that person to pay, within a period of 60 days after service of the notice, a penalty equal to twice the amount of the excess, or a penalty of $20- which does not sound too draconian- whichever is the greater. Obviously if only very tiny amounts were involved in the misleading statement-for example, if there were a short payment of $2-it would really be a question of whether it was worth taking action for that very small amount. In respect of proposed new section 243t in this legislation, as in all other revenue legislation, the provisions setting up offences are drawn fairly widely. The phrase `or otherwise', of course, is a drag-all phrase. But I have already given the undertaking that, within the Australian Customs Service, it will not be applied in a capricious or arbitrary way. We have no desire to block up the system. I would be very much concerned if what Mr Flynn is suggesting actually occurred-that the process of clearing goods through customs will be slowed down considerably to avoid any accidental misinformation. That obviously has to be monitored. I assure honourable members that the Customs people will be looking at the matter responsibly. I thank the honourable member for Ryan for his contribution and the honourable member for Calwell who played to a packed House on this matter. I commend the Bill to the House. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.43) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 14, page 43, lines 6-13, omit paragraph (a), substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting subsection (1a) and substitu- ting the following subsections: `(1A) Without limiting the scope of paragraph (1) (b), the regulations may prescribe the amount, or the means of determining the amount, of any refund, rebate or remission of duty that may be made for the purposes of subsection (1). `(1ab) A refund, rebate or remission is not payable under subsection (1) unless application for the refund, rebate or remission is made within 1 year after the payment of the duty.';''. (2) Clause 14, page 43, lines 14 and 15, omit paragraphs (b) and (c), substitute the following word and paragraph: ``and (b) by omitting subsections (1c) and (1d).''. (3) Clause 16, page 43, line 30, omit ``3 years'', substitute ``1 year''. (4) Clause 26, page 49, line 28, omit ``, whether knowingly, recklessly or otherwise'', substitute ``knowingly or recklessly''. (5) Clause 26, page 50, lines 17 and 18, omit proposed paragraph 243u (2) (a). My amendments relate to the clauses amending section 163 and section 165 of the principal Act and proposed new section 243t. I point out that nothing that the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has said has any effect in relation to the area that I have described as consultation. We should bear in mind that with anything to do with government regulation in the market-place-including the processing of paper and the clearance of goods-everybody will gain if adequate consultation takes place and everybody knows where he is. The Minister said in a previous speech `fair notice'. `Reasonable indication' was another term he used. That is fine. That was a speech made many years ago. Surprisingly, people working in commerce do not read Hansard. Mr Barry Jones —This was in April of this year. Mr MOORE —Yes, but those people do not read Hansard. It is not one of those things that they take down off the shelf every night. Unless the people who are operating out in the market-place are contacted directly through their association or whatever, they will not know about these provisions. To quote the words `reasonable indication' or `fair notice' from Hansard is just nonsense, with due respect, to use the words of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). Consequently, I urge the Minister to hold the appropriate discussions and consultations. Everything will work much better, nerves will not be so frayed and even privatisation might get through if those discussions are held as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) urges. I have to say that I am disappointed that the Minister does not accept that advice. If he did he might find the passage of this legislation much easier. The honourable member for Calwell said that the Opposition is defending shonky practices. We are not defending shonky practices. I am sure that the honourable member was taking liberties when he said that. Quite clearly we are indicating that everyone should follow the law and that if agents or importers are breaking the law it is the right and the obligation of the Customs officers to pursue a certain course. If they are failing in that pursuit they should have more staff, more services and a better computer system-we have spent an enormous amount of money on computers-to be able to carry out those obligations. So to attempt to associate the Opposition with shonky practices is a nonsense. I am sure the honourable member for Calwell now thinks that was an unnecessary thing to say. I think the three proposed amendments reach the heart of the matter. They get around consultation. If consultation had occurred I am sure the amendments would not have been necessary. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(10.46) —I outlined in broad terms some of the reasons the Government would be rejecting the amendments when I responded to the second reading debate. I will restate a couple of points. I take the point that, regrettably, Hansard is not by every bedside reading lamp-would that it were-and therefore sometimes people miss things. But I think professional associations-especially assiduous ones such as the Customs Agents Federation of Australia-do follow the Hansard debates. In the broad context of our attempting to protect the revenue, ever since the Government came into office, we try to make the taxation law more certain, more uniform and less full of the anomalies and exceptions that were in the revenue laws when we came into office. The Federation would have been very well aware of the April 1987 legislation. That is something it has lived under since its legislation's proclamation. I think it would also have been aware that that Act was just one part of a two-part procedure of which it had a fair degree of understanding. There was a similarly vigorous but well-mannered debate between the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and me at that time. I turn to clause 16 of the Bill which deals with proposed new section 165. The provisions in that clause are exactly comparable to section 170aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. It is an application of the well recognised principles in tax law to customs legislation. I refer to the explanatory memorandum which, concerning proposed new section 243t, states: new s243t inserts a new automatic penalty provision which provides that where a person makes a statement to an officer which is false or misleading in a material particular, or omits from a statement any matter without which the statement is misleading in a material particular, and as a result the amount of duty properly payable on goods is more than what is or has been paid on the goods, the Collector may issue a notice requiring the person who pays or paid the duty to pay within 60 days a penalty of an amount of twice the amount of the difference between the amount of duty actually paid and the amount of duty actually owed new subsection (1). Should a person fail to pay the amount, the amount becomes a debt due to the Commonwealth and may be recovered in a Court of competent jurisdiction (new subsection (2)). It is not entirely confined to an administrative act within the Customs Service. It can be referred to a court. The explanatory memorandum continues: new subsection 243T(3) provides that where a Collector has served a notice on a person under this subsection, the Customs Service is precluded from prosecuting the same person for making the same misstatement or omission under section 234 of the Principal Act . . . This provision provides another sanction against those persons who have paid less than the amount of duty that is owed to the Customs, and is similar to the automatic penalty provisions contained in taxation legislation (see section 233 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936). In addition to the principal Act concerning goods being forfeited, and so on, the goods will cease to be forfeited to the Crown on the payment of the penalty. The explanatory memorandum for proposed new section 243v states: This concession acknowledges that one of the attractions of the automatic penalty system is that a penalty duty may be paid, but one's goods are not forfeited and seized, as could happen if a prosecution for an offence under section 234 and the forfeiture section 229 were allowed to run. In a sense we have both a regularisation and, it is fair to say, a liberalisation. I conclude with a point that was restated by the honourable member for Ryan. It would be common ground that the system will not work on a basis of confrontation, with the Customs Service on one side of the wharf, with pistols drawn, and the Customs agents, determined to prevent the operation of the law, on the other. If that happened, of course, the situation would be intolerable and would slow the process down quite unacceptably. The new law can work only if there is perfect understanding on both sides. The Opposition would be well aware that under the enlightened regime of the Australian Customs Service at the moment-I think it was all right a few years ago when the honourable member for Ryan was there but it is even better now-there is no desire to gum up the works. We want the system to work properly. That depends on a proper flow of information, a fair degree of consultation and an understanding of what is going on. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mrs Kelly: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.53) —The Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987 sets out to ensure that if and when the Williamstown Naval Dockyard is sold to private enterprise the employees, who are currently there, will not be disadvantaged. We do not oppose the Bill in any way. It makes not an unpleasant change to come into this House to find that we agree with the Government on a defence matter. The Bill is to look after the employees who are there. It is all very well for the Government to go out of its way to make equitable arrangements for employees who are basically trade unionists at the instigation of the trade unions, but what about the 70,000 men and women who are in the forces who do not have a trade union to speak for them? What about their pay and conditions which have been slowly eroded by this Government over the last five years to the point where there is an enormous wastage rate in the Services? People are leaving in droves almost every day. Apart from the fact that the Government will not release the wastage figures, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) put out guidelines to the Services about service spouses. They are being muzzled as well. They cannot do this: they cannot do that; they have to conform. One must ask whether such guidelines are ever issued by the Government when it meets with union members or their spouses. So why is the Government imposing military regulations on Service spouses? Is this an attempt to muzzle them, to stop them talking about the poor conditions of service that are applying to the uniformed defence forces of this country? It is interesting that, according to the Minister's second reading speech, long negotiations have taken place and there has been `an exhaustive program of consultation'. The unions have apparently given the okay to what the Government is doing, so that is all right, it can go through! But I make the point that the uniformed personnel have no unions to speak for them. In recent years we have seen the misplacement of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Force Advocate and the opposition by the Government to every reasonable application for pay and conditions by the defence forces. The salaries of the Defence Force personnel are seriously out of kilter. In many cases the junior ranks are getting more than their senior officers because of various anomalies and allowances in pay. The Defence Force retirement and death benefit 2 per cent discount is a disgrace. The defence service housing problems have almost caused riots around the country, and the Government's Caucus is in disarray on this matter. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is now seeking to muzzle the service wives. The relationship, or the comparison between what is happening to the unions, who have been looked after in this Bill, and what is not happening to uniformed servicemen and their wives is a disgrace. We have to ask why the Williamstown Naval Dockyard is being privatised-a matter with which we agree. From the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley)-I welcome the Minister to the House, after his return from overseas-it is clear that the dockyard's `performance has continued to fall short of the yard's own commitments, and even further behind what might be expected from comparable yards'. That is quite true. I visited Williamstown yesterday, and from discussions I had with various people there, and from my own observations, it seems to me that there is only one thing to do if we are to make Williamstown a viable part of Australia's shipbuilding industry, and that is to privatise it. It is interesting that the Government took this decision-the decision was taken earlier this year-before the current debate on privatisation hotted up. I ask the Minister how he would like to be taking this to his Caucus now, in the current climate, and trying to get it through with the hostility that is there to privatisation. Mr Price —They would get overwhelming support, as they always do. Mr WHITE —Why do the proposals that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is taking to Caucus not get overwhelming support? We are talking about the principle of privatisation, are we not? How come the Prime Minister is now in such turmoil with his privatisation proposals? It is interesting to see the Government's approach to privatisation before its conversion this year. In May 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: No matter where one looks, whether it be at TAA or the other authorities, there is no case for the Opposition's argument in economics, except simply to indulge ideologically in a Thatcherite, vandalistic splurge to try and destroy these authorities. All the sensible things that we have been saying about privatisation for some time and the sensible approach that the Government is now taking to the privatisation of the Williamstown Dockyard are not the things that the Government was saying last year and the year before. That is a quote from the Government's own Treasurer. Let us turn to some of the offers. The Treasurer said: The Labor Party will fight tooth and nail to keep these public authorities in the hands of the Commonwealth. We are about refurbishing them and keeping them strong. We are not about wrecking them and selling them. The great public services they provide will continue to be provided while ever this Government has the breath to defend them. That is the Treasurer, the Government's spokesman on economic matters, and here we have a Bill privatising one of these great public authorities. There has been a great conversion along the way. On 21 July 1985, the Prime Minister said that privatisation: . . . is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. They would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few, to the cost of every one of us. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), in August 1985 said: . . . when the economic Moonies attack public enterprise, they are really blowing smoke over their real target: that public resources should be preserved for the greater cause of the private interests they represent . . . In Labor's heartlands, the people are not stupid. They understand who the interests are who stand in the way of Labor's objective. The then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), said: Those who talk about privatisation really are trotting out a very tired old piece of ideology which has been around for a long time . . . He continued: There is one way to summarise all this talk about privatisation. Privatisation is really the supreme con-job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I take it that the honourable member is dealing with the principles that he assumes are behind the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard. It might help if he did relate his remarks, at least in passing, to the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard. Mr WHITE —There will be plenty of remarks about the Williamstown Dockyard, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I take the point. The sale of the Williamstown Dockyard is a very important milestone in the ideology of the Government. Mr Charles —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a quick point of order. I assume, from your ruling, that we will be allowed to respond in a reasonable fashion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I drew the honourable member's attention to what the Bill was about, and asked him to relate his remarks to the Bill. It is not within my mind what other members may say, and I will take them up on that if necessary as the time arises. Mr WHITE —I have one last quote on this issue, because it is an important issue. We are talking here about the sale to private enterprise of a dockyard that has been in existence for, I think, 130 or 140 years. It has been a public institution. The Government has come to the conclusion that it would be better off in the hands of private enterprise, and we agree with that. But it is a strange decision in view of Australian Labor Party history. It is also a very strange decision when we look at the great furore that it is causing within the Government at the moment. I finish with this quote from the Prime Minister on 24 September 1985: Our opponents would sell off institutions which have been built up over generations. They should be left to serve our children as well as they have served our parents. One could go on and on, but I will not continue in view of the request from the Chair. The fact is that every statement, until recently, has been totally opposed to privatisation. The Government, very sensibly, came to the conclusion earlier this year that the Williamstown Dockyard should be privatised, sold to private enterprise, but that sits strangely with previous statements made from the Prime Minister down-not the Minister, as far as I can determine-as to why all these public institutions should not be privatised. The question is: Why is this dockyard to be sold? There is no doubt that it is consuming a great deal of public funds and it is wasting a great deal of money. It cannot compete in the private sector. It has been plagued with union problems and with poor management for years, with inefficient work practices, single shifts and union intransigence, and it is overmanned. One of the problems of the Williamstown Dockyard right now flowed from the decision in 1973 by the then Labor Government not to proceed with the DDL projects, but not to reduce the work force. It would appear that, although the yard had no shipbuilding program and relied on refit and maintenance from that period, and although the Minister of the day declined to go ahead with the shipbuilding program, he gave assurances that there would be no reduction in the work force. Since that time about 2,000 employees have been located at Williamstown, the justification for whose existence in many cases has been difficult to arrive at. For all those reasons it is important that this be put on a commercial footing. But, above all, it would appear that the big problem in making Williamstown efficient is simply the inertia and the dead hand of the bureaucracy. It has stifled and removed any initiative that might be displayed in this old and historic dockyard. In some cases it has taken up to nine months to get materials into that dockyard, when a commercial dockyard would simply get on the telephone and order those items. Because of the tendering system and the long bureaucratic process, it has taken as long as nine months to get material. Is it any wonder when one visits Williamstown that one finds sections there waiting for another section to process the material to pass something on. Wherever one goes in Williamstown one sees people standing around staring into space, waiting for the flow of material to come to pass-which it does not. That is a result of the long, cumbersome ordering procedures. It is also difficult to sack anyone. It is even more difficult in some circumstances to recruit. No wonder people have lost heart in the ability of Williamstown Dockyard to compete. On my visit yesterday I could sense the attitude, `Why should I care? If they cannot get their act together, if they cannot give me materials with which to ply my trade, why should I bother? It's not my responsibility'. As a public enterprise, it has proved hopeless. It is interesting to examine the position of the unions in the proposal to sell off Williamstown naval dockyard. So far as I can determine, apart from some ritualistic opposition, the unions have agreed to go along with it. That is true not only of the union leadership but of the unionists themselves. They recognise the problems that have been inherent in this dockyard for many years. I think that they will be grateful for a new start, a chance to compete, to take pride again in their work and to get a reasonable flow of work through the dockyard. They see a better future, it seems to me, under private enterprise, and that is a heartening sign. In terms of the future of Williamstown and the future of the unionists and the unions in general, it will be up to them to work with management-one hopes a vastly improved management-to see that the dockyard performs. There will be no government protection from now on. It will be a case of perform or go under. I wish to make a few comments on the two FFG frigates which are being built at the yard, to bring the total number to six. The first should be out of that dockyard in 1991 and the second in 1993. I shall be interested, as will many other people, to see the final cost of these frigates compared with the other four that were purchased from the United States of America. I understand that there was a factor built in when the estimates were done because it is a long time since we built frigates in Australia, and I think that is fair enough. How much fat should be allowed is another matter. It will be a test of Williamstown under private enterprise to see whether it can get rid of some inefficient work practices which have plagued the dockyard and whether it can produce the frigates on time and on cost. It will be a chance to see whether the vessels built at the dockyard compare favourably with frigates which traditionally for a number of years have been bought overseas. Because that is part of the new contract, whoever takes over the dockyard will have to finish the frigates. Therefore, the dockyard will have an opportunity to improve its techniques and learning curve before it embarks on what I hope will be its next project, the Anzac frigate project. Let me say a few words about the Anzac frigate project. Many people are having serious doubts about how far the project will proceed. We support the project in general. I think that the New Zealanders are still far from the barrier. They have indicated general support, but one of the problems is that if the project is too expensive they will be tempted to go elsewhere. It is in our interests to have the New Zealanders in, of course. I am concerned to know whether, with the ceiling placed on these frigates-and perhaps the Minister for Defence will respond to this matter in his reply-we shall get eight shells which may in future be fitted with appropriate weapons systems. I think we have enough of those. If it comes to the crunch, as it well may, do we need eight shells or six or four fully-fitted frigates? That important question may well have to be decided in the months to come. There is no doubt that the financial constraints placed on the construction of these frigates will force some big decisions to be made. I understand that the Minister has already sent back certain proposals from the Navy on the basis of cost and perhaps design. What shall we finish up with in terms of weapons systems in these new frigates? No doubt in the coming months the Government will have to spend more money on personnel, and that will come out of the existing budget. One cannot allow wastage rates to go unaddressed, and the Government will have to spend more money on conditions of service. That also will affect the new frigate program. I hope that Williamstown will be well placed to make a determined bid for the new frigate contract. There is no doubt that Williamstown has good facilities and has an advantage in that it is building the two FFGs. I presume that the matter will fall between Williamstown and Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd, and Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd may be considered. I have no doubt that the New South Wales Government will be making a determined bid to put Newcastle back in the firing line. North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd is no doubt interested; I am not sure whether it can compete with this size of ship. It has an excellent record and I hope that it can compete. From the point of view of building the frigates and reviving the Australian shipbuilding industry, the Opposition totally supports the Government's approach. In the tabling speech the Minister mentioned the submarine project as part of the revival of shipbuilding in this country-again a matter we totally support. As the Minister for Defence is present, I wonder whether he will take on board some comments and questions that I have been asking and answer them definitively once and for all, instead of our having to have the answers dragged out of public servants in Estimates committees. In view of the Minister's statements about shipbuilding, technology transfer and submarines in Australia, and bearing in mind the fact that all the submarines are to be built here, it is now clear that a substantial part of the first submarine will be built in Sweden. Many people want to know how much of that first submarine is to be built in Sweden, what the percentage of the total cost will be in Sweden-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that we are dealing with the Williamstown position, not the submarine position. Mr Beazley —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that in the tabling statement the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel canvassed the submarine program as part of the overall shipbuilding statement. I wonder whether you might bear that in mind in ruling on this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I accept that. Mr WHITE —As I said when I was opening my remarks on submarines, the matter was mentioned in the Minister's tabling speech; therefore I think it is only appropriate that I should respond because this is part of the revival of shipbuilding in Australia. The design of the first submarine, and presumably subsequent submarines, is to be done in Sweden. That raises the question: If the design work is to be done in Sweden, who owns that design in the end? Who owns that property? When one is designing something in another country one tends to use the materials and design work from that country. Will it not be a problem when that design work is transferred to Australia and we proceed with the remainder of the first submarine and subsequently with the second, third and so on? In conclusion, I wish to make the point that the Opposition totally agrees with the sale of Williamstown Dockyard. I believe that the Government has gone about this matter in a very sensible way. There are two strong bids on the books to be considered; the sooner the decision is made, the better for the employees of the dockyard and the sooner we will see that dockyard come to life and become a viable section of our shipbuilding industry. I am impressed by the fact that one of the consortiums that have tendered comprises employees of the dockyard. They have probably taken a considerable financial risk and put their own capital into that consortium, which proves to some degree that they believe it can be turned into a viable enterprise. That is very heartening. They also propose to sell shares to other employees in the dockyard. We need a viable shipbuilding industry in this country and I hope that Williamstown will be very much a part of that. In the end it will be up to the private sector, the unions, the employees and the management to make a go of it. The Opposition wishes them well. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.18) —A number of issues have been thrown into this debate on the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill, such as privatisation and pay rises, to which I will return a little later. This Bill enshrines agreements that have been reached among the Department of Finance, the Department of Industrial Relations, the Public Service Commission, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the dockyards union. This exhaustive and comprehensive round of negotiations is in contrast to the confrontationist approach that was typical of the previous conservative Government and conservative governments in this country for many years. This agreement, which is before us in the form of legislation, has involved everyone connected with the yard. The Government's decision earlier this year to sell all or part of the Williamstown Dockyard to private enterprise was important. I remember when the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table now, first floated the idea with me earlier this year. In discussions with him I said I thought it was a good idea because, notwithstanding changes that had been made over a number of years, the Williamstown Dockyard simply was not competitive in comparison with some of the other dockyards around Australia. This was a particularly important factor with the Anzac program coming on stream. That is why the people involved-the Public Service unions, the ACTU and the blue collar dockyard unions-were able to get together and reach a comprehensive agreement on this issue. This is what the legislation is all about. We will see a comprehensive and successful changeover to the successful tenderer, the new owner, as a result of the negotiations which this Government, through the Minister at the table, has seen fit to conduct over the past six months or so. Indeed, there are two consortiums on the short list for ownership of the dockyard. They are the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation, which has a few big and very well-known shipbuilders involved, and the Williamstown Dockyard Consortium, a diverse consortium including some employees at the dockyard. I wish them both well and the Government will make a decision on the successful tender in the near future. That new owner will take over the building of the two FFG frigates which were announced in 1983 and which are being built there for delivery in 1991 and 1993. The new owners will also be able to tender for the Anzac program-for the possibly 12 light patrol frigates that were first mentioned in the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. The Government investigated this proposition and believed that it was the right tack to take, so we will see that come to fruition through the Anzac program, which will involve Australian and New Zealand and which will introduce a new concept in shipbuilding in this country. From the industry viewpoint, that project together with the submarine project will constitute the biggest shipbuilding program seen in this country since the Second World War. If one takes the two projects together, one is looking at some $9 billion worth of shipbuilding. I am not biased, but as a Victorian-and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are from New South Wales-I believe that the Williamstown Dockyard, under its new leadership, will be a certainty to get the main bulk of the Anzac program. Notwithstanding my viewpoint, obviously the Government will make its decision on the competitive tendering and comprehensive nature of all the shipbuilders around Australia. I shall answer some of the questions that have been thrown up in this debate. I find it extra- ordinary that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) should come into the House and start talking about the pay and conditions of defence personnel. I remind him that, when we won government in 1983, we inherited a wage freeze which included a freeze of pay for military personnel. For a great many years during the Fraser Government, defence personnel did not get a pay rise at all. We introduced the first pay rise-5.9 per cent-that they had for many years. This may not have been enough and the recent decision also may not have been enough, but these people were coming from a relatively low base that was created by Liberal-National Party members. No one else created it; the Opposition was responsible. We introduced the Remuneration Tribunal, so it galls me that in nearly every debate we have in this House the Opposition comes in and talks about how dreadful conditions are here, there and everywhere. Yet, when the Government made the decision to sell all or part of Williamstown Dockyard last autumn, it was virtually on its fourth anniversary in government. We have had just four years. I remind the Opposition that for 31 of the previous 34 years conservative governments were in power in this country. What did they do about it? Nothing. In industrial terms, most of our problems were created by the no-planning, no-forethought, do-nothing governments of the 1950s and 1960s under that supposedly great Prime Minister Menzies. We are now having to pay for that do-nothing attitude. Opposition members come into this House and complain that this country is in a dreadful state; yet the Opposition created most of the dashed problems. Opposition members come in here and talk about wage rates for defence personnel after being responsible for freezing their salaries. The honourable member for McPherson also talked about privatisation, saying that the selling off of Williamstown Dockyard is the first big thing that we have done and that we will privatise everything. Mr White —How would you like to try to get it through at the moment? Mr CHARLES —Quite easily. Contrary to what the honourable member thinks, there are people on this side of the House who acknowledge the fact that some enterprises-Williamstown is obviously one of them-are better off and much more competitive in private hands. That is the reason why this Government made the decision. The honourable member for Melbourne, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), agrees with that decision because it will make it much more competitive. Mr McArthur —Which way did he vote? Mr Hand —I voted for it. How else would I vote? Mr CHARLES —He voted for it; that is right. We are not talking about privatisation in this debate. We are not talking about selling off Aussat Pty Ltd, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Australia Post or Telecom Australia, which members of the Opposition would like to do. Members of the Opposition talk about flogging off everything. That is what their leader said during the election campaign. Opposition members cannot get away from that. But, if we look at what Thatcher has done, if I may diverge for just a few seconds, British Telecom's service and costs are disastrous now compared with what they were when it was in public hands. Whilst things may not have been perfect, they have gone downhill since. Mr White —We agree with what you are doing. Tell that to the people in the gallery. Mr CHARLES —I am just telling the honourable member for McPherson not to hold his breath waiting for us to privatise anything in the communications area because I can tell him that that will never occur. The Opposition will not be able to do that either after we have finished. We heard an incredible speech from the honourable member for McPherson in which he talked about pay rises, privatisation and all sorts of things which have nothing to do with this debate. The Government made the decision, I think back in March, to move towards selling off all or part of Williamstown. There will be negotiations with the new owners. I am sure that the new owners will be very competitive in the new tendering system for the Anzac project. As I have said-I am sure the honourable member for Melbourne will agree with me-Victoria will gain a very big share of that project. Mr Hand —A good project. Mr CHARLES —It is. Let me just finish on the point on which I started out. The way in which this Bill has come before the House is in complete contrast with the way in which conservative governments in this country operated. Instead of confrontation and the pitting of one group against another, we have seen various groups, from the Public Service unions to the blue collar unions to departments of the Government and the Public Service Commission, after about six months of negotiation, bring forward successful agreements that will work. That is what this Government is about. As Australians we should be proud of that. This legislation is a result of that. It is part of the Government's original decision to sell off all or part of Williamstown Dockyard. I support that decision, as does everyone else on this side of the House, and I wish the Minister and the Government well in the finalisation of the selling off of Williamstown. I wish the dockyard well with the Anzac project, which I am sure we will hear more about in the near future. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.29) —I am delighted to see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) here to defend the left wing of the Australian Labor Party in this interesting debate focusing on privatisation. The Government has now agreed with the coalition's position on privatisation, and this is manifested in the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987. I support the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the shadow Minister for Defence, in his remarks about this Bill. We support the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Government for moving the dockyard to a more commercial footing and getting away from the dead hand of bureaucracy. In answer to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), who suggested that former conservative governments encouraged confrontationist industrial relations, let me remind him who was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions during the 1970s. Who encouraged the arguments and the debates between management and the unions during that time and is now preaching consensus and all of that? Who was the real architect of the arguments between the management and the unions during that time? We are still handling the legacy of those times. From the focus of this Bill, it is obvious that privatisation is now a key debate, surprisingly, amongst members of the Labor Party. I note that by one vote the Caucus supported the privatisation suggestions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which the Opposition has been putting forward over the last three or four years. It is a surprising change, and I look forward with interest to see what will happen at the Labor Party's National conference in June next year. We in the Opposition agree with the general thrust of this Bill, which is that redundancy payments to the work force be reasonable in the changeover of the dockyard from government ownership to ownership by the private sector. I note that the present Minister for Defence has been instrumental in selling the Government Aircraft Factories to the private sector. Again, I support him in these endeavours. I have looked at the aircraft factory at Avalon and was impressed with its level of performance. I have no doubt that, with the change in attitude and change in approach, that aircraft factory will work a lot better in the private sector. Likewise, at the Williamstown Dockyard with which this Bill is concerned, I am sure that with the change of attitude there will be quite a remarkable change in productivity and output. There will also be a change of approach towards Garden Island Dockyard and it will be sold off to the private sector. If we refer to the Review of Defence Project Management of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1986, we see that it found that `difficulties, especially in material procurement, reflected the limited autonomy of the dockyard management and the lack of modern commercial practices'. So we see that the Parliament's own Public Accounts Committee brought to light a major problem which was known to everyone else associated with the Williamstown Dockyard. The report of the Auditor-General on audits to 30 June 1987 was very critical of progress made by the dockyard towards full commercial accounting and concluded that since its previous unsatisfactory findings of dockyard audits it was disappointing to see the lack of appropriate resources devoted to major changes to the Dockyard's accounting information systems. In fact the result of the audit was unsatisfactory. The Auditor-General's report also stated: The failure of the management information systems to produce accurate and timely reports resulted in the Dockyard severely underestimating the projected loss from operations during the year. I was pleased to see in the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) that she did concede these difficulties when she said: Operating under public sector constraints, Williamstown Dockyard is not well structured to remedy these deficiencies and to compete for the full prime contractor role for the new surface combatant or even project Anzac. So the general position of the Minister and the Government is one of agreeing with the coalition on the privatisation issue under public debate at this time. Both the Minister and the shadow Minister have mentioned the two consortia on the short list of tenderers to buy the dockyard. One is the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation and the other includes Tecnav Pty Ltd, which incorporates some of the current management of the Williamstown Dockyard and Byvest Pty Ltd. Again, the coalition supports the fact that those people who are in the work force of the dockyard have seen fit, both in the work place and in the management role, to take over the dockyard. Again, that supports our general philosophic thrust of co-operation between unions and management. The tenders were put out on 7 September and I understand that the results of these two consortium bids will be decided upon by the Government by February-March 1988. It appears that the Government has spent about $80m in upgrading the dockyard, so the amount of new capital equipment and facilities is of a high order in some parts of the dockyard. However, various literature that I have read suggests that the value of the dockyard is in the area of $100m. So with the sale we will get a combination of good equipment, in which the Government has invested, and efficiency in naval construction and repairs and, above all, we will have the profit motive that the new consortium will bring to bear on the dockyard operation. Turning to the dockyard work force, one sees a surprising change in the numbers and attitudes and again the quite remarkable overmanning of the dockyard that was historically the situation. A total of 600 personnel will no longer be needed at the dockyard. One might wonder what they were doing over the last 20 years. The total work force numbers will fall from about 1,800 or 1,900 to an objective of 1,300 personnel. The fact that about one-third of the work force is being made redundant by the effluxion of time, retirements and so on must indicate that quite considerable overmanning and faulty work practices existed in the dockyard. I am led to believe that the establishment still retains a sailmaker. I think the last Australian ship of combat that had sail was well before the 1914-18 War, and I wonder why the Williamstown Naval Dockyard retained a sailmaker. That is a job description, although one assumes the sailmaker would have had to find other activities to occupy his time. The employees of the dockyard are employed under the Public Service Act 1922 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 and, as the shadow Minister for Defence indicated, there is no potential to sack any of those employees in this industrial type operation. The coalition supports clause 5 of the Bill, which guards against an employee who is offered employment by the new owner declining that offer, taking the redundancy and then re-applying for employment. Measures to prevent employees from abusing the redundancy package in this way are incorporated in the Bill, and the Opposition supports them. Any worker who refuses an offer of employment with the new owner will be deemed to have resigned and will therefore not be offered the redundancy package. In her second reading speech, the Minister indicated that this was done to save the Government $4m to $13m, and the coalition supports any measures to save taxpayers' funds. The auditor's report indicates the tremendous problems in the procurement procedures-that is, getting the materials on hand-and on site evidence indicates that a number of workers have been idle for periods of days, weeks and months while waiting for vital parts to arrive. The shadow Minister indicated his personal observations only yesterday when saying that members of the work force were not fully employed during his inspection of the dockyard. Obviously some downtime must be experienced, as well as waiting time for parts to arrive. As the shadow Minister indicated, up to nine months waiting time had occurred for particular vital parts. Dockyard authorities have taken no heed of the motor industry where work practices have been improved and `just in time' procedures have been adopted so that parts arrive ready for the production line with 24 to 48 hours to spare. That high level of efficiency is in stark contrast to the obvious delays in the delivery of parts and materials that have occurred at the Williamstown dockyard over the last 20 or 30 years. Privatisation will produce a change of attitude and changes in respect of quality control and efficiency. The objective will be to ensure that the successful tenderer is able to compete with overseas shipbuilders. Again, the Opposition supports the view that in Australia we ought to be able to construct ships efficiently so that important defence contracts can be let to our own industry, creating jobs, profits and employment opportunities for our own people rather than providing work for overseas shipbuilding yards. The eight frigates ordered by the Royal Australian Navy are worth something in the area of $3.5 billion in contracts and, coupled with the four New Zealand naval contracts, would total approximately $5 billion worth of contracts that could be taken on by the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. It is an encouraging situation which can be brought about only with a change in the operation of the dockyard. As the Minister for Defence has said, this is the best equipped dockyard in Australia, despite its management and work force problems. The historic position of the dockyard is well known to Victorians. I have an interesting quote from the National Times of 14 November 1985, during the time of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia, that typifies the position, as Victorians understand it, of the operations at the dockyard: The boys in blue at Williamstown's naval dockyard are popularly associated with broken noses, tattoos, cement overcoats and royal commissions. Combine this with their reputation for industrial ratbaggery and you could say they have an image problem. Two years ago the whole dockyard had an image problem. For more than a decade powerful blue-collar unions had been staging constant walkouts and work bans. They accused the naval management, for whom they felt a loathing that was fully reciprocated, of incompetence and at one stage voted to ``sack'' the management and run the yard themselves. Unhappily for them, they were heading for a tragic denouncement. With up to 320,000 man hours a year lost because of disputes, costs were rising as fast as productivity was falling and the then Liberal Federal Government was threatening to close the yard altogether. More than 2,000 jobs would have gone with it. That was the historic position; and the present Government has had to adopt the coalition's privatisation program and sell the dockyard off so that we can change the attitude of management, the work force and the unions and introduce a profit motive into the whole operation. The classical privatisation move will involve the work force in multiskilling and remove them from the potential demarcation dispute situation. It has been suggested that the unions now agree with that position. Of course, they had to agree because they could see that the remaining jobs in that establishment would disappear altogether unless dramatic changes occurred. I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to the strange position of the Prime Minister and the Government in the privatisation debate. I quote from the Prime Minister's speech during the Nunawading by-election campaign when he said: The efficient delivery of government services-many of which only government can provide-will be sacrificed on the altar of ideological expedience . . . All the conservatives really want is to sell off the profitable areas of government activity . . . Picking and choosing in this way is hardly the hallmark of a socially responsible government . . . That is an interesting statement from the Prime Minister in light of the fact that the Government has now agreed to sell this operation which is losing $18m a year. That was his position then and I notice that yesterday the Prime Minister supported the privatisation argument. The headline in today's Age is: `Hawke supports asset sales but Left rallies troops'. It is interesting that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has now left the chamber. I shall quote what the Prime Minister now says about privatisation, accordancy to the Age: It was a question of priorities for the use of Government funds. ``I can't see any social democratic principle that is involved in government running an airline'', he told a news conference. ``I have to also ask myself as I look down the track: are there going to be demands upon government to increase the capital base of those Government airlines? Is that going to involve a demand upon funds which could be better utilised in other ways? The same thing I think you can say of the bank''. I presume he was talking about the Commonwealth Bank. I can add to that and say the same thing could be presumed about the Williamstown Naval Dockyard: funds would be better utilised in the private sector. The Government has now agreed to the general thrust of the Opposition's policy on privatisation: that more efficient operations will emanate from privatis- ation; that a change will take place in the Williamstown Dockyard in the quite drastic and dramatic industrial relations attitudes in that management will now become more co-operative with the work force in trying to produce a quality product; and that there will be a new era of shipbuilding in Australia because of this change by the Minister for Defence and the Government, contrary to the general thrust of the Labor Party at this time. I commend the Minister and the Government for their adoption of the privatisation principles, as set out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the coalition over the last five years. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.47) —One cannot resist the urge to respond to some of the offerings from the Opposition. If anything is designed to needle the Government, it is that we have somehow embraced John Howard and privatis- ation and all that the Opposition stands for on that issue. Mr White —That is what you have done. Mr PRICE —I shall get to that; just give me a bit of time. I want to pick up a few points quickly. First, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) rhetorically asked the question: during the Fraser Government who was responsible for the industrial confrontation that typified those seven years of Australian Government? He was trying to make the point that it was the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I was an employee of Telecom Australia at the same time as the honourable member was president of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. One of the real features of industrial relations at that time-and perhaps quite a shock to us-was that in the middle of a very intense and bitter dispute with the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, of which I am not a member, the managing director of Telecom was ultimately sacked because he put forward a reasonable proposal to resolve the dispute that did not embrace sufficient elements of confrontation that was practised by the then Prime Minister. If the honourable member wants to ask the rhetorical question, which political party believes in confrontation and which party does not agree in general principle with consensus and sitting down and trying to work out things, of course, it would be the Liberal and National parties. There have been so many matters of public importance since I have been in parliament that really annoy me: they try to put the blame for our economic problems on the men and women of Australia, who happen to be in the work force and belong to a union. I object to that. Then we have the hypocrisy when it comes to a debate such as this, where the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), in talking about the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), refers to the consultative processes in it, and then applauds them. He cannot have it both ways, and that is not the first time a shadow Minister has done that. There is this public face that the ordinary men and women of Australia are the real demons in the economy; they are responsible for bringing down the economy; they are responsible for confrontation: but when it comes to individual Bills, the Opposition says, `Yes, but we really are supportive of the consultative process that is going on'. What hypocrisy! On the issue of privatisation, the honourable member for Corangamite said that the Prime Minister survived by one vote in the Caucus. Let me say, just as I have had to point out in respect of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), that the Prime Minister also enjoys the overwhelming support of honourable members on this side of the House, and that was the case yesterday. So the honourable member should get his facts right. Mr White —What was the vote? Mr Lee —Almost unanimous. Mr PRICE —As the honourable member for Dobell points out, it was almost unanimous. It was certainly overwhelming support. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), with the elevation of Mr Elliott, would like to feel that he enjoys the present and continuing long term support that the Prime Minister enjoys. A number of Opposition speakers have suggested that somehow the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill embraces the privatisation philosophy of the Opposition. I should have thought that, given the Opposition's ideological commitment to privatising everything and anything-dismembering organisations-the shadow spokesman would have said, for example, that munitions manufacturing should be privatised. The other thing the Opposition says is that the only way one can come to grips with work practices or increased efficiency or effectiveness is by privatisation. The Opposition believes private enterprise is the sole repository of these virtues and that that is the only place one can get them. Let me inform the honourable member for Corangamite and the honourable member for McPherson that I have the St Marys Munitions Filling Factory in my electorate. I must say that I was a little concerned about the Government's proposal to make that factory, together with other factories, more efficient and more effective. But that is being done and part of the process is nearly complete. And it is being done within a Public Service model. It can be done. This is the big difference between the Opposition and the Government. We are not mindlessly committed to some philosophical approach. Our concern is for the organisation, its viability, its effectiveness, its efficiency, the long term prospects of its employees and, ultimately, whether it is servicing customers, its customers. Mr White —Economic vandalism-that is what you have been calling it for years. Mr PRICE —I agree. The honourable member for McPherson wants to be identified as an economic vandal, along with his colleagues in the Opposition. I wholeheartedly agree with him. That has been demonstrated, if I may say, with my involvement in Telecom. There is no doubt about what the Opposition would do with Telecom. It would dismember the most profitable parts of that organisation. It would hand them over to private enterprise, and then say that private enterprise is operating efficiently and has been able to turn those profitable segments around. What would be left would be social basket cases. I believe significant changes need to be made to Telecom, but those changes do not require the mindless dismembering of Telecom, as the Opposition, including the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), would advocate. I do not believe that should occur and honourable members will certainly not see that happening while we are on this side of the House. I want to make that point very clear in the minds of honourable members, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, we have looked at this situation. As the honourable member for Corangamite has said, there have been extensive studies by the Auditor-General and by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, on which I was pleased to serve in the previous Parliament. Yes, the Government is deciding to sell it. That is seen as in the best long term interests of the employees of the organisation and of the organisation itself, and particularly in providing opportunities for Australian industry. Another issue that I want to raise is that in talking about the submarine contract, the honourable member for McPherson had the gall to question the Minister about the percentage of industry participation-- Mr White —Had the gall? Mr PRICE —I will explain it-in the first submarine being built in Sweden; and he also talked about the implications of the design being done over there and the logical linking in terms of sourcing of supply. Why do I say that he had the gall to raise that issue? The honourable member for McPherson, a shadow Minister, was a member of the previous Liberal shadow Cabinet. He was not sacked; some say he should have been, but I do not hold with that. The honourable member has his position and I respect the fact that he is a shadow Minister. But that same shadow Minister, when it came to the general gamut of Opposition policies, did not bat an eyelid when Senator Messner, the shadow Minister for Communications, was running around the country saying that he would dismember and dismantle every bit of industry assistance that this Government had put into place. Mr O'Neil —Outrageous! Mr PRICE —That is right; it is outrageous considering what it would have done to Australian industry and all that this Government has done to revive it, to give it a future and to provide growth for it. Today the honourable member paraded concern for the defence industries. He is happy to see all of the plans go; he is happy to see things such as research and development go; he is happy to see the bounties go. He is happy to see go all of the things that have been so carefully won and put in place by this Government during an election but, in commenting on this Bill he wants to parade himself as being some defender of Australian industry. Let me say this: I interjected earlier about the warm support and approval that our Minister for Defence has within this Parliament and, indeed, within Australia. One of his many achievements that have gone to the heart and concern of many Australian Labor Party backbenchers, such as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), has been to revive Australia's potential to participate fully in the defence industry opportunities that are presented to us. I think deep down the Opposition acknowledges the tremendous role that he has played, for example, in the submarine contract. Apart from the first submarine, they will be constructed in Australia. The frigates and the Anzac ships have been mentioned. I certainly add my note of praise to the Minister and commend him on this Bill. I repeat what has been said earlier about the Bill. It provides for the tendering of the Williamstown dockyard. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Corangamite pointed out that a member of the consortium bidding for the dockyard comprises employees. Whilst we read in the newspapers about managerial and entrepreneurial skill and expertise and we put forward a whole host of Australians in that model, I have always felt that the greatest asset that an enterprise, whether it be public or private, has is the people who work for it. This Bill contains particular employee provisions so that anyone who is offered a job by the successful tenderer will not be able, in effect, to double dip. I conclude by saying that I support the Bill. I get a little disturbed, or perhaps irritated, at what I have seen as a less than straight attitude-maybe it is hypocritical-on behalf of the Opposition but I note that it is supporting this Bill and I commend it for that. I particularly commend the Minister for the tremendous job that he is doing. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.58) —It is nice to be preceded by a speech with which one can agree in its entirety. I thank the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) for his contribution to this debate. I view with some gratitude the fact that this legislation is drawing support from both sides of the House. The Opposition is keen to portray the course of action that we have proposed as a course of action it has long advocated. Unfortunately, when I took up this portfolio, indeed when we got into government, we were confronted with a situation in which something like a $300m subsidy was effectively applying across the board in government defence enterprises of which the Williamstown dockyard is one. Total outlays into these areas was some $600m, a ratio of about 2 : 1. Those figures are not exact but they are of that order. Enormous inefficiencies, enormous overmanning and extremely poor management had been allowed to develop over the seven years prior to our coming into government. That was the situation with which we were confronted when we came to office. Since that time, by a process of negotiation with the trade union movement and by rigorously addressing the cost structure of those organisations, we have reduced that subsidy. Within another year or so we will be at a point where, effectively, government factories are not subsidised at all. This is a course of action that has been made possible by the attitude this Government has to negotiations with the trade union movement and the attitude we have on the essential program of making certain that government enterprise works effectively. As the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987 is directly related to industrial provisions associated with the sale of Williamstown Dockyard, it is appropriate to acknowledge in the consultation process the role of the trade union movement. We are now at the position in which we have an attractive package for sale basically because we have had the co-operation of the union movement in negotiations. Fears that may have been apparent among would-be purchasers of the dockyard have been laid to rest by the fact that we have been able to achieve agreement. I pay tribute to the trade union negotiators involved for the fact that we have arrived at that position. I also pay tribute to the work force generally which is now looking forward to the various changes that will be associated with the program that is outlined in the legislation. This legislation is a small element of a total approach to defence shipbuilding in this country. This Government has, to a very large extent, revived the shipbuilding industry by the policy decisions that we have been taking. I cite as examples of this the fact that we are now prepared to build two frigates at Williamstown; the fact that we are prepared to construct all six submarines in Australia; the fact that we have been prepared to construct hydrographic vessels in this country-a contract for which has recently been let-and the fact that we are proceeding to construct minehunters. It is a massive shipbuilding program that will be continuous. By the time all of those projects are completed it will be necessary to replace other craft in the inventory and the successful tenderers for the construction of the ships and submarines will, of course, be entitled to bid for subsequent programs. After the 1960s we had effectively moved ourselves out of shipbuilding programs altogether, except for the odd one here and there and patrol boats, and we are back to the situation in which from now on, and for the foreseeable future, we will build ships and submarines and our naval needs will be met in this country. This will have a major impact on our industrial posture as a nation. In building our naval needs in this country we are required to protect the defence dollar to ensure that the product we obtain is obtained at the best possible price and this legislation is directly related to achieving that objective. A number of questions were raised by honourable members on both sides of the House and I will attempt to deal with them very briefly. Firstly, a question was raised about the light patrol frigate program-the Anzac program. It is our intention to keep costs constrained. Invariably, when one is entailed in a process of keeping costs constrained, one will occasionally make sacrifices in capability. It does not matter which weapons system one is dealing with; that will be the case. We will be ensuring that if there is a requirement to send frigates into a hotter situation than we might anticipate in our current strategic environment, there will be a capacity to make the necessary modifications rapidly. But we would be foolish to do that in advance in this program because we have to remember that this is a zero sum game. If we build excess capacity into ships by divorcing the program from the overall defence equipment program, sacrifices will be made elsewhere. It is quite conceivable that those sacrifices would be made with particular weapons systems which are more important than the marginal improvement that would take place as a result of proceeding to do a full fit on the frigates. We also have to recognise the situation of our partner. We have a $A7 1/2 billion a year defence budget, of which some $2 billion is spent on equipment. That $2 billion spent on equipment is alone approximately twice the size of the total New Zealand defence budget. So we have to be mindful of the fact that in dealing with New Zealand we are dealing with a country which, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) outlined yesterday, we wish to involve intensely in this project but which has to keep its own expenditure within reasonable constraints. New Zealand is offering us, by its participation, a very substantial industrial benefit. We would not wish to see that abused and we would not wish to see New Zealand drop out of the process through decisions we took that unnecessarily increased the cost. It also has to be recognised that we are dealing with a restructured navy based on several tiers of warship. We are not with this ship trying to replicate the FFGs and DDGs. When we come to replace the FFGs and DDGs we will be replacing them with a higher capability ship than we envisage here in this program. However, if we fail to recognise this and go for too much in this class of ship, we may well compromise our capacity in the long haul to build even more into their subsequent replacements. That is a matter for the Navy to have regard to, because I do not think that any of the participants in this debate will necessarily be participants in the debates that occur in about 15 or 20 years time when that issue becomes a matter of public consideration in this country. So these are the constraints that are acting on the way in which we approach the light patrol frigate program. There is one other constraint, and this, I think, makes it doubly important that we keep the New Zealanders in the project if we possibly can-as I believe we will be able to do. I refer to the question of the size of our surface fleet. It is my view that our surface fleet is too small. Its present size has been arrived at basically because that was the number considered necessary to make a carrier battle group viable. Equivalent countries such as Canada and some countries in our neighbourhood operate 20 or 30 frigates. As a result of this program we will go to about 16 or 17. One of the questions put to me was whether or not we would be prepared to sacrifice numbers for capability. It would be with extreme reluctance that I would sacrifice numbers for capability, because there is a value in having a substantial number of platforms, particularly in respect of the tasks of choke point protection around the coast of Australia. Twelve is probably not enough to do it with. Sixteen or 17 is probably not enough either, but it is better than 12. There are four New Zealand craft as well. That makes 21, and that is a heck of a lot better than 16 or 17. These increases start to make a difference. Mr White —I don't think you can be sure that they would be with you. Mr BEAZLEY —The New Zealanders have alliance commitments to us and nothing that they have said to me indicates that they in any way intend to renege on them. A question was raised, too, about submarines and the construction that would be done in this country. The Opposition spokesman on defence matters, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), raised a question which he has raised a couple of times in this Parliament. I will answer it again. It was made quite clear at the time to Cabinet and to all the committees that were briefed that the bits and pieces of the first submarine hull would be produced overseas. The package we signed was a total package which provided for 70 per cent to be constructed in Australia and 30 per cent to be constructed overseas. This particular contract that we have signed happens to be included among the 30 per cent that was to be constructed overseas. Unless we were doing 100 per cent of the construction here, logically some portion will be constructed overseas. This contract is within that overseas portion. It will be constructed of Australian material. It will be Australian steel that goes into the work that will be done in Sweden. It will provide our engineers with a substantial advantage. By the time they are doing the complex engineering on these parts of the submarine, equivalent facilities will not have been completed in Australia. We will be starting that early. So Australian engineers will have an opportunity to gain skills in submarine production by learning in those Swedish yards and they will be able to apply those skills in Australia at exactly the right point in time when equivalent facilities for construction become available in Australia. So a substantial benefit is coming to us and this contract is appropriately a part of the overseas portion, given the significance of these parts of the submarine to its own overall performance when it is up and running. When we are dealing with a scheme in which 70 per cent of the funds are being spent in this country-exactly reversing the ratio that was associated with the FA18 program-I think it is rather foolish to worry about what constitutes about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the first platform when the benefits we are gaining from this contract are so substantial in the subsequent production activity associated with the program. This piece of legislation will enable the Williamstown Naval Dockyard to compete effectively in all these great projects. It will enable it to ensure its continuing existence forever. That ought to be a matter of great encouragement for the members of the work force who will be retained in the dockyard under its new ownership. It also ought to be a matter of encouragement for the people in that region whose employment is to some degree ancillary to or dependant upon servicing the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. It is part of what has been the most consistent effort in naval shipbuilding in this country to ensure that Australian industry capacity is enhanced and that, in being enhanced, a major strategic benefit accrues to the Australian people and the Australian Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 October. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(12.13) —On behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is not available at this stage, I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. None of the amendments made by the Bill has any significant financial impact. The amendments proposed in this Bill are, for the most part, a reproduction of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987 which lapsed after the second reading debate in the House earlier this year. The current Bill is different from Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 1) in two respects. Firstly, it contains some further changes to amendments previously included in the Bill. Some of these are necessary because of the effluxion of time, for example, the amendments to the Honey Industry Act 1962, and some are minor drafting amendments. Secondly, this Bill includes amendments to the following Acts which were not present in the earlier Bill: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; Acts Interpretation Act 1901; Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979; Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; Currency Act 1965; Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987; Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966; Foreign States Immunities Act 1985; Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing mainly the new amendments included in this Bill, and amendments in the lapsed Bill that were queried. The Bill was passed by the Senate with amendments, on 7 October 1987. The Senate amended the Bill by omitting certain proposed amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act and the Audit Act. The omissions are reflected in the supplementary explanatory memorandum No. 1 circulated with the Bill. Four of the omitted provisions are substantive, and there are two consequential amendments. Three of the substantive amendments were referred to Senate standing committees for inquiry and report. This course of action was adopted to permit the Bill's speedy passage through the Senate. These amendments have been considered by the Senate committees which have approved the amendments subject to a minor drafting change in the amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act. I foreshadow that I will be moving that this Bill be amended to restore these three amendments with that minor change and the consequential amendments. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 The amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act are intended to advance the policy of simplifying the language of Acts of parliament. For this purpose the amendments will permit some standard forms of words to be shortened, or omitted from Acts. I will be moving an amendment to the Bill, similar to that omitted from the Bill as introduced in the Senate to further amend the Acts Interpretation Act to make it clear that regulations may be expressed to commence at the commencement of a specified Act, even if the Act is to commence on a proclaimed date. It is also intended to provide that regulations may be expressed to commence at a specified time on a specified day. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970 The Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act currently restricts the functions of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board to those specified in the agreement annexed to the Act. The United Kingdom and Australian governments have agreed that it is desirable for the board to assume from the United Kingdom authorities responsibility for the future management of some additional facilities already in place at Siding Spring. The amendments will enable the board to undertake other functions as prescribed by regulations and so assume those responsibilities without the need for amendment of the agreement. Audit Act 1901 The amendments proposed to the Audit Act in this Bill are aimed at improving the efficiency of the Commonwealth's financial administration and allowing the Auditor-General a discretion in reporting minor breaches of legislative requirements. Financial administration will be improved by an amendment to enable the Minister for Finance to approve methods of performing accounting functions which do not involve written signatures. The amendments will ensure that Departments report to Parliament on their special operations-a requirement which has not existed previously. The Auditor-General will also be given some discretion on which matters are included in his reports. The Auditor-General, when so requested by a Minister, will be able to audit the financial statements of bodies such as incorporated companies controlled by the Commonwealth. Currently there is doubt whether the Act permits such an audit, as the existing provision refers to the audit of accounts and records only. Other amendments will enable regulations to be made to re-establish a policy adopted by previous governments and arising directly from the policy of self-insurance, that the liability of Commonwealth drivers for the cost of replacing or repairing damaged vehicles should be the same as for a driver in the private sector who is covered by motor vehicle insurance. The Senate omitted some proposed amendments from the Bill as introduced in that House. I will be moving amendments to this Bill to amend further the Audit Act to simplify the processes by which funds that have already been appropriated by law are subsequently distributed to departments. Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 Amendment to the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 is proposed in order to extend the current marketing arrangements for canned deciduous fruits undertaken through the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation for one year until 31 December 1988. The Government is aware of current efforts by canneries to amalgamate their activities in order to improve efficiency and reduce costs. The extension of the marketing arrangements by one year will facilitate industry discussions on cannery amalgamation. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The proposed amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is designed to put beyond doubt the power of the Electoral Commissioner to direct Australian electoral officers, divisional returning officers and other officers as defined in that Act. The amendment also puts beyond doubt the power of Australian electoral officers to direct divisional returning officers and they in their turn to direct officers under their control. Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 The amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is intended to remove doubts about the certification of rule alterations. The Act requires that certain rule alterations made by organisations registered under the Act do not take effect unless certified by an industrial registrar as not contrary to law, the Act and regulations, an award or the rules of the organisation. Some doubt exists about the power of a registrar to certify only part of a rule alteration submitted to him. The proposed amendment is intended to remove any doubt as to the validity of any certification in part, made by a registrar in the past and any doubt as to the validity of the rule alteration. The provision will not operate to alter any prior decision made by a court regarding any such certification or to pre-empt any decision in a proceeding before a court at the time the sub-section takes effect. A court will, however, be able to hold that a certification in part was valid if the court considers that it is just and equitable so to find. Currency Act 1965 The proposed amendment of the Currency Act 1965 will permit the issue of coins of the same denomination with differing characteristics and dimensions. This will facilitate the issue of special commemorative coins in 1988. Dairy Produce Act 1986 The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1986 will prevent persons who are members of the Executive Council of the Australian Dairy Conference, which is the peak policy council of the dairy industry, from being appointed as members of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This change is in accordance with the Government's policy that, where a statutory marketing authority is required to account to the peak industry body, the members of the executive council of that body are not to be eligible for appointment as members of the authority, because of the possibility of a conflict of interests. Honey Industry Act 1962 The proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act 1962 will enable the Minister to reappoint the immediate past members of the Australian Honey Board to hold office until the end of 1988. The Board is to be restructured with the new membership. Under the Bill which lapsed at the end of the last sittings, the tenure of Board members was to be extended pending the restructuring of the Board. However, in the intervening period the Board members' appointments have expired. Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965 The Bill proposes a number of minor amendments to the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. The most important of these fall into two areas. The first will allow greater flexibility in the appointment of a person to act as Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. Under the proposed amendments, the Treasurer will be able to appoint someone to act as chairman in the absence of the Chairman. This will overcome difficulties that have arisen when the Deputy Chairman's position has been vacant. The second area of amendment will allow the Corporation to enter into reinsurance contracts with a subsidiary of an approved lender in respect of loans made by the approved lender and insured by the subsidiary. A recent trend for some lenders to insure their loans through their own newly established subsidiaries, and the fact that the Corporation is currently prevented by its Act from offering reinsurance, have restricted the Corporation's ability to compete for business it has traditionally serviced. The proposed amendments will enable the Corporation to respond to developments in the mortgage insurance market. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 Several consequential amendments are to be made to these Acts following on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The amendments also will make it clear that the Inspector-General may inquire into an act or practice of an intelligence agency that is or may be contrary to any human right, may constitute discrimination or may be unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 where it has been referred to the Inspector-General by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 The Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act provides a regime to allow exploration for, and exploitation of minerals from the seabed. Administration, pursuant to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, is to be shared between the States and the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. Although passed in 1981 proclamation of the Act has been held up pending passage by the States and the Northern Territory of complementary legislation. The proposed amendment is to allow proclamation of only portions of the Act. Governments are working on the full set of legislation and administrative arrangements required to implement the regime. Meanwhile, however, while the States and the Northern Territory can consider applications to explore areas to the outer limit of the territorial sea-the `three mile limit'-in accordance with their existing on-shore mining legislation, the Commonwealth is unable to consider applications for the much larger area of continental shelf outside the limit. There have been several expressions of interest by companies in respect of exploration in the Commonwealth's area. The Government is disposed to encourage commencement of mineral exploration activity, though mining would not be authorised until all arrangements are in place. It is proposed to proclaim only so much of the Act as is necessary to allow exploration to proceed. Given the role of the States and the Northern Territory in the administration of the Act, their views on partial proclamation have been sought. None of them has raised objections in principle. Discussions between officials are taking place. Navigation Act 1912, Shipping Registration Act 1981 The most noteworthy amendments of the Navigation Act will benefit the maritime industry by eliminating unnecessary duplication of certificating of ships. The amendments of the Shipping Registration Act are intended to promote the prompt provision to the Registrar of Shipping of accurate information on ships entitled to be registered in Australia. Pig Industry Act 1986 The amendment to the Pig Industry Act provides that if the Australian Pork Corporation requests that a company auditor be appointed the auditor of the Corporation, the Auditor-General shall advise the Minister on the suitability of the proposed company auditor. At present the Auditor-General is required to decide on the suitability of a company auditor. Another amendment removes the restriction on the Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee which prevents it from nominating for appointment to the Corporation anyone who is a member of the executive of an eligible industry body, that is, the Australian Pork Producers' Federation or the National Meat Processors Association. A person will still be ineligible for actual appointment to the Corporation if he or she is such a member. Removal of this restriction will mean that such a person will need to resign his or her position in the Federation or Association only if and when offered appointment to the Corporation by the Minister. This amendment will bring the selection procedures for the Corporation into line with those for other statutory marketing authorities. Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 The proposed amendments to the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act update the penalties and revise some of the offences. The amendments as they now appear differ from the original version of the Bill introduced earlier this year to rectify a defect in a provision removing the right to refuse to provide information on the grounds of self-incrimination. This matter was raised by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. I have not dealt with most of the amendments proposed by this Bill which were contained in the lapsed Bill. The explanatory memorandum has been revised and expanded in relation to all these amendments and honourable members will be able to find details of these amendments, and the new amendments, in that memorandum. Supplementary explanatory memorandum No. 1 provides replacement pages for the explanatory memorandum to take account of the amendments made to the Bill by the Senate. I have foreshadowed some amendments to restore some of the provisions omitted by the Senate. I also foreshadow amendments to the National Measurement Act 1960 relating to contracts for the sale of land. Details of all the proposed amendments are contained in supplementary explanatory memorandum No. 2. I will deal with the background to the foreshadowed amendments when moving those amendments in Committee. I present the explanatory memorandum and supplementary memorandum No. 1 to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith. Statute Law Bill Statute Law Bill Statute Law Bill Statute Law Bill Statute Law Bill Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.29) —Once again we have before the House a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, sometimes referred to as an SLMP Bill, which is in fact an omnibus Bill containing a very wide range of matters. In fact something like 87 Acts are being amended in this Bill. The Bill also repeals 24 Acts. I suppose, as a mark of the significance of these provisions, I am very fortunate today to have in both galleries members of my electorate of Flinders. I am sure that they will have considerable interest in such things as the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act, which is covered in this Bill, the Australian Citizenship Act, because they are all good citizens, as well as a very wide range of other matters. I see it covers the Australian Tourist Commission Act, and tourism is of great significance to my electorate. I see something about grapes. The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) has been talking about grapes. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have a very good grape growing industry on the Mornington Peninsula. This Bill has had quite a chequered and tortuous career on the way to taking its place in the statute book. It is, for the most part, the same as the SLMP (No. 1) Bill of 1987, which was introduced in this House on 30 April this year and which passed through all stages on 11 May. Unfortunately it lapsed with the calling of the early general election on 11 July. I must say that it does give cause for some irony, because since, and in fact during, the election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been talking about extending the terms of the Parliament. One of his arguments for extending the terms of the Parliament was that thereby the administration of government could be more efficient, as we would not be distracted by continual elections. The early election called by this Prime Minister was a classic case of interfering with the due administration of the law, and the passage of the law, which is of course the primary function of this Parliament. So the hypocrisy comes from the provisions of this Bill. I refer honourable members to some of the matters which are covered in the Bill, some of the matters which were delayed as a result of the calling of this early election by the early election specialist, Mr Hawke. For example, Federal and Territory prisoners will have been very grateful to the Prime Minister for calling the early election, as the non-passage of the legislation has had the effect of maintaining the existing common law rule that while a prisoner was at large, and his sentence had expired, he could not be detained. Well, those days were to be numbered, but in fact six or nine months later there is a delay as a result of the early election. Another major gaff was to allow the membership of the Australian Honey Board to pass the date of its expiry-a new definition of the term `ex officio'. It just went out of existence, thanks to the Prime Minister's early election. It reminds me of one of those Hancock's Half Hour programs, when Hancock was written out of the script. He came back on public demand and the first thing he did was to write out of the program all the other stars by making them fall down a mine shaft. This is basically what has happened to the poor old Honey Board as a result of the early election. The Minister mentioned today amendments to the First Home Owners Act, which allow for more discretion to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of the administering Department regarding the date of applicants' contracts. How many young people have missed out thanks to Mr Hawke's early election? There is not a word from the Minister. There are other provisions, such as allowing an extension of the powers of the National Crime Authority. The proposal is novel in that it extends the power to cover the area of absconding witnesses. Presumably it is in the interests of the fight against organised crime that that power be given to the National Crime Authority. Similarly, it is a reasonable presumption that the failure to pass the necessary legislation has not been in the best interests of the Authority. Again there is not a word in the Minister's second reading speech about that. That is the history of this Bill, a testimony to the hypocrisy of those who call for longer parliamentary terms and then establish a reputation as the early election specialists. The Bill introduced into the Senate on 24 September was largely a reproduction of that earlier ill-fated Bill. It differed in two respects. First, it contained some further changes to amendments previously included in the Bill and, secondly, it included amendments to a number of additional Acts. That Bill was amended in the Senate by the deletion of six proposals, of which four, relating to the Acts Interpretation Act and the Audit Act, were referred respectively to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for inquiry and report. As noted at the time, by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), the intention was that the committees would `give a very speedy report so that the matters can be elucidated and clarified for the benefit of both chambers'. In the event, the Bill, minus the Senate's deletions, was read for the first time in this chamber on 8 October. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration was presented to the Senate on 23 October. In brief, the Committee has recommended that if the original amendments to the Audit Act were reinserted by the House of Representatives, the Senate should agree to such amendments. Indeed, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has given advance notice of his intention to take up this suggestion. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances will, I believe, report in the near future, perhaps today or tomorrow. I understand, however, that the Committee will raise no objection to the reintroduction of the deleted amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act, which again has been foreshadowed by the Attorney-General. I believe, however, that the Committee has identified other aspects of the latter Act which require attention. In the absence of advice to the contrary, I assume that the Attorney-General intends that these issues be addressed at a future date. In regard to the deletion of those amendments, Senator Stone was very much involved in the Senate's action on those matters. I am sure that he will comment more fully on the attitude we should take to those proposals. I know that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who has an interest in these matters, may well have an opportunity later in the debate to pick up some points which perhaps require closer attention. There is often talk on the Government side of the House about the quality of the front bench, but Senator Stone has been given considerable credit, and properly so, for his work on the Australia Card legislation. I mention that matter because often provisions can be slipped in, and one has to be very much alert to the possibilities of a government that will use regulations, as happened recently in Victoria. The Victorian Government sought to close down the freedom of information provisions by slipping something through in the fine print, hoping that nobody would notice. I compliment Senator Stone and of course Mr Ewart Smith, who has worked for this Parliament. They did a great job on this matter and it highlights the need to be careful about regulations. Actions taken by the Senate were commendable. To complete this roundup of events, I note for the record that the Attorney-General has foreshadowed amendments to a third Act, namely the National Measurement Act. These amendments are entirely new matters, and I shall deal with them later. The final act will hopefully occur when this Bill is reported to and voted on in the Senate. As I said at the outset, it has been a lengthy and tortuous process. In this case, at least, it will be difficult for the Opposition to complain that insufficient time has been allowed for consideration of this particular piece of legislation but, after all these months, I noted that last night we still had more amendments to the amendments being brought around to us for a last minute fix-up job. Mr McGauran —General incompetence. Mr REITH —As my neighbour in Victoria says, it is a mark of the muddle that this Government finds itself in. At this point I should say that the coalition will not be opposing the Bill in principle, although there are some aspects which will be commented on both in this House and in the Senate. I mentioned briefly the National Measurement Act. The proposals before us today provide a new definition of `interest in land' to include stratum-strata title and time sharing, so that all references to an `interest in land' do actually include all property transactions. In future, after 31 December 1987, all real estate transactions will be obliged to use metric units of measurements, except where, for example, the Act would have a retrospective effect, a State or Territory torrens land registration system applies, or countries which do not use metric units of measurement enter into transactions. As passed in the Senate, the Bill provides that real estate contracts and transactions would be void if non-metric measurements were used, unless the documents of title relating to the land included non-metric measurements. However, the Government has revised its position since then and proposes that such offences will be punishable by a fine rather than by invalidating contracts. The coalition parties support the proposed amendments, which remove the possibility of contravention of the Act. In regard to the National Standards Commission, the proposals change the Commission's operations. Included are a number of amendments relating to the appointment, procedures, qualifications, terms of appointment, duties and powers of the Executive Director and members of the Commission. In future the Commission will be able to enter contracts up to $100,000, in comparison with the present limit of $50,000, without the approval of the Minister. This accords with the limit now governing some other statutory authorities. I mention these substantial matters because the Opposition's view is that they should be in a substantive amendment and not in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. In the short time remaining for this debate, I wish to address myself to the concerns raised in both chambers about the adequacy, or should I say inadequacy, of the guidelines to regulate the scope of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills. In summary, these guidelines are intended to limit the scope of amendments to those dealing with uncontentious matters such as those required for tidying up, the correction and updating of legislation, and routine administrative changes. I refer members who are interested to comments made by Senator Macklin on this Bill in the Senate on 7 October 1987, as recorded at page 778 of the Hansard, where he incorporates the guidelines. It is clear from what has been said often in this Parliament, not only in relation to the current saga but in relation to earlier SLMP Bills, that not infrequently these Bills encroach into areas of substantive law and policy. In fact, I have just mentioned one, that relating to measurements. Indeed, I expect that similar sentiments will be expressed by some of my colleagues later in this debate. The problem has been referred to by several parliamentary committees, including the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. As recently as 23 October 1987 the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, in the context of its report on this Bill, suggested that the guidelines could usefully be reviewed. I fully appreciate that, on occasion, the deviations, or straying from the straight and narrow, can be explained by pressures and time constraints that attend upon these Bills, no doubt compounded by the sheer immensity and volume of the exercise. However, there is in this chamber, and certainly within the Senate, a feeling that the guidelines should be reviewed. The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration expressed the view as set out on page 1179 of the Senate Hansard: . . . a distinction should be made between purely technical and routine amendments and matters which are of greater significance but which may nevertheless be legislatively straightforward. In the latter instance, a separate omnibus Bill would assist such matters to be considered more carefully. Those words echo words of my own when I wrote to the Minister for Justice on 9 October to bring this matter to his attention: It can be said against the practice that: 1. It effectively limits the speaking time of MPs on the various policy matters; 2. The Government can fail to properly draw controversial matters to the attention of the Parliament- in other words, by slipping things in in the fine print- 3. It tends to treat the Parliament as a processing machine. That is very much a feature of Labor governments because they reckon that parliaments are just here to do their bidding. That is why they like to chop into the powers of the Senate. My letter continued: 4. It may allow matters to go through without proper scrutiny. That is a reasonable summation of four complaints and causes against the practice of these omnibus Bills. I do not think that I have said anything that is novel to Labor members. I simply say to them that the proposal I have put to the Minister should be taken up. I hope that a reference will be made by the Minister to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to examine all these procedures to see whether we can reach a bipartisan position in dealing with these Bills so that Parliament can, in the difficult circumstances created by these Bills, operate most effectively and efficiently. That is not a matter of party politics, but a matter which is founded on concern for the manner in which we conduct our Parliament. I hope that the senator and members of the new Committee will take up this suggestion. I also hope that the guidelines can be reviewed quickly. We support the Bill in principle, although there are further matters to be raised and discussed. I look forward to the deliberations of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on these Bills, and I hope that we can grapple with the situation and come up with recommendations before Parliament next finds itself dealing with a Bill of a similar type and description. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —We are pleased to see you back, Madam Speaker, and we hope that you are well again. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —I inform the House that the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Duffy, leaves Australia today on Government business overseas. He will return on 4 December. In his absence the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, will be Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, representing the Acting Minister in the House. Today, however, questions concerning the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio should be addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from Question Time today as he is representing the Government at the funeral of Sir Victor Windeyer. Questions normally directed to the Attorney-General should be addressed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Staples. Mr ROCHER —Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the undertaking he gave on 11 August this year that police officers appearing before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody will be provided with legal assistance by the Government in the same way that assistance is to be provided to relatives of those Aborigines who have died in custody? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. In regard to the State police forces, I understand that discussions are going on and at State level appropriate arrangements will be made. I imagine that the honourable gentleman is more particularly concerned about the area directly under our control-at the Australian Federal Police level. I can inform him that representations have been made by the Police Federation to Senator Tate. The matter has not gone to Cabinet because the representation was made only yesterday, but I can assure the honourable member that favourable consideration will be given to it. Mr CROSS —Has the Minister for Defence seen recent comments by the honourable member for McPherson, the shadow Minister for Defence, that the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) FA18 squadrons cannot be called operational squadrons? Has he also seen suggestions from the same source that there is a serious shortage of technicians at Williamtown and of maintenance and test equipment? Can the Minister inform the House whether the RAAF does in fact have operational fighter squadrons? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. Normally I do not respond to the plethora of Press releases that come from the honourable member for McPherson, mainly because there is nothing in them to respond to. But I am glad that the honourable member for Brisbane raised this matter because this particular Press release, unlike most of those issued by the honourable member for McPherson, contained implications which were most untoward-that is, the suggestion that the farrago of nonsense that was produced was in some way based on briefings he had when he was at Williamstown. This Government has allowed unprecedented access by the Opposition to defence establishments, a practice which I intend to continue because I think that that is appropriate. However, Opposition members should reflect on the fact that when they receive briefings they are effectively under an obligation not to implicate their briefers. When we have done this sort of thing in the past we have had the common sense to have our views attributed solely to ourselves, rather than suggest that they have come from someone else. Indeed, the honourable member produced a plethora of nonsense. His release says breathlessly: . . . things have now reached a stage where our FA-18 squadrons cannot be called operational squadrons. What a discovery! We have not yet had half the number of FA18 aircraft delivered to us; we are in the process of making those squadrons operational. In fact there is only one unit which, as a result of a plan produced four or five years ago, is planned to be operational at this stage and that is No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit. That unit is fully operational. The two designated FA18 squadrons at Williamtown are at present converting to FA18 operations under that plan which is several years old. The plan is for No. 3 Squadron to be fully operational by the middle of next year and No. 77 Squadron a year later. No. 75 Squadron will be operational at Tindal by the end of 1990. The Press release goes on to talk about `a shortage of technicians'. There is no shortage of senior technicians at Williamtown. All established posts are manned and Williamtown is receiving preferential treatment in obtaining surplus technicians so that such people can gain experience before they are ultimately transferred to Tindal. The Press release also claims that there are shortages of maintenance and test equipment. That is true; there are shortages of maintenance and test equipment but they have not prevented the FA18 program from achieving its authorised flying hours program. The reason there is that shortage of equipment is related to the introduction of maintenance and test equipment phased with the United States Navy's (USN) procurement of similar equipment and based on the United States Navy's statistical base. The Royal Australian Air Force has had to work around USN budgetary restrictions. The sort of nonsense expounded by the honourable member reveals his complete ignorance of the processes by which a program is properly managed inside the defence forces. The only thing that is unique about this Press release from the honourable member is that he, in some way, attributes by implication this farrago of nonsense to the RAAF officers who briefed him. He did them no service by proceeding down that path. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of Thailand led by His Excellency Dr Ukrit Mongkolnavin, President of the National Assembly. Also present in the gallery is a parliamentary delegation from Tonga, led by the Hon. Veikune, MLA. On behalf of the House, I extend to the visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SPENDER —Will the Prime Minister, in his forthcoming meeting in the Soviet Union with Mr Gorbachev, request from him a clear and unambiguous timetable for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan; advise him of his Government's opposition to any attempt by the Soviet Union to extend its economic and political influence in South East Asia or the South Pacific; press him for the restoration of basic human rights, including the right of self-determination, for the peoples of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, whose occupation by the Soviet Union has never been recognised by Australia as lawful; and lastly request from him an undertaking to permit the free migration from the Soviet Union of all Soviet citizens who wish to settle in other countries? If the Prime Minister is not willing to do these things, will he explain why? Mr HAWKE —I think the honourable member for North Sydney will understand if I address the substance of the question without going into the details of what I intend to discuss with Mr Gorbachev or the way in which I intend to do it. For instance, I can assure the honourable member that my Government has not forgotten Afghanistan. We continue to express our very deep concern about the situation in that country. We have done so in this Parliament, we have done so in international forums and we have done so directly to the Soviet authorities. So that the position in regard to Afghanistan is quite clear, I point out that under this Government, Australia does not recognise the Afghan regime. Australia delivered a major statement at the current United Nations General Assembly strongly supporting the call by the majority of UN members to the Soviet Union to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. In the United Nations General Assembly, and in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Australia has also addressed the denial of fundamental human rights to the Afghan people. We will continue to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and support fully efforts by the United Nations special representative to achieve an early negotiated settlement of the conflict. Australia's condemnation of the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was repeated to the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, when he visited Australia in March of this year. The subject will be raised again when I visit and talk with the leadership in the Soviet Union. With regard to Afghanistan, I inform the honourable gentleman-he may not be aware of it-that this year Australia will provide food aid for Afghan refugees valued at approximately $4m. I also make the point that Australia is one of the few countries which have accepted any Afghan refugees for resettlement. So, quite clearly, on the question of Afghanistan the record of this Government has been consistent and clear. I will make the same representations and points again when I am in Moscow. Among the other questions raised by the honourable gentleman was the presence of the Soviet Union in South East Asia. Obviously, again, on appropriate occasions we have expressed our concern and the concern of other countries in the South Pacific at the military presence of the Soviet Union in the region, and most particularly, of course, at Cam Ranh Bay, where it has a very substantial presence. With regard to the economic involvement of the Soviet Union in the region, we have said to the Soviet Union that we recognise that it has a specific interest there and that there can be no legitimate concern about the Soviet Union, as an independent sovereign nation, seeking to have economic relationships in the region. But the point has been made to Soviet representatives by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I made it particularly to Mr Shevardnadze here in March when I was speaking to him, that if, for instance, the Soviet Union makes fishing agreements with island states in the South Pacific, we will watch extremely closely to see that they are fishing agreements and nothing more than fishing agreements. The honourable member also raised the question of basic human rights. I repeat that on this issue I doubt whether there is any country which has been more consistent and, I suggest, more effective than Australia under my Government in raising these issues. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —If there be any doubt about that observation, I suggest to the honourable gentleman-I notice that he did not interject, and I am not suggesting that he did-that there are authorities and interest groups in this country with which that statement can be checked. We have had significant discussions here with representatives of the Baltic communities and they have expressed considerable satisfaction with the way in which this Government has addressed the issue of the rights of their people in regard to the Soviet presence in those countries. We have from their representatives in this country an expression of their very deep satisfaction with the way that my Government has made representations directly and in relevant international forums on this issue. Finally, the honourable member mentioned the question of migration. Let me say on that issue that I respect the way in which the honourable gentleman has raised that point. Obviously, what we all want to see is a situation in the Soviet Union in which all citizens have the same right to be able to move freely in and out of their country as they wish. That is the appropriate situation that should emerge and it is one that will be addressed in my representations in the Soviet Union. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is the Minister aware of a proposal by a Chinese company to acquire a one-half interest in land held in south-east Queensland by the Emanuel group of companies? Do the two companies propose to develop almost 2,000 hectares of land on Bribie Island, an environmentally significant sand island, into a `satellite city' with an eventual population similar to the present population of Canberra? Is the proposed acquisition examinable under the Foreign Takeovers Act? Will the Minister recommend action to ensure that the full potential environmental impact of the development proposals is examined to safeguard Bribie Island and its current small population? Mr JOHN BROWN —I guess that under normal circumstances one has to be very careful about what happens in Queensland. But under present circumstances one has to be even more alert. I thank the honourable member for his question. He has shown an extraordinary interest in the environmental protection of his area. In 1986 the Emanuel group of companies acquired land in south-east Queensland formerly held by Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd for forestry purposes. About 2,000 hectares of this land is situated on Bribie Island, which, as the honourable member described it, is a large sand island about 60 kilometres north of Brisbane and which has a permanent population of several thousand. The island and the Pumicestone Passage which separates it from the mainland contain important environmental areas of mangroves and fish breeding grounds, as well as a freshwater creek system. Its importance has been recognised, quite surprisingly, by the Queensland Government, which has promised for many years to declare large parts of the island as a national park. But, like most of the promises in Queensland, that promise has never been kept. As yet, no action has been taken to declare the park. Press reports indicate that the Emanuel Group, possibly in a joint venture with overseas interests, plans to develop areas both on the mainland and on Bribie Island for large scale tourist and residential purposes. While, of course, this Government welcomes any sort of tourist proposition, we are very alert to make sure that such ventures complement the existing environment, particularly in areas such as Bribie Island, the Pumicestone Passage and the adjoining mainland. Accordingly, my colleague Senator Richardson, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, has written to the Treasurer advising him that a decision in relation to foreign investment in the proposed development would be considered environmentally significant in terms of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. As yet, I have not had a response from the Treasurer, but I am sure he is aware of the sensitive nature of this proposition. The honourable member will be pleased to hear that the Government will look closely at the environmental impact of the satellite city proposal on Bribie Island and its existing well-settled community. The honourable member may rest assured, as I am sure that the rest of the House will, that this Government is always alert to issues of environmental degradation and we will be very concerned to ensure that this development, if it goes ahead, goes ahead with all the protection of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is also addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I ask the Minister: Did the Christmas Island Administrator issue an edict on 17 November to the effect that residents of Christmas Island, who are predominantly Chinese and Malays, who return to live on the island are not allowed to stay with parents, relatives or friends while they wait for housing? Did the Minister approve this edict and would he care to distinguish between it and the KGB's restriction on the free movement of the population in the Soviet Union? Madam SPEAKER —The first part of the question is in order; the second part is not. Mr JOHN BROWN —The saga of Christmas Island is a continuing one, which of course evolved under the previous Government and which this Government is trying to clean up. It is a fact that in 1985 this Government proposed $4.2m of development assistance to Christmas Island to keep that mine operating. It is a fact that there are Christmas Island residents who are unemployed, who are not Australian citizens, who are living on that island with no possible hope of employment and who are collecting social security payments. I do not recall that edict being issued by the Administrator, but I will check on it and relate that information back to the honourable member later in the day. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs aware that some individuals and organisations believe they may require more time to put their views before the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies chaired by Dr Stephen FitzGerald? Will the Minister take their views into account when discussing the timetable with the Chairman? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. Just to relieve the minds of members of Parliament, as a result of a couple of occurrences that we have had recently, I have asked people ringing up from the secretariat always to tell the people they are calling that they are calling from the Stephen FitzGerald inquiry. On a couple of recent occasions they rang and people were asked to come to the phone and were told that it was the FitzGerald inquiry calling; and members have been quite alarmed that they might have been being called by another inquiry that is being held north of the border. I understand that honourable members are today celebrating the resignation of our old friend, Joh. Government members-Oh! Mr YOUNG —Now that he is available for the House of Representatives, we will see who stands down-and Tom McVeigh is not here! Mr Bilney —Nor is Peter Slipper. Mr YOUNG —I think we should acknowledge an act so honourable, but Peter cannot give up his seat. Madam Speaker, I am aware that some people and some organisations have made approaches to me about the very tight timetable that we have set for Dr FitzGerald and his Committee to hear and go through all the submissions that people would wish to make to him about this important subject of immigration and the views on immigration that people might have. We have set a very tight timetable. We wanted the report back here by March 1988, which meant that submissions would have been completed before Christmas 1987. Dr FitzGerald and the Committee are in Queensland and the Northern Territory this week. When they return, I intend to talk to them about the views that have been expressed to me. I understand from the secretariat that views have already been expressed to those people about perhaps extending the period in which Dr FitzGerald is to complete his work. I should also reiterate, Madam Speaker, that this is not just a review being carried out on behalf of ethnic communities in Australia. This review should be of interest to every Australian and anyone or any organisation that wishes to express a view on the subject should do so by submitting it to Dr Stephen FitzGerald, and I encourage people to do so. Mr WHITE —The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is aware of the guidelines of the Department of Defence, which she initiated, on how ministerial meetings with Australian Defence Force spouses should be conducted. Will the Minister inform the House whether there are any Government guidelines on how meetings should be conducted with trade unions or members of trade unions or with spouses of trade unionists? If there are not, can the Minister explain why civilian spouses of service personnel should be singled out for the imposition of military restrictions? Why is the Minister seeking special protection at these meetings with service spouses? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for McPherson for his very welcome question because it gives me the opportunity to make some response to the reports in the media that I also have read. Firstly, the accusation is absolute nonsense. I have made no complaint to General Gration; nor would I make any. Anyone with any understanding of the defence forces would know that that would be totally inappropriate. Any guidelines that the Chief of the Defence Force would issue would be at his own prerogative and of his own doing, and I would have nothing whatsoever to do with them. I also inform the House that in fact I, more than any other Minister in this portfolio, have consulted defence spouses. Honourable members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —I would like Opposition members to challenge the record I have in respect of consulting defence spouses. Last week, for example, I met with three different groups of defence spouses. Next week I will do exactly the same thing. Indeed, my door is always open to defence spouses in a way that was never the case with the present Opposition in the past. I also inform the House that this Government has established formal channels for consulting with spouses, for the first time recognising the importance of spouses in the defence family. I meet regularly with the convener of that group. I will continue to travel around this country to meet defence spouses. It is important that I have the opportunity to hear their views. Anyone would know from my role as the member for Canberra that I have never had to run for protection from any group. In fact, politicians have considerable experience in dealing with groups that may not always share their points of view but I want to have the opportunity to hear the views of Defence Force spouses. I repeat that this is the best opportunity that Defence Force spouses have ever had. There are formal channels available for them to speak to me, and they have an open door to my office. Mr FITZGIBBON —Will the Minister for Resources inform the House of the progress made towards uniform safety regulations for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)? Mr PETER MORRIS —This issue is of considerable interest to the liquefied petroleum gas industry. It was raised at the conference of the Australian Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association which I addressed earlier this month, and more recently by the Chairman of the New South Wales Local Government Gas Advisory Committee, Alderman Arthur Campbell, in company with the honourable member for Calare. I point out that LPG regulations are a State responsibility. However, both State and Commonwealth governments have recognised the economic and safety advantages of a uniform system of regulation. For its part, our Government has actively encouraged the creation and updating of standards by the Standards Association of Australia and we have published a national code for the transport of dangerous goods by road and by rail. Additionally, in September this year, the Australian Minerals and Energy Council established a working party of State, Territory and Commonwealth officials to work closely with the industry with a view to reviewing existing legislation affecting the LPG industry, to identifying areas where State legislation falls outside the principles suggested by the industry and, further, to advising on the development of information and standards for the safe use of LPG. The working party has met on two occasions since September. It is due to report to the next meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, and I assure the honourable member for Hunter and the House that this Government will continue to work with the States to achieve greater uniformity of regulations for the use of LPG. Mr RUDDOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to this important assurance by the Attorney-General: No person will be deported to any country on the basis of a simple allegation that a person has committed a war crime . . . It was qualified by the Attorney-General's further statement: Australia must, of course, honour its obligations under Extradition Treaties, but the intention is that Australian citizens and residents accused of war crimes be dealt with in this country and this, of course, is open under the treaties . . . I also refer him to this report: Australian and Soviet Union officials have agreed to a joint initiative to investigate and prosecute an estimated 200 suspected war criminals living in Australia. What is the status of those reports? What is the status of the agreement? What are its terms? Will the Prime Minister table a copy in this House? Will the Prime Minister, in his response, have regard to the fact that, to inquiries initiated by me with Soviet representatives in Australia, I was advised, `Yes, definitely it is all written down'; further, `We cannot help you any more in this matter and suggest you contact your own Attorney-General'; and, when pressed further, `It does not matter to us whether you believe it or not.'? Mr HAWKE —I cannot answer for any discussions that the honourable member has had with anyone else. I have not, in my own knowledge, any details of this, but I will discuss it with the Attorney-General. I assure the honourable member that I will give him an answer as soon as I possibly can. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Can the Minister inform the House whether there are any further developments in proposals for a spaceport on the Cape York Peninsula? Mr BARRY JONES —Now that the Premier of Queensland has gone into orbit, the whole question will need to be re-examined. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is currently examining the reports of the latest studies on the Cape York Peninsula proposal. It would be premature for me to comment on the technical or economic viability of the proposal until we know a good deal more. As I have remarked on a number of occasions, a precondition to setting up a spaceport would be to establish not only the technical viability but also the economics to find out how much of the anticipated market for the 1990s it could attract. Due to the wide range of Commonwealth responsibilities affected by the proposal, Commonwealth agreement would be necessary before the proposal could be implemented. That is because treaty engagements would have to be entered into for liability and other important issues. Of course, there have been suggestions that the Commonwealth could become a participant in the proposed spaceport or in some way assist its establishment, but until the costs and the benefits of the proposal have been thoroughly examined, that suggestion is slightly premature. I took the opportunity to talk to the aerospace technical centre in Sao Jose dos Campos Brazil a couple of weeks ago because a very large rocket launching facility is being constructed at Alcantara in Brazil, only two degrees south of the Equator. The great advantage of having a rocket site close to the Equator is that the closer it is the smaller amount of fuel is needed to get a satellite of a given size into orbit. In other words, the further away from the Equator, the smaller the payload. Cape York is 12 degrees south of the Equator while Alcantara is two degrees south. Nevertheless, there are other factors that seem to point in Queensland's direction. Firstly, Alcantara is an area with a lot of lightning strikes and very intense winds. I understand at Cape York the incidence of lightning and heavy winds is much less serious. There is still a window of opportunity and it needs to be looked at seriously. But it is not an easy issue. Unless we can attract something between one-quarter and one-third of the likely worldwide traffic for sending up very large satellites it is difficult to see that it would be economically a goer. It is something to which we will be paying very close attention. Mr HICKS —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware that, following changes to the method of funding nursing homes with the introduction of the home and community care scheme, a number of smaller established nursing homes in rural areas, such as the Lilliane Brady Village nursing home in Cobar, are finding it difficult to continue as viable operations? Will the Minister guarantee that existing nursing homes in smaller isolated rural communities will not be disadvantaged as a result of changes to government funding arrangements? Dr BLEWETT —As the honourable member is probably aware, the majority of nursing homes in the country benefited from the first stage of the rearrangement of nursing home funding. We recognise that there have been problems with some of the smaller nursing homes. My departmental officers have been involved in consultation in those matters. This morning I met with members of the Australian Voluntary Care Association to discuss the whole issue of funding the nursing home area. We are engaged in a major reform proposal which will extend over several years. That transition is designed to last several years in order to cope with any of the problems that inevitably occur in a transformation of the system of this order. I believe most of the nursing home organisations in this country agree with the Government that the direction in which we are moving is desirable for the old people in their care. But I do recognise that the changes are fairly massive and it is important to address the particular problems that will occur along that transition phase. That is one of the reasons we are extending the program over a considerable period. Mr CLEELAND —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Have the successes of the Government's economic policies now been recognised by the President of the National Farmers Federation (NFF), Mr Ian McLachlan? Does such recognition of the Government's economic successes reveal an implied criticism of the supply-side nonsense put forward by the former failed Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition? Madam SPEAKER —The last part of the question is out of order. The Minister will answer only the first part. Mr KERIN —It was my privilege to deliver a speech to the National Farmers Federation council meeting today. The President of the National Farmers Federation, in introducing me, commented on two articles in today's newspaper, to which the honourable member is referring, at least in part. One was a report that Mr McLachlan and the Australian Council of Trade Unions were going to meet on the Australia Reconstructed document, and he said that was not true. It was also reported that the NFF was going to change its wages policy, and he indicated that was also not true. In my opening remarks I noted that the NFF was not about to be reconstructed and I could not congratulate it on a change to its wages policy. More importantly, the economic report of the agenda papers available to the NFF put in-- Mr McGauran —What has that got to do with the question? Mr KERIN —If you cannot catch on to it, you are a bit slow. The comment by the young National Party member is part of the problem that the NFF is having with that Party. What I was saying was that the economic report of the NFF agenda papers put in a very fair commentary on the Government's economic performance: the fact that we have retained most of the benefits of devaluation and the fact that it welcomes now our decision to float the dollar-to float the currency-which the Opposition parties never had the guts to do. But even with the terms of trade decline that we have had, there has not been a recession in this country. These are all magnificent economic achievements of this Government. For a long time the farm organisations, as opposed to the National Party, have had a firm policy of bringing down levels of secondary industry protection. They are still keeping up the pace on that. I was able to remind them, and they are aware, of what we are doing in that regard, and now, according to the latest Industries Assistance Commission figures, the level of protection for secondary industries is down to about 19 per cent, against 12 per cent for primary industries. I remind them that when the former Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, came back from the Tokyo round, his proudest boast was that not one item of secondary industry protection had been touched, and that was the way the National Party used to con the farmers in those days. The NFF is certainly aware of the good policies of the Australian Labor Party Government and what it is doing for the farm sector. It is clear, as the honourable member noted, that it is starting to wake up to the National Party in this Parliament. One of the views that was around at the last Federal election was that the NFF was backing the Joh push for Canberra, as were most of the conservative forces in this country. As honourable members know, the Joh forces had one simple policy: flat tax. Senator Stone came in on Flo's skirt tails on that policy. I think there is some understanding by farmers in this community of how hopeless this Opposition is. Only five months ago the old Queensland loon, because of the conservative push, was able to split the coalition in this House, was able to split the National Party of Australia in the House and was able to destabilise the Liberal Party of Australia. That is how good the Opposition is in this House today! It is hopeless. Mr LLOYD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. The Minister will recall the Government Press release of 18 March 1987 in which it was stated that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money would be wasted on a contract for coastal surveillance by not accepting the lowest technically conforming tender. Has the Minister read the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract which states that at that time the successful Amann Aviation Pty Ltd tender was incomplete and did not conform? Why was the Department allowed to be so much out of control at that time that the Government misled the Australian people on this crucial national security matter? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have had the opportunity of reviewing the findings of the Menzies review which was tabled in this House on, I think, 19 November. As honourable members will know, the review was carried out by Mr Andrew Menzies, a former Deputy Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, a Mr Stan Perry and a Mr Barry Slingo, who are both serving assistant secretaries drawn from departments not involved with the letting of this contract. However, they have special responsibilities in the area of contract administration. In essence, they found that there was no evidence indicating corruption or other illegal conduct by any officer of the Commonwealth. Mr Lloyd —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would the Minister like me to read the question again? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat and the House will come to order while the Minister answers the question. Mr DUNCAN —They also determined that had a more skilled and comprehensive investigation been carried out of Mr Amann's financial capacity and other capacities, competence to perform the contract for its full life and his costings, there would have been sufficient reason to put the tender aside. Mr Sinclair —So the Minister failed in his duty. Mr DUNCAN —If the right honourable member will just listen he will hear further in relation to the question in a moment. The Menzies review found that the information put before Ministers in entering into the contract was flawed and, with the advantage of hindsight, incomplete, but that Ministers had no way of knowing that that was the case. In other words, the review that was conducted into this matter found that the Ministers had no way of knowing that that was the case, and, therefore, they had not in any way acted with any impropriety. Mr BALDWIN —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I draw the Minister's attention to a report on yesterday morning's Business Today program about the lobbying campaign by the Association of Fluorine Consumers and Manufacturers-AFCAM-to discourage the Government from introducing legislation to enforce the provisions of the recently agreed international accord on controlling substances which can deplete the earth's ozone layer. In view of the contribution of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to the global ozone layer depletion and recent proof of their causal relationship with the ozone hole over the Antarctic, will the Government resist this pressure and assert crucial long term environmental interests by legislating, at the very least, to reduce CFC use in line with this international agreement using the same timeframe, thus necessitating CFC users to find alternative substances? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to emphasise an answer I gave to the honourable member for Dunkley a couple of weeks ago when he asked me a question about the problem of chlorofluorocarbons invading the atmosphere and damaging the ozone layer. I mentioned at that time that the Government is a party to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. The protocol to that Convention was finalised in Montreal in September and it specifies controls on the emissions of chemicals known to deplete ozone levels. I can assure the honourable member that the Government is intent, because we are a signatory to that protocol, on introducing the legislation which will require manufacturers to take note of the Convention and of the damage that chlorofluorocarbons do to the atmosphere. I can assure him that my Department is promoting that legislation with a view to introducing it into the House. We will certainly not be pressured by the group which he mentioned which is very keen to see that those protocols are not introduced. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. On 5 November I asked him whether the then Minister for Transport and Aviation misled the House on 7 May when he said that Amann Aviation Pty Ltd `has a responsibility to carry out its obligations' on the coastal surveillance contract. In his written response to me of 17 November the Minister stated: There was no reason apparent to the departmental tender board for not awarding the contract to Amann Aviation. Has the Minister seen clause 4.55 of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract which states that the Department of Transport wrote to the Minister just prior to 2 March 1987 advising him that Amann was not the holder of an air service licence and did not possess aircraft, personnel or other facilities necessary under the contract and that was a risk that this would lead to a delay in the commencement of operations? Does the Minister still stick to his response of 17 November 1987 or is he now in a position to confirm that the then Minister did mislead this House? Mr DUNCAN —Madam Speaker, I see no reason to change the response I gave on that occasion. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(2.48) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Deakin moving forthwith: That this House censures the Minister for Resources in the exercise of his former responsibilities as Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation in that he: (1) Failed to exercise proper Ministerial standards; (2) Misled the House and the Australian public over the circumstances associated with the Amann Coastal Surveillance Contract; (3) Failed adequately to supervise his Department in that he did not require full responses to difficulties raised in questions in the House; and (4) Ignored his Parliamentary and Ministerial responsibilities by pursuing his own personal sympathies for the preferred tenderer against his obligations to the Australian public. Mr Young —Do you not have a seconder? Mr N.A. Brown —I second the motion. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, we would be only too glad to facilitate the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Mr Young —Come on, Julian! Mr BEALE(Deakin)(2.49) —Okay, Mick. Have you read this savage indictment of the Government? Have you read about the incompetent mob over there? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Government members interjecting- Mr BEALE —Just listen to the rabble. I move: That this House censures the Minister for Resources in the exercise of his former responsibilities as Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation in that he: (1) Failed to exercise proper Ministerial standards; (2) Misled the House and the Australian public over the circumstances associated with the Amann Coastal Surveillance Contract; (3) Failed adequately to supervise his Department in that he did not require full responses to difficulties raised in questions in the House; and (4) Ignored his Parliamentary and Ministerial responsibilities by pursuing his own personal sympathies for the preferred tenderer against his obligations to the Australian public. The Opposition brings before the House today this censure motion against the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) for his abject failure to exercise proper ministerial standards over the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd coastal surveillance contract when he was the Minister for Transport and Aviation, and for misleading the House on that matter. The final report of the Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract prepared under the chairmanship of Mr Menzies is an extraordinary document and a savage indictment of the performance of Ministers in this Government. Mr Martin —Rubbish! Mr BEALE —The honourable member has not read it. That is what he has not done. If he had read the report he would have seen how the report criticises the incompetence of this Government. The report is critical of two Ministers who acted for the Minister, it is critical of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and it is critical of the Cabinet office. My colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), in supporting me in this censure motion, will spend some time talking about the whole shemozzle and the complete incompetence of this Government. In terms of the report being critical of Ministers, in terms of the report identifying failures in administration and in terms of the report detailing the functioning of departments, the one Minister whose incompetence shines out is the Minister for Resources, who was then the Minister for Transport and Aviation. In a report commissioned in 1986 by this Parliament, David Solomon had the following to say about ministerial responsibility: At the core of the concept of responsible government is the term ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility concerns amongst other things the relationship between a Minister and his colleagues, both individually and collectively, when they are in Cabinet; and the responsibility that individual members have to the Parliament. Ministers are responsible for actions by their departmental officers in the sense of being liable to be held to account for them. There is no question of the Minister for Resources not understanding fully the concept of ministerial responsibility. He may well seek to avoid being called to account in the matter of the Amann Coastwatch fiasco, but he certainly understands ministerial responsibility. In a speech to this House on 27 October 1981, the Minister commended the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for its thoroughness in producing a report and assessing departmental performance, public expenditure and ministerial responsibility. In the course of that speech he said-this was in 1981: The Parliament was misled in statements made by the Minister to the Parliament. They were prophetic words that today will come back to haunt this Minister. The Minister for Resources understands all about ministerial responsibility, and he understands that Ministers fail in that responsibility when they mislead the Parliament and the Australian people. The Minister for Resources, who was then the Minister for Transport, said in a Press release of 18 March 1987: The Federal Government would be irresponsible if it allowed millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to be wasted on a contract for coastal surveillance by not accepting the lowest technically conforming tender. Today we heard from the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) another weaselling answer to the question raised by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) on this matter. In this last quotation, the Minister for Resources was discussing the coastal surveillance contract which had, a week before 18 March, been awarded to Amann Aviation. But this is not what the Menzies report says. The Menzies report specifically states that the Amann tender was incomplete and failed to provide other information, including a statement of compliance required under the tender. The Menzies report says that the Commonwealth purchasing manual suggests that the Amann tender should have been ruled informal. The Minister clearly misled the Australian people. He said that Amann was the lowest technically conforming tender, whereas the Menzies report makes it clear that not only was it incomplete and did not conform, but also it should have been ruled informal. The Minister-- Mr Howard —That is a clear conflict. Mr BEALE —We have not got to the end of it. This is a lot of fun-or it would be if it were not such a tragic matter that honourable members opposite put at risk Australia's northern coastal surveillance. The Minister went on to say: The tender process, set down in strict government guidelines, had been scrupulously adhered to. These words used by the Minister are worth repeating. He said that the tender process had been `scrupulously adhered to'. Let us see what the Menzies report has to say about the tender process. The Menzies report devotes 40 of its 80 pages to that issue. The whole question of the tender process takes up half of the document. The criticisms the report makes of the tender process are so widespread and so detailed as to preclude the possibility that the Minister did not know of this fiasco taking place in his own Department under his own eyes. It is worth while quoting from some of the findings that the Menzies report made on the tender process. It said that Amann's capacity-financial and otherwise-and competence to perform the contract for its full life should have been included in a thorough investigation. It said that the investigation failed to bring to notice errors and other deficiencies in Amann's financial statements. It said: . . . if Amann's costings had been competently investigated- I stress the word `competently'- the result would have been to cast considerable doubt on Amann's financial and administrative competence. Mr Rocher —Didn't the Minister insist on that? Mr BEALE —The Minister will have a chance to answer for himself on this when he answers this censure motion. The Menzies report raised the question of whether the services of a specialist financial investigator should have been obtained from the Department, elsewhere in the Public Service or from a private consultant. It said that `this is normal practice for high value, complex Government contracts'. It said that the assessment of tenders had proceeded: . . . under a basic misconception as to the approach to be adopted and the criteria to be applied in dealing with tenders for contracts of this nature. The Menzies report said: . . . a full and competent evaluation of matters, other than technical compliance of tenders does not appear to have been undertaken. It is said that the Department did not exercise sufficient supervision of this matter. The report said: . . . repeated approaches to Amann for financial and technical information should have alerted them- that is, the Department- to the fact that either the tender document- we are back dealing with the tender document- or the tender or both were deficient. The Menzies report said that reports: . . . were not accompanied by detailed analysis in accordance with normal cost investigations and financial reporting procedures; I have spent the last few minutes telling the House what the Menzies report said about what the Minister has described as the tender process having been `scrupulously adhered to'. With this extraordinary litany of criticisms of the tender process, is it any wonder that we are seeking to censure this Minister for his appalling performance on this matter? The Minister, in his Press release of 18 March 1987, went on to say: The tender committee was satisfied that the successful tenderer had sound financial backing, fully understood the requirements of the contract on offer, had made realistic provision for costs and that it had the necessary arrangements in hand to enable an early start up. In view of what the Menzies report had to say, that statement by the Minister grossly deceives the Australian people about this important contract for Australia's northern coastal surveillance. Let me tell the House what the then Minister for Territories, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who was Acting Minister for Transport, said when he announced the letting of the contract to Amann on 12 March. He said: Because of our largely unpopulated northern coastline, aerial coastal surveillance is a vitally important part of the Federal Government's watch for breaches of Australian laws, particularly those concerning drug smuggling, animal and plant quarantine, oil pollution at sea and unlicensed fishing in Australian waters by foreign fishing vessels. If the Acting Minister at the time thought the Coastwatch contract was so important and given what the Menzies report has to say about the tender process, the statements by the Minister for Resources constitute not only a gross deception of the Australian people but also an extraordinary dereliction of duty. The Minister for Resources went on to say on 12 March: The aircraft to be imported are already being fitted out. That is not what the Menzies report states. On 19 February Amann asked the Department whether he could use a different kind of aircraft for coastal surveillance from that specified in his tender. He was told he could do so. From that date the Department was on notice that Amann proposed to use a different type of aircraft from that specified in his tender. Senator Evans said in the Senate Estimates hearings on 19 October that the aircraft type change was not brought to the attention of the Department until 23 April. It is not appropriate in this place to attempt to determine what the motives of Senator Evans were in making his statement, but it is sufficient that the Menzies report stated that on 7 May Amann advised the Department that he was purchasing a different kind of aircraft from that specified in his tender. On 19 February the Department was on notice that Amann intended to change its aircraft and it did so somewhere between 23 April and 7 May. How, then, can the Minister have said on 18 March that the aircraft to be imported `are already being fitted out'? The way in which the Minister misled the House and the Australian people on this Coastwatch contract is beyond belief. Some time before 2 March 1987-that is, 10 days before the contract was awarded to Amann-as part of the process leading up to the Cabinet submission seeking approval for expenditure of amounts necessary to award the coastal surveillance contract, which approval, incidentally, should have been obtained from Cabinet prior to the calling of tenders, as the Menzies report points out, the Department of Transport advised the Minister, in writing, according to the Menzies report: The Department of Aviation observes that the preferred tenderer is not the holder of an air service licence and does not as yet possess aircraft, personnel or other facilities necessary under the contract. It went on to say that there was a risk that that could lead to delay in the commencement of operations. This was the commencement of operations to protect Australia's northern coastline. The Minister knew, therefore, before the submission to Cabinet, of the Department of Aviation's advice, and he got it in writing. He knew it before he said on 18 March: It would have been an abrogation of this Government's responsibility to have overturned a decision of an expert tender panel and to have awarded the contract to a more expensive tenderer. The Minister knew this when he answered a question from the honourable member for Murray on 7 May 1987. He said in his answer: There was no legitimate reason, after consideration of the tenders received and the procedures followed, why the contract should not have been awarded to Amann. If he wants a rigged tender process he will not get it from this Government. The Minister has behaved in a way that was an abrogation of his responsibility. If we did not get a rigged tender process from this Government, we certainly got a tender process that has been the subject of extensive and detailed analysis and criticism by the Menzies report. Although the censure motion deals with the shocking performance of the Minister for Resources, it is worth while noting that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support said to me, in a letter dated 17 November 1987-this matter was the subject of the second question to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, which, like the first question, he ducked: At the time the contract was actually let, there was no reason apparent to the departmental tender board for not awarding the contract to Amann Aviation. No doubt the Minister squirmed when he read page 70 of the Menzies report-he has said he read it-which stated: By mid-January 1987- that is, two months before the contract was let- it was apparent to the tender assessment committee- that is, the Minister's departmental tender board; he did not get that right either- that Amann had little relevant experience in the aviation industry, had no organisation in place and had no aircraft suitable for operation under the contract. It is unbelievable that the Minister for Resources, when he had been advised, prior to 2 March 1987, of the concern of the Department of Aviation about Amann and when his tender assessment committee was aware in mid-January of Amann's shortcomings, would go on to say after the contract had been let that there was no legitimate reason why that contract should not have been let to Amann. In the matter of the coastal surveillance contract awarded to Amann Aviation and now cancelled by the Government-a cancellation that is the subject of a $20m law suit against the Government-this Minister failed to exercise proper ministerial standards and he misled the House. He misled the Australian people when he said that the Government had accepted the lowest technically conforming tender. He misled the Australian people when he said that the tender process had been scrupulously adhered to. He misled the Australian people when he said that the aircraft had already been fitted out. He was warned by his Department of Transport that his Department of Aviation had serious reservations. The Minister for Resources should be censured by this Parliament. If members of the Government had an ounce of understanding of the concept of ministerial responsibility, they would join us in voting for the motion against this incompetent Minister of this incompetent Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Lee —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will the honourable member table the confidential document he was quoting from throughout his speech? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no provision for ordinary members to table documents. Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(3.10) —It is the ultimate hypocrisy for the Opposition to lecture this Government on ministerial responsibility. Let us look back at its record in government. Let us look back at its record of sackings, suspensions and resignations, and most of all, let us look back at the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). This is the $10 billion Budget deficit man for 1983-84. Opposition members-Ha ha! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —They may laugh now, but I will come to the point as I proceed. Let us look back at the Opposition's record on tax avoidance and its denial to this House of any knowledge of the tax avoidance-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —Let us look at its record of the denial of major tax evasion. Opposition members-Resign! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Opposition has moved a censure motion on the Minister. The Minister is responding. Mr Beale —No, he is not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should be allowed to develop his argument in response and, if the Opposition feels the Minister should be censured, the House at least deserves the right to be able to hear the Minister's response. Mr PETER MORRIS —Has anyone forgotten the ministerial performance of those who sit in the front row opposite in respect of the Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd affair, the McCabe-Lafranchi racket, the meat substitution racket, the Facom tendering fiasco? Has anybody forgotten any of those things in the record of those who now sit opposite? The resume of the tender processes, the dates and procedures are all there, provided by the report of the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract. I do not propose to go into those. Let me say that my decisions and my actions were based upon the advice provided to me. Mr Menzies said on page 59 of his report: . . . the information provided to the Minister a few days earlier in relation to the Cabinet Submission was insufficient to alert the Minister to any of these matters nor, of course, to the unreliability of the costings investigation. Further, on page 73, he says: Information put before Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Submission seeking funds authorization and the submission seeking authority under regulation 48 (c) of the Finance Regulations to enter into the contract with Amann did not reveal either the facts set out in part (4) or the unreliability of the financial investigation described in (6). As I said, my actions, my decisions, my responses in this House and my public statements were based on the advice provided to me. There was no way, as Mr Menzies pointed out, that Ministers could be reasonably aware of or alert to the deficiencies that have subsequently been revealed. The details of many of the questions that were raised later were dealt with before the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on 9 April. They were on the record when many of these allegations of a personal nature were being raised. My answer to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), on 2 April 1987, when his question carried an imputation of some illegal impropriety, was: If the honourable member has some evidence of legal impropriety that he wishes to put to me or to the Government, I will be pleased to look at it. He never put anything to me. It is all very well for him to say that he should have. Let me go to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair)-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As my name has been mentioned in this regard, I refer the Minister to the evidence in the Menzies report-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —I made that offer to the honourable member for Murray on 2 April, and it is recorded in Hansard. The offer I made to him was the same offer that was put by the then Minister for Primary Industry, now the Leader of the National Party, to Senator Primmer, in response to a question he raised on the meat substitution racket, and that was reported in the Hansard on 8 September 1981. My response was identical to the response of the Leader of the National Party. If my response was wrong, his response was wrong. Mr Sinclair —Why did you mislead the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr PETER MORRIS —I made the offer to the honourable member for Murray. He has not, to this date, provided any evidence in writing, as I asked him to do, of any illegal impropriety. Nor does the report suggest any evidence of illegality or impropriety. Further, when I said in the House on 7 May that the tender had been dealt with in accordance with past established practice, the procedures were the same: tenders went to a tender board and they were evaluated. I said further that there was no legitimate reason, after consideration of the tenders received and the procedures followed, why the contract should not have been awarded to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. Mr Sinclair —You misled the Parliament. That is not what Menzies said. Menzies said that you-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much interjection on my left. The Minister deserves the right to be able to put his case in silence. Mr Sinclair —He has misled the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have drawn the Leader of the National Party to order on two occasions now. If I have to do so a third time, we might end up getting into a rather difficult situation. Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not resile from the circumstances in which that answer was given. It was based upon the advice provided to me as Minister. I had no way of knowing that that advice was deficient, and that is confirmed by Mr Menzies in his report. Let me proceed to the issue of coastal surveillance. This issue has been raised, as if in some way the surveillance was being operated by the total defence service. The extrapolations and the exaggerations made about it were of such importance that the Opposition itself did not provide the service on a number of occasions for several days in 1981. The Opposition's assessment of coastal surveillance has suddenly taken on a new importance. It is an importance which it certainly did not have when it was in government. As the Treasurer is not involved in taxation assessments, I took the view, I believe rightly, that Ministers should not be personally involved in tender assessment and evaluation procedures. That is the thrust of what is being put opposite, that somehow this Minister should have taken a direct personal role in the assessment of tenders, their evaluation and their awarding. In fact, earlier this year the Leader of the Opposition accused me of awarding the contract. He said, `You awarded the contract'. But when I read the Hansard the next day, he had had Hansard corrected to read, `The Government awarded the contract'. When I asked the Hansard office to correct the Hansard, the office of the Leader of the Opposition objected to the Hansard showing the correct statement made by him. His statement to me was, `You awarded the contract'. I did not award the contract. Mr Howard —I didn't alter it. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member said that. The tape proves it. He has to answer why he did not agree to the Hansard being corrected and the proper record being shown. We now go to the performance of the Leader of the National Party, in respect of the meat substitution racket and what he had to say on the role of ministerial responsibility. Mr Downer —What did you people say? Let's have a look at that. Mr PETER MORRIS —Let us have a look at what he said to Senator Primmer. He said: I said that if Senator Primmer or, for that matter, any other member of the Opposition had facts, figures or allegations that he wished to have followed up, he should report them to the Commonwealth Police. I made that same invitation, as I said, to the honourable member for Murray. Sir James Killen, in this chamber on 7 September 1982, said: I submit to the House that it is a nonsense to say that a Minister today or in those days should be held responsible in that sense for every error that was made. In this case he was referring to fraud. He said: Did the Minister know about the mistake? Did he know about the fraud? Did he know about what appears to be the misdemeanour? That is the crucial test. The test has been put and accepted by many fine parliamentarians through the years. He went on to make a quotation. I draw those statements to the attention of the House. Let me refer to what the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) had to say in respect of the charges made against Senator Durack, the then Attorney-General. Senator Durack has been quite vicious in his attacks in another place on me. Honourable members will remember that Senator Durack is the man who was running a bordello from the Perth office of the Crown Solicitor. What did those opposite say when that matter was raised? The honour- able member for Menzies said, `If he had knowledge of these matters, he must have had that knowledge directly or indirectly on some other presumed basis'-in other words, he either knew what was going on, in which case he should resign, or stand condemned, or it could be assumed that he had some sort of implied knowledge. He went on to dismiss that by saying: There is no evidence whatsoever, not a syllable of evidence to suggest that the Attorney-General knew personally or had direct knowledge. He went on to defend that on the basis of ministerial responsibility, that the Minister did not know and could not have known. Then we go to the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and his defence of the present Leader of the Opposition in respect of the Costigan report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and taxation matters. But best of all is the defence of the Leader of the Opposition of himself. The Leader of the Opposition was making the point that he was not aware of matters arising from the Costigan report. Mr Howard —But you were aware. That is the difference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr PETER MORRIS —I made my statement based on the advice provided to me at the time. Mr Beale —The Department told you there was something wrong with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin has had his chance. He should give others the same courtesy. Mr Beale —The Minister should respond to the censure motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting or I shall deal with him, and the honourable member for McEwen will resume his place. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member for Goldstein made this point in respect of the McCabe-Lafranchi affair, as reported in Hansard on 7 September 1982 at page 1099: I make it perfectly clear that the Treasurer was not entitled to know that the Commissioner of Taxation had sought . . . legal advice. He went on: The Commissioner himself is responsible . . . Therefore even with hindsight the assertion that the Treasurer ignored external advice has not been substantiated. The present Leader of the Opposition responded by saying: Firstly, I reject his allegations against me. Similarly I say for myself that I reject the allegations and the contents of the censure motion that is before the House. The Leader of the Opposition then said: I reject his claim that I knew or ought to have known of the circumstances detailed in the Costigan report . . . He said: I remind the Leader of the Opposition and the House that it lies at the heart of his charges against the Government and me that in fact I should have known what was going on; yet the very document on which the Leader of the Opposition has based his claim states that what is wrong with the system is that I cannot find out. Similarly, in respect of the tender system, Ministers are not directly involved in a personal evaluation, a personal assessment, of the qualities of tenders submitted. The Opposition is suggesting that I, with some sixth sense or seventh sense, should have been involved in the tendering process, that I should have been aware, despite having made my decision on the basis of the advice provided to me at that time. I utterly reject the accusations being made in this motion by those who now sit opposite. The information and statements that have come forward in reports, information that has been provided by those reviews, was not made available to me in the course of that matter when it was being dealt with. It was made very clear in the content of the questions put by the honourable member for Murray that there was an implication of some kind of impropriety on my part, which I utterly reject and find utterly offensive. Mr Lloyd —What about your reply to me? That was offensive. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I said, those responses, those statements were based on information that was provided to me. Mr Lloyd —Who was offensive? It was you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Murray will cease interjecting. Mr Lloyd —I am defending my honour against some pretty rotten comments. Mr Sinclair —This man has misled the Parliament. He is the one who is being offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call to order the Leader of the National Party. The Minister should be heard in silence. Mr PETER MORRIS —I found the implications in those questions utterly offensive, and I reject them on that basis. The honourable member was invited to put up or shut up. He did not do that. The information that was being sought at that time had been provided to the Senate on 9 April. It was all on the record at the time the second question was asked, and the answer I gave on 7 May was based on the advice provided to me at that time. Subsequently, the information sought by subsequent Ministers revealed a similar kind of advice. In no circumstances could one accept the suggestion and the censure being put to this House by those who now sit opposite. One needs only to look at their own record, their own performance in tendering procedures, their own performance in Asia Dairy Industries, their own performance in the meat substitution racket and their own performance in the Costigan affair. I reject utterly the motion before the chamber. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.25) —I have heard in my days some weak and pathetic defences by Ministers, but that must surely take the prize. We had from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) a whole series of specific allegations against the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), and he has not defended himself on one of them-not one. Insofar as his speech can be called a defence, he took the coward's defence. The coward's defence for a Minister is to say, `They did not tell me. I did not know anything about it all. I was only the poor Minister and you can't convict me'. That is the coward's defence and its simply will not stand up. There are three reasons why this Minister should be censured by this motion. The first is that there was, as has been revealed by the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract, the most damning indictment of public administration that this country has ever seen. If anyone under our system of government is to be held responsible for that, it must be the Minister. It is the Minister for Resources, as he now is, who must on any test carry all the responsibility for the series of bungles which was revealed over this contract by the Menzies report. Secondly, it is the very principle itself, because this Department has abandoned all the principles of ministerial responsibility. I could not believe what I was reading the other day when I read the Senate Hansard report of the words of the great luminary, Senator Evans, who was doing what he could to defend himself on these charges. This is what he said about ministerial responsibility: . . . these days there is no foundation whatsoever for any claim for resignation on the ground of individual ministerial responsibility. Members of this Government are writing the rules to suit their own convenience, and they have abandoned the basis of the whole system of ministerial responsibility that we operate under-and how different it was when they were in opposition. The Minister for Resources in his pathetic defence went back to the events of 1982 and said that the issue of the extent of ministerial responsibility was being discussed then. What view did the Australian Labor Party take of that principle in 1982? Labor members said, and it was set out clearly on a number of occasions by the then Leader of the Opposition and by the the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and present Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. Let us look, because time prevents our going over all the evidence, at what Senator Button said when he gave consideration to how that principle should be applied. He said that there were three rules. He said that if the Minister knew of incompetence in his Department and that incompetence was proved then he should resign. And how right he was. But Senator Button went further and said that if the Minister did not know, then he should have known; he should have been making inquiries because he was responsible for the sound running of his Department, and if his Department was not being run properly then the Minister should have found out about it. A Minister is not just there to sit like a stuffed dummy, as the Minister for Resources seems to suggest, to put plugs in his ears and not hear. He is there to ask questions. He is there because he is paid as a Minister on behalf of the people to ask questions. He is there to put public servants under the hammer and under scrutiny. He did not do that. Senator Button laid down even a third principle. He said that even if the Minister could not be expected to know what was going on, if the scandal was of a great magnitude the Minister should resign. To return to Senator Evans's words, this Government has said that all those rules go out the window. Forget this ministerial responsibility; there is no such thing. There is no obligation on a Minister to resign simply because he has messed up, to a substantial extent, the administration of his Department. There is no responsibility at all, according to this Government. I would like the Leader of the House (Mr Young)-or whoever stands up next-to tell us whether this really is the Government's position or whether there is still some shred of respect given here for the principle of ministerial responsibility. I go back again to 1982 and those examples that were given. What did the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce say about Mr Nixon because of the so-called meat scandal? He said that he should resign and the only reason he gave was that he was responsible for those bodies within his ministerial responsibility. The Minister pressed for Mr Nixon's resignation simply because he was the Minister. What has happened to that grand principle these days? What did that great paragon of ministerial principle and propriety, the present Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, say? What lofty principle did he lay down then? This is what he said: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. If that was the principle then it should be the principle now. If this principle of ministerial responsibility has any shred of standing left in it so far as this Government is concerned, the Government should stand as one and say that this Minister should go. If it does not stand and say that this Minister should go, then it has no right to take part in this democratic process that is the foundation of our system of government. The third point is-and one can go into the details later-that there was a complete and utter shambles when this matter was taken to the Hawke Cabinet. I will tell honourable members what happened. The Minister who is being censured today did not even bother to attend that Cabinet meeting. What was he doing when this major matter involving $17m of expenditure was before Cabinet? Today I had a look to see where he was. He was wandering around investigating the shipyards in Shanghai and forging close transport relationships between China and Australia. That is what he was doing on the day this matter went to Cabinet. Did he leave behind proper instructions as to how this matter should be handled? Of course not. He gave it to the then Acting Minister, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), and asked him to look after it. He then went off to China to have a look at the shipyards and the airports there. Unfortunately, Mr Scholes was ill on that day; so what did Cabinet members do? Did they put it off because it was a major matter? After all, one would have thought that the surveillance of our coastline was pretty important. Ministerial Press releases seem to indicate that it is. Did they put it off or call some people in to give them some advice? No, they threw it to the present Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy). They probably gave it to him as he came in the door and said `All right, Mike, look after this will you. We do not know what it is about, but look after it'. That is the way it was handled. As I understand it-and this point has not been made as yet at any stage in the course of public discussion on this issue-the Cabinet submission that went forward to the members of the Hawke Cabinet warned them about the dangers of letting this contract to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. The Department of Aviation was asked for co-ordination comments which it gave. Those comments ended up in the Cabinet submission; they were there to see for any Minister who wanted to take his eyes off the racing guide, Pix or People or whatever Ministers were reading in the Cabinet on that day. The submission stated: Aviation- that is, the Department of Aviation- notes- one would think that the word `notes' would catch their attention- that the preferred tenderer is not the holder of an air service licence . . . Cabinet was told in the co-ordination comments, `The preferred tenderer does not have a licence-but do not let that deter you'. The submission goes on: . . . the preferred tenderer . . . does not as yet possess aircraft, personnel or other facilities necessary under the contract. Do Cabinet members not read Cabinet submissions? It was not only that it was put in front of them; it was not only that it should have been a red light standing out to warn them about what they were doing, but the Department had also thoughtfully prepared a briefing note which set out exactly the same thing. Both documents said the same thing to the Minister who walked off, clutching his Cabinet submission under his arm as he headed down to the Cabinet ante room for a cup of tea before starting on that day's weighty business. They both said that this outfit, which incidentally changed its name from Myruse Pty Ltd-that is what Mr Amann very appropriately called his company which is a two-bob shelf company; Ministers had not even inquired about that-did not have any aeroplanes, hangars or facilities. It did not employ anyone and it had not had any experience. It had not got a licence. How many members are there in the Cabinet? Are there 12, 13 or 14? The most competent ministry in the history of this country-so we are all told-could not even read that submission. It is not only the Minister for Resources; but it is also all of those who turned a blind eye of ignorance to this whole matter. They were warned and they were told, but they went ahead irrespective of that advice and awarded this contract. The Minister should not come in here and say, with this cowardly defence, that he did not know and that they did not tell him. That defence will not wash at all. He was warned, he was told and he had adequate notice but did nothing about it whatsoever. He stands condemned for presiding over what is undoubtedly the greatest administrative shemozzle in the history of this country. Even if that were not so and even if the Minister had not been warned, he stands condemned and should be censured because he was presiding over a fiasco. He was not presiding over what Senator Evans, with his glib style, called a systems failure. It was not a systems failure. It was a system of bungles, one after the other, over which this Minister presided. He was personally responsible for it. When he went away to Shanghai he did not leave proper instructions for other Ministers and they all stand condemned because they were warned. Finally if this principle of ministerial responsibility means anything at all, this Minister should be censured. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(3.38) —I am very pleased to stand here and defend the actions of the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) who is the subject of this censure motion. Mr Beale —You weren't even there. Mr DUNCAN —Neither were any Opposition members, so let us get that quite clear. In this particular matter one could not see a greater amount of hypocrisy. Anybody who has been around this political system for a very long time or even for a very short time would know just how shallow this motion is that we have before the Parliament today. Let us get one thing clear. This was a tender process; it was not a process involving normal administrative matters which are dealt with on a day to day basis in any Minister's office or by any government department. It was a tender process. This Opposition, quite rightly, would be shouting from the roof tops if there was any suggestion that the Minister had been involved up to his elbows in the tender process. He should not have been, and he was not. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. This Minister was doing the right thing. He did the right thing throughout this matter. There is no suggestion in the Menzies Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract that Minister Morris did anything improper, that he did anything but the right thing. Let us get that fact clearly on the record. Members of the Opposition can nitpick all they like about the administrative matters that were dealt with by the people involved in the tender process. None of those nitpicking matters involves anything that was dealt with by Minister Morris. Let us get that on the record at the outset. I have looked very carefully at the motion that has been moved here today and I must say that it is an empty gesture at best. I think it is now one week approximately from the time when the Menzies report was tabled in the House. Yet members of the Opposition have tripped into the Parliament today, huffing, puffing and blowing about this matter of great importance. If it is as important as they are putting to us today that it is, why did they not bring on this debate at the first available opportunity after the Menzies report was tabled? I believe the answer quite simply lies outside of this chamber with the activities going on in another part of the nation. The embarrassment that this ragtag lot on the Opposition benches is suffering as a result of the quite extraordinary circumstances going on in Queensland today gives a pretty fair indication of why Opposition members have drummed up this matter. They have dragged it up and dragged it in here today. This trial by parliament is going nowhere. In fact the Opposition ought to think very carefully about just what it wants out of this debate. Either it wants the facts or it wants a witch-hunt. Well, witch-hunts and trial by ordeal went out a long time ago-and so, incidentally, did trial by parliament. This is an entirely inappropriate matter to bring before the Parliament. As I have already said, if the Minister had been involved in any way in the tender process, Opposition members would have been in here baying and carrying on at great length. As I have said, they would, quite properly, have been in here baying, because the Minister should not become involved in the tender process. That should be a matter at arm's length from the Minister. Mr Howard —That is a new doctrine. Mr DUNCAN —It is not a new doctrine. If any Minister were to become involved in a tender process, I suggest that this Parliament would want to know why. That does not happen and everybody knows that that is the case. That has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. I want to quote to the Parliament a couple of things from the Menzies report which relate to Minister Morris's involvement in this matter. On page 59, under the heading `Observations and Comments', paragraph 1 states: The submission to the Minister should have disclosed that Amann had limited experience in the aviation industry, he did not have an organization in existence and, while he stated that he had made arrangements to acquire the necessary aircraft from overseas, he did not at that date own any of the required aircraft. The information in fact provided including the information provided to the Minister a few days earlier in relation to the Cabinet Submission was insufficient to alert the Minister to any of these matters nor, of course, to the unreliability of the costings investigation. There it is. The Menzies report clearly indicates that Minister Morris in those circumstances did not have information before him which would have enabled him to make any other judgment. On page 73, finding 12 states: Information put before Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Submission seeking funds authorization and the submission seeking authority under regulation 48 (c) of the Finance Regulations to enter into the contract with Amann did not reveal either the facts set out in (4) or the unreliability of the financial investigation described in (6). That sets out pretty clearly the Menzies view of Minister Morris's involvement. That is the view that we on this side have always held-that it was an administrative exercise which went wrong. That has never been denied by anybody on this side of the House, and we do not deny it now. The reason we set up the Menzies inquiry was quite specifically to seek advice on what procedures should be implemented in the future in relation to the Coastwatch contract to ensure that the tender process can continue to operate at arm's length from the Minister, but with much upgraded administrative arrangements to ensure that the contract, when it is subsequently let, will be let properly and that the administration will be carried out effectively. I want to deal with just a couple of other matters which are important in the context of the suggestions that have been made that in some way the matter involved some breach of ministerial responsibility. It is very interesting to refer to things said previously by others. I refer to the 1983 report of the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration, which states: At the outset, we shall try to dispose of one myth. When ministerial responsibility is discussed in Australia, many assert that in the United Kingdom ministers automatically, regularly, or often resign when there are acts of maladministration by their departments, allegedly amounting to a convention of resignation. This is a fallacy. As Appendix 8 demonstrates, this has never really been a convention in the UK. Indeed, we have not been able to identify (in well over 100 years) a single case that can properly and confidently be claimed as a resignation for that reason. It is also interesting to note that, even in the 1954 Crichel Down case involving the resignation of Sir John Dugdale, which has been regarded by others as an example of just that instance, it is not so regarded by Mr Reid, the person who wrote the report of the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration. He said: Ministers-in Australia as well as in the UK-have of course proffered resignations for a wide range of reasons, such as personal actions or indiscretions, misleading of the Parliament, policy failures, policy differences with colleagues, and so on. But they raise quite different issues from the handling of cases of maladministration by a department. There we have it. The situation is patently obvious: in the circumstances such as we have in this matter, according to precedent, the issue of the resignation of the Minister should not even arise. That shows what an empty sham this motion which has been put before the Parliament today really is. All I can say about it is that it shows just how empty this Opposition is when it moves this motion, not the day after the Menzies report was tabled in the Parliament, not two days after, but a week after that report was brought into the Parliament. It shows quite clearly that all the huffing and puffing we have heard today is a totally empty gesture; that it does not amount to anything at all. What it really amounts to is the Opposition scrambling around this morning saying, `For goodness sake, what are we going to find to try to cast some sort of shadow today, given that the events in Queensland will inevitably lead to a situation where we will have a pretty bad day? We had better put something up. What can we find around the place? I suppose we could try to do something about the Coastwatch contract'. Members of the Opposition have gone through the motions, and that is about the only way one could describe it. It is a pretty poor effort. Anybody listening to this debate would not have been impressed one iota by the shallow emptiness of the way the Opposition went about it. The Opposition's obsession with pedantic nitpicking is open for all to see as a result of this debate this afternoon. The Opposition has been rejected by the electorate; members of the Opposition have been seen for what they are-a pretty pathetic lot, who have come in here today with this shabby little exercise. They have no credibility with their alternative policies, and their credibility has suffered a further blow in this shabby exercise today. I urge honourable members to reject this absolutely ridiculous motion that has been moved by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), and I move: That the question be now put. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to allow members to come in here without their coats altogether? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There are no specific provisions in the Standing Orders requiring coats to be worn. Members are expected to be cleanly dressed. Often an exception is made because of the necessity for members to come quickly to divisions. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. A. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Woods, R. L.Hewson, J. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Beale's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hewson, J. R. Woods, R. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. T.Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Keating, P. J.Bowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of the Speaker, I present the annual report of the Auditor-General of the Australian Audit Office for 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the annual report of the Auditor-General of the Australian Audit Office for 1986-87, and (2) That the report be printed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), pursuant to sub-section 27 (3) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council for 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Repeal Act 1986, I present the final operations report and financial statement of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs for the period 1 July to 31 December 1986, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of Finance for 1986-87. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Pursuant to section 33 of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983, I present the 1985 report on the participation and equity program. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Primary Industry for 1986-87. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), and for the information of honourable members, I present the second report of the National Pacific Co-operation Committee on Australia and Pacific Economic Co-operation. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WHITE —I do. Mr Griffiths —Impossible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed, and the honourable member for Maribyrnong should not interject from out of his seat. Mr WHITE —The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), in an impassioned and rambling answer, said that I had been quoting views of service officers at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Williamtown, and putting them in a difficult position. He also said that I had been abusing the privilege of visiting a defence base that he seems to think he granted me. In the first place, I never quote the views of service officers; I never have and I never will. When I go to a defence base, I form my own conclusions and I make a comment according to those conclusions. Secondly, there is no privilege in visiting a defence base. The Government does not own the bases. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member might say where he is misrepresented. Mr WHITE —The Minister said that I quoted the views of service officers. I am now getting to the second part, that is, that I had abused the privilege of visiting a defence base. I sought no special information. No privilege was attached to that visit. I totally reject the two accusations which the Minister made in his speech. 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 Jenkins and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Government's discriminatory Anti-Smoking legislation in the workplace bans and on Domestic Airline travel. 2. Note that so called Environmental Tobacco smoke has not been proved as a major pollutant either in the workplace or on aircraft. 3. This legislation will discriminate against thirty per cent of the citizens of Australia, and 4. Call upon the Government to lift all bans and not proceed with any discriminatory smoking legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr John Brown. 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 Beale and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard and Dr Charlesworth. 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal; Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to A.C.T. Legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia-wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 Department of Veterans' Affairs continue to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia oppose the granting of certain areas of land in connection with the Jawoyn (Katherine Area) land claim. Specifically, petitioners request that the following lands not be granted. (a) That part of the Katherine Gorge National Park comprising the Katherine Gorge system and adjacent developed areas and all areas to the north thereof, including Edith Falls; (b) The whole catchment areas of those sites under consideration for utilisation as future water supply for the Katherine township and, in particular, the catchments of McAddens and Dorothy Creeks. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not make a land grant, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, as recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report of 6th October 1987, but that he heeds the desire of the undersigned citizens of Australia, thereby excluding from grant, the areas defined above. by Mr Snowdon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That the present stallholders of the Belconnen and Fyshwick Retail Markets have made an offer of $2 million to the government for each of the markets, and although this matches the government's estimate of the markets worth, the offer has not been accepted. Failure of the stallholders to retain the markets could result in their sale to other commercial interests with the displacement of the present stallholders and increased costs being passed on to consumers. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The present stallholders of the Belconnen and Fyshwick Markets should be given the first option on the sale of the markets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Leichhardt, citizens of Australia shows that the forests of the greater Daintree region are being destroyed at an alarming rate by logging, mining, roadworks, real estate subdivision and clearing for agriculture. Your petitioners therefore pray that the greater Daintree and wet tropics be listed as world heritage by 31st December 1987 to help protect this area from further destruction. by Mr John Brown. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to jobs and investment in the steel industry through the Government's failure to match industrial performance with its rhetoric on national economic goals. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. 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. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W.Goodluck, B. J. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Halverson, R. G. Woods, R. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hewson, J. R. Hayden, W. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Willis, R. Webster. A. P.Duffy, M. J. Porter, J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr KERR(Denison)(4.21) —Although the terms of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 are complex and, some might think, somewhat turgid, effecting as they do mainly mechanical and procedural alterations to the legislation, they do contain a number of provisions which are interesting and deserve comment. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to the provisions in relation to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Acts Interpretation Act is a provision of statute law which is intended to assist those who are given the responsibility of interpreting Commonwealth legislation guides to that interpretation process. Over the years provisions have been inserted in the Acts Interpretation Act to ensure that judges and administrators are better able to carry out the intention of the Parliament. Of course, one of the great criticisms of the legislative forms of this House and many other parliaments has been that they are written in extraordinarily complex language-language which is difficult, unattractive and not accessible to even the educated reader. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is currently looking to remedy some of those defects and is actively pursuing a policy of simplifying the language that is used in drafting statutes. That is a very major job which can be undertaken only over a long period. Inevitably it means that statutes will be significantly altered in terms of the manner of their expression. The words that are used to express the will of the Parliament will be changed quite significantly. They will be made simpler and accessible so that an ordinary educated reader can at least have some clear understanding of what the Parliament intended. There is, however, a problem in that in the past judges have assumed, as a matter of assistance to them in their understanding of the intention of Parliament, that, where there was a change in the way a provision was expressed, Parliament probably intended to change the effect of the legislation. So, if a judge was seeking to apply the test of what was meant by the Parliament when it expressed a provision in new language, it would assume that the Parliament was trying to do something different from what it had done in the past. That presents a problem to the parliamentary draftsman, because, in the process of taking the very admirable course that he has set out upon-that is, of expressing our statutes more clearly and more simply-obviously there must be significant change to many provisions in older legislation. So the Acts Interpretation Act is to be amended to make sure that mere changes of style are not interpreted as being intended to convey different meanings in substance. What this means is that, when a new provision expresses an idea in new language in an Act which already contains a similar idea but expressed in older, more technical, more complex style, the court should assume first that the new language is not intended to convey a different meaning. So the proposed new section 15a will add a general provision in the Act to ensure that the courts do apply this very new policy in their treatment of the intention of the Parliament, so that when the language is brought up to date and made more accessible it is not understood by the courts as being intended to convey a different meaning. Also necessary to help the courts and the public to understand the meaning of the legislature are provisions relating to the words `may' and `shall'. These words have in the past been a lawyer's delight, because when the courts have had occasion to interpret provisions they have always had to grapple with whether or not the intention of the draftsman, in expressing language in a particular way, was that something must occur or was discretionary. The problem arose of the words `may' and `shall' having been used somewhat interchangeably in the past. This has forced the courts to find on a number of occasions that the word `may' actually did mean shall and that the word `shall' actually meant may. So we had a problem in terms of the ordinary person reading legislation not being able to perceive straight away the intention of the legislature. One would have thought that this is a matter of common sense. But until now the courts have had this difficulty and it will be remedied by this Bill's insertion of these new provisions in the Act. Out of caution it had become necessary in legislation to follow the word `may' with the words `at the court's discretion', `at the judge's discretion' or some similar words. This is obviously cumbersome and Parliamentary Counsel now has adopted an invariable practice of using the word `shall' only when the Parliamentary Draftsman, and the Parliament, intend that an action is mandatory, and using the word `may' only when Parliament is expressing the intention that an action is discretionary. Given that this new drafting model has been adopted and will be adopted invariably into the future, a new provision is inserted, proposed new section 32 (2A), to apply to Acts which are assented to after the amendment to ensure that such an interpretation shall be followed in the future. That will make it much easier for people reading Acts to understand precisely what was intended by the Parliament and what the drafting of new Bills comprehends. The third point about the Acts Interpretation Act that should attract the attention of the House is that it continues the process of removing sexist language from the statutes. That practice is also reflected in another provision of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I refer, of course, to the amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, whereby sexist language is removed. But, more generally, in the Acts Interpretation Act there will be a provision that, in the establishment of an office of chairperson, the person who holds that office may be called either chairman or chairwoman as the case requires. Proposed new section 18B will put this provision into the Act. So the package of provisions that relate to the Acts Interpretation Act will be very useful. Although they are fairly straightforward and simple, they will go a long way to making sure that our legislation is cleaned up and made more simple and more accessible. They will help us in terms of our public relations, because one of the chief complaints of the public has always been that the language which has been used by Parliamentary Counsel, and adopted, of course, by parliamentarians in this House, is just too unnecessarily complex, unnecessarily turgid and unnecessarily legalistic. Having mentioned those provisions in relation to the Acts Interpretation Act I draw attention to one other provision that deserves some comment which relates to the National Measurement Act. The proposed amendments to this Act seek to put into effect finally the new metric system. In almost all areas of our daily life metrics have taken over. Old-fashioned people such as I who grew up learning about feet and inches are gradually having to comprehend the new order where currency is decimalised and weights and measures are metricated. We simply have to come to terms with these new changes. In almost every area of our life people have got used to the metric system; litres are used in measuring petrol and decimal currency is in vogue. But in one area the non-metric measurements persist and that is in the measurements relating to land and the like. We still talk in terms of acres. Often in ordinary language we use feet and inches or miles rather than metres and centimetres or kilometres. The Government is seeking to consolidate the progress that has been made towards decimalisation, towards the use of metric measurements. The Government originally intended to make a clear prohibition on the expression of measurements in any contracts for the sale of land to be expressed other than in metric measurements. The way that was intended to be carried out was by declaring void any such contract that was written in non-metric terms. The problem with that approach was that the contract of an innocent party-say, a farmer who wrote to another farmer seeking to make a contract to buy a few acres of land at the bottom of the farm, and who exchanged correspondence relating to those acres-would be void. Considerable injustice might have been done to innocent parties. Following discussions within the Government and, in particular, within the Caucus legal committee, the Government has changed its approach in relation to this issue. Whilst it still will be proceeding with provisions that ensure that in the future all contracts in relation to the sale of land or interests in land must be expressed in metric measurements, it has not maintained the drastic and draconian effect that would have occurred if contracts expressed in non-metric terms were made void. Instead, it has prohibited, under pain of penalty-the maximum fine being $500-the expressing of such contracts in non-metric measurements. That will have the substantial effect that the Government intended. It will mean that law societies and the like will draft all standard form contracts from now on in metric measurements and that all those practising daily conveyancing will use metric measurements. That will clearly carry through the Government's intention in this area, but it will not have the rather awesome but unintended effect of meaning that the contracts of those innocent individuals who do not have professional legal skills and who choose innocently to express themselves in non-metric language when forming their contracts will be void and therefore capable of being struck down at any time in the future with perhaps arbitrary and harsh results. The Government has responded to the concerns of Government back bench members in this regard and has proposed an amendment which I understand the Minister will be moving at a later stage in this debate. Although there is a multitude of provisions in a Bill such as this which are designed essentially to clear up a number of technical problems which require attention but which, in a sense, do not involve great matters of substance, there are quite interesting provisions which go a long way towards simplifying and clarifying the organisation of the legal system. I commend the provisions to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.35) —I am surprised to hear the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) in his opening remarks make comments which suggest that this omnibus Bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, somehow contains essentially machinery measures. I was somewhat reassured by his subsequent remarks that indicated that the provisions were a little more serious than he at first indicated. The Bill sets out to amend 87 different Acts as well as to repeal another 24. Of the Acts to be amended it might be said that there are two main categories. The first category includes those which the Government wants changed for specific, albeit arguable, reasons. The second category which involves some 30 Acts out of the 87 is worthy of some comment. Each of those 30 Acts are to be in whole or in part amended for one of the following reasons: Because of a need for a formal drafting amendment; to make the language in the Act gender neutral; or in one case to correct an oversight; or in another to correct five errors in cross-referencing-and that in a fairly recent Bill that came before the House. It seems that the terms `formal drafting amendment' and `correct an oversight' are euphemisms for mistakes in the legislation which are not picked up when a Bill appears in this House for debate. In time honoured bureaucratic style it would be too much, it seems, for people involved in drafting the original legislation to admit to a simple, if not excusable, mistake. But no, apparently it sounds better to term mistakes as oversights or more commonly as needing formal drafting amendments, thereby avoiding any acknowledgment of fallibility on the part of those responsible. I intend to remark on what that also says about us as members of parliament a little later. Before I do so I briefly note the time and resources involved in amending Acts to make the wording gender neutral. I would have thought that it is hardly necessary to waste time and money on that sort of nonsense. Surely, the old legal axiom that the male gender shall automatically apply to females and vice versa already applies. Apparently, the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not think so because it sees the compelling need to go to great lengths to amend the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. Some 16 or more sections or sub-sections in its principal Act are to be amended by these measures to make the words gender neutral, who knows for what worthwhile purpose. I would have thought that the Bureau, the Government and this Parliament had better things to do. Although I am bound to offend some people who have strong feelings on the subject of what they perceive to be the neutrality of gender in real life or in language, I reiterate that these changes involve many people with better and more productive things to do. If all departments and statutory authorities indulge in the same thought processes as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the next omnibus Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will be equally prolific-even more so, I suspect. In returning to the 30 or so amendments to the Acts that are necessary because of basic or elementary errors in drafting which I have described, it is at least arguable that amendments would be largely avoidable if the Parliament were given an opportunity to examine and debate proposed legislation without exception. The truth is-and I have raised this subject on more than one occasion-that the House and to a lesser extent the Senate are effectively deprived of the opportunity to examine and debate Bills thoroughly. While we may legitimately claim under the circumstances that parliamentary draftsmen are the perpetrators of elementary mistakes in Bills we pass, the remedy rests with us. It is not quite that simple because the Government, by the use of the gag and its numbers in the House, is prepared to legislate on the basis of E and OE-that is, errors and omissions excepted-and to hell with the consequences. In turn, that is the logical outcome of the increasing tendency of the Government to legislate by Press release and then to rely unduly on legislation in the Acts Interpretation Act. In this approach is to be found the formula for the sloppy procedures in government that we see so much in evidence these days. Whilst it may be reasonably presumed that drafting errors will occur, and we will not pick up all of them, the extent identified in this Bill is indefensible. Although after the election in 1984 the numbers of members and senators in the House and the Senate were increased by about 20 per cent, and although the number of Bills introduced has since increased, the time available for their consideration by the Parliament has remained essentially the same. As we approach the Christmas break we will no doubt see the Government ruthlessly apply its numbers to curtail debates on Bills, to the undoubted detriment of the parliamentary process. It can safely be predicted that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) will-as he did today in negativing a discussion on a matter of public importance-on behalf of his Government trot out the lame and time-worn, and therefore lamentable, excuse that application of the gag in the House is necessary because the Senate is adamant that it will not consider Bills unless they appear on its Notice Paper before a certain date. It has become a ritual of rhetoric, with little to commend it, and even less by way of justification. The inevitable outcome will in future be more and more statute law miscellaneous provisions Bills due to the so-called formal drafting mistakes, oversights and the like. A not so obvious outcome will be the erosion of the relevance of the House in the legislative process and a greater reliance on the Senate and its committees to identify simple but avoidable errors in Bills. Of the 87 Acts in the Bill under consideration, three or four merit consideration in isolation. Those which I would identify are, amendments to the Audit Act 1901, the National Measurement Act 1960 and the Navigation Act 1912. Each of these is worthy of consideration and debate separately, and not as part of an omnibus Bill. In other words, separate Bills should be brought before the Parliament. Others, such as amendments to the Exports Control Act 1982 and related amendments, should also be debated separately, albeit it cognately, being both important and complex. Whether or not the device of including far reaching and important proposals to change laws and correct avoidable drafting errors is part of a deliberate intention to deny the opportunity for parliamentary debate, it certainly has that affect. With at least three or four of the series of amendments before the House deserving of separate and detailed consideration, we are no longer left to wonder how the Executive Government can further erode the influence of this chamber and the elected representatives in it from both sides. The outcome is that only in the Senate, where the Government does not have the ability arrogantly to use its superior numbers, is there opportunity for elected representatives to carry out their legislative duty, as distinct from purely political duty. Because of factors mentioned, and given the ridiculous fact that speaking time on amendments to 87 Acts is limited to a total of 20 minutes in this second reading debate, I now turn to the proposals to amend the Audit Act 1901. It is proposed, firstly, to substitute a new section 32. The reasons given for excluding the Governor-General from the process of certifying warrants prior to the appropriate amounts being dispersed are eminently sensible. However, to remove the Auditor-General from the procedure may not be. Certainly the Government's assertion that `the involvement of the Auditor-General in the issuing of appropriated amounts . . . is also inappropriate and contrary to the modern concepts of the independence of the Auditor-General' is more than hard to swallow. The proposal will be of detriment to the authority, and therefore to the independence of the Auditor-General, and not the other way around, as might be supposed if one reads the words of the Government. Whilst it may be administratively sound to give unfettered power to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to certify payment of appropriated amounts, it has all the hallmarks of a matter of convenience and not one arising out of consideration for the Auditor-General and the role he is bound to play. Proposed amendments to section 34 also come into this category. These amendments envisage the use of electronic signatures to permit an officer to certify future payments. It seems that the present requirements place `an unnecessary constraint on the use of computer-based systems for processing accounts by departments'. The present system also provides internal checks and balances in requiring payments to be certified in writing, and hence facilitates subsequent audits. These are not to be replaced, it seems, and we are left to wonder whether there will be any safeguards at all, and if so, what will be the form of those safeguards against inefficiency and possible fraud. There is a body of opinion along the lines that sophisticated computer-based systems merit equally sophisticated safeguards and audit techniques which, if they exist, we have not been told about. It is also proposed to repeal section 48h. An entity other than a department will no longer have to pay for an efficiency audit conducted by the Auditor-General. That is fair enough, particularly if one is imposed rather than requested. It is a great shame, I think, that the Government does not apply the same principle to taxpayers in general, and fringe benefits taxpayers in particular. The enormous administration costs incurred by individuals in collecting taxes imposed and in answering or complying with bureaucratic demands for information make many taxpayers fair game and not protected from uncalled for costs, as will be government instrumentalities which are to benefit from the repeal of section 48h of the Audit Act. It is also proposed to amend sub-section 49 (2), to give the Minister for Finance the authority to approve variations to the format of his future monthly statements. It will mean that the Minister and his Government will no longer need the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament. I am not sure whether that has changed. We have had amendments to the amendments, and an explanatory memorandum has been brought into the House today, and I am not sure whether that clause is still in the legislation or not. I am dealing with it as if it is. I go on to point out that while the complimentary amendment to the sub-section is sub-section 49 (3), it will require the Minister to table explanations for future variations in the Parliament, but nevertheless we will be deprived of an opportunity to debate proposed changes before they are adopted. There is a great difference in the procedure which is now envisaged. This will see yet another victory by executive government over this Parliament. Amendments proposed to section 51 of the Audit Act empower the Auditor-General to exercise a discretion to include or exclude mention in future reports of what are described as `details of inconsequential or trivial breaches of the Constitution or legislation'. This is hardly synonymous with the concept of glasnost, which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will have an opportunity to see first hand when he visits Moscow in a couple of weeks. Whilst I have the greatest faith in the Auditor-General and his office, it should be this Parliament which judges whether a breach of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia is trivial. Deciding the significance of a discovered breach of our Constitution is not a matter for anyone other than members and senators. If, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, a breach of the Constitution is `minor and of little technical consequence, have the effect of detracting from the overall materiality of the report', as the rationale goes in the explanatory memorandum, the Auditor-General may be obliged to say so in his report. He may be able to say it is trivial. I do not want him judging for me-and honourable members in this House should not want him judging for them-whether a breach of the Constitution is trivial. That is what is needed. Not the granting of discretion, which could mean no reference at all to a discovered breach of the Constitution. After all, a breach by a government department, which the Auditor-General may judge to be `of little technical consequence', may be of great political importance. To me, the proposed amendment of section 51 is totally unacceptable as an individual, as a member of Parliament and as a representative. As if to add to my discontent, the memorandum tells us that the proposed amendment offers us the little gem of being consistent with professional audit standards. What a lot of hogwash. If a company's auditors detected a breach of the articles or memorandum of association and did not report it, the wrath of those administering company laws would descend on them with a resounding thud. One should make no mistake about that. Proposed amendments to sections 63h and 63m are consequential and have the same effect as the proposed amendment to section 51. Future audit reports on some public authorities need not include `breaches of an authority's enabling legislation which are inconsequential or trivial'. We are again given an example to illustrate what is meant by that, which says that `if an unauthorised overdrawing of a bank account to the extent of $1 is found', it is not required to be reported. Well, it is easy to agree that $1 is trivial and insignificant-even more so under this Government given the value of our dollar overseas. Equally, $10 is insignificant. Are sums of $100 or $1,000 trivial? Is $10,000 trivial? A sum of $10,000 relative to the total budgets of most authorities is insignificant and trivial, but if an amount of a few hundred or a few thousand dollars goes astray, it may indicate sloppy management and sloppy accounting practices of great significance not in proportion to the sums of money involved. Should not the Parliament have the duty to judge the significance of any identified breach of an authority's enabling legislation? If the Auditor-General is of the opinion that discovered breaches are indeed trivial, he can say so in his report. In fact, if there is more than one trivial breach, they could be listed-but listed in the report. The length of such a list might tell us more about the performance of an authority than would trivial or insignificant examples if considered in isolation. It is the number of mistakes that is often a warning to this Parliament. I do not care to leave the judgment of what is trivial and insignificant in this connection with the Auditor-General. To amend section 63p as proposed, there could arise some reservations about giving the executive government the power to request an audit of certain bodies. If such requests have the effect of making the Auditor-General divert his limited finite resources from other tasks, there is scope in that power for manipulation by a government. There is scope, deliberately or otherwise, to make sure that the more important and pressing work of the Auditor-General cannot proceed. Despite soothing noises from the Government, and despite the scrutiny of two Senate committees, I have feelings about amendments proposed to the Audit Act which range from uneasiness to outright offence. The entire Bill, comprising amendments to all 87 Acts, is in itself an example of the supremacy of the executive government over tried and true parliamentary practice. The proposed amendments to the Audit Act give stark examples, and I have mentioned some of them. To include major and detailed amendments in an omnibus Bill such as this only emphasises the point about the supremacy of executive government. There is a lot to be learned about the way in which the government has legislated in this instance. I hope that I shall never have to get up in this House and talk about a similar Bill in these terms. Half of the provisions in this Bill should be in separate Acts of Parliament so that they are able to be given the complete consideration they deserve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.55) —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987. There are 87 Acts mentioned in this Bill, and I want to talk about just two. The Bill is written in formal and legalistic terms, but I want to take this opportunity to speak about the first Act, the National Water Resources Financial Assistance Act 1978. I want to talk about it in relation mainly to the electorate of Dunkley where water, which effects everyone's life in my electorate, is of such poor quality. First, I would like to read some things which have been written recently about the quality of Australian water. Once upon a time we believed that water was the purest substance we could drink. Today, the odour, taste and colour of some water supplies in Australia make that sound like a very sick joke. Last year Australians drank almost 48 million litres of plain mineral water compared with 43 million litres in 1984, and about twice as much of the flavoured variety. People are doing that because of the quality of our water. Before gulping down that next glass of water honourable members may care to reflect on what else they are swallowing along with it. Have honourable members ever looked into the bottom of an old kettle to see what has been left after years of use? It may be coated with chloroform, benzene, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane and bromo dichloromethane. Then there is phenol, hexachlorophene and polyvinyl chloride, with perhaps a sprinkle of dieldrin or DDT. And, finally, honourable members may even find a few asbestos fibres or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that are by-products of coal-tar linings used in some old steel pipes. All these things can be found in our water. In a recent test in various capital cities, three gentlemen were blindfolded, given glasses of water and asked to comment on them. They said that the water in Melbourne tasted disgusting and sweaty; in Adelaide it was swampy; in Brisbane it was like salty sand; Sydney water had a chlorine taste; the water in Canberra was good; and rainwater was said to have a terrific taste. Last year a State Government planning document entitled `Victoria, State of the Environment', raised as an important environmental issue the bacteriological and micro virological contamination of the domestic water supply in Victoria. Most domestic supplies consistently failed to meet World Health Organisation standards for bacteria levels. Outside Melbourne, only 7 per cent of town supplies complied with these standards at that time. In February of this year I wrote to the Mornington Peninsula and District Water Board in relation to the quality of the water supplied not only to my constituents but also to me. I would like to read some of the correspondence which I have received from the Board. I have spoken to a large number of my constituents and their main complaint relates to water quality. The letter from the Board reads: I refer to your letter dated 20 January 1987, in which you made reference to water quality problems observed by yourself . . . They were also observed by a constituent of mine at Mornington. The letter continues: In common with Water Authorities throughout the world, and in accordance with World Health Organisation guideline, the Board treats water with the following chemicals: Sodium silicofluoride is added in accordance with the Health Act 1973 to raise a small amount of naturally occurring fluoride in the water to an optimum level of 0.9 parts per million that children need to develop resistance to tooth decay. Copper sulphate for the control of algae and other aquatic nuisances that can be toxic and cause taste, odour and colour. This treatment concentration is 0.5 parts per million and is carried out only when algae is visually detected . . . Lime to correct pH . . . Chlorine is used for disinfection of the water supply to remove the risk of water-borne diseases such as gastro-enteritis. It is normally added in the range of 1-3 ppm depending on the bacterial quality or chlorine demand of the raw water. The majority of the Board's chlorination plants utilise gaseous chlorine; the rest use Sodium Hypochlorite. Ammonia is used in conjunction with chlorine at some chlorination plants. The ammonia is added at half the concentration of the chlorine to produce combined chlorine-ammonia compounds (monochloramines) which are less potent bacteriocides than chlorine alone, but remain longer in the water. These compounds are useful for treating long reticulation systems. In your letter, you mentioned that you have noticed chlorine in the water supplied to your Frankston home. This letter is directed to me in this case. I continue: Generally speaking, the presence of chlorine should not be regarded as a deterioration in the water quality, but rather an improvement, as it indicates that a chlorine `residual' is present in the reticulation for protection against deterioration of bacterial water quality. I would like to quote some words from Dr Alan Wade, who is Secretary of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Water Quality Control Committee. He describes trialomethanes such as chloroform and bromoform as `only the tip of the iceberg' and points out that chlorine reacts with organic matter to produce a vast array of compounds, about which not much is known. Those are some of the chemicals that are flowing down our pipes at the moment and going into our homes, not just on the Mornington Peninsula but all over Australia. I believe that the quality of the water that is supplied to Australia by our authorities is a disgrace. I would like to read some other items of interests. A newspaper article states: The $250 million Australian plastics industry is considering replacing lead in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with less dangerous compounds, following fears that our drinking water carried harmful amounts of lead. The Secretary of the Federal Government's Water Quality Control Committee, Dr Alan Wade, says that the worst-case situation would be the poisoning of a new-born baby in a new housing estate. The lead comes from lead stearate added to PVC to make the pipes malleable. Unfortunately lead stearate leaches from pipes into the water-initially at a very rapid rate. Even with industry complying strictly to official Australian standards, it is likely that PVC pipes could leach far greater amounts of lead into drinking water than allowed by health authorities. All the chemicals that I have mentioned, plus lead, are going into our water supply. In my electorate one only has to boil a kettle and smell the steam to realise that something is wrong with that water. There is some residue left in the kettle. One of my constituents-whom I will not name-has been battling for many years with the Rural Water Commission and the Mornington Peninsula and District Water Board to get some sort of compensation for the actions they have taken to rectify the problem of the water supply in our area. To this stage the Mornington Peninsula and District Water Board has categorically refused to give compensation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The Chair is concerned that the honourable member may be straying a little from the Bill. He should try to keep to the subject of the legislation if he can. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was speaking to the section of the Bill which amends the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act. I am speaking in that particular context, but I will get back to the Bill. As I was saying, the quality of water on the Mornington Peninsula is abysmal. I would describe it in one word: to me it is just disgusting. Even the inspectors of the Mornington Peninsula and District Water Board have installed rain water tanks for their own use. That shows how bad it is. I believe that instead of wasting money on a huge outlay in new buildings, flash cars and offices, the Board should be looking at the quality of our water and improving it. In relation to that section of the Bill that I have mentioned, my constituent has for many years complained about the water, and petitions have been taken up and submitted to the Board. As yet there has been no action. A professor has been appointed to look at the quality of the water. This professor, who is from the Queensland University, will analyse and check out the water to make certain that it does not contain bad chemical mixtures. This water is supplied to all the homes and, as I said, this affects everyone. Anything that affects all my constituents is of great concern to me. Water is like the air; it is a part of our environment that we can not do without and it should be looked at very closely. Some action must be taken immediately to rectify this problem. In the short time that I have left, I turn to the other area of interest to me in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill-that is, the part that relates to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986. I am very pleased to see that the United States and the Soviet Union have come together to sign this historic nuclear treaty. It is something that I personally would have liked to have seen some years ago. However, at long last it is coming about. It is the first step in a major campaign to rid the world of nuclear arms. Mr Reagan, Mr Gorbachev and the people who worked for this historic treaty must be congratulated on the work that they have done. I must say that Australia has played a great part behind the scenes in bringing about a lessening of tension throughout the world. I trust that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he goes to Moscow very soon, will say that Australia may be able to play some major part in the verification team that is being established. We are a trusted ally of the United States and I think we are also looked upon as a friendly and reliable country by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Between those countries, we can play a middle role and I am quite certain that we have the technical skills to enable us to take part in this verification and in this very historic nuclear treaty. A few weeks ago I was at the United Nations. I was taking part in a conference called `Building a Global Security System'. It related to what we, as politicians, could do to try to bring about a greater sense of security and peace in the world. I will take an opportunity later in the life of this Parliament to bring to the House some of the decisions that were made at that particular conference. One of the main decisions was a call to change the whole structure of the United Nations. The United Nations has been in operation since 1945. It was set up just after the Second World War and things have changed rapidly since it was established. I believe that the time has come for some changes to the United Nations. I trust that the speeches that I give, plus those of the other 79 politicians who attended this conference, will bring about this change by the year 2000. Here we have a great opportunity to do something to better the whole of human kind. As I have said, I trust that the other politicians and I will be able to assist in speeding up this process to make certain that we leave this planet in a peaceful state for our children. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.20) —The quaint title of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 covers 110 separate changes to legislation. Ten of them are primary production or agricultural pieces of legislation and some of them involve quite significant changes to policy as distinct from just mechanical changes. I understood that the purpose of such Bills is to be able to put together a whole range of smaller items and get them through the Parliament. I draw attention to the fact that some of these changes are very significant policy changes; some of them have other implications, and also some of them are very late. I will refer to some of them briefly, and only to a couple in any detail. The first relates to an amendment to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act and a change to the Auditor-General's requirements. Of course, we have going through the Parliament the Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill which will abolish the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. It is an interesting situation as to which comes first. Also included are amendments to the Barley Research Levy Act, the Canned Fruits Marketing Act, the Dairy Product Act, the Honey Industry Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pig Industry Act, the Quarantine Act, the Wheat Tax Act and the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act. Honourable members will be pleased to know that I will not be speaking about all of those, but I do want just briefly to comment on a couple. The purpose of the amendment to the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act is to increase the penalty for failing to submit a levy return from $500 to $1,000, or imprisonment for six months, or both, in the case of a natural person, or to $5,000 in the case of a body corporate. That seems to me to be a pretty significant increase for it to be hidden in this sort of legislation. With the amendments to the Honey Industry Act, we have the interesting situation that the appointments of some members of the Australian Honey Board actually expired on 30 June 1987 or, in the case of one member, 1 August 1987. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to fill the vacancy where the previous industry member is unable or does not wish to be appointed for a further period. In other words, this picks up the fact that we have an interesting hiatus period between those dates and now. The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act are quite significant in that they change the ability of certain people to be elected to the Australian Dairy Corporation. They basically prevent any member of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference Executive Council from being able to be appointed to the Australian Dairy Corporation. As I understand it, that is to a certain extent in line with the Government's requirements for statutory marketing authorities. I do not object to, say, the President, the Chairman or the senior office bearers of the Conference being excluded-one could argue about the whole Executive Council-but, once again, this is quite a significant alteration to the eligibility criteria for appointment to the Australian Dairy Corporation, and it is hidden in this Bill. The final and most significant amendment is to the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. The Australian Canned Fruits Corporation is one of the major agricultural statutory marketing authorities in Australia. It is concentrated in the electorate of Murray, my electorate in northern Victoria, that is to say, about two-thirds of the total Australian production of deciduous canned fruit come from my area; the remainder comes from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Riverland area of South Australia. Without this amendment, which extends the life of the Corporation for a further 12 months from 1 January 1988 to the end of December 1988, that statutory marketing authority would cease to exist from the end of December 1987. I support the extension of the life of that Corporation. It is a major agricultural marketing body and this is a significant aspect of legislation in agricultural policy in that a corporation is being extended for a further 12 months. I know why it is being extended. The canneries in the canned fruit industry are working very closely together at present on a merger proposal, basically to put all of the deciduous canned fruit canneries together, that is, Ardmona Fruit Products, SPC Ltd and Letona Co-op Ltd. Therefore, if that is approved by the growers-shareholders, which appears to be the case at the moment, and if it receives the approval of the Trade Practices Commission-I am not aware of any decision by the Trade Practices Commission at this time-that will be possible. Of course, if the major processors of deciduous canned fruits in Australia are merged into one operating organisation, there will obviously be no need for the statutory authority to continue. Hence, the Government has, sensibly and correctly, give a 12-month extension to it. But I do just make the point that this is rather an odd way for that extension to take place. I hope that the merger of the canneries is able to take place, because it will bring significant rationalisation and cost savings to the industry, and hopefully will increase the return to growers. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.17) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 has been debated in the Senate and the debate now rests here in the House. It continues the practice of introducing omnibus legislation into the Parliament as the expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation. The legislation deals with tidying up, correcting and updating routine administrative changes and changes of minor-I emphasise the word `minor'-policy significance. Whilst I am aware of the debate that took place in the Senate, and the issues raised by some members of the Opposition in that place, I submit that it is clear that the legislation contains no contentious matters, matters involving lengthy drafting nor substantial policy issues. The amendments proposed in this Bill are, for the most part, a reproduction of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987, which lapsed after the second reading debate in the House of Representatives earlier this year. The Bill includes amendments to a number of Acts which were not included in the earlier Bill. I would like to enumerate the additional Bills included in this legislation. They include the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, the Currency Act 1915, the Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987, the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966, the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, the Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 and, finally, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987. It is to those pieces of legislation that I will address my remarks this afternoon. First, I turn to the Acts Interpretation Act. The amendments will permit the simplification of language of Acts of Parliament. Having been a member of the legal profession, I commend these amendments. The amendments will permit some standard forms of words to be shortened in or omited from Acts. This is a welcome amendment, as anything which simplifies, or more importantly, clarifies, the language of legislation is to be commended. Amongst the other amendments, the proposed amendment in relation to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act should be commented on. There is no doubt that the amendment, which allows for more flexibility in the actual commencing time of regulations, is justifiable, not least on the basis that it will remove doubt by enabling regulations to take effect from the commencement of an Act of Parliament or part of an Act of Parliament. It will also allow regulations to specify the time of day they are to come into effect. Additionally, regulations may be expressed to commence at the commencement of a specified Act, even if the Act is to commence on a proclaimed date. Further provision is made for regulations to commence at a specified time on a specified day. The proposed amendments deal with situations that have arisen in the past and which under the new legislation will not arise in the future. I will quickly refer to some instances where the current legislation is deficient. A regulation under the Australian Capital Territory Tax Transfers of Marketable Securities Act had to come into force at 5 p.m. on a particular date. The current provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act make it impossible for regulations to come into force at a particular hour of the day. Difficulties arose under the protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981. Legislation was introduced pursuant to Australian ratification of the protocol. Regulations were required to come into force when another Act which provided for ratification itself came into force; that would be when the protocol come into force for Australia. Of course that date could not be identified in advance. However, under the amended provisions, the Bill is designed to deal with such a situation. I now refer briefly to a number of other Acts which are affected by this omnibus legislation and I will refer initially to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The proposed amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act is designed to clarify the powers of the Electoral Commissioner in relation to the direction of Australian electoral officers, divisional returning officers and other officers as defined under the current legislation. The amendment also places beyond doubt the power of Australian electoral officers to direct divisional returning officers and they, in their turn, to direct officers under their control. Turning now to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the amendments included in this Bill are intended to remove doubts about the certification of rule alterations. The Act in its present form requires that certain rule alterations made by organisations registered under the legislation do not take effect unless certified by an industrial registrar as not contrary to law, the Act and regulations, an award or the rules of the organisation. Some doubts currently exist as to the power of a registrar to certify part only of a rule alteration submitted to him. The proposed amendment will remove such doubt. It is interesting that these amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in fact have no retrospectivity. The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act will prevent persons who are members of the executive council of the Australian Dairy Conference, which is the peak policy council of the diary industry, from being appointed as members of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This change is in accordance with the Government's policy that, where a statutory marketing authority is required to account to the peak industry body, the members of the executive council of that body are not to be eligible for appointment as members of the authority because of the possibility of a conflict of interests. The proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act will enable the Minister to re-appoint the immediate past members of the Australian Honey Board to hold office until the end of 1988. The Board is to be restructured with new membership. Under the Bill which lapsed at the end of last sittings, the tenure of Board members was to be extended pending the restructuring of the Board. However, in the intervening period, the Board members' appointments have expired. The Bill also proposes a number of minor amendments to the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. The most important of these fall into two areas. The first will allow greater flexibility in the appointment of a person to act as chairman and managing director of the Corporation. Under the proposed amendments, the Treasurer will be able to appoint someone to act as chairman in the absence of the chairman. This will overcome difficulties that have arisen when the deputy chairman's position has been vacant. The second area of amendment will allow the Corporation to enter into re-insurance contracts with a subsidiary of an approved lender in respect of loans made by the approved lender and insured by the subsidiary. A recent trend for some lenders to insure their loans through their own newly established subsidiaries, and the fact that the Corporation is currently prevented by its Act from offering re-insurance, have restricted the Corporation's ability to compete for business in housing industry traditional services. The proposed amendments will enable the Corporation to respond to developments in the mortgage insurance market. In referring to a number of Acts that form part of this omnibus legislation, I point out that many other Acts are involved and I do not intend to speak on all of them. As I said at the outset, the legislation relates to the tidying up, correcting and updating of changes and to changes of minor policy significance in relation to the 87 Acts of Parliament which are referred to in the Bill. I am aware of the concern shown by some members of this House and of the Senate in relation to including in this type of Bill matters of more significance. I do not believe there are difficulties in that regard in the Bill now before the House, but it is something that legislators will have to consider and protect against in future Bills of this nature. I am also aware of the attitude of the Law Institute of Victoria in relation to omnibus Bills, but I can find no basis for the points raised by the Institute. I, in fact, commend the Bill to the House. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(5.28) —in reply-Several points were raised throughout the debate by members from both sides of the House, and I take this opportunity of responding to a few of them at this stage. I refer firstly to the comments made by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) in the early stages of his speech. I appreciate that he had members of his constituency here and I hope they enjoyed his contribution and the spirit in which it was given. He commented on delays to the introduction of the Bill brought about by the early election. At this stage, I must say that the early election and the return of the Australian Labor party to Government was a small price to pay for that delay-in fact, a bargain if one considers the prospect of the alternative; but that is just one small aside. The honourable member complained that many of the amendments contained in this omnibus Bill were not mentioned in the second reading speech, and that is indeed a fact, brought about by the great length of the Bill and the number of amendments contained in it. This concern has been raised on both sides of the House in this debate. The Government is aware of that matter regarding the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and I understand that it has the point under consideration. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) referred to the proposed amendment to section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901 and inquired whether that proposed amendment was still contained in the Bill. If the honourable member cares to look again, with perhaps more time to study the explanatory memorandum and the Bill, he will see that the page numbered 15 of supplementary explanatory memorandum No. 1 relating to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 replaced the page 15 that was contained in the earlier explanatory memorandum. Hence, that proposed amendment is no longer contained in the Bill. The proposed amendment to section 51 of the Audit Act relates to the empowerment of the Auditor-General, at his or her discretion, not to include in his or her reports details of inconsequential or trivial breaches of constitutional legislation. I remind the House, and particularly the honourable member for Curtin, that this matter was considered by the Senate, and the Senate did not disagree with the provision. It is a matter of balance. There are a lot of minor matters that the Auditor-General would have to consider in his or her overall appraisal of the operations of government. As a matter of balance, it has been considered in the other place, and the Government believes the provision is appropriate. The honourable member for Curtin also referred to the amendments proposed to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 and said that the principle of gender neutrality was a waste of time. Some people possibly believe that, but I am reminded of a story in a newspaper the other day where a father and son were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, and the father died on the way to hospital. On arrival at the hospital, the doctor there refused to treat the boy as he happened to be the son of the doctor. I recognise a few quizzical looks around the chamber, but the story simply means that people tend automatically to think that the doctor is a male. In fact, in this case the doctor was the mother of the boy. Through this and other sex discrimination and equal opportunity legislation the Government is trying to impress upon the community, in whatever shape or form, whether it be through legislation or educative programs in the community, that there is a place and an opportunity in this day and age for us to be more considerate of the role women play and the opportunities that should be made available to them on an equal opportunity basis. In his contribution, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) focused primarily on provisions in the Bill relating to agricultural matters and agricultural Acts. I certainly appreciate his comments and the comments of other honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), in their contributions, concentrated heavily on the proposed amendments. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), I express my appreciation of the sincerity and value of the contributions of all honourable members who have spoken in this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(5.34) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 11, in the items relating to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, after the item relating to proposed section 46a insert: ``Paragraph 48 (1) (b): Omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph: `(b) shall, subject to this section, take effect from: (i) a specified date; (ii) a specified time on a specified date; (iii) the date, or date and time, of commencement of a specified Act or a specified provision of an Act; or (iv) in any other case-the date of notification; and'.''. (2) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 13, in the items relating to the Audit Act 1901, after the item relating to proposed section 11a insert: ``Sections 32 and 33: Repeal the sections, substitute the following sections: Minister may make payments from Commonwealth Public Account `32. (1) The Minister may, subject to this section, make payments from the Commonwealth Public Account in accordance with an appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund. `(2) The aggregate of the amounts paid under subsection (1) in relation to an appropriation shall not exceed the amount available for expenditure in accordance with the appropriation. `(3) Where it appears to the Minister that an amount, not exceeding the amount available for expenditure in respect of any services or purposes in accordance with an appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund, is required, or likely to be required, to be drawn from the Commonwealth Public Account for expenditure in respect of the services or purposes, the Minister may, in writing, authorise the Secretary to the Department to draw the amount from the Commonwealth Public Account in respect of the services or purposes. `(4) A reference in this section to an appropriation includes a reference to a contingent or conditional appropriation and, in relation to such an appropriation, a reference in this section to the amount available for expenditure in accordance with the appropriation is a reference to the amount that is, subject to the occurr- ence of the contingency or the fulfilment of the condition, available for expenditure in accordance with the appropriation. `(5) This section does not authorise the payment of money out of a bank account comprised in the Commonwealth Public Account otherwise than in accordance with section 34. Secretary may make allocations in accordance with authorisation of Minister. `33. (1) Where the Minister has, under subsection 32 (3), authorised the Secretary to the Department to draw an amount from the Commonwealth Public Account in respect of any services or purposes, the Secretary to the Department may draw the amount from the Commonwealth Public Account and make allocations from the amount in respect of the services or purposes. `(2) Money or a payment that is, under section 36c or 58a, taken in reduction of expenditure from an appropriation to which an authorisation under subsection 32 (3) relates shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, also be taken to be an amount allocated to the authority of the authorisation. `(3) Where a payment is made out of a bank account comprised in the Commonwealth Public Account, the bank is not required to ascertain whether the payment was made on the authority of an authorisation under subsection 32 (3).' ''. (3) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 14, in the items relating to the Audit Act 1901, after the item relating to section 48h insert: ``Subsection 49 (1): Omit `Form 4 in Schedule 2', substitute `the form in the Schedule'.''. (4) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 14, in the items relating to the Audit Act 1901, after the item relating to paragraph 49 (1) (a) insert: ``Subsection 49 (2): Omit `Form 4 in Schedule 2', substitute `the form in the Schedule'.''. (5) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 14, in the items relating to the Audit Act 1901, after the item relating to section 54h insert: ``Subsection 57 (2): Omit the subsection.''. (6) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 16, in the items relating to the Audit Act 1901, after the item relating to proposed subsection 72 (5A) insert: ``Heading to Schedules: Omit the heading. Heading the Schedule 2: Omit the heading, substitute `SCHEDULE'. Forms 1, 2 and 3 in Schedule 2: Omit the Forms. Heading to Form 4 in Schedule 2: Omit `FORM 4'.''. (7) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 64, proposed subsection 12A (1) to be inserted in the National Measurement Act 1960, omit ``, and, if it does not, is void''. (8) Schedule 1, clause 3, page 65, proposed subsections 12A (3) to (6) (inclusive) to be inserted in the National Measurement Act 1960, omit the proposed subsections, substitute the following subsections: ``(3) Where a contract, dealing or other transaction in relation to which an additional unit of measurement is applicable under regulations made for the purposes of subsection 7 (3) refers to that additional unit of measurement, then, notwithstanding subsection 7 (2) and subsection (1) of this section, the contract, dealing or other transaction does not contravene subsection (1) merely because it refers exclusively to that additional unit of measurement. ``(4) Notwithstanding subsection 7 (2) and subsection (1) of this section, a contract, dealing or other transaction made or entered into with respect to an interest in land does not contravene subsection (1) merely because it refers to units of measurement other than Australian legal units of measurement if: (a) in the case of land that is registered under a law of a State or Territory relating to the registration of interests in land-the folium of the register in which interests in the land are registered, or the duplicate certificate of title for the land, is expressed in, or contains or refers to a plan expressed in, units of measurement other than Australian legal units of measurement (whether or not also expressed in Australian legal units of measurement); or (b) in any other case-all the muniments of title for the land are expressed in, or contain or refer to a plan expressed in, units of measurement other than Australian legal units of measurement (whether or not some of the muniments of title are also expressed in, or contain or refer to a plan that is also expressed in, Australian legal units of measurement). ``(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to affect the validity of a contract, dealing or other transaction, or any interest derived under a contract, dealing or other transaction, merely because the contract, dealing or other transaction contravenes subsection (1). ``(6) A person who makes or enters into a contract, dealing or other transaction that contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $500.''. In my second reading speech I foreshadowed that I would be moving certain amendments in committee. In respect of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the first amendment circulated will substitute a new paragraph 48 (1) (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It is similar to the proposed amendment omitted by the Senate. After consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, proposed sub-paragraph 48 (1) (b) (iii) has been changed to include an express reference to the date, or date and time of commencement of an Act, or of a specified provision of an action. With that change the Senate Committee supports the amendment. Briefly, the amendment will allow for more flexibility in the commencement of regulations. At present, sub-section 48 (1) provides that regulations will come into effect from the date of notification or the date specified in the regulations. The amendment will remove a doubt by enabling regulations to take effect from the commencement of an Act or of part of an Act. It will also allow regulations to specify the time of day they are to come into effect. In respect of the Audit Act 1901 the second amendment circulated restores some amendments to the Audit Act that were deleted in the Senate. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration has examined these amendments and has reported favourably on them. The basic aim of the amendments is to improve the efficiency of the Commonwealth's financial administration. The Audit Act currently provides that funds cannot be expended from the Commonwealth Public Account, following the passing of Appropriation Acts, until certain conditions have been met. These include requirements that the Minister for Finance obtain a certificate from the Auditor-General that the amount sought does not exceed the amount available for expenditure, and a warrant from the Governor-General authorising the drawing of the amount from the Commonwealth Public Account. The proposed amendments to sections 32 and 33 will eliminate the requirement for the Auditor-General's certificate and the Governor-General's warrant before the Minister for Finance can make payments. They provide for the Minister for Finance to make payments out of the Commonwealth Public Account in accordance with an appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the Loan Fund, and will authorise the Secretary to the Department of Finance to draw the amount. The Governor-General has agreed to the proposed changes which were also cleared by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Section 57 of the Audit Act requires that Loan Fund expenditure be covered by an Act. Sub-section 57 (2) specifies the details to be contained in such an Act. The effect of section 57 is that should the Parliament pass a Loan Act which did not contain the details required under sub-section 57 (2), then the Minister for Finance could not lawfully expend the moneys covered by that Act. Parliament should be free to frame the terms of a statute in any way it considers fit and the existing provision purports to limit that scope. The repeal of the subsection will remove the risk without derogating in any way from parliamentary control of loans legislation. The proposal has also been cleared by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Amendments 3, 4, and 5 are consequential amendments. In respect of the National Measurement Act 1960 the final amendment is intended to clarify and improve certain provisions now in the Bill. The proposed amendments to the National Measurement Act in this Bill include amendments to require the use of metric units of measurement in real estate transactions. Proposed section 12a as passed by the Senate on 7 October 1987 provided that real estate contracts and transactions would be void if non-metric measurements were used, unless the documents of title relating to the land included or referred to non-metric measurements. On further reflection the Government considers that invalidating contracts and transactions is not appropriate. It is intended that the proposed section 12a be amended so that a contravention of the section will be an offence punishable on conviction by a fine. The amended section will also expressly refer to the duplicate certificate of title amongst the documents of title. I present supplementary explanatory memorandum No. 2 and commend the amendments to honourable members. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1987 INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL 1987] Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Is it the wish of the House to debate the International Development Association Bill concurrently with the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.40) —This evening I am standing in for the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in my capacity as the acting shadow Minister for foreign affairs because the honourable member for North Sydney has begun a visit to a number of South Pacific countries. In doing so, I believe, he is setting a very important example which I hope Ministers will follow. The Opposition does not oppose the International Development Association Bill, the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill and I do not think that will come as a surprise. But we shall be raising a number of issues in the debate and we will look forward to the Government giving us some response to the important issues we want to discuss. This afternoon I want to divide my speech into two sections; first of all, I will make some comments about the specifics of these Bills and, secondly, I will make some more general comments about the present Government's policies on overseas development assistance. I will start by referring to some of the specifics of these Bills. Clearly, the purpose of these Bills is to provide Australia's financial contribution to three important international financial institutions-firstly, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); secondly, the Asian Development Fund (ADF) and, thirdly, the International Development Association (IDA). The International Fund for Agricultural Development, as honourable members may well know, was established initially in 1974 after the two Arab oil price hikes, as they are sometimes known, as a way of not only getting concessional finance for agricultural development in the least developed countries but also harnessing some of the resources of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to assist the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in providing that assistance. At the moment, the OECD provides around 60 per cent of funding for the International Fund for Agricultural Development-IFAD as it is known-and OPEC provides some 40 per cent. Australia, since the inception of IFAD, has supported strongly the concept of the International Fund. Not only have we favoured the concept of agricultural development in developing countries-we have done so for very good reasons because we believe that that is the fundamental basis of economic development-but also we have regarded it as an international financial institution which can make a very real contribution to the least developed countries as distinct from those developing countries which are more advanced in economic terms. What has happened with the second replenishment fund for IFAD, which this legislation relates to, is that there has been a decrease, in real terms, in Australia's contribution to some $8.4m. That is not to say that Australia is being particularly ungenerous. Indeed, Australia's contribution has increased as a proportion of the contribution of the OECD countries. Our proportion has gone up from 1.68 per cent to 2.15 per cent of the OECD contribution. The important point to make is that this second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development is less than half of the first replenishment which was for the period 1981 to 1984. So the prospects for IFAD are clearly somewhat bleak compared with its present status. It is well known that IFAD has come in for considerable criticism in recent times, in particular from Dr Helen Hughes of the Australian National University, somebody who all honourable members would appreciate is a distinguished commentator on these matters. Dr Hughes has made a number of points that need to be considered and addressed. One of the points she has raised is that IFAD covers a vast number of projects but is thinly spread in each of those projects. Clearly that diminishes, on the face of it, the effectiveness of IFAD as an assistance organisation. She also argues that IFAD is left with extremely risky projects which are often very poorly prepared and that as soon as the donor leaves the project, it simply collapses. She has also argued that the staff at IFAD spend a very high proportion of their time doing little other than fund raising, although it has to be said that a lot of the specific project work by IFAD is carried out on IFAD's behalf by the World Bank, a point that needs to be strongly emphasised. She has advised the Government that it should cut out support altogether for IFAD and it would appear that the Government has accepted that advice from Dr Hughes because, as the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) pointed out in his second reading speech, this contribution will be the last contribution by the Australian Government to IFAD. We on this side of the House are not prepared simply to accept that advice from the Government on face value. We would like to hear from the Government what advice it has received, not just from Dr Helen Hughes but also from the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). That advice has not been forthcoming and I hope that the Minister, in his winding up speech at the end of this debate, will take the opportunity of giving us that information. We on this side of the House certainly believe that since 1977, when Australia first became involved in IFAD, IFAD has conducted some very valuable work in the least developed countries. With that in mind and bearing in mind the important role Australia has played in both setting up IFAD and helping to encourage it, we would be very grateful to know what AIDAB's advice has been in relation to the Government's decision to abandon support for IFAD at the end of the second replenishment. The second piece of legislation relates to the Asian Development Fund which, as honourable members will know, is the concessional loans arm of the Asian Development Bank. This legislation provides for the Australian contribution to the fourth replenishment of the ADF for the period 1987 to 1990. The contribution is some $410m which is 7.98 per cent of the total replenishment. Australia's contribution as a percentage of the total replenishment has increased in this legislation and I welcome that decision on the part of the Government. The Australian proportion of funding for the ADF is a relatively high proportion and that shows a recognition by the Government of the importance of the ADF as a regional multilateral aid organisation. What interested me when I read the Minister's second reading speech on this legislation was that he made no reference to the fact that the reason Australia provided such a solid contribution to the ADF was that it was a regional international financial institution which provided concessional loans to developing countries. I would have thought that that would have been a very central point. I would at least like to hear from the Minister in his winding up speech that that is the reason why the Government has placed such a high priority on the ADF. Like all international financial institutions, the ADF has, from time to time, been subject to some criticism. It has been accused of being more interested in ensuring that global lending targets are met than in ensuring that the loans that it provides are well directed. That is a very common criticism of aid agencies and the soft loans arms of the international financial institutions. However, we have no reason to believe that in the totality of its work the ADF has not done a fairly solid job. As I said earlier, it is a regional international financial institution and for that reason Australia should be an active and generous participant in its work. The third piece of legislation relates to the International Development Association which is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. In this case Australia is providing funding for the eighth replenishment to the value of some $335m. The only point I raise in relation to the IDA is the historic distribution of those soft loans from the IDA. The distribution over the years has been such that something like 45 to 50 per cent of the funding has gone to sub-Saharan Africa, basically for humanitarian reasons. Of course, that is something that we would strongly support. It is important to recognise that, if Australia is to make a constructive humanitarian contribution to that part of the world, we are more likely to be able to do that through an international financial institution of this kind than we are on a bilateral basis. That is one of the strong arguments for our providing some proportion of our aid in multilateral rather than bilateral aid. I also note, however, that some 30 per cent of the IDA's funding has gone to China and India. I rather question such a high proportion going to those two countries. This concern has been raised in previous debates over the years on Australian funding for the IDA. India in particular is not one of the least developed countries. I would therefore not have thought that it would have necessarily been accorded the highest priority by the IDA. Yet clearly it is given a very high priority. I am not suggesting for a minute that India does not have very substantial humanitarian and economic problems; it certainly does. But India is coping well with those problems on its own and it is developing very effectively. Other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, are suffering a great deal more than is India. We would question only the proportion of assistance from the IDA which happens to be going to that country, without wishing to suggest for a minute any criticism of India. They are the specific points I make in relation to this legislation, but I would like also to make a number of general observations on the Government's approach to overseas aid and to the developing countries. The first is a fundamental point about our approach to developing countries; that is, that our generation of Australians-and, indeed, the people of the Western democracies-will be judged on the success or the failure of their approach to the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. If we fail to ensure that there is a constructive and developing relationship between those countries which gives some benefits to developing countries, we can look forward only to turmoil, bitterness and global instability. If we ignore North-South issues, as they used to be called-that expression seems to have lost favour for some reason or other, but let me revitalise it-what we are doing is ignoring the starving, ignoring death through lack of medical services, and ignoring the impoverished and hopeless lives of millions upon millions of people around the world. I am sure all honourable members of this House would accept that we have a moral responsibility simply not to ignore those things. For those honourable members who are of a more cynical disposition, I make the point that by ignoring North-South issues we are also ignoring the security implications for our own society and for the Western world as a whole. We cannot divorce the problems of the developing countries from the East-West conflict. Developing countries will look to the Soviet Union, not for ideological reasons initially, but for assistance of both a financial and perhaps even a military kind if the Western world-I include Australia in that category-turns its back on developing countries and their struggle for economic growth simply to meet the needs of their livelihoods. If we turn our backs on developing countries and their problems we are simply handing the Soviet Union and its satellites a foothold in a whole range of areas of the world. My objection-and I use the word `objection' very sincerely-to the way the Government has conducted the relationship between Australia and other parts of the Western world and developing countries is that it has given it an extremely low priority. It has really confirmed what I said earlier; that to use terms such as `North-South dialogue' or `North-South issues' has become unfashionable. The Press, of course, has always ignored these issues, and it has been very short-sighted in doing so. But it concerns me very sincerely that the Government has given such a low priority to these issues. Although this will not be a part of the political scene in Australia which will receive much discussion, I think history will record that in the foreign policy field, one of the greatest contrasts between the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government was the very sincere contribution that the Fraser Government made to attempt to resolve North-South problems. It might be recalled that the commitment of Malcolm Fraser and his Government to North-South issues during their period of office aroused much ridicule from the Australian Labor Party and much criticism from the Press. Yet I am certainly of the view that the Fraser Government showed a sense of responsibility and global vision by placing such a high priority on North-South issues. My concern is that this Government has none of that sense of perspective. It has lost sight of the very simple fact that was repeatedly made by the Fraser Government; that Australia is in a very special position to act almost as a bridge between developed and developing countries. We all know, for all the banana republic comments we hear, that Australia is still a developed Westernised country. But its geographical location is in the South, and it is largely, with the exception of New Zealand, surrounded by developing countries. The structure of our economy as a resource exporter is also much akin to the structures of the economies of developing countries. I know that the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is sitting at the table, exhorts Australia to become a brain driven country, and I support what he says about that. But the fact is that we still are not; we are still largely a country that thrives on exporting what it can dig out of the dirt or grow in its paddocks. In that respect we have a great deal in common with developing countries. With that in mind, I think the Government should pick up again where the Fraser Government was cruelly cut off in March 1983 and again try to re-establish Australia's position as a bridge between the developed and the developing world. We should have a two-pronged approach to North-South issues. One of those prongs should be our commitment to overseas aid and the other should be our commitment to a fairer and more reasonable trading system, above all to the benefit of poverty stricken developing countries. Let me very briefly look at what has unfortunately happened in the field of overseas aid. It is my view that this Government has not only given overseas development assistance a very low priority; it has gone further than that. It has regarded expenditure on overseas development assistance as a very low priority; it has gone further than that. It has regarded expenditure on overseas development assistance as nothing more than discretionary expenditure. By making that expenditure seem so discretionary it has undermined Australia's role and its reputation as a bridge between developed and developing countries. One has only to look at some of the statistics. In the 1987-88 Budget expenditure on overseas redevelopment assistance is expected to decline in real terms by 3.4 per cent. Taking the measure of overseas development assistance as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), expenditure has fallen now to 0.36 per cent in this financial year, which is the lowest level for almost a quarter of a century. Last year it was 0.38 per cent. Yet in 1982-83, when this Government came to power, it was 0.47 per cent. Looking at what spokesmen for the Labor Party were saying at the beginning of this decade shows that it is quite remarkable that they should have taken this cavalier discretionary approach to overseas development assistance. The now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), when he was the shadow Minister for foreign affairs, said on 24 March 1981: The Australian Labor Party . . . is a party of concern. This Government- and he was referring then to the Fraser Government- should not delay any longer in making a generous response to the needs of the poorest countries. This Government's performance in providing assistance to the developing world is now at the lowest level it has ever been. If it was at the lowest level it has ever been in 1981, the House can rest assured that it is at a very substantially lower level today. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) said on 13 October 1981, when he was Leader of the Opposition: There is no commitment by the Prime Minister- he was referring to Mr Fraser- of a concrete timetable that in a specified period we will provide, according to our commitment to the United Nations' objective, 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product in official development aid. He went on to say: A Labor Government would do so and it would do so within one term of parliament. We would firmly commit ourselves to the second step of development aid-that is, 1 per cent of gross domestic product-by, at the latest, 1990. We are now in the financial year 1987-88 and our level of development assistance has fallen to the lowest level as a proportion of GDP it has been at for a quarter of a century. The overseas development assistance we provide has a lack of regional emphasis and a lack of proper regional focus. It is of very great concern to honourable members on this side of the House that the aid we provide to Papua New Guinea is expected to decline in 1987-88 and that that is just a continuation of a trend. In 1985-86 we provided $319m to Papua New Guinea. In 1986-87 it went up a little, to $325m. This year it will be $301m. One does not have to walk far into the government offices of Papua New Guinea to learn of the resentment felt against the Australian Government and therefore against Australia for broken undertakings on development assistance to Papua New Guinea and about the cavalier and discretionary approach the Government has to assistance to that country. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade himself conceded at the time of the Budget that aid to our own region is going to decline this financial year. There is one special reason why it is going to decline as much as it will and it relates to Tuvalu. Nevertheless, it is a shameful thing that we should have such a negligent attitude to our own region, let alone to the whole humanitarian approach to overseas development assistance. I now turn to trade, which is the second aspect of what should be Australia's contribution to North-South issues. During the period of the Fraser Government we pursued this two-pronged approach to North-South issues. We had constructive overseas development assistance policies and we had constructive trade policies. We realised at that time that important as overseas development assistance is as a humanitarian contribution, it is going to be still more important to ensure that developing countries have access to markets in the developed world. I recall that in 1982 the Fraser Government launched a global trade initiative which was not just about improving Australia's position in the firmament of international trade but about ensuring that the international trading system was a fairer system for developing countries. As long as the exports of those countries are blocked out of the European, American and Japanese domestic markets, those countries will not prosper. The Fraser Government recognised that and pursued trade initiatives to ensure that that objective could be achieved. I recall only too clearly that those initiatives were ridiculed by people in the Press and ridiculed by the Australian Labor Party in the Parliament at that time. I can say only that things have at least improved in terms of the political debate on trade initiatives. At least, some years later, the Hawke Government has now picked up the initiatives that the Fraser Government was pursuing way back in 1982 and has started to promote those initiatives on a global level. The Cairns Group which was initiated in part by Australia was a very constructive initiative. What it is pursuing will be important not just to Australia but also to developing countries. I have ranged fairly freely over what I will continue to call the North-South issue. I worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs with Alan Oxley, the present Ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva, as part of the two-man North-South unit. I have ranged fairly freely over North-South issues but I do think that they have become the forgotten part of foreign policy. We have a very strong humanitarian and moral responsibility to ensure that, as a relatively rich and developed country, we provide assistance to developing countries. It would be inhumane of us if we were simply to turn our backs on developing countries. We also have a vested interest in ensuring that we build a bridge between developed and developing countries, that we do all we can, as a country with a similar economic structure to many developing countries and as a country which is geographically located in an area which is predominantly an area of developing countries, to build that bridge and to ensure that developed countries are opening their markets to the developing world and providing sufficient overseas development assistance. It is of great concern to me that the Hawke Government, in its 4 1/2 years-getting on for five years-has paid so little attention to these issues. There has not even been rhetoric, let alone concrete action. Whilst that point may not be picked up strongly by the media, it is a very strong criticism of the foreign policy of this Government. I hope that as this Parliament wears on the Government, particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), will become aware of the importance of these issues and of what I said earlier-that our generation of politicians, our generation of Australians, will be judged as a success or failure partly on the basis of what contributions we are able to make to resolving the difficulties and the differentials between rich countries and poor countries. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(6.07) —In the reduced time that Government members have agreed to for the purpose of their contribution to the debate on the International Development Association Bill, the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill, it will not be possible for honourable members to cover all of the issues that they may otherwise have wanted to cover. In light of that I will make a few observations about the comments that were made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in his contribution. Although he referred to his speech as a wide-ranging speech, it was not anything for which he needed to apologise. The questions raised in this legislation are very wide-ranging and the issues that were taken up by the honourable member were more than appropriate. I think he may have misunderstood a reference in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to an article in the Canberra Times by Professor Helen Hughes. I do not think the Minister was implying necessarily that advice had been obtained from Professor Hughes. He certainly referred to the fact that that article had been published in the Canberra Times on 24 August. He made some observations about that article. He said that the conclusion to which Professor Helen Hughes came was a conclusion he shared. That observation and the report which was provided to the Minister from the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, which has the responsibility of providing that information, apparently agreed that it would be appropriate for the level of funding for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to be geared down and to come to an end in the year 1991-92. There has been some debate about the adequacy of IFAD and the extent to which it has been pursuing its particular responsibilities. It is interesting that that particular article by Helen Hughes to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech, was in response to an article in the Canberra Times in the previous week, on 19 August, by Mr Keith Scott. He made the observation that the International Fund for Agricultural Development is considered to be one of the most cost effective and efficient development agencies in the world. But that is not the considered judgment of those people who have the responsibility of investigating it. The honourable member for Mayo quite correctly referred to the fact that Professor Helen Hughes is a person of not insubstantial standing as far as this matter is concerned. Some of the observations that she made in her article included these: IFAD staff mainly attend to IFAD fund replenishment, persuading donors to pledge financial support to it rather than to other multinational organisations, including those like the World Bank that implements the bulk of its projects. She said: IFAD has a vast but thin spread of projects throughout the world. She also said: IFAD projects generally lack the national government policy support necessary for success. Finally, she made the point: When the donor leaves, such rural development projects usually collapse. Mr Ruddock —She also said it has not been in business long enough to be systematically evaluated. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have not noticed any commentary from the honourable member for Mayo or from the honourable member for Dundas, who is so free with his interjections at the present time, to counter those claims that have been made. As I say, I have a great deal of respect for the purposes for which that International Fund for Agricultural Development was established. It was established as an attempt to tap some of those additional funds from the oil producing and exporting countries and, of course, it never lived up to its expectations. One of the reasons why the Australian contribution has been declining is because the general level of funding of that development fund has been declining as well. There are important considerations in each of these Bills. On the last occasion when a similar package of Bills was considered last year I took advantage of the opportunity to refer to some of those matters to which the honourable member for Mayo has already referred. As I said, I think it is appropriate that they be canvassed in connection with these questions. One of the things that is disturbing is the fact that in a situation of the kind that we are presently experiencing internationally, when there is an increasing world recession, there is a greater need for international development assistance. However, the capacity of the more advanced industrialised countries in the world to provide that assistance is reduced, so that when the need is greatest, the capacity to assist is least available. I do not believe that the developed industrialised countries are presently making an adequate response to the needs of the underdeveloped countries. Mr Downer —Nor is Australia. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In response to the honourable member for Mayo, I do not resile from a similar observation. How could I? But there are some other observations that the honourable member for Mayo could well have made. His time was limited, as is the time for all of us. I am not suggesting that he was attempting to hide or camouflage some of the observations that I am going to make. But I think they are matters to which the honourable member for Mayo and others could well give their attention. They should not persist with an attempt at fairly cheap point scoring in connection with something which he himself acknowledged is of international dimensions and international importance. I am concerned, for example, that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) believes that global growth of 3 per cent is the minimum that is required for next year in order for the world just to keep its economic fundamentals in place. But are we going to achieve that 3 per cent growth? Almost certainly not. In fact the IMF has downgraded its latest projection to a growth level for the whole of the world of between 2.5 and 2.75 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has again revised downwards its growth forecasts, particularly for the industrialised countries. It now expects that next year the growth rate will shrink to 1.75 per cent. Its earlier predictions had it at about 2.25 per cent. The United States of America is forecasting a fall from 2.75 per cent to a sluggish 2 per cent. So the economic growth of the world is gearing down, it is slowing down and the capacity of all industrialised countries to assist the underdeveloped countries, where assistance is so drastically and dramatically needed, is being reduced. Of relevance in this connection is the question of the alternative for the underdeveloped countries to direct forms of aid being made available to them. What can they do, other than borrow? Of course their level of borrowing has reached a stage now where it has become one of the major destabilising elements of the world economy and the world financial system. It is one of those urgent matters to which the world economic managers must give their attention. For example, the five biggest Latin American debtors between them owe $202,000m. The total for all of the Latin American debtors blew out from $325 billion to about $400 billion, simply as a result of their need to reschedule their loans and also to borrow money to pay interest on the loans that they had already raised. Private lending is overwhelmingly involved in the re-negotiation of existing debt, and in many cases export earnings for those countries are merely sufficient to service their existing debt. The total which is owed by the poor countries of the world to the rich nations of the world is $1,100 billion-that is over $1 trillion-over $1,000,000m. These countries are placed in a situation where they have to service those debts and eventually to repay them. They have to do that out of exports. They are doing it out of exports at a time when the price for their bulk exports is collapsing. There are two reasons for that. The first is the world recession, and the second is because the developed countries themselves are subsidising their own domestic producers in order to produce goods that compete against the bulk exports of those developing countries. If ever a group of countries in the history of the world found themselves in a catch-22 situation, the underdeveloped countries do today. The result, of course, is that if we were to take away the debt servicing charges and the reduced prices for bulk commodities-especially as a result of the subsidised production, the subsidised export of bulk commodities in the developed countries and the increased prices that the underdeveloped countries have to pay for their manufactured goods-from the development assistance that is provided to them, we would finish up with a negative amount. That means that there is a net transfer of wealth, income and resources not from the rich to the poor, but from the poor to the rich. As I said before, it is all very well for the honourable member for Mayo to attempt to make cheap political points out of some of these issues. Mr Tim Fischer —Of course he wasn't. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Of course he was, and anyone who heard him, or who reads the contribution he made-there was some substance in it, and I have already conceded that-will see what I mean. But for anyone to suggest that it was not at the same time an attempt at cheap political point scoring is simply absurd, and the honourable member knows it. The OECD aid to developing countries reached $51.67 billion last year, a very substantial amount. In conclusion, I make some observations about some of these comparable values and compar- able amounts. The OECD countries, the 26 most highly developed Western industrial nations of the world, contributed almost $52 billion last year to assist in the development of the underdeveloped countries. What did the world spend on military purposes? It spent $900 billion. From 1960 to 1985 the money spent on defence in American dollars was 14 trillion-or $14 million million. That is equivalent to 23 years current income for the poorer half of the world. Mr Langmore —What a terrible waste. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As my colleague says, a terrible waste. It is a terrible indictment of the quality of man. Man should be devising means of living together on this relatively small globe, and doing so peacefully by applying man's talent and the world's resources to man's elevation, instead of wasting money in this shocking way. The honourable member for Fraser is renowned for his concern on this subject. Is it not also of concern that the arms imports to the developing countries between 1975 and 1985 amounted to 40 per cent of the increase in their debt? One could go on and on with such examples. In 1986 Australia contributed over $1,000m towards international aid. We were the sixth most generous nation of the 18 OECD members who were giving aid to developing countries, and the figures are there. I know that there has been a reduction in the percentage of gross domestic product, and of the obligations and commitments that have been made. I shall now refer to a pamphlet that I received today from the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) is also involved in the attempt to establish a parliamentary group for UNICEF. I know that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) also is concerned on this and similar issues. I conclude by quoting from the UNICEF pamphlet: Today, fourteen million children die before the age of five, and estimates are that at least half these deaths could be averted, and as many disabilities prevented, by a handful of low-cost health actions. Some four million children who succumb to diarrhoeal dehydration, for example, could be treated by a starch or sugar and salt mixture in water; many of the three and a half million children who die each year from measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and tuberculosis could be saved by immunization. That is a cheap medical procedure. I continue: Millions more malnutrition-related deaths could be averted by encouraging a return to breast-feeding and by mothers regularly weighing and monitoring their children's growth, thus enabling them to detect the first signs of undernutrition and take, in most cases, relatively straightforward remedial action. I conclude by adopting the remark made by my colleague the member for Fraser. What a terrible indictment of the people of the world, their leaders, their parliaments and their planners that this order of priority should prevail. As a result we should all be damned. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.23) —I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the International Development Association Bill and cognate Bills. My comments will be addressed primarily to the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill. I hope that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who has accused Opposition members of wanting to take a cheap shot, will stay to hear the detailed discussion that I will have on the article by Helen Hughes and other matters relating to the Government's decision to discontinue, after the second replenishment, support for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I regard it as a most unfortunate decision. I do not believe that the decision was based on a proper analysis of the facts, and I am not sure that the decision was based on proper advice to government from its own officials. I suspect that it has been based very much on the judgment formed after reading the one page sheet that Professor Helen Hughes served up on this issue. Let me note what the Bill is designed to do. Its purpose is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $8,472,570 towards the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The Fund focuses on increasing food production for the poorest sections of the world's poorest countries. This is a statement drawn by the Minister's own Department setting out the objectives. Australia has been a member of IFAD since it was established in 1977 and participated in the Fund's first replenishment. The Bill by itself would be unexceptionable. My concern is about the statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) about the Government's intentions following our commitment to the second replenishment. I have for some time taken an interest in the future of this organisation. I spoke in the Estimates debates on 7 October 1987 and asked the Minister to clarify questions that I had posed about the future of IFAD. I said that the Minister would no doubt be aware of the important role played by the Fund for the rural poor, and also be aware of my continuing concern that Australia should make known its contribution to the second replenishment of that organisation as requested and its contribution to the sub- Saharan Africa pledge which Australia had been requested to assist. I had on notice a question to the Minister in which I had sought information about the future of the organisation and our future commitment to it. The question I asked on 25 March was answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I asked whether any part of the funds committed or paid in 1986-87 constituted part of the pledged second replenishment and, if not, whether Australia had sought any extension of time to fund its commitment to IFAD, or whether it intended to dishonour the pledge. The Minister said: No, none of the funds paid in 1986-87 constitute payment of the pledged second replenishment and Australia has not sought any extension of time . . . IFAD estimates that the first call on any Australian contribution to the second replenishment will not take place until the 1989-90 financial year. As the honour- able member is aware from my answer to his previous question, a comparative assessment of the value of Australia's participation in international financial institutions and IFAD has been initiated as a basis for determining future contributions. This process is nearing completion and the Government will be considering the question of Australia's participation in IFAD's second replenishment in the context of the recommendations of this review. That is the Minister's advice. Decisions will be made in the context of the review-which was taking place. I understand that the review was completed. I understand that the review has not been made public, but also understand that the review was not critical of IFAD. I might be wrong about that. If I am wrong, and the Minister believes that I am wrong, when he responds on this issue no doubt he will table a copy of the report so that I can see it and no doubt can apologise if I have in any way misled the House. The report examined the question of whether, for Australia and Australia's interests, IFAD had the same capacity to advance our interests as do other organisations. That could involve different considerations. There may be trade-offs, as there can be with the World Bank, which is a large organisation, and which can be involved in dispensing a large number of consultancies, of which Australia gets its fair share, perhaps more than do others. But if it is a matter of looking at whether the aid that is given might ultimately find its way back to Australia by the purchase of products from Australia, if one is in the business of advancing the poorest of the world's poor in growing their own food-unless, I suppose, they buy the seed from Australia-one will not find trade-offs of that kind. If the first question that had to be asked was whether taking the funds away from IFAD and giving them to other organisations would better advance Australia and Australian interests, that might well have been the basis on which this decision was made. I suggest that that would be the wrong basis in this case. Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr RUDDOCK —I am glad that the honourable member for Charlton agrees with me. We must attack the fundamentals. Is this organisation defective? Is it not achieving its objectives? Are the funds being squandered? Have the funds been defrauded? Or, as was said in relation to the United Nations Children's Fund, are the accounts not being produced correctly? Does the auditor qualify the accounts? I understand that IFAD has been reviewed by a large number of international agencies and other governments for the purpose of assessing the way in which it operates and I do not believe that they have come up with any fundamental criticism of the organisation. I have looked at the most thorough-going review of Australia's overseas aid program that has been tabled, the report of the Jackson Committee to Review Australia's Overseas Aid Program, and I went to the index to find out what it had to say about IFAD. The index indicated that I should look at page 54, paragraph 3.46. I looked in vain to find any criticism of IFAD on that page. The honourable member for Charlton grins. He knows that there cannot be any criticism, otherwise I would not be drawing upon this example. The only reference to IFAD in the index-and, of course, there is no criticism of it-relates to its links with the World Bank, a respectable organisation to which Australia contributes. The report gives factual information about what we are doing in this area. Thus, the Jackson Committee did not offer any criticism of IFAD. What has brought the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to this decision which was announced in the second reading speech? This decision was not part of the Bill and was certainly not explained in the explanatory memorandum, which suggests that he did not get advice from officers to this effect. The Minister discussed this particular matter on page 2 of his speech when he said: The AIDAB concluded that the IFIs are, in general, effective institutions and that Australia's participation in their activities complements our own bilateral aid program. The Minister went on-and I stress that these are his words: I feel that, with regard to IFAD, a rigorous assessment needs to take account of views such as expressed by Professor Helen Hughes. In an article in the Canberra Times of 24 October . . . Here we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade saying that he thought a decision needed to be taken on this matter as a result of what Helen Hughes had to say. Mr Robert Brown —No, he did not say that; he had advice from AIDAB. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member should have a look at the words used. I read them very carefully. I do not mind being corrected, but the Minister used the words `I feel' in the third line of his printed speech. I am not paraphrasing and I am not putting words into his mouth. He then went on to outline the problems that Helen Hughes raised. He continued: IFAD depends upon the World Bank and other agencies to do much of its project preparatory work; IFAD's projects are highly risky as a result of poor preparation and support by host countries; IFAD's examination system is not yet systematic; IFAD is weak on infrastructure and institutional support. The Minister added: She concludes, as I do, that it would be wise to cut aid to ineffectual organisations and retain sufficient interest in the more effective ones to be able to have something of a say in their running. Mr Robert Brown —That is a sound decision. Mr RUDDOCK —That is the judgment. Let us look at what Helen Hughes had to say. I am interested in the article that appeared in the Canberra Times because this lady is an expert. The article in the Canberra Times qualifies her as an expert. It says: Professor Helen Hughes is with the Development Studies Centre at the Australian National University. She makes out a case which pits IFAD and its interests against another much larger organisation-the World Bank-and its interests. I do not know whether this is correct-I may be wrong and if I am wrong I may be corrected and I will certainly apologise to Professor Hughes-but I understand that in the past she has had a long term association with the World Bank. This may qualify her to speak on this matter but it is not disclosed in the article. Unlike members of parliament who are required to declare an interest, Professor Hughes did not declare her interest, if it was an interest. I am quite prepared to stand corrected but I do not believe I am wrong. Professor Hughes also had something else to say which is of great interest to honourable members. She made anecdotal judgments about IFAD and certainly judgmental views of her own. She went on to say: IFAD has not been in business long enough to have systematically evaluated its projects. She offers that as a criticism because IFAD claims some success. I offer it as a criticism of what she has to say about the organisation when she claims there is evidence that it lacks success. We need to understand that this is a unique organisation. I hope honourable members will read some of the available material about IFAD's activities. One pamphlet says: In eight years IFAD has financed 188 projects in some 88 of the poorest countries of the developing world. When fully implemented, these projects will boost food production by more than 22 million tonnes a year in terms of wheat equivalent. IFAD has committed approximately $2.2 billion from its own resources . . . Projects approved in 1985- that was when this document was written- will benefit 1.9 million small farmers and landless people in 17 countries. I think that IFAD is a particularly important organisation for the area in which it is working. I could give honourable members detailed statements about the work that it is undertaking in Gambia, Somalia, Mali and Bangladesh, but time prevents me from doing so because I want to make some important points of comparison between IFAD and the World Bank particularly. Honourable members really need to understand that IFAD is one of the smallest organisations. It operates with a staff of 180 people, including only 80 to 84 professionals. It is tiny. On the other hand, the World Bank has about 6,000 staff with 3,800 professionals. It regularly uses 6,000 consultants. As I mentioned, Australia has an interest because we rank fifth in the world as a source for the bank's consultancies. Is it any wonder that we say the World Bank might be a more appropriate body in this area? If I wanted to produce anecdotal material about the World Bank, largely of the same sort as Dr Hughes produced in her article, I would have to say this about its operations: its projects do not benefit the poor. I will check the list to see whether the honourable member for Charlton agreed with me in writing a letter recently to the President of the World Bank about initiative change in its own activities and funding programs. That letter was written collectively by 107 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. We said: . . . it concerns us that so little of the Bank's lending focuses on the need of the poorest people. The `Focus on Poverty' report (1986) states that currently only 29 per cent of Bank lending is directly poverty orientated. We suggest that the Bank establish the goal of targeting 60 per cent of its lending directly to projects whose primary purpose is to assist the poorest 40 per cent of people. The Bank's own evaluations have shown that its poverty orientated projects have often shown the highest rates of return. I think we have targeted the wrong organisation. I think we have done so for the wrong reasons. I do not think we have made an evaluation of that article upon which the Minister clearly, by his own words, made his decision. The appropriate decision that should be taken by this Government is for it to make an announcement at the conclusion of this debate that this matter will be further reviewed, that the reports that are available will be made public so that we can all see them, and that the decision not to participate in the third replenishment discussions will be overturned by the Government; in other words, the Minister should be big enough to admit that in this matter he was wrong. I suspect, if one were looking for underlying motives for this decision, that there were certain expectations that IFAD would be supported heavily not only by the developed countries but also by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and that the oil revenues would be recycled through it. I suspect that there is a disappointment at the fact that, with oil prices turning down, other countries are not putting in as much money and other governments are not as committed to this organisation as they were in the past and that, therefore, the Government believes it is appropriate for Australia to say, `We are not going to play a part at all'. If that is the reasoning involved, I regard it really as quite shabby. If Australia has a part to play, it is in being in the organisation, setting an example in difficult times and making sure that people are aware of what we think its priorities ought to be. Those priorities are the priorities that we are suggesting that the World Bank ought to adopt, and which it does not adopt, and the priorities that IFAD has been targeted to reach. Perhaps the Government thinks IFAD is making mistakes in the way in which it is undertaking its task in working with countries that do not have an infrastructure to be able to help them as readily as more advanced countries. If we look at what Dr Hughes has said, the criticism she has offered is that there is not good support on the ground from those people preparing submissions and that Bangladesh should be as efficient as some of the more marginally advanced countries at preparing its approach. I must say that my own view is that that is not a reasonable basis upon which this decision should have been taken. I implore the Government to look at this matter once more. I believe it can restore its credibility on this issue. I do not want to make a cheap political point in advancing this view. I hope that members of the Government will take the opportunity to read the material on IFAD that I am arranging to have placed in the Parliamentary Library so that they can better inform themselves about what it is doing and so that they will bring pressure to bear, if it is needed, upon their colleagues to change their minds about assisting in the negotiations for the third replenishment. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(6.43) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) has already given the reasons for his decision to withdraw from the International Fund for Agricultural Development after this current replenishment is over, and I am sure the Minister will reply at the end of this debate, so I will not comment further on the points raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). The International Development Association Bill, the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill are important Bills which authorise Australia's contributions to three international aid agencies: the International Development Association, the Asian Development Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. They are important Bills because they ensure Australia's contribution to the latest replenishment for three significant multilateral aid agencies at a time when aid to developing countries is vitally important. In fact, most developing countries are in the midst of a desperately serious crisis. Living standards in African, Latin American and some Asian countries have fallen substantially during the 1980s. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated that the average standard of living in Africa and Latin America has fallen by 15 per cent in the last five years. Those countries have gone through a depression during the first half of the 1980s at least as severe as that which the industrialised countries experienced during the 1930s. Average incomes have fallen, malnutrition has increased, health services have deteriorated and unemployment has increased. Many hundreds of millions of people are worse off now than they were in 1980. Most people in developed countries such as Australia are not aware of the seriousness of this problem except through the television pictures of emaciated mothers and children during the African drought. When made aware of the seriousness of this problem, the wider community has responded generously. The aid work of Bob Geldof and his campaigns has alerted innumerable people to this problem for the first time for some years. But the response of governments has been inadequate. Total aid from Western governments to developing countries during the past five to six years has been stagnant. The proportion of aid to gross national product has remained almost constant at about 0.35 per cent of GNP throughout the eighties. In this context, it is particularly disappointing that Australian aid has had to be substantially reduced. However, the total net financial flows to developing countries from all sources, public and private, have collapsed during the 1980s. There has been a massive decline in the level of private lending from industrialised to developing countries. In 1981, for example, total net resource flows to developing countries were $132 billion. By 1985 that had fallen to $79 billion. This has caused what is known as the debt crisis. What it means is that the massive borrowings of developing countries are not being offset by new lending, so they have a desperately serious debt servicing and repayment problem. It is important to understand the debt crisis because it is a severe constraint on development in poor countries and it also intensifies global economic imbalances and the danger of a global recession. The total debt of developing countries in 1987 was $1,200 billion. This requires developing countries to pay an estimated $170 billion this year in interest payments. The best way of showing the dimension of that is to compare it with the level of their exports. In 1987, interest payments by developing countries will require 23 per cent of the total value of their exports. Some regions are in an even more serious situation. Africa, for example, will have to pay 33 per cent of its total export earnings in interest payments in 1987. Latin America has an even more serious problem because 55 per cent of the value of its exports should be used for debt servicing. This dramatically reduces the capacity of developing countries to import. It also means that those countries are not receiving, in a direct sense, the economic benefit of the value of their exports. Developing countries are being required to make net transfers to the industrialised world. The poor, developing countries are aiding the richer industrialised countries. The problem is that the commercial banks in the industrialised world have virtually stopped lending since 1982, and official aid has not increased. There are major problems for both developing and industrialised countries from this situation. First, there is a systematic risk of default by developing countries, which could cause major global financial problems. Management of the debt could become impossible. Several Latin American countries have a moratorium on part or all of their interest payments at present, which is adding to the danger of financial collapse. Second, interest payments and debt repayments of this magnitude from developing countries are oppressive, particularly at a time of depression. Most developing countries have experienced a loss of export earnings due to the collapse of commodity prices. Australians can readily identify with that problem because we have experienced a similar type of deterioration in our commodity prices. Our terms of trade deteriorated severely in 1985 and 1986 because of the collapse of commodity prices. This has led to Australia's large current account deficit and to growth in our overseas debt. This is the same kind of mechanism as has been operating for developing countries. We are fortunate in that lending to Australia has not stopped and that private lenders have been and are still willing to continue to cover our current account deficit. Our living standards have fallen only marginally as a result of this situation, but in developing countries the fall has been much sharper because lending has stopped and stringent adjustment programs have been forced on to the debtor countries. They have been required to cut consumption so as to reduce imports, often at severe cost to the poor and middle income earners in those countries. There are costs also to industrialised countries because our exports to the developing world have had to be reduced because the developing countries can no longer afford to import as much. The volume of world trade has been quite severely retarded by the debt crisis. The debt crisis is, in fact, one of the most serious constraints on renewed growth within developing countries. It is, therefore, essential that it be addressed. In a 10-minute speech it is possible only to outline some central elements of a strategy for coping with the debt crisis, but I would like to propose seven elements of such a strategy. The first will be agreed to by everyone: the major industrial countries, the group of seven, co-ordinate their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rates and interest rate imbalances and instability. There is hardly a commentator in any country who does not agree with that as a goal, although all would agree that it is very difficult to achieve and that so far the results of the attempts at co-ordination have not been adequate. However, there have been agreements like those at the Plaza Hotel in New York in September 1985, at the Louvre at the beginning of this year and at the Venice summit, all of which have contributed to the reduction of imbalances. That process must continue and, in the wake of the stock market collapse, the motivation for improved co-ordination is stronger. Second, it is absolutely essential that the current account surplus countries, principally Japan and West Germany, adopt expansionary macroeconomic policies so as to increase their imports and stimulate world trade. Both Japan and West Germany have been somewhat more expansionary this year, but the extent of their current account surpluses remains enormous. They do have scope for increasing their growth rates. They can be the locomotive economies for the rest of the decade. It is essential that they accept the role that has been forced on them by their own success. Third, wasteful military expenditure by both North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries and Warsaw Pact countries should be reduced so as to reduce fiscal imbalance and allow interest rates to fall and increase resources for more economically and socially useful activity. It was striking to see when I was in New York three weeks ago that mainstream commentators in the United States are now urging both cuts in United States military expenditure and increases in taxes, policies which only a year ago were regarded as wildly radical. The stock exchange collapse has had some productive consequences. Fourth, the International Monetary Fund should be encouraged to establish a new facility for phased partial debt forgiveness and rescheduling. An excellent proposal for a facility of this kind has been included in the United States trade Bill by Senator Sarbannes. That proposal has some political momentum in the most powerful country and should be explicitly supported by other countries such as Australia. Fifth, it is very important that all Western countries increase their aid to the greatest extent possible, with the ultimate goal of reaching the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. At present, those countries on average are achieving only half of that target. The justification for increasing aid at a time of severe depression in developing countries is overwhelming. Sixth, a simple and direct way of increasing the resources available to developing countries would be through restarting the issue of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund. SDRs are a form of international money which is normally issued to countries in proportion to their contributions to the IMF. It would obviously be more helpful to developing countries if SDRs were issued directly to them, but such an issue would require an amendment to the articles of the IMF and that would take some time. So the first goal would be just to begin reissuing SDRs. Seventh, the articles of the IMF could be changed at a global conference on reform of the international monetary system. Such a conference has been suggested and supported by many responsible commentators and by some government leaders as the end point in a process of international financial reform. For example, President Reagan mentioned the idea in his State of the Union Address at the beginning of last year. Preparation for such a conference would provide a focus for many of the required reforms. It is fortunate that we have this opportunity to discuss briefly one of the most serious elements of the current global economic malaise, the depression in developing countries and the debt crisis, which is one of its causes. I support these Bills as small steps towards resolution of those problems but emphasise that much more will be required before a serious impact is made on those underlying problems. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.56) —In addressing the International Development Association Bill, the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill, I remind the House that, in fact, these Bills deal with additional contributions, firstly, to the International Development Association; secondly, the Asian Development Bank for the purposes of the Asian Development Fund; and thirdly, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, although in the case of the International Fund for Agricultural Development the Minister has given notice of his unwillingness to participate in a further round of funding negotiations. I support the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and, more particularly, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in relation to the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill. These Bills afford a chance to draw away from some of the immediate domestic issues to consider foreign aid in a responsible way on both sides of the House. Australia has, by and large, had a reasonable record on the foreign aid issue and providing assistance. However, in recent years, funding levels-particularly when expressed as a percentage of gross national product-have fallen and speakers from both sides of the House, including the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), have acknowledged this but, of course, that reflects a range of factors which time does not permit me to canvass tonight. There also has to be greater emphasis in our broad approach to the economic aspects of our aid. Aid can create economic opportunities for Australia while also being beneficial to the recipient nation. I highlight to the House that, in the case of some projects, foreign aid can lead to great success in terms of a ratio of as much as 6 : 1; that is, for $1 given, $6 of commercial opportunity is created. I confess that, when confronted at branch meetings in my electorate, which stretches from Mount Kosciusko to Balranald and Wentworth, by those who ask why we give so much as $1 of aid to overseas countries, given the very harsh economic conditions faced by many of my constituents, I have to discuss the issue in a very fair-minded way; and I tend to highlight one particular project-the Thailand lignite mining project near Lambok in the northern part of Thailand not far from Chang Mai. I am happy to inform the House that Australia has advanced $5m of hard-earned taxpayers' funds to that project, and that has led to $30m of commercial sales. All of those sales may not be complete at this stage, but Australia is in the process of achieving $30m of commercial activity for Australian firms, Australian consultants and Australian enterprises of one kind or another. Whilst clearly not all aid will generate such a ratio of economic benefit-in some cases there will be no direct economic benefit; it is humanitarian aid-in looking at the foreign aid question we ought to be mindful of our commercial interests as a nation in these difficult economic times. If honourable members feel some hesitation in going down that path, I point out that quite often in some of the capitals of Asia Australia is regarded as almost the only nation that has taken so long to get around to looking after its commercial interests with its aid. Every other nation does so, often with a ruthlessness that is hard to swallow. I will not name specific European nations, but they give very little which is not qualified, multiplied and in every other way directly related to their immediate commercial interests. Therefore, Australia should not apologise for injecting this commercial dimension into its foreign aid efforts. As a member not only of the National Party but the coalition Opposition, I take this opportunity to extend our support for that emphasis in Australia's aid projects. This year it has been estimated that Australia will provide in official development assistance $1 billion. That is an extraordinarily high figure and it is the first time it has reached that level. To be precise, Australia will provide $1,007,600,000. While there are lies, damn lies and statistics, it is interesting to compare two countries of equal populations. Nepal and Australia both have populations of 16 million. The budget of the Government of Nepal, in Australian dollars, is $1 billion. The budget for Australia for foreign aid is $1 billion. But let me do that comparison again. The budget for Nepal for all programs and expenditure by its Government is $1 billion. The budget of the Australian Government for just one item-drugs for Australian people pursuant to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the very justified repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme-this year, for the first time, will be $1 billion. The Australian Government is spending the same amount of money on legitimate drugs for its people as the Nepal Government is spending in its total budget. Again, I point out that both countries have populations of 16 million people. I know that there are many other factors which rule out authenticity in respect of that comparison, but it is a statistic I place before the House for its consideration as we look at these three pieces of foreign aid legislation. The main point I make to the House in considering these measures is the need for Australia to interface more and more with its own region. Australia should relate to its own region in terms of the South Pacific and South East Asia and also South Asia. Not all honourable members would be aware that in addition to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to which we give considerable aid and diplomatic effort and with which we enjoy reasonable relations, there is also the increasingly important South Asian group of nations known as SAARC-the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation-which held a summit meeting in Katmandu in Nepal in the first week of November. The nations constituting SAARC are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Of course, some of those nations, such as India, have enormous populations and emerging middle classes, with the economic activity associated with middle classes, which create opportunities for Australian exports across the board. Yet because of a long period in the 1950s and 1960s when Australia decided to overlook the Indian opportunity and look more to Europe and subsequently America, we have not been in on the ground floor in India or to the extent we should have been in the South Asian region. As Dr Andy Stoeckel said in his recent economic paper, unless we relate more to our region and build on those opportunities, not only in the ASEAN nations but also in the SAARC or South Asian nations, we will miss the bus as we move towards the last decade of this century. I notice in Budget Paper No. 4 in respect of Australia's overseas aid program that a table on page 23 lists 20 countries receiving aid from Australia. It mentions only two SAARC nations-Bangladesh and Pakistan. To be fair, the table also lists aid flows to five ASEAN nations-Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore. I do not for one moment suggest that Brunei should be listed in that table; perhaps it should be giving us aid. The Parliament and the Government must become more conscious of the need for Australia to relate to the South Pacific; to relate to the ASEAN nations and to Papua New Guinea. But we must also relate to the South Asian nations and the economic opportunities offered by them and their problems by assisting them to improve their standards of living and doing it in such a way, where opportunities permit, as to provide mutual economic benefit. Finally, I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to many Australians who are up front in terms of our aid effort and who are located in isolated circumstances, often with no access to what we would regard as even primitive medical assistance. Yet they put themselves and their families at risk in climates which are extremely uncomfortable for the average Australian. They do that as part of their dedicated work pursuant to a number of categories. I refer, firstly, to Australian aid workers directly working as consultants and in other capacities on projects-for example, on the Tung Kula Roghai project near Roit, which happens to be managed by McGowan International Pty Ltd with headquarters in my electorate in Albury. I have seen the excellent work being done under that project in a very poor part of Thailand. Its work includes connecting water-the first ever water supplies in many cases-to villages where previously people had to walk five kilometres or more to drag water on their backs back to their villages. The conditions there and in many of these overseas locations are harsh. I pay tribute to the dedication of those Australian aid workers involved in those projects. There is also another category of volunteers who are members of non-government agencies, such as United Missions in Nepal and Australian Volunteers Abroad, who are not paid anywhere near full remuneration because it is part of their effort to make the voluntary agency funds go as far as possible. They are very dedicated people and they are not being remunerated even at a commercial level. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. Finally, I also pay tribute to the officers of the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau who work in these countries, albeit as a rule from the safety of their embassies. I pay tribute to the dedication of many of the embassy staff. It is not as easy as honourable members might think when we consider the localities of some of these smaller embassies in countries such as Burma, Laos and Nepal. In recent times, there have been some terrible accidents, including the crash of a relatively new Fokker aircraft in Burma in which the parents of one of the embassy workers at Rangoon were travelling and, of course, killed. One hesitates to mention the aviation safety aspect, but that is one of the many pressures faced by people in these locations. They also include the lack of sophisticated, comprehensive medical and other back-up resources which we take for granted here in Canberra, Albury and even some of the smaller towns in my electorate. For example, in Nepal many people have to walk for days to get to a major town because there are no roads. There is limited access to a handful of helicopters in the country, even if weather conditions would permit flying. I pay tribute to all Australians in isolated overseas locations who confront many difficulties. I also pay tribute to the embassies, small and large, in countries such as Thailand, India-including our High Commission in Bhutan-Indonesia, and the like. I hope that they will continue to carry forward our interests in a proper and efficient way. As we provide additional allocations of taxpayers' money to the three agencies involved in this legislation, I implore the Government to carry out the necessary monitoring to ensure that we are getting value for the dollars expended, that mutual economic benefits will be taken into account when assessing and planning future aid, especially aid of a bilateral nature, and that effort is made to monitor adequately the multilateral agencies which too often go unmonitored because of their very structure. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(7.11) —The poorest countries are in need of development assistance from those wealthier, self-sufficient countries that are in a position to offer financial support. That is the concept right at the basis of the International Development Association Bill, the Asian Development Fund Bill and the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill. Australia has been committed to donating funds to underdeveloped countries and particularly to bodies which, in turn, offer assistance to poor countries on concessional terms, which includes long term, interest-free credits for sound development projects. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) has said to this House, organisations such as those being discussed in the Bills today depend on developed donor countries such as us to provide most of the resources to carry on their work. Donor funds are critical to the development needs of these countries. It is also our responsibility to ensure that the funds we allocate to needy countries are distributed most efficiently and, therefore, further reviews of these international financial institutions are justified. While this Government may gradually phase out its funding of some international financial institutions, it will certainly not discontinue funding to needy countries but will redirect funds to ensure maximum benefit to the poorest countries. I will comment briefly on the three Bills. Australia has been a member of the International Development Association (IDA) since its inception in 1960. IDA is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank which directs resources to the world's poorest countries. There have been seven previous replenishments to IDA and Australia has contributed each time. The purpose of the International Development Association Bill is to contribute to the eighth replenishment of IDA. IDA8 is designed to cover concessional lending operations over the three fiscal years 1988-90. Total basic replenishment of IDA8 from all countries, plus special additional contributions, brings the total level of resources available to cover IDA's lending operations for these three years to $US12.4 billion. Australia has pledged a share of 1.98 per cent of the basic replenishment, maintaining our share in the previous replenishment-IDA7. Our current economic circumstances have prevented us from increasing our relative share of IDA. I join honourable members on both sides of this House in looking forward to the time when we can increase our share of aid in order to develop nations generally. In essence, this legislation pledges a maximum of $335m for the eighth replenishment of IDA over the period 1987-88 to 1989-90. I turn to the International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987. Australia has been a member of the International Fund for Agricultural Development since it was established in 1977 and we participated in its first replenishment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(7.15) —On 27 October last, during the adjournment debate, I raised a number of concerns regarding the proposed Christmas Island casino. Since that time both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and I have asked questions in this place that have not, as yet, been answered by the Government. One point that is particularly worrying and remains unanswered is the apparent monopoly that has been handed to TNT Ltd-Ansett Airlines of Australia by stipulating that, for as long as the airport facilities remain in their current state, only BAe146 aircraft can operate into and out of the Christmas Island aerodrome. This is made quite clear in annexure D of the Heads of Agreement. It just so happens that the only airline in Australia operating BAe146 aircraft is Ansett. Ansett also just happens to be the only Australian airline able to obtain the BAe146 in the foreseeable future. If, as the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) say, TNT-Ansett is not being handed a monopoly, why will aircraft such as DC9s, F28s, Boeing 727s and Boeing 737s be prevented from using the aerodrome when all of the aircraft I have just mentioned have been variously operated by several airlines on routine flights to and from Christmas Island under normal operating conditions throughout the 1980s? Without doubt the most important point relating to the air service monopoly is the international passenger routes that it gives to the airline operating the BAe146, which, of course, is Ansett. The Heads of Agreement document, on pages 16 and 17, specifies the Government's requirements as they pertain to air services. The document states quite categorically that provision is to be made for a specified weight of cargo space per week and a specified number of passenger seats per week to an Asian port. On page 17 of the document an Asian port is clearly defined as meaning any, or all, of Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. Surely, then it must be quite apparent that if TNT-Ansett is the only Australian airline operating BAe146 aircraft and if air services must be provided to Asian ports, not only has the Government given TNT-Ansett a monopoly on the air services but it has given it a back-door opening into international passenger aviation, which will pit Ansett in competition against the strategically disadvantaged Qantas Airways Ltd. The Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, certainly seems to be showing signs of strain as far as my pursuit of this matter of public interest is concerned. In answer to a question in the Senate on 5 November, Senator Evans launched a bitter personal attack against me because of my claims. In his answer he tabled two documents which he says show that my claims regarding the Government giving TNT-Ansett a monopoly and a back-door opening into international passenger aviation are without foundation. I responded to this garrulous outburst with a Press release addressing the points he made and pointing out that he had not shown that my claims are without foundation and that they are, in fact, based on factual analysis and assessment. Among many other things, I pointed out the convertibility of the aircraft from cargo to passenger variant. Of very grave concern to the Australian community should be in fact that Senator Evans, in his answer of 5 November, neglected to inform the Parliament of one very important factor relative to this attack upon me. He neglected to mention that prior to Question Time on Thursday, 5 November, he had suitably fortified himself for his outburst while lunching with none other than Sir Peter Abeles at the Lobby Restaurant near Parliament House, as detailed in the Times on Sunday of 8 November. I ask the House: Is it proper parliamentary behaviour for a Minister-- Mr Hollis —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ALDRED —after having had lunch with the very man-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce-- Mr ALDRED —who will gain the most from the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce will resume his seat. Mr ALDRED —monopoly, to then launch an attack-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bruce. The honourable member for Bruce is well aware of the fact that when he is called to order by the Chair he should resume his seat. Mr Hollis —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order was that surely the honourable member reflected on a Minister of this Government when he said that he was `suitably fortified'. I ask that the honourable member for Bruce withdraw that reflection on a Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before the honourable member for Throsby took his point of order, I was going to remind the honourable member for Bruce that he should not make allegations against members of this House or other Houses. It has always been held that those sorts of imputations are unacceptable. The honourable member for Bruce should withdraw. Mr ALDRED —Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact the words I quoted are contained in the article in the Times on Sunday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is irrelevant whether they are quoted in a newspaper or anywhere else. It is relevant that the honourable member has made the remarks here. Those types of remarks have always been deemed to be unsatisfactory. Mr ALDRED —At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, all I have done is ask why the Minister has deemed it fit to lunch with Sir Peter Abeles prior to attacking me, and that is a reasonable question for him to answer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce has been asked to withdraw the other matter he raised. I think it would help the House if he withdrew. He knows what I am asking him to do. Mr ALDRED —There is nothing to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply pointed out what was already contained in an article. There is not necessarily any imputation against the Minister. I asked a question in relation to why he saw fit to lunch with Sir Peter Abeles prior to attacking me in the Senate, and that is a reasonable question for him to answer. There is no imputation against the Minister on that. There is no offence against the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will check the Hansard in the morning, and if I find that the honourable member for Bruce is now saying something different from what he said before, I think it would be appropriate that he withdraw in the morning. I will take him on what he has said, but I will check the Hansard. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(7.21) —Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House the problems of constituents in my electorate with the Family Heritage Australia Pty Ltd. The company, based in New South Wales, recently wrote to a constituent of mine explaining that a book detailing his family history was available. The letter was signed Ruth Triscott and a postscript indicated that the company was formerly listed as Halberts of South Australia. While this matter has been raised before, it is quite clear that this company has spread its letters far and wide. My constituent sent away an amount of $39.90 on 7 September 1987 and until 9 November had received no reply. Mr Sciacca —They have been conned. Mr COURTICE —That is correct; he has been conned. I have taken the matter up with the company. However, it appears that many other constituents received a similar letter, no doubt indicating that their family history was also available. Indeed, on close examination, it appears that the letter was written with a word processor with names quite possibly taken from the State electoral roll. I note that no less an identity than the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) received a letter from the company offering to detail the illustrious Sciacca family's history. The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) has told this House that the company has been the subject of investigations by the Trade Practices Commission. I understand that the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs has issued several warnings to the company and that its advertising material has been modified. I would like to see the Queensland Minister responsible for consumer affairs issue a similar warning to consumers in Queensland. As it it now moving closer to Christmas, families are on the lookout for gifts for relatives. I do not want to see people in my electorate lose their hard-earned money on some cheap, shonky company which has been under investigation in other States. I urge people to be extremely cautious in their dealings with this company. I also urge people who have paid money to this company to contact my office if they have not received satisfaction. I will certainly contact the company on their behalf to try to recover their money in full. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(7.24) —I rise to bring to the House a matter which affects my electorate of Lowe. It relates to the storage of explosives in barges moored around Spectacle Island off the foreshores of Drummoyne. The Department of Defence has clearly stated that there is a risk of these explosives actually exploding. Accordingly, it has drawn up a blast zone. This blast zone includes a fair amount of the residences in Drummoyne, Cockatoo Island, Spectacle Island, Snapper Island, the shopping centre at Birkenhead Point, part of Hunters Hill and Drummoyne Sailing Club. The residents in that area, I am sure, will receive small comfort when they learn that they are not to be blown to smithereens but will only be incinerated in this blast zone. On the basis of this blast zone the Department has evicted the sea cadets from Snapper Island. The sea cadets, I might mention, have been there for 40 years or so. They have actually reclaimed the land from what it was originally, which was a few rocks. They have built several buildings and they have a very impressive museum there. The next stage, I understand, is that the Department is planning to stop sailing races in the area. This, of course, will destroy the Drummoyne Sailing Club. This is planned on the pretext, of course, that these explosives might blow up. Obviously, if there is a risk to the sea cadets, to be consistent this Government should evacuate Drummoyne, close Birkenhead Point shopping centre, close the sailing club, close Cockatoo Island, as well as blockading the river between Drummoyne and Hunters Hill. That is obviously completely ridiculous. The risks are not clear. They probably are very small. But there is, of course, a risk from vandals. The barges which contain the explosives are covered merely with wood and canvas, as far as we can tell, and, of course, they are a prime terrorist target. There really can be no justification whatsoever for storing explosives in the heart of Sydney. No risk, however small that risk might be, is acceptable to the people of Drummoyne. I might also point out that there is a bonus in removing the explosives from the area and that concerns Spectacle Island itself. On Spectacle Island there are six buildings which were built in 1865. Indeed, there are 30 which were built before the turn of the century. There is a superb museum of naval relics and, with a little work, this island could be made into a delightful haven for the people of Sydney-a much more worthwhile bicentennial gift, I might add, than the enormous Darling Harbour complex. I therefore appeal to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to move the explosives out of the area, to use some common sense and justice, to restore the sea cadets to Snapper Island and, as a bicentennial gift, to give Spectacle Island back to the people of Sydney to enjoy. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(7.27) —Mr Deputy Speaker, after discussion with you, I am happy to withdraw the words `suitably fortified' but my question about what Senator Evans was doing having lunch with Sir Peter Abeles before the attack still remains. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.28) —Last Thursday night in an adjournment debate speech I was talking about the National Award for Innovation in Local Government which was awarded to the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), for reasons best known to himself, took a point of order on me and thus prevented me from finishing the speech. I would like just to put the final paragraph in. I was talking about the fresh and imaginative approaches to industrial relations developed by the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force. In my final paragraph I was going to say that I am pleased that the Port Kembla Harbour Task Force and all its members are in the vanguard of this new approach. They are innovators at every level and they richly deserved both the Mobie Award for their promotional video and the National Award for Innovation in Local Government. Now that I have that in the Hansard, I would like to draw honourable members' attention to a book that has recently been published in my electorate which was produced by students at Warilla High School. Last November I drew honourable members' attention to another book produced by students at Warilla High School in the electorate of Throsby. That book won many awards for the students of the school. Recently I was pleased to be present at the launch of the book Maths for Living. This is a 72-page book for developmentally disabled teenagers. It was written and produced by 13 year 12 students as part of a community service course unique to Warilla High. The students' efforts were recently rewarded with the Prince of Wales trophy from the Queen Elizabeth Trust Fund and awards from the Sydney Morning Herald, including a consistency award worth $400. One of the students, Malcolm Meldrum, won a cash prize as part of Children's Week for his efforts in typesetting and laying out the book. This book fills a definite need in Australia. Before its production the only such books available were imported ones with overseas examples. I will be putting this book into the library of the Parliament. As honourable members will see, the book uses Australian examples and is, indeed, written for an Australian audience. Today it seems fashionable to criticise the State education system in this country. This work is just one example of the exciting and innovative work taking place in our public schools. Warilla High School caters for a working class area. The parents are not wealthy, but what is lacking in wealth is made up for by the dedication of the staff, the support of the parents and the enthusiasm of the students. I congratulate those responsible for the book and am very proud of Warilla High School. One of the major campaigns that the New South Wales Teachers Federation has for 1987 is to promote the public education system and increase public understanding of and support for public education by promoting the positive aspects of its work, schools and system. Warilla High School is a fine example of our public education system. This book will, I have no doubt, be a valuable resource for people working with intellectually disabled teenagers. A few days after the launch of this book I attended a public education expo at Bowral. This again was an excellent example of the work being carried out in our public schools-exciting, innovative work. Whether it was art, mechanical work or computers in education, a whole range of schools were represented be they small village schools in my electorate or large schools from towns such as Mittagong, Moss Vale and Bowral-all the schools were represented. We hear a lot of criticism inside and outside this place about public education. There is no shortage of people ready to tell us what is wrong with public education. I suggest that it is time we looked at what is right with public education. There is a lot right with public education today. The work being carried out by Warilla High School in the electorate of Throsby is an excellent example of what is right with our public education system. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.31) —When last I spoke in an adjournment debate it was shortly after the running of the 1987 Melbourne Cup. I rose to pay tribute to a former member for Wakefield, the Hon. Bert Kelly, who had mem- orably called a quorum in this House during the running of a Melbourne Cup. Because of the levity in the House, I was unable to complete that speech and I failed to refer to Mr Kelly's other notable achievements as both the Minister for Works and Minister for Navy. I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight a letter that Mr Kelly recently wrote to the editor of the South Australian Advertiser. He wrote about that extraordinary man, Mr Fred Phillips, of Melbourne. Mr Kelly wrote: On September 24 I attended the annual meeting of Bridging The Gap in Adelaide. This is a non profit organisation started by a remarkable man, Mr Fred Phillips, in Noble Park Melbourne in 1979 to help place unemployed people in employment. Its success has been exciting, first in Melbourne and now round Australia. In this state- he is talking about South Australia, of course- it is under the tender loving care of Rotary. There are two branches, one in Currie Street and one in Morphett Vale. In 1986-87 Adelaide placed 589 people in employment while Morphett Vale, which has only recently started, placed 245, a total of 834 at a cost per person placed of $117. I admit that Bridging The Gap receives much voluntary assistance, however last financial year the cost to the C.E.S. for each person placed in employment was $1509. Bridging The Gap have not been skimming off the cream of applicants for employment; indeed, they pride themselves that they have placed many people who have been on the C.E.S. books for many months without having even been sent out for an interview for a job. The Bridging The Gap performance makes me think that there well may be a better way of placing people in employment than the C.E.S. system. Bridging The Gap do it better than the C.E.S. not only because they have voluntary assistance but mainly because they have a fire in their belly. I think the C.E.S. task would be done better and cheaper if it was let out to contract at so much per person placed in permanent employment. Privatisation is very much in the public's mind at the moment. I can think of no better starting place than the C.E.S. After all, we would know we could do no worse. I appreciate that it is easy to be critical of those officers in the Commonwealth Employment Service who have a very difficult role to play, but I was prompted to read that letter into Hansard when a constituent of mine in the Barossa Valley rang me and criticised the performance of the Gawler CES in not only contacting him to see whether he would be prepared to place people in work-that, after all is a reasonable role for CES to play-but also sending to him a notebook, a cork-screw and a can-opener. Ironically this particular constituent runs a restaurant in the Barossa Valley. I dare say that he was scarcely short of either cork-screws or can-openers. He was particularly critical of the expenditure of CES in endeavouring to attract his attention and the fact that neither of these items had been manufactured in Australia. The cork-screw, incredibly, had been imported from France. I suggest that the CES look again not only at its promotional endeavours but also at the way in which it endeavours to place young people in employment. After all, the performance of Bridging The Gap has indicated that there is a better way to go about solving this vexed problem of unemployment. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.35) —As Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, I was most pleased to read the Australian Science Magazine, issue 3, 1987, published by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on current research into the plague outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish. The adult crown-of-thorns starfish is not a very attractive creature. It can measure up to 700 millimetres from one arm tip to an opposite arm tip. It often has 23 arms and is covered by thousands of spines, with those on its upper surface reaching a length of between three centimetres and five centimetres. The report states: Not only are these spines extremely sharp in having three raised cutting edges on the tip, but they also are known to produce a toxic reaction, often severe, in humans. It is not known how the chemicals are respons- ible-perhaps several other chemicals also are responsible-for causing allergic responses. The range of reactions recorded to date in patients who have been wounded by this starfish include nausea, vomiting and extensive swelling of tissues. The magazine states that care must be taken at all times when handling or undertaking activities near this animal. Two plague outbreaks involving millions of starfish have broken out on the Great Barrier Reef between 1962 and 1977 and between 1979 and 1986. A 1985-86 survey has indicated that 28 per cent of the reefs investigated were either experiencing or had experienced an outbreak. The effect on those reefs varied from slight to very severe, but the outbreaks were largely confined to the central third of the Great Barrier Reef and began in reefs off the coast of Cairns. The Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation of the previous Parliament in its November 1985 report entitled Protection of the Great Barrier Reef recommended that the Commonwealth Government continue to provide funding for studies into the crown-of-thorns starfish. As Chairman of the Committee I was most pleased when the recommendations were taken up by the Government. I congratulate the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the scientists involved on their report in the magazine. I found it most interesting and informative reading. I recommend it to all honourable members of this House. The report makes it clear that there have been a number of misconceptions about the crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks. It is not true that the entire Great Barrier Reef is in danger. On the contrary, the vulner- able but faster growing coral will regenerate within five to 15 years. Nor can it be proven that pollution from fishing is responsible for the outbreaks. Whilst the scientists still view the crown-of-thorns issue as controversial, research is beginning to provide some clues to the reason for the plagues or infestations. There is a considerable lack of information about the early life cycle of the starfish in the first 12 months of its life, from the larval to the juvenile stage. Many scientists believe that the answer to the sudden appearance of thousands or millions of adult crown-of-thorns starfish on a coral reef will be found by studying the juveniles and particularly the larvae. Biological control involving studies of diseases or the causes of starvation which can kill the majority of starfish in their early life may be possible. As a mature female may produce many millions of eggs per year, most scientists believe that population control must occur at the larval stage. Whilst the manual eradication of adult starfish is possible and has been successful on a very small scale, it is very expensive and inefficient on a large scale. Some scientists theorise that the plague outbreaks of the starfish are a natural occurrence. One way to test this theory is to undertake geological studies of the coral reefs. A great amount of work has been done. It is possible that the outbreaks may be the result of a number of factors which, collectively, can trigger the huge population increase which can be so devastating. As I said before, one thing that is clear from the report is that continuing research is absolutely essential if we are to find the answer to the infestations. I congratulate all the scientists involved in the valuable work they are undertaking in this most important project. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(7.40) —Tonight I have just returned from attending the display of the replica of the Southern Cross at the Canberra Airport. I would like to congratulate the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd for putting this on and for expending the amount of money it is going to on flying this replica around Australia. I would recommend that all members of parliament make the effort to have a look at it while it is parked at Canberra Airport. It was manufactured in Adelaide and it is practically an exact replica of Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith's Southern Cross that flew for many years, in fact nine years, breaking records in the 1920s and 1930s when Australia was at the forefront of aviation history. I would like to congratulate the sponsors of these trips around Australia for the Bicentenary, because the profits are going to go to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The Royal Flying Doctor Service is a unique service, with the pedal radio and with the old Austers, et cetera, that used to be flown in the early days. There is a Flying Doctor base at Charleville, in my electorate, which services a very large area in the Channel Country out to the Simpson Desert and to Birdsville. Many of those communities have functions throughout the year that raise funds for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Unfortunately, they have a continuing battle to keep going because of funding problems. The government of the day does give some funds to this very important service, because without it operating throughout the Outback many people would lose their lives. These people are very dedicated to the health of the people who live not only in outback Queensland, including my electorate, but in many other electorates throughout Australia. Bases are established in Broken Hill, Cairns, Cloncurry, Mount Isa and other parts of Australia. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) is a great supporter of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. He has just returned from Brisbane, from more exciting things I guess than looking at a replica of the Southern Cross. I know he was intending to see this very impressive replica of the Southern Cross, but no doubt he will take time off tomorrow and head out to Canberra Airport and look at it. I would like to read into the Hansard the record of Smithy's flights, along with Captain Taylor and others. In June 1927 he flew around Australia in 10 days and 5 1/2 hours, and of course, at that time it was a record. In June 1928 he undertook the first flight across the Pacific-actual flying time 83 hours. In August 1928 he made the first non-stop flight across Australia, from Melbourne to Perth. In September 1928 the Southern Cross made the first flight across the Tasman Sea. In October 1928 he made the return flight, from New Zealand to Australia. In July 1929 he flew from Australia to London in 12 days and 18 hours. In June 1930 Smithy continued the journey, making the first highly successful flight across the Atlantic Ocean in an east-west direction. In July 1930 Smithy flew the Southern Cross from New York to San Francisco, and then across the Pacific, making him the first man to circumnavigate the globe in the same plane. In October 1930, 5 1/2 days were cut off Bert Hinkler's London to Australia record. In December 1931 he undertook the first Australian airmail flight to England. In October 1933 Smithy established a solo flight record of seven days, 4 hours and 44 minutes. In March 1934 Smithy flew over the towering Southern Alps of New Zealand, and so the record goes on. Smithy, of course, was one of the most famous aviators that Australia has produced. Unfortunately for him, in October 1935, in attempting to fly from England to Australia, he ended his flying career in death off the coast of Burma. I had very much pleasure in being able to attend this function and I again recommend to any honourable member who is able to look at the replica to do so. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(7.45) —Tonight is probably the last occasion this year on which I will get a chance to speak about the new voluntary contracts and work agreements legislation which was implemented recently by the Bjelke-Petersen, until today, Government. It is an issue to which I alluded in my maiden speech and I raise it again for two reasons. Firstly, it is a source of major concern to working people in my home State of Queensland where the National Party State Government has introduced this legislation. Secondly, it is a proposal which is pushed by the New Right in this country and, as such, it is something which a future conservative Federal government could introduce. Although the likelihood of a conservative government in the near future is very slim, even the slightest possibility of work contracts should concern all working men and women in Australia and, in fact, employers. The concept of work contracts is based on the notion of flexibility in the work place. In fact, the Queensland Minister responsible for industrial relations, Vince Lester-he was Minister until today-has made quite a point of the benefits of a more flexible industrial relations system. However, the problem is that the Minister uses the word `flexible' interchangeably with the words `union free'. The National Party State Government's protestations about flexibility can be seen to be very selectively applied and ideologically based. After all, there is no evidence of the State Government's commitment to the notion of flexibility in its attitude towards rural production and the market controls it places on such production through its myriad of marketing boards. No, only when it comes to the work force and to wages and conditions does the National Party Government in Queensland make reference to flexibility. Of course, when one thinks of the notion of flexibility, one would imagine that it implies that flexibility would allow increases in worker's wages and conditions. Minister Lester often states that that is the case. The problem is that under current award arrangements, over-award payments or provision of conditions is tolerated. The advantage in an individual contract arrangement such as it proposed is all one-sided. The only flexibility which it would provide, which is not already inherent in the present system, is that which would allow employers to decrease wages and conditions. That lower wages and working conditions are on the Queensland Government's agenda can be shown to be the case by the fact that it persistently parrots off the old argument that lower wages will allow more jobs to be created. That is not the case, as many studies have shown. For example, Professor Hancock, in a paper presented in January this year, said that wage differences have very little to do with the level of employment. In addition, the argument about wage rates assumes that wages is the only factor which hinders profit and, therefore, the only factor which limits industry's ability to employ. That is clearly an oversimplification. The other factor in this debate which employers should, and I believe do, acknowledge is the great wage restraint which the arbitration system under the accord has delivered. The Hawke Labor Government has shown that the arbitration system is capable of achieving restraint through the exercise of a responsible and acceptable wages policy. The voluntary contracts proposal ignores the real fact that there are many aspects of working conditions and working life which are common to all workers. Superannuation agreements, safety issues and workers compensation are but a few examples of issues which are far more efficiently negotiated with a representative body, such as a trade union, rather than with individuals. Industrial conflict is another aspect of the work place which is not catered for in the proposed contract legislation. Conflict in the work place cannot be described as either good or bad. It is a fact of industrial life that disagreements between employees and employers will exist. What the arbitration system does to very good effect is institutionalise conflict resolution so that the very debilitating consequences of industrial confrontation are, in most cases, avoided. It is interesting to note that, despite the ramblings of the Queensland Minister that only benefits will flow from the proposal, the National Party State Government has recently decided, after going away and having a bit of a think about the legislation, that it will exempt its entire work force from its provisions. The State Government is too gutless to have the legislation, which it says will bring about a better system of industrial relations, cover its own workers such as teachers, police and other public servants. In conclusion, the current centralised system of awards and arbitration has, through the Hawke years, shown that flexibility can be achieved within existing structures without affecting the very real benefits of the tried and true arbitration process. The Queensland Government needs to be condemned for the introduction of the legislation some one or two weeks ago. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.50) —I wish to make a few comments about the shocking state of the city of Canberra. I have admired this city, although I do not think that I would like to live here for a long time. Canberra is too structured and too planned for my tastes. However, I have been amazed and appalled at what has happened to this city in the last six months. The atrocious bureaucracy that overrules the wishes of people in having half the beautiful picturesque spots around the city ripped up for asphalt carparks is appalling. There has been no planning and no thought. All the mistakes of capital cities around Australia are being made again here in Canberra. There is no city in Australia where office buildings would be allowed to be built without any parking facilities. There is not a council in Melbourne or Sydney that would be allowed to do what has been done in the centre of Canberra. High block after high block has gone up without any provision for car parking for office staff or for those who may wish to visit those offices. These are drastic, stupid and unnecessary mistakes. The mistakes made in this city were obvious in capital cities around Australia 20 or 30 years ago. That shows how far behind the times Canberra planners are. There is no representation process for the citizens of this city, and the Labor Government is to be blamed for that. Citizens who wish to vent their feelings have to call protest meetings. They have no elected representatives to take forward their views to government at any level. I do not know what has happened to the federally elected members of this city. Members of the Australian Labor Party representing this area have been silent on the issue. The only person who is constantly complaining about the ruination of Canberra and Canberra city area is Senator Reid. The mistakes made in Civic and on City Hill are abysmal and appalling. The planners who have been responsible seem to think that they have a capacity to override commonsense statements. When I have arrived at Parliament House early, before the House commences, I have heard them say on the radio that they have a right to make these decisions and that Canberra residents must wear them. The citizens have no right of protest, no right to disagree with what is happening, or to require more sensible planning. That City Hill has been destroyed in the way it has been, with parks and gardens ripped up to be replaced by asphalt, is appalling. Citizens of Canberra who want to understand what is in store for them should look at the City of Parramatta. The Minister with responsibilities for this city was an alderman on that council for many years. If the people of Canberra want to know what can be done to ruin a city they should visit Parramatta. For many years every decision in that city was made on an ad hoc basis. That city has gradually choked to death. I am concerned that the City of Parramatta will finish up as the type of city which it is only possible to enter by public transport, where shopping facilities are so limited that people do not go there. In that situation a city gradually chokes itself to death. That is starting to happen in Civic already. Once the office blocks are finished and there are another two hotels and additional large high rise buildings in the area, the citizens of Canberra will find what it is like to live in a city of that nature. All this has been so unnecessary, and what has happened has been quite stupid. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who, when the Liberal Party was in office constantly complained about the way Canberra was being ruined, has not said a word. She blames the bureaucrats and ducks for cover. That is not effective representation. It is time that the citizens of Canberra realised what is happening to them. It is time they sought effective representation-not necessarily to become a State, but to have an effective voice with which to speak to government and stake out their claims. They have been denied these opportunities, but should not be denied their democratic rights. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs)(7.55) —I take part in this debate as Minister on duty, but also as Minister with specific responsibilities for the operation of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) to answer some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). I wish to deal with the suggestion that an organisation such as Bridging The Gap could not do worse if it took over some of the responsibilities of the CES. I would not want to discourage Bridging The Gap or any voluntary organisation which can play a useful role in the employment market. Many of the Government's training programs are based upon the involvement of many people in the community who are prepared to use existing community resources and the voluntary efforts of community organisations to give adequate training and skills to young people trying to enter the work force. It is important to see the role and responsibility of the CES throughout Australia in a much broader context than that which was put to the honourable member for Wakefield by one of his constituents. Last year the CES found about 700,000 jobs for those seeking to enter the work force. The problem that faces the CES is that it is really servicing two clients: the employers and those who are desirous of entering the work force. It is often a complicated and difficult task to match them. Apart from that, the CES is playing an increasingly important role in advising young people. We are creating youth access centres in many CES offices. Basically their function is to advise young people looking for advice in respect of jobs and careers as to the best course they could follow. In many cases they will advise young people to stay at school, to seek further education. The youth access centres will provide general information to young people as to the best courses to follow in either a technical and further education college or a high school to fulfil their long term employment objectives. Whilst that advice is tremendously important, it cannot be equated with job statistics. It would perhaps assist the honourable member for Wakefield if I informed him that only last week I had the privilege of opening a new CES office, known as the Town Hall office, in the inner heart of Sydney. That office will face the problem of having to find 6,000 jobs in the next 12 months for people seeking work as a result of the Darling Harbour developments. There is no way in which a voluntary organisation, no matter how well motivated the people running it might be, can fulfil that sort of employment objective. Many large hotels and others involved in the hospitality industry have no hesitation in using the facilities of the CES. It is a very considerable saving to an employer if he can fill positions through the CES. Many large employers in the hotel industry-those who build the big, luxury, four-star hotels-do not hesitate to say to the CES, `We need to fill 1,500 or more jobs and we would like to have them filled in three or four weeks, if you can do it'. The CES is continually meeting that sort of challenge right around Australia, including our rural areas. I visited CES offices in rural Victoria and New South Wales recently. The managers of those offices are very much part of their local community and provide a continuous, ongoing service to large and small employers in regional centres in a way which saves those employers large sums of money. If one is an employer, particularly if one is running a small business, it is important to be able to minimise the cost of one's operation. The CES plays a major role. It is fulfilling its objectives. The kind of ill-founded criticism that is often made of the CES is made without justification or real thought. The developments that are taking place are important, but that does not belittle the role of voluntary organisations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 7 December, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 8 December, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 9 December, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 10 December, at 10 a.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 November 1987: Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 268. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1987-No. 11-Electricity. Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 4a (7), dated 19 November 1987. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 267. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 269.