Monday, 7 December 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to today's news reports that a refusenik demonstration held yesterday in Moscow was brutally dispersed by KGB operatives. In view of the Prime Minister's pleasure, shared by the Opposition, at the release last week of five refuseniks and his reported statement that this decision was more than mere tokenism, will he today express in the strongest possible terms his condemnation of the thuggery used at yesterday's demonstration to the Soviet Embassy in Canberra? Mr HAWKE —Of course, I share with the Leader of the Opposition deep regret as to the reported action that is contained in his question. It would be quite consistent with all I have said both here and in the Soviet Union that this should be conveyed at an appropriate time to the Soviet authorities. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of claims made by that well-known opponent of Medicare, Dr Jodhi Menon, of the Private Doctors Association, over the weekend of massive medifraud taking place within the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) by its employees? Can the Minister advise the House of what action he is taking to investigate these allegations? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the claims made over the weekend by Dr Jodhi Menon of the Private Doctors Association. Dr Menon's extravagant claims about Medicare have been notable in the past for both their lack of substance and their lack of credibility. His latest claims are more extravagant than usual and they go beyond just attacking this Government; they include the previous Government and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of this Parliament. Dr Menon is reported to have claimed that Medicare has lost up to $5 billion in 10 years because of elaborate computer fraud involving bogus cheques allegedly issued by Health Insurance Commission employees. Considering that Medicare is not quite four years old, this is a remarkable revelation. Dr Menon bases his estimate on what he claims are 60 cases he knows of where bogus cheques have been sent out by the HIC incorrectly to doctors over the past five years. It is a pretty extraordinary piece of extrapolation which would be branded by most sensible people as pretty dubious economically, doing more credit to imagination than to economic sense, though I notice that the honourable member for O'Connor has hitched his star to these claims. As explained to this House recently, Medicare has an extraordinarily low error rate, particularly given that Medicare pays for about 130 million services a year, For example, in September in New South Wales the error rate was only 0.29 per cent for direct bill claims and 2.14 per cent for patient claims. The 2.14 per cent for patient claims included minor keying errors and only 0.13 per cent were incorrect payments. Of course, clerical errors can occur, for example, where the doctor's provider number is not shown on account documents and staff are required to make a computer inquiry to try to locate the correct number. I am at least grateful to Dr Menon that, by implication, he is urging doctors to include their provider numbers and properly itemise accounts so that such future clerical errors can be avoided. While the claims of Dr Menon appear to have very little substance, they are, nevertheless, extremely serious in that he alleges massive criminality by HIC staff throughout Australia under both this Government and the previous Government. If Dr Menon has concrete proof that this has occurred-as he claims to have-he should have provided that information to allow the matter to be fully investigated. As he has not done so, I have today requested the Australian Federal Police to arrange to interview Dr Menon so that he can provide the alleged proof. Mr DOWNER —I ask the Prime Minister: What commitments did Mr Mikhail Gorbachev or other Soviet officials give to the Prime Minister on Afghanistan, Cam Ranh Bay and Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia which enable him to make the judgment that the Soviet Union can and should play a greater role in the Asia-Pacific region? Mr HAWKE —As is so often the case when members of the Opposition are talking about these matters, they content themselves with less than the full statement of what is said by spokespersons on this side of the House. Madam Speaker, you will recall that I referred to a place for a constructive role by the Soviet Union, but, of course, members of the Opposition would not want to include the adjective because it would not suit their purposes. I will be making a detailed statement to the House tomorrow afternoon in a way which will cover the issues involved in the honourable member's question. If, after that, he wants to address any further question to me, I will be more than happy to answer it. Mr COURTICE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House of any further developments following his representations in Moscow last week on the issue of human rights? Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —I deeply regret that those opposite are unable on this issue to address themselves to the realities of the tragedies involved and the advances that have been made. As the honourable member for Hinkler will know, in Moscow last week I raised the matter of human rights issues generally with the Soviet leadership, including the issue of the rights of Soviet Jews to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics if they so choose, and also the question of the right of Soviet citizens to reunite with their families in Australia. I made representations on behalf of people in both categories in my discussions both with General Secretary Gorbachev and with Prime Minister Ryzhkov. I, and others with me, had the deeply moving experience of meeting a number of Jewish refuseniks privately at the Australian Embassy. There is no doubt about the tragedy of the lives of these people. As I said in answer to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition, it is to be deplored that the tragedy of these people is further added to by their treatment at the hands of some Soviet citizens. At the same time, we recognise and we welcome the fact that the Soviet authorities have taken some positive steps in this area in recent months. I would hope that all honourable members of this House share with me the pleasure that I had in being informed before I left that five people-that is, Pavel Abramovich, his wife, Marta, Professor Alexander and Rosa Joffe and their daughter, Anna-have been given permission to leave the Soviet Union. I also raised the case of Mr Leonid Romanovsky, a family reunion applicant, whose application had been refused as recently as 29 November this year. He has waited seven years to be reunited with his wife, Danuta, who lives in Melbourne. I was very pleased, as I hope other members will be, to learn this morning that Mr Romanovsky has been given permission to leave the Soviet Union. That has been conveyed to his wife, Danuta, who lives in Melbourne. One can imagine her joy. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I find it difficult to express my contempt for those on the other side of the House who, on an issue such as this, have a total incapacity to identify themselves in a realistic, constructive way with the cause of the people concerned. On an issue such as this they do no more than seek miserably to score political capital. Opposition members can go on like this; I hope in a sense that they do because they will be judged appropriately by the people of Australia for the contemptible rabble that they are. I and this Government will continue to press on the Soviet authorities the cases of all peoples in all these categories that I had the opportunity to raise personally in Moscow. Mr HOWARD —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Mayo. What kind of political involvement, as distinct from economic involvement, does the Prime Minister want the Soviet Union to have in our part of the world? Will the Prime Minister give one example of the Soviet Union's constructive involvement in the countries where it had political involvement, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, North Korea or the Baltic states? Mr HAWKE —All the areas that the honourable gentleman raised in his question have been the subject of past representation by the Foreign Minister. On this visit to the Soviet Union they were the subject of representation by me to General Secretary Gorbachev and Prime Minister Ryzhkov. No one would have any doubt-I believe that no one in the world has any doubt-about the position of the Australian Government in regard to all these issues. What I have said-and I am in the company of such radical people as Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan in this respect-is that as we face the realities of the world in 1987 going into 1988, intelligent people will welcome the evident signs of change in the Soviet Union. This does not mean that we in this country, or Mrs Thatcher or President Reagan, endorse what has been done by the Soviet Union in the past in the areas that have been mentioned. I, together with Mrs Thatcher, President Reagan and others, have consistently pointed out the deep concern that we have about those matters. I did so again last week in Moscow. What I have said, what Thatcher says and what Reagan says is that-- Mr Howard —You have been played like a trout-a great successful exercise with Gorbachev. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, do not worry about his babbling. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will continue his answer. Mr HAWKE —We have said that it is intelligent to recognise the changes that are taking place. In referring to the Pacific area, it is a fact that the Soviet Union, whether or not the Leader of the Opposition wants to recognise the geography of the Pacific, is a Pacific power. It has, as a Pacific power, a right to have an interest in the region. That fact is recognised here and around the world. The question is: How will the Soviet Union exercise that power? I have been concerned to point out that it should be used in a constructive way. We do not regard the past as indicative of such constructive methods or approaches. If the Soviet Union, for instance, concludes with an island state in the Pacific a fisheries agreement, if that is desired by the Pacific state concerned, and if it is truly an economic agreement, that is something which is constructive for the Soviet Union and it is certainly constructive for the Pacific state concerned. What my Foreign Minister and I said to Mr Shevardnadze here in Australia in March of this year and what I repeated to the Soviet leadership in Moscow last week was this: we will be watching very closely to see, for instance, in the case of such fisheries agreements, that they are fisheries agreements and no more and not a cover for some exercise which would not be a constructive involvement in the affairs of the region. This is the sort of thing that we mean; it is the sort of thing that Mrs Thatcher means; it is the sort of thing that President Reagan means. As distinct from the extreme right wing elements in the United States with which this rabble opposite would associate themselves, we associate ourselves with the infinitely more constructive approach of President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. If this world is to have the maximum opportunity of living in peace, we in the West must take a responsible and constructive approach to the new ideas that are emanating in the Soviet Union. That does not mean that we embrace them in respect of everything they might say or do but it does mean that we should adopt a constructive approach which is tempered with a caution born of the experience of the past. Mr MILDREN —Has the Minister for Employment, Education and Training seen the comments of the Opposition spokesman on finance, Senator Stone, in which he claims that the education programs administered by the Minister constitute duplication and overlap? In particular, has he seen those remarks which complain of the work of 1,800 public servants working in the education area? Can the Minister advise the House of the duties performed by those members of his Department and of the programs they administer? Mr DAWKINS —I have seen the comments of Senator Stone, the shadow Finance Minister, in a speech-- Mr Tuckey —The biggest tax dodger in the Parliament gets this question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw that comment. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I withdraw the comment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. Mr Tuckey —I withdraw the remark that he is a tax dodger. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Howard —On what basis? Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will not tolerate intrusions into personal lives. Mr Sinclair —Are you going to ask him to sit down? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have called the Minister to answer a question. I can do that without the interjection by the Leader of the National Party. Mr DAWKINS —More particularly when the allegations are completely untrue and without foundation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question. The allegation has been withdrawn. Mr DAWKINS —I will, Madam Speaker. I did observe the comments by Senator Stone in his speech, which was perhaps more remarkable for its abuse of the policies of his own Party and, of course, the Liberal Party. I expect that it is a speech which will be more widely read on that side of the House than it will be on this side of the House. I was impressed by the extent of the inaccuracies in relation to some of the allegations about the administration of my Department. In the first instance, he alleged that there were some 1,800 people in a department which he described as the Department of Education. Of course, for several months that Department has ceased to exist. The appropriate figure would be something like 1,400. This shows that he is out by a factor of a mere 30 per cent in relation to the number of people employed in the Department. Perhaps more remarkable was his complete misunderstanding of the work undertaken by the people in that Department that he was referring to, because over 900 of those people are responsible for administering the student allowance system which, of course, provides income support to young people in secondary and tertiary education. I am not quite sure whether the people of Queensland whom he purports to represent are aware that at last June more than 30,000 people were in receipt of Austudy, and that figure is likely to grow to 40,000 next year. I can only assume that the senator's criticism of the numbers of people employed by the Department reflected his intention to eliminate that particular program. It is totally facile to criticise the number of people employed in delivering a program, saying that those people are not necessary, without at the same time owning up to the fact that what one really has in mind is eliminating that important program. The program has meant that many people from poorer, low income families-indeed, there are 30,000 people in Queensland-have been able to continue in the secondary education system and go on to the tertiary system. I notice in passing Senator Stone's own record in relation to discipline in staffing issues. I note that during the period from 1976 to 1982, when the Public Service increased by 6 per cent, there was an increase in the Department of the Treasury-Senator Stone's own department-of 30 per cent. There was a 30 per cent staff increase in his Department and a 6 per cent increase in the Public Service as a whole. In the Second Division, which is the most highly paid part of the Public Service, there was an increase in the Treasury of 36 per cent compared with 7.2 per cent for the Service as a whole. I am perfectly happy to consider the senator's criticism, but I think it ought to be considered in terms of its accuracy and the display, once again, of his extraordinary ignorance of the detail of Commonwealth administration. More importantly, it ought to be considered in relation to his own record. Mr SINCLAIR —The Prime Minister will be aware of three recent significant developments in relation to strategic defence initiative (SDI) research: firstly, last week's public admission by the Soviet Union that it has engaged in SDI-type research for nearly two decades; secondly, informed reports that Soviet research and development in certain areas of SDI-type technology is more advanced than that of the West; and, thirdly, today's reports that the Soviets may be prepared to put the SDI issue to one side in the negotiation of a long-range missile treaty. In view of these major developments, on what basis does the Government maintain its continued refusal to participate in SDI research and thus deny the participation of Australian scientists in exciting and innovative research connected with this program? Mr HAWKE —The first two elements to which the right honourable gentleman referred may come to him as major new developments, but that is a reflection upon the state of his knowledge rather that the facts. It has been known that the Soviet Union has been engaged in elements equivalent to SDI research. That is known to us, the United States of America and anyone who has the beginnings of any knowledge in this area. That the Leader of the National Party of Australia has just become acquainted with these facts is a reflection not upon those facts but upon the abysmal state of his knowledge. In Moscow last week when I appeared on a television program I was asked about the question of SDI. I made it clear to the interviewer that we should get the position straight and said, `Don't let us go on with this business that is implicit in your question to me, Mr Interviewer, that it is only the United States that is involved in SDI research'. I told the interviewer and, therefore, millions of Soviet television watchers-something which they may not have known-that their own country was engaged in this sort of research. It is known in the United States and by anyone in the kindergarten of international politics that the Soviet Union has been engaged in such research. Equally, it has been suggested in regard to some elements of laser research that the Soviet Union may be in advance of the research being conducted in the United States. So let us get rid of this nonsense implicit in the question that the Leader of the National Party has just found out something which, in fact, has been well known to anyone with a minimal knowledge of events in this area. It makes no difference because we have known of these facts in the whole period in which we have formulated our position. We do not endorse the research that is being done and the activities of those on either side. We endorse neither the SDI nor the comparable program which, as I have said, we have long known has been undertaken by the Soviet Union. We do not propose to change our longstanding decision to decline the invitation from the United States to participate in the research program supporting the SDI. As I have said in this place and outside it, our refusal to involve ourselves in that program in no way questions the integrity of the United States Government in pursuing SDI. We share the desire of the United States Government to move beyond a deterrence based solely on the threat of nuclear offensive retaliation. Our main concern, as I have made clear in this place and elsewhere, relates to the potential for SDI and the comparable Soviet program to lead to an intensification of the arms race. We believe that priority should be given to the negotiation of balanced and verifiable reductions in the nuclear arsenals and we are encouraging both super-powers to move beyond the intermediate range nuclear force negotiations to deep reductions in strategic weapons. That is the position of this Government. It has been clear for a very long time and, among other things, it has been based upon the knowledge that we-and every other person with minimal interest in this area-have of the involvement and extent of Soviet research in that area. It is a tragedy that the question from the right honourable gentleman is simply another piece of evidence of the Opposition's incompetence and ignorance in this area. Mr FREE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. What is the proposal known as Multifunction Polis? What have been the developments, if any, in relation to this proposal? Mr BARRY JONES —In 1986 the Japanese Government first raised the issue of the establishment of a futuristic, science based city, to be set up in Australia, as a model of what urban development will be like in the twenty-first century. In January 1987, this proposal was put more formally by the Minister for International Trade and Industry-the MITI Minister-at the ninth Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee meeting here in Canberra. The original MITI proposal involved creating a city which would be funded by the private sector to be a focus for international technological and cultural development in the Pacific basin. There would be heavy emphasis on sophisticated communication and transport links, with appropriate leisure and living conditions. The Australian Government suggested the modification that, instead of being simply a bilateral arrangement between Australia and Japan, the concept should be broadened to be internationalised, or multilateralised as the bureaucrats say, to include non-Japanese firms, with internationally competitive high technology research and development activities forming the activity base of the Multifunction Polis so that it would provide a forum for international information and scientific and cultural exchange within the Pacific basin. The matter was discussed last week in Christchurch, New Zealand, at the meeting of the Australian Industry and Technology Council, the body of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for industry and technology policy, attended also by the New Zealand Minister. I am glad to be able to report strong indications of support and interest from the States. As yet, some of the States are not firmly committed about the extent of their involvement, but it looks as if the next stage will be to respond to the Japanese by proposing a full scale feasibility study, largely funded by the private sector and to which the Commonwealth and States will make appropriate contributions. Originally, the idea was to have a single centre. As can be imagined, with a federal system like ours that was not overwhelmingly popular among the States. The States, instead of having a single centre, preferred the idea of the Multifunction Polis like a hub and a wheel with something in Brisbane, Perth and in cities in the other States. There is a high degree of interest because all see that it could generate enormous economic activity in the States that are interested. There was a positive response in Christchurch. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his reported statement attacking Japan last week, when he said: Australians have suffered a decline in their living standards. That is a result of the hypocrisy of those who have the capacity to preach to others and cannot apply it to their own economies. I also refer the Prime Minister to a report prepared by the former Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dr Andy Stoeckel, which states, inter alia: Sixty per cent of Australia's effort should be directed at the domestic scene. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his attempt to transfer the blame for Australia's economic predicament to other countries with, for example, the analysis in Dr Stoeckel's report? Mr HAWKE —Let me make clear what I said in Japan-which the honourable gentleman has sought to characterise as an attack on Japan. My observations were much broader than remarks just referring to Japan. In essence, what I had to say was in the context of an attack on this country that was made by a questioner. Very strangely, as Prime Minister of this country, I sought to defend the country. I know that that is an exercise that does not appeal very much to those honourable members opposite, but that is what I was about. I was indicating the view-not only a view that I hold, but also one that is held very widely in this country-that we are getting sick and tired of being told by some countries and some people, purporting to speak on behalf of some countries, that Australia is not facing up to what is economically, rationally necessary to do in respect of the economic challenge confronting it. We are proud indeed of what has been done, particularly in regard to picking up the challenge which confronted us after seven years of neglect of those opposite. I would be here well beyond the end of Question Time were I to list the great range of changes that have been undertaken by this Government. Mr Young —Just give us 15 minutes. Mr HAWKE —Okay, I will just give honourable members 15 minutes. Let us look at the area of financial deregulation. Honourable members opposite had seven years. They were the people who talked about competition and deregulation but they sat on their collective butts and did nothing. We came in and deregulated the financial sector. Honourable members opposite talked about competition in the banking industry. Again, they sat on their collective butts and let a worn out, ossified Australian banking system continue to have a monopoly of operations in this country. We brought in 16 foreign banks, something honourable members opposite should have had the guts-but did not have the guts-to do. I point to what we did in regard to the steel industry. The contribution of honour- able members opposite to the steel industry when they were in government was to let it run down to the point where, when we came to office, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was saying that it was going to close the steel industry down. So, with imagination and economic intelligence, we saved the steel industry from the destruction that honourable members opposite, in fact, had inflicted on it. I could continue in regard to the deregulation and the reconstruction that has characterised the approach of this Government. Therefore, on behalf not merely of the Government of this country but also of the people of this country, I was expressing the view that we were getting a little sick and tired of being told by others about what needed to be done in an economically rational way in this country. I make this point to the honourable gentleman who asked the question, because he knows the truth of what I say: in terms of the interest of the people of Japan, infinitely more damage has been done to their interests by their myopic, irrational and misguided policy in regard to agriculture than has ever been done by any suggestion of a threat of the continuity of supplies from this country. So it is absurd for Australia to be lectured about a lack of economic rationality by Japan, the United States or Europe. Let me just point out the economic irrationality of European countries, which they have been trying to deal with at Copenhagen. Representatives of all those countries met there last weekend. They threw up their hands in horror, saying, `Yes, we know we are stupid; we know that we are irrational; but we have not got the political wit, will or wisdom to deal with it'. What has this meant for Europe? According to the same sort of economic analyses done within the Bureau of Agricultural Economics here, in Europe, as of this very day, there are one million more unemployed than there need be because of the stupid, irrational policies in regard to agriculture. Those countries have inflated their cost and price structures in a way that has meant that there are one million more people unemployed than there need be. The United States of America subsidises its inefficient agricultural producers to the tune of something like $50 billion because they cannot compete on world markets with Australian producers and must be propped up. At present Soviet consumers get wheat at something like $50 a tonne less than United States consumers pay for their wheat. So the cost and price structure is propped up in a totally irrational way. Japanese consumers pay infinitely more for their agricultural products than they should; a million people in Europe are unemployed because of the irrational policies followed in that part of the world; and the same sort of situation applies in the United States. In that circumstance I, as Prime Minister of this country, will not sit silently by and be told that we are not economically rational when those countries, by their own stupidly irrational policies, are inflicting damage not only upon themselves but also upon the rest of the world. Mr CROSS —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Which nations are now involved in activities designed to preserve freedom of passage by commercial shipping through international waters in the Persian Gulf? How important is the continued trade in petroleum from the Gulf to Australia and the world? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. At present a substantial number of countries are engaged in escort activities associated with freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf. Of course, the United States of America attracts a considerable amount of publicity in regard to its effort in that region. The Soviet Union has some nine ships operating in the Gulf. The British have a substantial number of ships, both destroyers and minehunters, in the area. The French and Italians also have ships operating in the Gulf, and the Dutch and Belgian governments are operating ships there as well, both warships and minehunters. In addition, the German Government has made available to the United States German warships for operation in the Mediterranean in order that United States assets can be freed to operate in the Gulf. Basically, all the ships in the Gulf, in addition to being generally committed to freedom of navigation, operate in defence of vessels under their own flag. There are a couple of exceptions to this general rule. It seems that the Soviet Union follows the practice of offering protection to Eastern bloc vessels generally, given the events that occurred last week when a Romanian tanker got itself into trouble and was effectively protected by a Soviet destroyer that came to its assistance. The other exception-there may be others but I am aware of two-involves the Royal Navy, which has offered escort facilities to Australian vessels operating in the Gulf. One Australian vessel actively receives assistance or escort from the British whenever it enters the Gulf. The other three or four vessels that operate in the Gulf receive information on safe passage times from the Royal Navy and also receive escort assistance under what is called the buddy system. If they wish to avail themselves of that arrangement, they are allowed to join a British convoy passing through the Gulf. The efficacy of the efforts of those escort ships can be seen in the statistics for this year. There have been some 150-plus attacks on shipping in the Gulf in the course of this year. Only two attacks on shipping in the course of the year have involved ships that have been under escort. One such attack was a mine incident involving the Bridgetown. Of course, a mine is essentially a passive instrument. It is not passive when it hits the ship but it is passive in the sense that it is laid for the purpose of being struck by any passing ship. The other instance related to the period after a ship had been escorted. When the ship was in a Kuwaiti port it was attacked by a silkworm missile. Otherwise vessels being escorted have been left alone; vessels not being escorted are attacked frequently. As I said, all of the countries I mentioned are devoted to a policy of freedom of navigation in the Gulf. It is a principle which the Minister for Foreign Affairs upheld a couple of months ago when he was asked a question on that matter in this House. As I said, Australia receives assistance from the British in the operation of our own shipping. All of those countries also maintain strict neutrality. On the question of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, those ships operate in the Gulf in an even-handed fashion against any potential attackers, from whatever source. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Did the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Mr Neville Wran, and the CSIRO's Chief of the Division of Entomology fly to Mr Kerry Packer's property in the Barrington Tops area of New South Wales in a helicopter at the weekend? Did Mr Wran, at the conclusion of a meeting on Mr Packer's property, agree to allocate a quarter of a million dollars towards biological control of the noxious weed scotch broom which is a problem on the property? Was this decision taken by Mr Wran without consideration of the overall allocation of funds to CSIRO research? Is it also a fact that it is not a priority for CSIRO research? When the CSIRO is being forced to reduce dramatically its rural research effort, why is the CSIRO's rural research allocation being determined on the basis of Labor Party cronyism? Mr BARRY JONES —I have no information at all about the matter raised. It is the first I have heard of it. Naturally, I shall check it out. It sounds rather unlikely to me but since I am on my feet-- Mr Lloyd —It has been running everywhere in the media today. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, I shall have to check it out. If there were anything in it, Mr Wran would have contacted me already. The fact that he has not done so suggests that there is nothing to it. I may have done myself and the House a slight injustice when I answered a question last time from the honourable member for Page. I said that there would be a decline in relativity in the number of people involved in rural research compared with other areas, but that I thought there would be a small decline in the number of people employed directly in rural research. The injustice I did myself was that there is not a decline; there is a small increase in the number of people so employed. It is true that about 100 people have been persuaded to retire because in every research organisation it is an excellent idea to have a turnover, to have new people come in as new projects are addressed. The result is that, notwithstanding the fact that about 100 people are leaving, the Press reports, which have been extremely inaccurate, have failed to mention that there will be recruitments and the result is that there will be a small net gain in absolute figures. Mr Lloyd —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: if that is the case, why have reductions taken place? Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order, and the honourable member knows that. If he takes that liberty again, I shall deal with him. Mr LEE —My question is also addressed to the Minister for Science and Small Business. Is the Minister aware of allegations that the Federal Government has secretly established a bomb-proof fortress at Deakin in Canberra to house computers designed to store confidential information on all Australians? Have those making the allegations claimed that the Minister for Science and Small Business would be the only member of the House capable of understanding the technical capacity of the computer equipment at Deakin and the threat that the equipment poses to the people of Australia? Has the Minister inspected the Deakin offices and are the allegations made by these people correct? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question. I was very flattered by the remarks of Mr Peter Sawyer, who was kind enough to suggest that I would be a wake-up if anything untoward was happening. I have had a number of letters on this subject, almost entirely from electors in the Federal seat of Richmond, as it happens, who have also been urging me as part of my patriotic duty to expose what was happening in Kent Street, Deakin. I went along twice, once unannounced in the comparatively early morning because I was eager to see the armed guards, not to mention the killer dogs, to have a look at this fortress. I had a rather dim recollection of that fortress because, as a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I visited it some years ago when it was still in the hands of Telecom Australia. Mr Sawyer makes some very interesting allegations. First of all, he says it is a specially designed fortress, not just a run of the mill standard Canberra fortress, which was built in the past four years. In fact it was built in 1972-73 for Telecom Australia and has undergone no structural alterations since. I found it quite extraordinary that he should say that the building has no windows and no doors, which I must say seemed to me to pose some major problems about entry and exit, unless, of course, the entry was entirely subterranean. But I am glad to report that there are both windows and doors. He says that the walls are, in fact, 4 1/2 feet thick-he uses the imperial measurement-that is about 1.37 metres. My rough estimate, not having taken a ruler with me, is that the walls would be about 27 or 28 centimetres thick, a very small proportion-- Mr Donald Cameron —How thick is that? Mr BARRY JONES —That is about 10 inches in the old measurement. He said there was a Facom computer inside worth between $25m and $28m, of a kind normally used only by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Alas, even though the Government is very generous in providing funds for computerisation, I do not think it has been able to run to that kind of money. There was no sign of the Facom, nor am I persuaded that the Facom was hidden away in a cupboard somewhere just because it was known that I was coming. As I say, I called first without warning and found only two professional unarmed employees of Wormald International (Aust) Pty Ltd, who were working not just for the Department of Social Security but for a number of other clients who are in the building. The conclusion I have reached is that what is going on there is no more sinister than anything else that happens in the Department of the Minister for Social Security. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee has also made an inspection, I think this morning, and I have little doubt that its observation will exactly tally with mine. Madam SPEAKER —I present the reports of the Auditor-General dated 4 December 1987 upon efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses and Department of Defence: RAAF explosive ordnance. I also present the report of the Independent Auditor dated 24 November 1987 upon an efficiency audit of the Auditor-General's Office carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act. 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 reports of the Auditor-General, dated 4 December 1987, upon efficiency audits of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses, and the Department of Defence: RAAF explosive ordnance, and the report of the Independent Auditor, dated 24 November 1987, upon an efficiency audit of the Auditor-General's Office, and (2) That the report upon an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Pipeline Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Housing and Construction for 1986-87. The report also contains the annual reports required by legislation of the administration of the First Home Owners Act 1983 and the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Sports Commission Act 1985 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Sports Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 24 (3) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I present the annual report and financial statements of the National Capital Development Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Health for 1986-87. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Community Services for 1986-87. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, I present the annual report of the Australian War Memorial for 1986-87. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980, I present the annual report of the Office of Australian War Graves for 1986-87. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —In the October-November issue of Inside News, a periodical written and distributed by a person who calls himself Peter Sawyer, this statement is made on page 6: Of course, if your local member (or favourite Senator), is on the list on the back of the newsletter, then you are probably wasting your time, and would be better employed combining forces with people in the adjoining electorate. Those listed are the people that my research has shown to be actively involved in what is going on. Some of these, true, may not be the real planners and schemers, merely total dolts who have allowed themselves to be used over and over again. Either way, they are of no use to our current purpose; later it will be up to them to prove whether they are traitors or just idiots. My name appears along with the names of 36 members and 14 senators on page 12 of this document. On page 12 the said Peter Sawyer further states: Inside News is a private newsletter, published 12 times per year . . . it comments on social, political and economic events. Information is obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Where possible, government information is verified by means of Freedom of Information requests. However, this information cannot be guaranteed as to its accuracy or completeness. Use of such information and recommendations is at the risk of the reader, without responsibility on our part. I am not in a position to know what the Hawke-Keating Government does at this building called the Deakin Centre. I am aware of the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to questions asked in this House and I am also aware of the reply of the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) today. I understand that some of my colleagues and I will be visiting the centre later this week. I was not a member of the Fraser Ministry when the building was completed. To the best of my knowledge, at the present time, it is not used for subversive activities or activities foreign to the Australian way of life. I deplore this type of character assassination employed by Peter Sawyer, which is indeed, as he states, devoid of any factual basis or proof. He would be better suited to life under Gestapo rule. I-and I do not know about the other 36 members and senators-will be pursuing the matter through all the legal avenues available. I seek leave to table a copy of the document from which I have quoted. Mr Young —Leave is granted because I find the honourable member among some very distinguished company, including me. Leave granted. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill as amended by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate and without further requests. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Bill 1987 Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Collection Bill 1987 The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Halverson,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and 2. Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the Australian Capital Territory. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. by Mr Beale,Mr John Brown,Mr Ewen Cameron and Mrs Kelly. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in the 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 Katter and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the 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 Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Governments 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. To the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives. We the undersigned, express deep concern at the proposed governance arrangements for the Canberra Institute of the Arts. We object to the absence of representation of staff, students and community members on both the Board and Council of the Institute. We also object to the situation where the Board can make a decision affecting students, with only a quorum of two members, and without having to consult the proposed Council. We call on the House to review the Ordinance with the intention of including staff, student and community representation on both the Board and Council of the proposed Canberra Institute of the Arts. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as not 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 tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse of purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House direct that the existing 4 (C4) zoning on the Kurnell Peninsula, in New South Wales, be removed and that this be replaced by a zoning more appropriate to the unique ecology of the area and to the historical significance of the Kurnell Peninsula, being the birthplace of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Undersigned Citizens respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problems facing rural women according to the ``Survey of Rural Women'' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will add to this problem, not decrease it. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The decision by the Department of Defence to close down the Macksville Sub-section of 41 Battalion, Australian Army Reserve, is of grave concern to the unit members and citizens of the surrounding districts. The decision to direct unit members to Coffs Harbour, some 60 km distant, would impose sufficient hardship to prevent many continuing in the reserve and be a major deterrent to potential members. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Intervene to stop the proposed closure and sale of land at Wallace Street, Macksville, and initiate action to have a permanent Depot built on the Army's Macksville land. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business offices provide the service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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 Connection. 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 of the petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.'' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. The Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give notice to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap before October 1986. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed because Pine Gap is a spy base and war base: Since it was opened in 1969, it has eavesdropped on Australian telephone and telex communications. Information obtained in this way was used by the CIA to destabilise the Whitlam Government in late 1975. It provides communication facilities for CIA activity in countries throughout the world, much of which is connected with overthrowing other country's governments. Last year it became clear Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and photographic information its satellites receive is used to select nuclear targets in the territory of the Soviet Union and its allies. Many US military activities short of nuclear war are also co-ordinated by Pine Gap. These include the war against Vietnam and the invasion of Lebanon by US marines in 1984. Pine Gap spends only a tiny percentage of its time monitoring arms control agreements, and even then the data gathered is so top-secret Australia has no access to it. Pine Gap's role will be expanded under Reagan's Star Wars scheme to extend the arms race to outer space, threatening the existence of our planet. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled. The humble petition of these Electors sheweth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of members and supporters of the National Epilepsy Association of Australia draws to the attention of the House that under Regulation 26 of the Migration Act any person suffering from Epilepsy is not permitted entry to Australia. We do ask that the Parliament have Epilepsy erased from the Regulation because: Epilepsy is a physical condition not a mental illness. Bring our immigration policy into line with overseas countries e.g. Britain, Canada, France, USA where epilepsy is not a bar to immigration. Seems an appropriate time to make such an amendment as a review into Australia's Immigration Policy is presently being conducted by Dr Stephen FitzGerald, Chairman of Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policy. 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 Snow. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The unintended consequences of the Government's recent Medicare decisions. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.02) —In bringing forward this matter of public importance, the unintended consequences of the Government's recent Medicare decisions, I state that we have to start to recognise that Medicare is generally having unintended consequences by its mere operation. Since I became the shadow Minister responsible for health every piece of health legislation bar one which re-allocated a mere $200,000 of benefits for a very limited period has dealt with increasing taxes-the levy was increased from one per cent to 1.25 per cent-or has been aimed at reducing or removing benefits under the various schemes. Nothing seems to be being done to reduce or remove the problems that are associated with this area which are materialising every day. The Federal Government is allocating $8,200m this year to health expenditure and $5,212m of that is allocated in the hospital and medical services area. The community cost of health services is in fact about $18,000m or an average of $25 a week. Health services are a community problem revolving around costs and benefits. Costs are escalating and benefits are reducing. Today I do not want the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to get up at the end of my speech and try to give us a history lesson or a political answer. We are talking about the objective of both parties, and that is to give Australians high quality and affordable health care. I am about to identify a number of areas where that is not happening. I sincerely hope the Minister will address those problems and not take a position of self-congratulation. We are talking about people's pain and suffering. We are talking about life and death. I hope the Minister and other Government speakers are sufficiently responsible to respond to the needs of the Australian people. The difference between him and me is only in direction. His idea is having total control of the system; ours is not. I want to give two examples of what is happening in the community. I refer first to a letter addressed to the Minister on 30 June 1987. I will not read it as it is lengthy. It relates to a person living in the Newcastle area, a good Labor voting area, who suffered a leg injury as a young person in a shooting accident. He suffered further injury some two years later in a vehicle accident and now he suffers very severely as a result of that injury-in fact to the extent that he now receives an invalid pension and was granted sales tax exemption 1960, 1962 and 1974 for the purchase of special vehicles. Over a period he has taken so much medication that he has now been told that he can take no more because the medication has created an ulcer. He wrote telling the Minister all this. In November 1984 things had deteriorated so much that he got his invalid pension. He also told the Minister that the surgeons at the Newcastle Hospital have told him that he must have a knee replacement. At his most recent visit, just a few weeks back, he was told that he still has another two years to wait. He can no longer have reasonable pharmaceutical treatment because it has given him an ulcer. He says that he has been suffering also from anaemia, nausea and stomach and chest pains. The continued use of anti-inflammatory drugs over a period exceeding 25 years has irritated his system to the extent that a gastrointestinal ulcer has developed and he has been advised to cease taking the medication. I have a copy of the letter which the Minister's Department sent to that gentleman. It says: There are waiting lists for elective surgery in public hospitals. However, I understand that all emergency patients are able to receive appropriate and timely treatment. No encouragement is offered to that gentleman. That is one side of the problem. The other side has to do with costs and the fact that people are forced to rely on the private system. I quote from a letter: I am writing to you concerning Medibank Private. I have rung my local member of Parliament . . . whom I believe has made a phone call to your Department regarding my complaint. I have been Medibank Private since 1979 under the same code . . . which gave my family basic private hospital table cover. My rates have gone up every 4 or 5 months which I have been paying and have always paid in advance. I was in . . . private hospital last October and . . . private hospital and the difference I had to pay was approximately $30 a day. I returned to . . . private hospital this October. I find that I had to pay a difference of $105 a day and after fourteen days $150 a day. It seems that I have been paying these increases in payments and my code is still the same . . . but my coverage has dropped down to basic hospital cover and not basic private hospital cover. How can that be. If my cover has dropped back, how come I have been paying increases and my code has not altered. Could you please have this explained to me and could you please let other people know that although you pay your increases, keep up your payments and retain your code, your standard of cover drops. Please help me to understand why I have wasted my money, I am no better off than someone with no cover at all. It has cost me $1500 to get out of hospital. That is the situation. The Minister has created public hospital queues and increasing costs in public hospitals with the result that people's private health cover, through Medibank Private or other private funds, is no longer adequate to assist them. The problem now is that every time the funds increase their charges, only the sick and the elderly remain as their customers. Young people think that they have a rather strange protection called Medicare. They think that is a protection because they do not use it in any meaningful way, such as going to hospital. There are public hospital queues and insufficient fund coverage generally for people on basic private cover to utilise the 9,000 vacant private hospital beds. If the Minister thinks that I am the only person telling him that, let me remind him of the statements by Victorian Premier, John Cain, when he opened the Australian Hospital Association Conference recently. He said that the Government's policies were distorted incentives and were not logical. He said he was concerned that, by abolishing the private hospital subsidy and reducing Medicare benefits for out of hours services, the Commonwealth had distorted incentives and placed even greater pressure on the public hospital system. He was also critical of the Government's subsidies for private patients in public hospitals which, he said, gave the privately insured an incentive to use public rather than private hospitals. He said: This incentive operates at a time when some patients wait for a public hospital bed and some private hospitals have only 60 per cent occupancy. He went on to say that in Victoria at that time 26,288 people were waiting for elective surgery. Of course, the New South Wales Government does not keep figures relating to waiting lists. Let it tell me that if those lists were good news it would not publish them; that if those lists in New South Wales were to the benefit of Mr Unsworth and Mr Anderson they would not have them on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald! They will not do so now because the figures are disastrous. As we know, people have died while they have waited to get into hospital. But we are told not to worry about that. When the matter was raised the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) got up and said that we should not worry about that; all these people died of natural causes. If one dies while waiting for some relief of pain and suffering it is of no particular assistance to say that. In recent times there have been cutbacks in the health area. No doubt Senator Walsh has had something to say about that. The Minister's Department now has the second biggest one line item budget. He has been able to achieve that by calling up the computers. There is enough talk about computers in this place, but the great problem with computers is that they give only a physical evidence as to what is going on; they never give the people side of it. The computer told the Minister that too much money was being spent by dermatologists. The computer does not know that Australia has some of the highest incidence of sun cancers and associated conditions, such as keratosis, in the world. It is estimated by the Cancer Council and others that probably 125,000 Australians have skin cancers and do not know it, and that this is the cause of about 1,000 deaths a year. This was ignored. It was argued that it was all right to take some items off the schedule because doctors could still address skin cancer when people found out that they had this condition. However, people now have to play lotto. If they are sent off to the skin specialists and happen to have only the more common keratosis, which could, and probably will, turn into a skin cancer later, they cannot be treated under the schedule. If they choose to be treated while they are there, they will have to pay the full charge, which will probably be about $50. They have to pay that out of their pockets, and this is where the problem is-it is the people who are being hurt on these issues. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) is waiting to speak next and tip another bucket over the medical profession. That is part of a planned campaign. If the Minister is successful with some polling carried out by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, no doubt he will want to tip the bucket over the medical people as well. Nevertheless, I see the honourable member for Canning as the back bench bunny at the moment. The point about all this is that the Minister did not get the doctors to do what he wants them to do. The doctors are still charging what they think is reasonable, and they do not make huge fortunes. People are paying as a consequence of the Minister's decision. He promised them good health services through Medicare. Even some who chose to keep private cover have found that that service does not work. The computer also contains numbers which cover warts. To a computer, a wart is a wart; to many of us, it is something one gets on one's hand and is not a problem. However, the numbers also relate to venereal warts, which another part of the massive Department has declared a notifiable disease because it is so serious. This condition requires an operation. People are told by their doctors, frequently private doctors, that they can be operated on to have the warts removed-in the case of women, they are a precursor to cervical cancer-but that they will have to pay the full amount. There is an option. The patient can make a claim to the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee, as though people with such conditions would do that. Consultant physicians-people who rely heavily on charging out their time-do not get paid for carrying out procedures. They can see only so many people in a day. In the Senate Estimates Committee D hearing on 22 October, the Department's officials agreed that, of 27 items put to them, 26 could not be handled by anybody else and would require more than three visits to a physician. Those items include such simple little things as chemotherapy for people dying of cancer! The computer said that too much money was being spent there. It inferred that these people could be shunted back to general practitioners, although the departmental head and other qualified people in the Department told the Senate Estimates Committee that they could not, and that lengthy treatment was needed. The physicians continue to charge $50, but whereas there used to be a rebate of about $40 for subsequent visits after three, it has now dropped to $18.75 or $21.25. In other words, each time people such as cancer sufferers go to a physician, they have to find $30 of their own money because the Minister is trying to save some money by bluffing the doctors into taking a drop in their remuneration. That, too, was recorded in the Senate Estimates Hansard, when one of the departmental officials said that that was the intention. It just so happened that the Minister has failed-and ordinary Australians are hurt. Originally the rebate for lens extraction required by people suffering from cataracts-people who happen not to be able to see, and are nearly blind-was $650. Therefore, they had very little to pay themselves. But the rebate for this procedure has been dropped to $337.50. The rebate for a lens insertion, which usually goes with such treatment, has been dropped from $345 to $187.50. Therefore, for a $995 operation the patient has to find $470. These people are elderly, they are pensioners, and they have not got that sort of money. I refer to obstetrics-the business of having babies-because this Government claims to have concerns for womanhood. The independent arbitrator, the Layton Medicare Benefits Review Committee, set down a flat fee of $700 for that. The Government decided to make it $410. The obstetricians decided on $650 to $800. Therefore, the patient again is paying between $240 and $390. It is a crying shame that the Minister has not been able to do anything about this. He knows about it. He has received letters such as the one I read to him. He has ignored the situation and has not done anything to correct those unintended consequences. Of course, he must take the blame. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(3.17) —Of course it is easy to embark on destructive criticisms of health schemes in this country. However, what we have to point out is that the Opposition has now had five years in opposition and has not yet produced an agreed alternative to Medicare. It is easy to be destructive but the Opposition has proven over five years that it has a complete inability to be constructive. In fact, the Opposition has now had as many schemes in opposition as it had in government. One by one, each of those schemes has been rejected. The Opposition forgets entirely that before this Government came to power two million Australians were without full and proper health cover. In the years of opposition it has shifted from one health policy to another and, in fact, has had no alternative to the Medicare scheme. All it can do is to embark on destructive criticism. In fact, in 1984 the Opposition went to the election with three health schemes. Last year, the Opposition had two more such schemes. Now I am told that the scheme the Opposition went to the people with in July has simply been dumped. Certainly it was rejected by the Australian people, who endorsed Medicare for a third time. That seems to have led the Opposition to abandon its last scheme. Of course, that last scheme had very little concern for families. We have heard the Opposition talking now about individual problems in relations to the Medicare schedule. However, I remind honourable members what the Opposition offered to the Australian people in July. The Opposition proposed to have families and individuals still paying a Medicare levy and, in addition, paying for private insurance. However, it was proposed that people not get health cover until they had paid the first $250 of their bills unless, of course, they took out extra insurance to cover that. This came from the party that now weeps about about particular cases. Yet that was the kind of policy that the Opposition offered the Australian people at the last election. I am not surprised that the Opposition, having thought up the policy in three weeks, has dumped it in about four weeks. Even the latest efforts of the Opposition in terms of a health policy-I do not call it any more than that-contained elements of that policy to which I have referred. It came from the Opposition health spokesman, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), when he gathered with his surgeon mates at a conference of the Australian Association of Surgeons. Very quickly indeed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) brought him into line. I will have a little more to say in a moment about the alternative that he offered at that stage which, very quickly, had the Leader of the Opposition dressing him down. Let me now refer to the decision we had to make about the Medicare benefit schedule in the May economic statement and the other decisions we have made. The honourable member for O'Connor said, `Let us talk about the problems in a serious and reasonable way'. As he rightly pointed out, health is one of the major elements of the Commonwealth Budget. This country has been facing major economic challenges which have required us to restructure this economy and to look very carefully at Government spending. Health is an integral part of that Budget. I believe that health costs, along with all the other elements of our budgetary policy, had to be examined and restrained in order that this country could deal with its economic problems. It is not possible to discuss the health issues of this country, as the honourable member for O'Connor did, without any reference to the economic challenges this country faces. Therefore, I acknowledged in the May statement that we would have to make some tough decisions in relation to the health budget. However, we were determined that they would be carefully targeted and that they would be appropriate decisions. What we did was to target particular areas of concern in the medical benefits schedule in ways that should encourage good medical practice and more accurately reflect the cost of those services. They were the two things we were trying to do. The first was based on economic considerations and was designed to reflect accurately the cost of the services, and the second was designed to encourage good medical practice. In addition, we sought to remove from that schedule some potential financial incentives for abuse of some services. We were concerned, and any serious politician would have been concerned, that services provided under some parts of the schedule were over-rewarded by inappropriately high fees. We needed also to make adjustments to those fees to reflect the changing nature of medical practice or the reduced cost of services due to the introduction of high technology. Can the Opposition not acknowledge that over the past 15 or 20 years very significant changes have occurred in medical technology which have transformed a number of medical procedures and processes? It was only fair and just that some of those matters be looked at. Again, the change we made in May in reducing to 75 per cent the rebate of schedule fee for in-hospital services was seen as the fairest and most sensitive way of achieving savings without causing widespread disruption and hardship. That change did not cause such hardships because the gap payments for those in-hospital services are covered by medical insurance. They are the only medical services in hospitals that are covered by this gap payments proposal. Therefore, patients were faced with no direct additional cost and only a minimal increase in health contribution rates as a result of that change. So the whole May budgetary process gave recognition to the fact that we had to have economic restraint and that the relevant areas had to be targeted in the most responsible and fairest way. As I say, the Government determined on two major things it wanted to do. It wanted to effect some changes to the medical benefits schedule. Those changes produced a saving of $121m. At the same time we provided for an increase across the board in all fees, which cost the Government $151m. We were saying to one of the wealthiest professions in this country that we wanted it to show some of the restraint that ordinary working people in this country were asked to show. We asked it to show restraint in specific areas where we believed there was justification for modifying the schedule. I shall deal with those areas, some of which the honourable member for O'Connor referred to in particular. The first was the area of consultant physicians. I point out that the decisions we made in this area received strong support from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It is true, as I have acknowledged in this House, that the consultant physicians and patient groups have approached the Government with suggestions about how further changes to the schedule could improve the whole structure of consultant physician fees but at the same time achieve the Government's budgetary restraints. The physicians have put to government proposals that meet these objectives and the physicians' desire to modify the new fee structure. I hope that later this week I will be able to make a formal announcement about those new arrangements, which are the result of the Government's willingness to discuss proposed changes with the affected elements of the medical profession. The argument is not whether a patient should have more than three visits to the consultant physician but the cost of many of those later visits. Again, responsible consultant physicians admit that there are many minor consultations throughout the process of treating illnesses, particularly long term and chronic illnesses, and that there are appropriate arguments for a reduction in the fees charged to long term patients. Though the consultant physicians are paid a very high fee for that first consultation-it is more than five times that paid to a general practitioner for a consultation-and substantial second and third consultation fees, all that the Government is saying is that it believes, and I think all thinking people in the profession would agree, that there is a strong case for arguing that many of the later consultations should be charged for at a somewhat lower rate. I turn to the eye surgery issue that was raised by the honourable member for O'Connor. Of all the services within the schedule affected by the May economic statement, cataract surgery was clearly the most overrewarded. The previous fee for cataract removal and lens insertion-and these were performed in a single operation-was $820 when both were done together, as they were done most of the time. Usually the operating time was less than an hour. Of course, this fee was structured in the 1970s when patients were treated on an in-patient basis and required a good deal of after-care, so that had to be built into the fee. Today, operations are often performed on a same day basis. Changed technology in the form of finer needles and biodegradable sutures means patients require far less after-care. Computer figures for some of these operations show that some eye surgeons were performing several of these eye operations on the same day in addition to many other consultative services. Medicare earnings for some eye surgeons had been in excess of $5,000 a day. There is no doubt that because of the technological changes that have taken place, this particular operation was very much overrewarded. The new fees-$450 for lens extraction and $250 for lens insertion-seemed to us appropriate for operations which together usually take less than one hour to perform. It is true that many of these operations are performed on elderly pensioners. The threats by ophthalmologists to cease bulk billing and to continue to charge the old fee condemn that group of surgeons and reflect poorly on the profession as a whole. We are saying that the medical profession, particularly these very high earners in the medical profession, should bear their share of the restraint we are asking of working people and we have asked of pensioners. Yet, when we ask it of people like eye surgeons, these are the kinds of responses we get. The other major elements in the changes were the warts and keratoses changes. The honourable member for O'Connor, in this place and elsewhere, has been particularly alarmist and irresponsible in the campaign he has run about these changes. Despite his attempt to claim the contrary, the cost of treatment of pre-malignant keratoses-potentially cancerous skin lesions-is still covered by Medicare. It is quite untrue to run around the country saying that treatment is not covered by Medicare. The difference is that since 1 August the specific items for the removal of warts and keratoses have been deleted from the schedule because of the concern about the rapid increase in utilisation. In fact, during the past two financial years there has been an increase in utilisation of these elements of the schedule of 45 per cent. That is an enormous outburst of operations in this area. Again, one of the reasons for that is that technology has changed dramatically. Now, just like most other minor procedures, removals will be covered by consultations at either general practitioner or specialist rates. Seventy-five per cent of removals of warts and keratoses are performed by General Practitioners and will be at GP consultation rates. If it is done by a specialist dermatologist it will be at specialist rates. That provides adequate and appropriate remuneration. As I said, the removal of warts and keratoses was previously a time consuming and difficult task performed mainly by specialists. It is now much less so. Three-quarters of these operations are performed by GPs and the time taken is very much less than it was in the past. I point out of course that items for skin cancers remain in the schedule. I take a specific point made by the honourable member for O'Connor and that is the question of anal and genital warts. We are having discussions with the profession about that element of the changes. Finally, let me say a little about the usual argument we get about waiting lists in public hospitals being due to Medicare. I have pointed out time and again that there is very little substance to that argument. For one thing, private hospital occupancy rates are now very much the same as they have been for the past 10 or 15 years. If the honourable member looks at the figures he will find there has been very little decline in occupancy rates. What decline there has been in some ways is a credit to the private hospitals because they are also becoming much more efficient in their turnover of patients and so their occupancy days have been marginally reduced. But the interesting thing is that the 60 per cent figure, which the honourable member for O'Connor quoted, is a figure which has been pretty typical of private hospitals with only marginal variations over the last 10 or 15 years. But the sources of our problems in the public hospitals remain the shortage of nurses and some specialists and the improvement in technology means that so much more can be done today than could be done even five years ago-the classic example of that is the hip operations on old people, a rare operation in the early 1970s but now the most common surgical procedure on people over the age of 65. I also refer to the changed demand that has resulted from that and, one does not deny it, industrial difficulties particularly in the States with the most serious waiting list problems-New South Wales and Victoria. But, again, the Commonwealth and the State governments are taking specific responses to that particular problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(3.32) —I am very disappointed that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has spoken such drivel about what is probably one of the most important portfolios. I cannot believe that we do not have a Minister in this portfolio who shows some compassion and caring about the public in Australia. I wonder how many of these unintended consequences are, in fact, unintended and how many are intended. The Minister has talked to us today about targeted areas and appropriate decisions to encourage good medical practice. I ask: Is it good medical practice to abolish preventative care for skin cancer? Is it good medical practice to abolish after hours payments so that if a person is unfortunate enough to get sick after hours he has to wait until the next morning? Or is it good medical practice to not get oneself cared for by the specialist or the consultant in the field? Of course it is not. The Minister mentioned that there was no support from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. He forgot to mention in regard to the consultants' fees that the Royal College of Physicians, which is not a political body, probably had its strongest outcry ever about the disgraceful behaviour of the Department of Community Services and Health in this regard. The fact that he is now planning to change things surely indicates that he has admitted the error that he has made in this regard. Let us remember that the levy itself is just basically another tax. It is called a levy, but it is basically a tax. It raises another $2 billion. Again, I just point out in passing that it is part of the record taxation levels of this Government. The Minister mentioned savings. According to the Minister, these changes will save $116m each year. Let us just look at that. What are we talking about? We are talking about $116m extra in taxation paid for, not by the whole population-that would be bad enough-but by those who can least afford it, the sick. It is covered by health insurance, but who pays the health insurance premiums? Honourable members are right, it is the sick. What else has been happening to this levy and this Medicare of ours? Let us look at State health care grants. In 1982-83 the outlaid grant to the States overall was $1,449m. In 1986-87 it was $2,770m-an increase of 91 per cent. Does anybody here seriously think that our health delivery has improved by 91 per cent or indeed improved at all? Of course it has not. We could break those figures down for New South Wales; they are the same. One of the causes for this is the enormous bureaucracy of Medicare. In the first 12 months of Medicare alone, Medicare staff increased from 1,863 to 4,346, an increase of 2,483 staff. I ask honourable members to think just for a moment what 2,483 extra nurses would have done for our health system. What sort of health system do we actually have? Let us look at my own State of New South Wales. Let us look at the claims from our State Minister for Health, Mr Anderson. He claims that there are no waiting problems in New South Wales; there are no such things as waiting lists in New South Wales. Mr Donald Cameron —People die waiting in your State. Dr WOODS —I will come to that. They certainly do die in our State. This Government has quoted statistics in regard to Healthline. Healthline was set up mainly to deal with waiting list problems. If we do not have any waiting list problems, why do we have to set up a Healthline especially to deal with them? Of course, the answer is quite clear. The Government put out some publicity showing that, of the people who phoned the Healthline, about half had actually been waiting less than six months. What that means, of course, is that more than half have been waiting more than six months. If there really were no problem with waiting times in public hospitals in New South Wales the Healthline would just not be necessary. But this week Barrie Unsworth announced that the Healthline would become a permanent service. If the hospital service is so good, why on earth do we need a permanent Healthline service? The Minister glossed over the waiting lists. He tried to dismiss them as being irrelevant. Let us look at them a little more closely. We have had some data recently from St George Hospital in New South Wales. The waiting list for surgery alone was 936 patients. It does not include medicine and all the other non-surgical specialities. A total of 344 people had waited for more than 12 months. I refer to some data from the Royal North Shore Hospital. In terms of the cardiac unit, the average waiting time for so-called elective cardiac surgery-cardiac surgery is not the sort of thing one usually likes to wait for at all-is five to six months. Over the last year there was an average of 100 patients on the waiting list at any time. Five people have died this year at Royal North Shore Hospital awaiting either cardiac catheterisation or cardiac surgery. I refer to my own specialty of cancer medicine prior to entering Parliament. I will explain to the Minister, because I am sure he will not understand, that it is important when one is giving cancer chemotherapy to give it on time. A day or so can be crucial. If one waits and gives chemotherapy late, in the meantime the cancer starts to grow and when cancers grow it tends to be fairly fatal. In the last few months the average waiting time for routine chemotherapy at the Royal North Shore Hospital is one week and it has been up to two weeks in the last few weeks. That refers to chemotherapy which is given at three-week cycles. Thus we have people waiting for two weeks on a three-week cycle. I think it is absolutely appalling that we can tolerate this sort of behaviour. The Minister mentioned the fact that the empty private beds are not related to the waiting list. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has mentioned that there are 9,000 empty private beds. If they were utilised properly the waiting list problems would be solved at a single stroke. However, this Government will not put compassion above ideology. It sticks by the ideology that Medicare should not be allowed to be used in private hospitals. If it were, we could allow ordinary Medicare patients to use private beds, we could get rid of the waiting list in no time at all and we could resolve the problem pretty well immediately. But, of course, that is not possible. Ideology comes before compassion and caring for this particular Government. Let us look at psychiatric patients. In New South Wales in particular we have a major problem which is just beginning to develop as a result of the Richmond report. According to recent information put out by the Press and supported by the leader of the Public Medical Officers Association, 27 psychiatric patients who have been discharged from institutions in New South Wales, following the Richmond report recommendations that they be allocated to homes and half-way houses, have died in circumstances which would indicate that their deaths in the main may well be attributable to suicides. They include patients with chronic severe depression and a previous history of suicide attempts and other patients with poorly controlled schizophrenia. Some of the staff at Peat Island over the last week have shown enormous concern about discharging some of their patients who apparently attack staff, attack each other, expose themselves and break windows and who have formed liaisons outside Peat Island with 13-year-old girls. These are the sorts of people that the New South Wales Health Department is planning to send out into our community. For their own good, as well as for the good of the community, they need to be cared for in a secure and safe environment. There are aspects of the Richmond report which are worth implementing, but not wholesale as the Government in New South Wales is doing. The honourable member for O'Connor touched on preventative medicine in terms of keratoses. I cannot believe this Government which paid lip service during the election campaign to preventative medicine, particularly in relation to breast cancer and cervical cancer. As soon as the election is over the Minister attacks the most effective preventative medicine available in Australia, which is the removal of pre-cancerous skin lesions. Sure, a patient can get them removed, but he cannot get them removed by an expert. If he does, he does not get rebated for it. Where is the incentive to encourage the removal of these pre-cancerous lesions? So much for preventative medicine. Let us look back a little to May, before we had the problems we now face, before the Argentinean road came along and while we were just an ordinary banana republic, if honourable members can remember. As always happens, this Government took more from us in May and gave us back less. As we have heard, it reduced the Medicare rebate but, more importantly, and the Minister did not mention this, the Government has reduced the maximum gap of $20 which it had previously promised to retain. This means that if a person needs a coronary artery by-pass graft and he survives the waiting list, he may need to take out a bank loan because the gap between the recommended doctor's fee from the Australian Medical Association and the Medicare rebate is $728. Should a person be lucky enough to find somewhere to get his hip replaced-it is pretty difficult to find anywhere to get it done nowadays, one probably has more chance of winning the lottery-he has to find a gap which would amount to $538. Honourable members should bear in mind the age group we are looking at. We are looking at the 60 plus age group and we are looking, as always, at this Government attacking the poor, the needy and the defenceless. The cataract problem reflects the same age group. It may well be okay, if eye specialists actually have all the new equipment, to charge a lesser fee. But in regard to those eye specialists who do not have that extra equipment the Government is trying to push them out of their business, which is caring for the elderly in our society. The Government clearly does not believe that people should be looked after by specialists; it believes that people should be looked after by ordinary general practitioners. Many conditions can be looked after very well by general practitioners but the Government, which cares only about saving money, and cannot even do that decently, does not believe that there can be an ongoing medical problem that needs the care of a specialist and an expert. I mentioned at the commencement of this discussion the question of after hours consultations. It is bad enough if one gets sick between nine to five, but heaven help us if we get sick after hours, because the Government has removed the loading paid to doctors to work outside normal hours. This is probably the only situation in Australia in which people do not get paid for working extraordinary hours. I understand that bulk billing may have been a problem and the system is being misused by a minority of doctors. But if the system is being misused, surely one fixes the system. One does not destroy the system and destroy health care for needy people who just happen to be inconsiderate enough to get sick out of hours. This Government has effectively destroyed the principle of universality of health care. It has created two classes of Australians: the first class who are well-off financially and have immediate access to private hospitals and an unlimited capacity for long term specialist care; and a second class, those on pensions, fixed incomes and low wages who are compelled to wait, sometimes for years, in queues for elective surgery. In a civilised community, the health of individuals should never be forced to depend upon the size of pockets or purse. Health care should be available to everyone, regardless of means, and without significant delays. I urge this Government strongly to stop making promises and to start caring about the people of Australia. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.42) —I find it pretty galling that members of the Opposition get up in this place and attack the Government on its health policies when they do not have one of their own. I have some sympathy for the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) who had to get up and talk about the medical profession rather than about health policy. He talked about the increases in Medicare personnel and he has shown, in his first couple of weeks in this place, that he can use statistics. Of course, he did not mention that 2,000 staff from private health funds have gone over to Medicare. He neglected to mention that the same amount of work was being done by the same number of people. He also said that if we could just shift that huge waiting list over to the private hospitals we would solve the problem. We would not solve the problem because there are not enough nurses to look after the patients who would flood into private hospitals. But he did not mention that. I had some sympathy for the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) when he first got up to speak today because all his colleagues on the back bench kept talking over him. He actually had to turn around and ask them to stop talking and to listen to what he was saying. Mr Peter Fisher —You have not got any, George. Mr GEAR —That is better than his situation. He actually had to say, `Thank you. Would you please keep quiet so that I can talk on the matter of public importance.' That just shows what honourable members opposite think of the Opposition's health policy. The honourable member for O'Connor also talked about excessive hospital bills. He never talked about excessive specialists' charges. He thinks it is okay for people in private practice to charge, in many cases, what they want. He also did not mention in relation to excessive charges that, under any health system, one could never insure above the schedule fee. I have recently brought this to the attention of the public and I will be doing so again. I believe that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) adequately covered the specifics of the matter of public importance and I do not want to elaborate on that. Yet another attack has been made on Medicare. This is all that we have had from the Opposition; we have had no positive response from it and no clear signal on where it would go. All that members of the Opposition can do is attack Medicare. Medicare is the fairest health insurance system that this country has ever had. I suppose in that respect the Opposition is being consistent because it has always opposed any decency and fairness that we have tried to put into the taxation system, the retirement income area, industrial policy or any other policy that we have addressed. I suppose that its position on tax stands out more than its position on other matters. But certainly, on the question of health members of the Opposition have opposed Medicare from day one, usually on ideological grounds, and we cannot pin them down on specifics. In fact, according to an article from the Australian Doctor, the honourable member for O'Connor ironed out a health policy; he prefers free market forces and he would walk away from the community rating principle. That is the sort of thing we are getting from the Opposition; we are getting nothing constructive. The honourable member for Lowe touched briefly on the philosophy of Medicare, even though he did not acknowledge it as such. That philosophy is that medical services should be provided on the basis of need and not on the size of one's bank balance. It is not a question of a person's ability to pay. The levies that go towards Medicare should be based on a person's ability to pay and they are. It is a levy on income. Dr Blewett —But he wants them paid at AMA rates. Mr GEAR —As the Minister points out, the honourable member for Lowe wants to be paid at Australian Medical Association (AMA) rates. Yet, he is talking about fiscal responsibility. The Opposition is talking about cutting $11 billion off the Budget at the same time as talking about increasing, in many ways, the cost of health insurance and I will come to that in just a minute. The health policy of the honourable member for O'Connor reminds me a lot of car insurance-the free market forces where everybody pays the same rate if they can afford it. As the Minister pointed out, under the previous health system over two million Australians just could not afford health insurance. They were in limbo. People on low incomes could not get benefits and they were not affluent enough to afford health insurance. I do not think the principle of car insurance is good enough and Medicare certainly does not embrace that principle. As I have said, it is the fairest system we have. Let us look at health costs in macro terms. The statistics that I have cover the period from 1975 to 1986 and are expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. The figures in the United State of America went from 8.6 per cent in 1975 to 11 per cent in 1986. In Canada, over the same period, the statistics went from 7.4 per cent to 8.4 per cent. The figure for Australia has actually gone down from 7.6 per cent to 7.5 per cent. In 1983 the figure for the United Kingdom, which has a total national health service, was 6.2 per cent. It is always interesting for those people who follow ideology to note that Margaret Thatcher has not touched the health insurance system in the United Kingdom. I will not make any comment other than that. But it seems to me that people driven by ideology would think that she might start espousing the sorts of policies espoused by the honourable member for O'Connor in a speech that was widely reported. The simple fact is that Medicare is the most efficient system in macro terms-the actual cost to the community of maintaining health schemes. Utilisation is another way in which we can measure Medicare. The rate of increase in terms of utilisation certainly went down in 1986 and is continuing to go down in 1987. When we first introduced Medicare the rate of increase went up slightly initially. But that rate is now dropping, which leads us to believe that the rubbish that is sometimes put out about Medicare increasing the number of services is totally wrong. In actual fact, the number of services has gone down under Medicare. Another benefit of Medicare is that all health insurance claims now go through the same computer. Up until quite recently over 130 different health insurance companies supplied statistics to the Health Insurance Commission or to the former Department of Health. However, those statistics were so fragmented that they were very hard to use in any meaningful way. For the first time ever we have accurate figures that make it possible for us to sit down and actually plan how we run our health system in this country. Many of the changes in the May statement that the Minister talked about were a direct result of having accurate statistics. With accurate statistics we can look at overservicing, whether it happens on an individual basis or throughout a speciality service within the medical area. Accurate statistics also make medical research and the delivery of medical services a lot simpler and much more efficient. The AMA did not appreciate the fact that I was able to tell it how much it earned. But this is another statistic that we were able to put out to show that doctors are not really travelling all that badly when we compare them with the rest of the community. I join the Minister in saying that some members of the medical profession-not all of them, as I think most of them accept their duties responsibly-are ripping off the system and are paying no real heed to the way in which Australia is trying to restructure itself by asking for restraint. Let us have a look at the community's acceptance of Medicare and what the community actually thinks of it. As the Minister said, we were returned at the last election for a third time after going to the people on a platform that included Medicare. The 1986-87 report of the Health Insurance Commission, in commenting on the results of a survey that it undertook, stated: The results show that community support for the Medicare program has grown by 3 per cent to 64 per cent with only 15 per cent believing that it should be abolished. There is an amazing approval rate. It goes on: As illustrated in figure 18- which I cannot incorporate- overall customer satisfaction with Medicare claims payment service has grown to a quite remarkable 94 per cent, a level that is virtually constant across all States. The main reason given by those satisfied were the efficiency with which claims are handled, the fast service and prompt payment, the helpful staff and simple straightforward procedures. Medicare is widely accepted in the community. The longer this Government stays in power the more acceptance it will attract. Not only has Medicare always been accepted by patients but also it has always been opposed by some sections of the AMA. The recent call by Mr Bruce Shepherd for the schedule fee to rise to $30 is outrageous and is certainly not in the best interests of patients. Medicare is there for patients, not for doctors. From my dealings with the AMA it seems to me that it is more interested in how the system treats that doctors than in how the system treats the patients. I have a few letters here which show the way in which some doctors responded when we made the changes. One letter, which was sent out with a patient's bill, states: Regrettably the gap you have to pay between my account and your Medicare refund has increased. The reason is that on August 1 many Medicare benefits items were reduced and some were abolished. Remaining benefits have not kept pace with inflation. If you feel strongly about this change I suggest that you complain to your member of parliament that Medicare benefits are failing to meet the promises this Government made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to India and Sri Lanka during November 1986 and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs DARLING —I am pleased to present the report by the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to India and Sri Lanka. The delegation visited India and Sri Lanka in November 1986. Our visit occurred at a time of considerable importance, both in the recent history of the region and of relations between India and Sri Lanka. Our visit also followed shortly after the initiation of a number of important advances in Australian-India relations which were initiated during a visit to Australia in October 1986 by the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. As a result of meetings between Mr Gandhi and the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a number of steps were taken both to develop further and rejuvenate the Australian-Indian relationship, notably in the areas of trade and commerce, culture, science and in areas of particular Australian expertise such as agricultural research and infrastructure development. The delegation's visit to India gave members the chance to seek views from senior government leaders, parliamentarians and people in industry on possible practical and effective ways of continuing and influencing the improvement and invigoration of Australian-Indian relations. In particular we were interested to see several innovative joint ventures between Australian and Indian business in Madras which could provide considerable potential economic benefits to Australian companies and beneficial technology transfer to India. The delegation was also able to explore the potential for improved Indian-Australian relations that are promised in business, scientific and cultural exchanges and contact between the Australian and Indian peoples. A point that visitors to India-particularly members of parliament-can always report on with admiration is the strength of Indian parliamentary institutions, both at the federal and state levels. The presiding officers of all parliaments we visited extended warm and open hospitality to us. The inevitable focus of the delegation's visit to India and Sri Lanka was the serious communal conflict which has developed in Sri Lanka since 1983 and the tragedy of the gentle and cultured Sri Lankan people which has worsened in recent times. The conflict, which centres on the position in Sri Lankan society of the Tamil community, has undermined the political stability and general security in large parts of the north and east of the island. Terrorism generated by the conflict has led to extremely damaging long term economic consequences for Sri Lanka, particularly for tourism and foreign investment. It has inevitably also led to great personal tragedy, dispossession and death to large numbers of the population in the areas directly affected by the conflict. The focus of much of the delegation's discussions with Ministers, officials and interested groups in Sri Lanka was, therefore, on the conflict, on its possible future course and on details of the initiatives proposed by the Government of Sri Lanka during 1986 to bring about a settlement of the conflict and eventual reconciliation of the Sri Lankan ethnic communities. A consequence of the conflict has been the establishment by Tamil separatist groups of guerrilla training camps in Tamil Nadu, the Indian state in closest proximity to Sri Lanka. The severe security and social problems, including the presence of large numbers of refugees which resulted from this situation, both for the Indian central Government and the state Government of Tamil Nadu, led to the Indian Government and in particular the Prime Minister-taking an active mediating role and proposing a number of actions directed at resolving the conflict. Several such initiatives were taken by Indian and Sri Lankan leaders at the November 1986 meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation which took place during the delegation's visit to India. The delegation had particularly hoped and anticipated that it would be able to hold discussions with Mr Gandhi or other senior Ministers of his Government on these developments, from the Indian perspective. It was disappointing for the delegation that this opportunity did not arise due to the Prime Minister's personal involvement in attempts made at the time of our visit-which unfortunately failed-to promote an agreement on peaceful resolution of the Sri Lankan communal conflict. We were able to hold detailed and very frank talks with President Jayewardene of Sir Lanka and Foreign Minister Hameed and to canvass opinions from other Sri Lankan leaders and concerned groups and individuals. All members of the delegation were particularly pleased at the amount of time given to us, and the extent and depth of the discussions we had, while we were in Colombo. We also were able to put forward concerns of the International Committee of the Red Cross and its inability to gain access to areas of conflict and also of Amnesty International's list of disappearances which Ministers, including Minister Lalith Athulathmadali, promised to take on board and follow through. To a certain extent this has been done. As all honourable members are aware the Sri Lankan communal conflict has severely deteriorated in 1987. The Indian-Sri Lankan peace accord which was signed in July had led to open warfare between the militant Tamil separatist groups and the Indian armed forces that have been deployed in Sri Lankan under the accord. The current situation in Sri Lanka is a most tragic and disturbing one. No visitor to Sri Lanka has failed to be impressed and entranced by the beauty of the country and of its people. It adds to the sense of the tragedy of that small nation. A major offshoot of our discussions with Sinhalese Tamils and Moslems in the government and non-government sectors in Sri Lanka was an awareness of the perceived growth of terrorism in Sri Lanka as a factor detracting from the potential for a peaceful settlement. Certainly, the problem of historical enmity and shortsightedness by the Sinhalese communities since Sri Lanka independence led to a sense of political powerlessness and frustration in the Tamil community. Time and again members were assailed by expressions of concern that what may have been and presumably did start out as a reactionary militancy born of oppression had now become an oppressive and self-perpetuating element in prolonging war. This was a viewpoint put to us by members of both Tamil and Sinhalese communities. Sri Lanka is undoubtedly war-weary. People are being killed. They live in fear. They want peace. These factors blur the factional edges. One thing is clear: Sri Lanka needs answers, not ideological posturing. The situation we have witnessed since 1983, particularly over the last year, has resulted from polarisation of the Sri Lankan community, a polarisation which as lead to the breakdown of the civil life in the country. I should stress that of course the delegation does not and would not condone or support the use of terrorist violence to achieve political ends. This point was made by delegation members continually in discussions held on our visit. An area of Australian activity in the region on which I particularly wanted to gain first-hand information was Australian voluntary aid and community development aid. India and Sri Lanka have historically received contributions of governmental aid from Australia, which has now been considerably reduced. Australia's contributions of aid and assistance from voluntary sources, particularly from Community Aid Abroad and World Vision, are of particular importance in the provision of such aid and its direction to the most potentially productive and needy areas was a matter the delegation was able to examine at first hand. I would say that all members were involved in these discussions but Senator Richard Alston in particular followed through with me on this particular interest. We were impressed by the number of non-government organisations and the excellent way in which they worked together with the Australian High Commission. Anne Leach of the Australian High Commission, in the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, knows the non-governmental sector like the back of her hand and most certainly is making the best possible use of Australian funding that is going into the discretionary fund in Colombo. In a country which most definately requires that aid we were impressed by the way in which the two sectors worked together. I express the thanks of the delegation for the hospitality shown by Speaker Jakhar of the Lok Sabha and Speaker Senanayake of the Sri Lankan Parliament. I also thank the Australian High Commissioner to India, Mr Graham Feakes, the Australian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Mr Bob Cotton, the Australian Consul-General in Bombay, Mr Graham Hawker, and the staffs of the Australian High Commissions in New Delhi and Colombo, for their assistance, guidance and support during the visit. Our understanding and perception of the complex bilaterial and domestic issues faced by both India and Sri Lanka and of Australia's role in the region was greatly assisted and improved by the briefings, advice and information provided. I express particular thanks for the valuable assistance provided by Ian Wille of the High Commission, New Delhi, who travelled with the delegation in India, and Pat Hardy and Anne Leach of the High Commission in Colombo. It is a valuable and important experience for members of parliament to gain first-hand knowledge of the activities and difficulties associated with Australian diplomatic posts. Such opportunities allow members better to assess the effectiveness of our representation and to report on their observations to the Parliament. Australia's missions in India and Sri Lanka have a very large brief indeed which they discharge with energy and professionalism-often in very difficult circumstances. The delegation was able to assess the work of Australia's diplomatic missions in both countries and has commented on several areas of activity, particularly immigration and trade, in the report. In finishing this tabling statement I want to refer particularly to the deputy leader of the delegation, who is now in the chamber, the honourable member for Cook, the Hon. Don Dobie. I would also like to thank all other members-Senator Richard Alston; the Hon. Peter Duncan, the honourable member for Makin and now a Minister in this House; Mr Peter Fisher, the honourable member for Mallee; and Mr Roger Price, the honourable member for Chifley-for their enthusiasm and energy and the co-operation they displayed during this visit so that we were able to cut across political and other divisions and to move as a unit as we met other parliamentarians, and, more particularly, in contact with the real living conditions of the people within India and Sri Lanka. Also, the spouses of some of the delegates added to the interest and the comfort of our discussions. I would particularly thank Mrs Fisher, Mrs Duncan and my husband, Bob, who were able to travel with us. Particular thanks must go to the Secretary to the delegation, Mr Andrew Snedden, for his hard work in smoothing the delegation's way. Above all I wish to register the warm gratitude of the delegation to the Indian and the Sri Lankan governments. Certainly, as far as the delegation was concerned, it was an exercise well worth while. We feel very strongly that the role that the Indian Government is now playing in trying to ensure that the underlying and growing bitterness that shadows the lives of people in a country with such great potential in our regional area should not be allowed to consolidate. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —by leave-I endorse the remarks made by the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). It was a good visit; it was successful in that it maintained contacts with these two very important countries. I was one of those who had tried to have the dates of the visit changed so that it fitted more comfortably with our sitting dates last year. We could not quite work out why this did not come to pass until we discovered that Mr Gorbachev and his planeloads of advisers were due to arrive a week after we did. Of course, this did have something to do with the non-availability of certain Indian Ministers for our discussion purposes. Nonetheless, it was useful and we have to pay particular tribute to two men in India-High Commissioner Feakes and Deputy High Commissioner Ian Wille, who I am pleased to note in the last week or two has himself been made a head of mission within the diplomatic service. He will serve our country very well in the new country which he is visiting. The tragedy of the Tamil problem totally influenced everything we thought of the whole visit because it is impossible to think of the Tamil tragedy without also thinking of India's involvement in it. Since our visit we have seen the arrival of 15,000 Indian troops to try to `contain'-I think that is the diplomatic word-the Tamil guerrillas. But while we were in the state of Tamil Nadu, with its capital Madras, we were made very much aware of the role that is played within that state in the country of India with succour and assistance being given to many sections of the Tamil guerrilla forces. I believe the Indian Government is very disturbed by it and I believe the action taken by Prime Minister Gandhi is significant in that it displays the concern he too must be sharing as to why this revolt in the north of Sri Lanka, only a handful of miles away from India across the sea, should have been receiving such assistance, which I observed while I was there. It was interesting that while the delegation was in Madras an edict came out ordering the giving up of arms by the Tamil camps in Madras. It was withdrawn three days after our departure. I do not want to take the time of the House to discuss the Tamil problem, except to say that there are vast differences of opinion in the Tamil population in Australia as to what the role should be in that country. If our visit has meant one thing, I hope that it is making the issue of the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka the cause of some public discussion and debate and not merely the outpourings of publicity and propaganda from one section of the Tamil population in Australia. I know of the great distress of my own Sri Lankan friends in Sydney, who happen to be Tamils, about the large amount of disinformation which is being spread among our community. However, as I have said, this is not the time to open a debate on that subject. We did not have the problem of Secretary-General Gorbachev visiting Sri Lanka so our visit to Sri Lanka was a totally different affair. The availability of Ministers, heads of departments, local authorities and community aid leaders was speedy and readily available and we enjoyed a frankness which was very stimulating. I pay a tribute to High Commissioner Bob Cotton for his deep involvement in our visit and the energy he displayed in making certain that we saw those whom we wished to see. The Minister for National Security, whose name I cannot say with the same ease as the leader of the delegation did-Lalith Athulathmudali-displayed a remarkable sympathy when the leader placed before him on behalf of Amnesty International in this Parliament the names of people who we believed were missing. He was frank and open. It is very interesting, and I think that the Parliament should be made aware of it, that subsequently he visited Australia and met with Amnesty International in this Parliament and the delegation. A very frank and open discussion took place in this building. That was a direct result of our visit to this country. I also pay tribute to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Speaker Jakhar, and Speaker Senanayake in Sri Lanka. We would not be doing the visit to Sri Lanka justice if we did not talk of the Speaker's pet elephant and the role the pet elephant played in our visit to the Speaker's home. If anything achieved goodwill between that country and ours, it was our becoming friendly with his little pet elephant. I will have no remarks made from this side of the House that there were reasons why I found such a common bond, but be that as it may. This was added to by the fact that Speaker Senanayake has led a delegation of Sri Lankan parliamentarians including Dr Bandaranaike, the Opposition Leader, to Australia. They have been to Australia since our visit. The ground has been set for a continuation of good relationships between Australia and those two Indian Ocean countries. Coming from the west, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be very much aware of the reality of Indian Ocean politics. It behoves this Parliament to be much more conscious of what is happening in our neighbouring countries which share the Indian Ocean. Western Australian businessmen have already taken the lead in Madras. It was our pleasure to be at the port-I am not quite sure what the function turned out to be, but at any rate it was the launching of something-which showed the degree to which those Western Australian businessmen have made contact and are going forward with joint ventures in India. It is obvious that there is tremendous opportunity for further joint ventures to be undertaken. The other point I wish to make-I made it while I was there-is that it is a shame that more of the international carriers to Australia do not stop in Colombo on the way to Australia rather than other Asian ports. Of course, the Tamil problem frightens many tourists, and well it might, but I put it to some of our carriers that they should be thinking of dropping into Colombo. If that happens relationships will improve. I have visited Sri Lanka three times. The first was in 1953 on my way to Britain. In those days the first foreign port of call for every Australian who travelled to Europe was Colombo. The significance of that has always been that, to my generation, Sri Lanka has had a greater importance in our thinking than it has to later generations. It has to do with the fact that our first experience of different languages and situations was always in Colombo. My second visit was as a member of a parliamentary delegation in 1968. Therefore, my recent visit showed with great clarity the tremendous material advance that that country has made with regard to the provision of facilities as well as the sheer appearance of Colombo as a city. Its tourist facilities are second to none. One hopes that it will be rewarded in the time ahead by, firstly, peace in that country and, secondly, an increasing tourist trade. A member of my family flies with Air Lanka so I have an above average interest in the country. Members of the delegation came back hurt by the problems in Sri Lanka. One cannot go to such a peaceful place and see and hear of war every day without coming back distressed at what is happening to such a lovely country. Although Sri Lanka is different from Australia and the colour of the skin and the traditions of the people are different from those in our country, their whole society also has a very large British element in it. Their courts, parliaments and law enforcement are based on British law, government and law enforcement. Therefore, it is distressing to find that those very institutions are being challenged by the Tamil uprising. I wish the Sri Lanka Government strength in what it is about. I wish it progress in its peace talks. I hope that it will not be so long before another parliamentary delegation visits that country. I pay a tribute to the leader and my colleagues on the trip. We had an enjoyable time. At one stage we all fell victim to a complaint which, in India, I cannot call Montezuma's revenge. Mr Millar —Delhi belly. Mr DOBIE —One of my fellow deputy chairmen assists me. Perhaps it is the correct description. We were all sick for the required two or three days, but that made no difference to an enjoyable, very action packed and tremendously busy program. In conclusion, I thank the official from the Indian Foreign Affairs Department who travelled with us. I think that we took 10 years off his life with our disregard for time and schedules. My greatest interest was visiting the museum of modern art in Delhi. I recommend to all Australian visitors to Delhi that they go to that outstanding art gallery. I was pleased to take my fellow delegates along to it, as it was not on our program. I am pleased to say that the State Department has now decided that a visit will be included in all future parliamentary visits, wherever the delegations come from. That is my tourist push in that respect. I thank the Parliament for the opportunity of speaking at this time and I thank the delegates for what was a good trip. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —by leave-I want to make a few brief remarks. First, I would like to endorse the remarks of the leader and deputy leader of the delegation. As a first trip for me, it afforded an interesting opportunity to get to know a little better not only Government members but also some of the Opposition members. A feature of the trip was the outstanding hospitality afforded to us, and the kindness shown by the governments of India and Sri Lanka. I was particularly interested in going on this trip because I think Australia's future resides in south Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific region. For that reason, I sought nomination for the trip and I feel thoroughly rewarded for having made it. It is now some 12 months since we made the trip, and it is difficult to give the flavour of that time. However, I want to make a couple of points about each country. We have already talked about the communal violence in Sri Lanka, and at Madras I had the opportunity to meet with each of the Tamil militant groups-unofficially, of course-such as the Tigers, the Tamil United Liberation Front and the People's Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam, and that formed an indispensable background to going there. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) has already commented about the access that we had to the Ministers and the Government in Colombo and, for a backbencher, it was not only kind but a little flattering to have the benefit of such frank and free discussion. At the time there was a debate within the Government as to whether it would opt for a military solution or continue negotiations. I think every member of the delegation came back with the view that there were real prospects for peace. Unfortunately, that was not realised: a military option was exercised. And then there was the intervention of India. One of the interesting things about talking to both the Government in Colombo and the militants was, at that time, they both appeared to underestimate the role and authority that India could bring to bear, I hope and believe, for peaceful purposes. I am not claiming the benefit of hindsight in this. I note that the peacekeeping force sent by India, with the agreement of the government at Colombo, is now in the northern provinces. If one talks about the communal violence in Sri Lanka, one runs the risk of alienating not only the Tamils but also the Sinhalese. I am pleased that India has sent those troops. It was an outstanding act of courage by the President of Sri Lanka to have negotiated that accord. I say to Tamil and Sinhalese friends in both Australia and Sri Lanka that this affords us the best prospects for peace, and I hope that process will continue. It is a magnificent country, and a people deserving of peace. I have supported the role of both governments in this accord. Initially the militants, particularly the Tigers, were reluctant to accept the Indian presence but I believe that that has now changed and I hope that, in the future, we shall be able to visit Jaffna and a country at peace. When we visited Colombo, we discussed the impact of war, which was visible from the security aspect. The communal violence is typical of what is happening overseas where there is selective presentation of the news and where people and international bodies like the Red Cross and the media are kept out. The media play a tremendously important role when they are given access, in terms of bringing the horrors of war and communal violence to everyone, whether they be in that or any country. One of the things that interested me in India was immigration, as, like every member of parliament, I often deal with immigration. I was pleased to see the High Commission at Delhi. Just for the record, let me say that it operates in the most appalling of conditions. What Indians who wish to migrate to this country have to suffer in terms of the space available to them to be interviewed in is absolutely disgusting. I say that as a reflection not on the Embassy staff but on those who fund those facilities. It is an opportune time to suggest that the FitzGerald Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policy have a look at some of the factors affecting countries such as India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. I have no evidence about this, but I think that we should confront the issue as to whether or not non-Australian officials working on migration matters are in receipt of bribes. There must be an inquiry-and if it is not FitzGerald, it must be someone else-that allows people to come forward and either put that to rest or expose it, whatever is the case. We ought to be honest to those who want to migrate to Australia from those countries, and tell them that there are departmental targets. It is rubbish to say that anyone who wishes to migrate has to satisfy only a points system. That is just so much hocus-pocus. We ought to have the integrity and honesty to admit that there are targets. In addition, people from India and other countries suffer because, for example, tertiary qualifications are often not recognised in Australia. If they are not recognised in Australia there is no allowance so that they can upgrade their qualifications in terms of the allocation of points. When they migrate they also suffer again under the professional, technical and trade skills area, so they cop a double whammy because they can only claim matriculation not professional or technical status. If they happen to be in an occupation that has recognised shortages, because of the lack of recognition of their skills, they cop a triple whammy. The FitzGerald inquiry ought to address those issues honestly and sincerely. The physical conditions of the immigration section in India are appalling. For example, the manipulating of files under a manual system is absolutely crazy in this day and age. We have to provide a better method of doing that. Every member of the delegation, at every point at which we stopped, was approached about migration issues. I am sure that both the leader and the deputy leader were; and certainly I was. One of the things that I resent about the current method by which we handle migration is the fact that we put the onus on the person who wants to come out here to come up to counters at our embassies and high commissions and assert his right to information from the same people who will ultimately assess him for suitability to migrate. To think that one has an equality or an ability to do that is very naive. That is another thing at which the FitzGerald inquiry should look. As both previous speakers have mentioned, there are tremendous trade opportunities for Australian companies, and we were privileged to go around and see a few of them. If Australia is to maximise its potential in countries like India or Sri Lanka, there is no doubt that we shall have to come up with better financing packages to back up the offers and opportunities for Australian companies. It is really disappointing to think that Australia might have the best product or the best expertise but that we cannot make the sale because some other country, although not competitive in terms of quality, is backed up by a government underwriting the loan at minimum interest rates. A number of people have been thanked. I wish to add my thanks. On behalf of everyone, I would also like to thank Andrew Snedden who accompanied us. I think that Andrew had a quick learning curve experience in meeting the various demands of everyone and trying to organise us all. However, he did an outstanding job and there is no doubt that without the benefit of the work that he put in the trip would not have been as successful. I think Australia has a long term interest in both of the countries that we visited. Like other members who have spoken, I hope that those ties strengthen and grow in the future and that there will be further opportunities for reciprocal visits between the countries by parliamentarians. I thank the House. Mr CROSS(Brisbane) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the Committee's report entitled the Management of Australia's Defence, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CROSS —by leave-I have pleasure in tabling a report of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Management of Australia's Defence. The report is in response to a reference by the Committee to its Defence Sub-Committee which was originally issued in the previous parliament and was subsequently renewed by the present Committee this year. It follows, and largely complements, the Committee's 1984 report on the Australian Defence Force: its structure and capabilities and, like its predecessor, will make a significant and constructive contribution to the defence debate in Australia. As its title implies, the report focuses on the higher defence organisation in Australia and examines whether the present organisational structure and policy processes are the most suitable for peace and war. It begins with a description of the existing arrangements and how they have evolved, and then examines the major criticisms that have been made both in this and earlier inquiries. Here, some of the issues include: The division of powers and responsibilities between the Secretary to the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF); political supervision and control of defence policy and activities; the overall integration of defence functions; the current staffing of the Defence Department and the Australian Defence Force (ADF); and problems associated with planning, programming and budgeting in Defence, and with the equipment acquisition process. Additionally, a major section of the report deals with the command and control of the Australian Defence Force, with particular reference to: The evolution of, and problems associated with, the existing operational command structure; the role and functions of headquarters ADF (HQADF); the role and functions of the joint force commanders and their commands; the single Service command structure; and the provision of collective military advice to the Minister and the CDF. The report ends with an overview of the implications for the defence establishment as a whole of the recommendations of the preceding chapters and a discussion of whether there are grounds for more substantive reforms. It concludes that there would be considerable advantages in establishing a fully unified higher defence organisation in Australia. While understandably concentrating on perceived organisational and managerial deficiencies, the report acknowledges that in recent years there has been considerable progress in some areas of the defence establishment. The 1987 defence White Paper, for example, represents a significant milestone in the formulation of a logical and coherent strategy for the defence of Australia and an appropriate basis on which to develop our Defence Force structure. Further, the adoption of a joint force operational command structure is both sensible and timely. Both the Department and the ADF have sought to rationalise and make more efficient many of their internal organisational and policy structures. In spite of this progress, the existing arrangements continue to exhibit a number of problems and deficiencies which serve to undermine the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the defence establishment. These are documented throughout the report and include: Continuing overlap in responsibilities and consequent potential conflict of interest between the Secretary and the CDF and between the CDF and the Service Chiefs of Staff; isolation of the Minister for Defence from the defence policy-making process, excessive spans of control for many senior managers and lack of sufficient means of reviewing or monitoring the defence establishment as a whole; inadequate involvement of the CDF and his joint staff in the development of defence guidance and the defence program; continuing imbalance between single Service and joint Service interests and perspectives; overstaffing and overranking within Russell Hill; an unduly complicated policy process; inadequate means of developing strategic and national security policies and continuing absence of basic defence guidance; and continuing tensions between civilians and military personnel at all levels within the establishment and breakdown of the `joint process'. Many of these problems and deficiencies were identified by earlier inquiries into the defence establishment. Some stem from the diarchic structure of the higher organisation which continues to separate the military and civilian staffs and thereby ensures that much of defence policy-making proceeds by a process of confrontation and bargaining rather than mutual co-operation and collaboration. The report makes a series of recommendations to help overcome or eliminate these problems and deficiencies and identifies a number of problem areas in which further study is required either by Defence itself or by an appropriate external review body. In making its recommendations, the primary objective has been to enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the higher defence organisations and their policy processes, while still ensuring the primacy of control of the Executive and the Parliament. In seeking to satisfy these objectives the report has sought first to clarify and redefine in a number of areas the basic roles and functions of the principal organisational interests within the defence establishment. The suggested changes affect the relationship between the CDF and the Secretary, and the respective roles and the functions of the joint staff and the Services. In the first case, the report proposes that the CDF be given prime responsibility for developing and issuing detailed defence guidance and preparing the annual defence program. In the Committee's view, the arrangements that have operated in the past have not worked satisfactorily and they have served to undermine the confidence of the military and others within Defence in the Force development process. More importantly, we believe, as a matter of principle, that the person who is to be responsible to the Government for the defence of Australia in times of emergency or war should, within the overall policy and resource constraints set by the Minister, have the major say in how the Defence Force and its supporting framework is developed and managed. The proposed realignment of responsibilities between the CDF and the Secretary is in line with changes that were recently made in the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and entails the transfer of the Force Development and Analysis Division and some other elements of Defence Central and the Service offices into HQADF. A further important change in this area is the proposed establishment of a defence guidance and capabilities committee which would be chaired by the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force and would take over the current functions of the Force Structure Committee and the Defence Operations Concepts and Capabilities Committee. This would simplify and streamline the Force development process and provide the potential for greater control of Force development by the joint staff. At the same time, proposals have been made which would strengthen the present process for preparing the broad strategic framework within which the defence must work, namely, through expanding the functions and roles of the Defence Committee and the Strategic and International Policy Division. In the second case, the current roles and responsibilities of the Services and their respective chiefs of staff would be further downgraded in favour of the CDF and the joint force commanders. This has been done by proposing that the Australian Defence Force be divided, in conceptual terms at least, into two discrete elements: an employing or operational element and a maintaining or administrative element. This would help emphasise the importance of joint service structures and capabilities, simplify the operational command structure and remove the potential conflicts of loyalty and interest which characterise the present arrangements. The operational element would be purely joint service and would be responsible for planning and conducting all Defence Force operations and operational training activities in peace and war. The second element would be made up of the three services that would play a purely enabling role with no operational responsibilities at all. In keeping with that approach, the report recommends that rank parity be established between the joint force commanders and the service chiefs of staff, and it suggests that there is scope to rationalise the maintaining element of the ADF either along functional or joint service lines. Within this revised framework, the report proposes a number of additional changes and measures which aim to: (a) increase the first-hand involvement of the Minister for Defence and his assistant Minister in departmental and ADF matters; (b) ease the work load of top-level management and provide additional mechanisms for reviewing the structure and performance of the organisation as a whole; (c) provide for further rationalisation between and within existing functional areas within the establishment; (d) simplify the current policy process by eliminating some committees and decreasing the number of interests involved in decision making, especially at the top; and (e) improve joint service structures, capabilities and career opportunities. On the last measure, the report acknowledges that the Australian Defence Force now recognises the value of adopting in peacetime the kind of operational command structure that will be required in times of defence emergency or war, and that it has begun to move in this direction. It argues, however, that the present operational command structure is simply a single service command system by another name and that it will not provide sufficient opportunity to develop and practice joint service capabilities and doctrine or to train military officers in joint staff appointments. Accordingly, the report recommends that the CDF: (a) adjust the peacetime missions and tasks of the joint force commanders to ensure that they involve units and assets from two and preferably three services and assigns these forces accordingly; (b) investigates the establishment of a permanent `theatre' joint force headquarters in the north or north-west of Australia; (c) reviews the existing joint force command structure in order to determine its suitability both now and in the future; and (d) implements a range of policies, such as those described in the report, that would establish a strong, confident and motivated joint staff. The problem areas in which further study or review is required include: 1. the utilisation and current distribution of the civilian and service work force within the higher defence organisation; 2. officer and other rank separation from the ADF, and here I should mention that the matter of personnel wastage rates in the Australian Defence Force has been referred by the Senate to the Joint Committee for inquiry; 3. the means of formulating Australia's national security policies; 4. the defence planning, programming and budgeting system; 5. The role of the joint force commanders in the formulation and oversight of joint service and defence policy; and 6. the current means or providing collective military advice to the CDF and the Minister for Defence. The Committee appreciates the ready assistance given to the Sub-Committee throughout the inquiry by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and his officers from the Department and the ADF. It also thanks those who made submissions to the inquiry and who took part in public hearings. As Chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee, I would like to thank the Deputy Chairman, Senator David MacGibbon, and all the other members of the Sub-Committee for their hard work. I would also like to place on record the Sub-Committee's gratitude to the staff of its secretariat who assisted in the conduct of the inquiry and in the preparation of the report. Particular mention should be made of the Committee's defence adviser, Dr Graeme Cheeseman, who is leaving the secretariat after four years to take up an appointment at the Australian National University. The members of the Joint Committee believe this report represents a positive and timely contribution to the defence debate in Australia. I commend the report to the House. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixth report of 1987, relating to the fitout of accommodation for the Department of Administrative Services, Chatswood, New South Wales. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr HOLLIS —by leave-The report which I have just tabled is the Committee's first report for the Thirty-fifth Parliament and relates to the fitout of approximately 23,000 square metres of leased accommodation for the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In recommending that the proposal proceed, the Committee has accepted that the Chatswood proposal is the most suitable of the options considered by the Department of Administrative Services. The Committee recognises that there has been considerable union opposition to the proposal but is of the view that it is in the interests of both the unions and management to work together to ensure the efficient operation of the Department of Administrative Services at Chatswood. The Committee is concerned at the amount of space that is being leased by the Department and by the Government. The Committee has looked at this matter and will be bearing it in mind in its future considerations. It is concerned at the amount of money that is being spent on leased accommodation over a period of years. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's report entitled Constructing and restructuring Australia's public infrastructure, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LANGMORE —by leave-A wave of concern around the community about Australia's public infrastructure was focused into a National Infrastructure Forum in October 1985. From that Forum came the suggestion of a parliamentary inquiry into the national infrastructure. The Expenditure Committee in the Thirty-fourth Parliament conducted the inquiry, but drafting of the report had not been completed when Parliament was dissolved. The new Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure has completed the task, and I thank the members for their co-operation. The two sources of the widespread concern about infrastructure are the massive decline in public investment and the growing need for maintenance. Public investment in Australia has been allowed to fall as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) from just over 9.6 per cent in 1965-66 to 7.5 per cent in 1985-86. Private investment has not increased to fill the gap either. In fact, private investment, including that in housing, has also fallen from 18.4 per cent of GDP in 1965-66 to 15.9 per cent in 1985-86. In real terms the falls are greater because prices of goods which make up public infrastructure have risen more rapidly than consumer prices. Many submissions were received from organisations also concerned about insufficient funding for maintenance and replacement. Though Australia's infrastructure is younger than that of comparable Western countries, it is not much younger, and therefore we can expect the build up of rehabilitation or replacement during the next decade that has already occurred in other industrialised countries. This report, which is entitled Constructing and restructuring Australia's public infrastructure, is an overview of physical infrastructure for economic and social purposes. The public infrastructure includes all the networks of roads and railways, ports and airports, telephone and postal services and some parts of broadcasting, electricity and gas, water and sewerage, schools and hospitals. The Committee was concerned about the national issues involving these networks-their extent and quality, gaps in their provision, future needs, means of funding future provision and methods of increasing the efficiency of their use. Two of Australia's most serious economic problems are the current account deficit and high unemployment. Reducing the seriousness of those problems will involve restructuring economic activity to build up new and existing export industries and to reduce imports. This requires not only private investment but also efficient, up to date public infrastructure so as to maximise Australia's competitiveness. The need for improved productivity cannot end at the factory gate. Recent work has shown that Australia is facing severe capital capacity constraints-we need more investment in both human and physical capital to achieve a more rapid growth in Australian exports. This means we cannot simply employ more people without the capital backup, if the employment is to be most productive. The size of the current account deficit is imposing severe constraints on Australia and on the public sector at present. It is tempting for governments to reduce capital spending in the current economic climate. However, this not only reduces economic activity and employment growth in the short run but also runs down the nation's investment in infrastructure, its economic efficiency, and eventually the social fabric of society. The main theme of the report is the need to increase investment to achieve more rapid economic and employment growth and to cope with our current account deficit. One of the few relationships about which all economists agree is that between investment and economic growth. To illustrate this the Committee drew on comparative figures for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. To account for the different growth in work force numbers standardised figures were used to show investment and GDP per person employed. The figures from 1962 to 1979 show that Australia has the third lowest rate of investment and the fourth lowest GDP growth rate of 25 OECD countries. Only the United States, Canada and New Zealand had a lower rate of economic growth per person employed than Australia. Perhaps there is a lesson here for these established, complacent English-speaking countries. Over the 17-year period Australia's trend rate of investment per employee rose by little more than one per cent per year, half that of the United Kingdom and well short of most European countries with 3 to 4 per cent or Japan's 8 per cent. In common with New Zealand, Canada and the United States we have relied too heavily on past investment and now find our relative place in the national income per head to be slipping away. The inquiry has established that the worst fears of major infrastructure networks all falling apart at the same time are probably unfounded. Many of our infrastructure services and networks do compare well with the best in the world, but to avoid the problems of the gradual, inevitable deterioration of infrastructure thought and planning are required. We have not seen major freeways in Australia fall into such a bad state of repair that they could not be used, as happened in parts of the United States in the 1970s after funds had been provided for new works but not for rehabilitation and maintenance. The same thing could happen here, but would not if financing needs meet the physical lifetime needs of the asset. That is, if assets are viewed as needing a regular stream of maintenance and rehabilitation and eventual replacement, funds are provided for this purpose. Perhaps the most serious rehabilitation and replacement problem is that facing Launceston. It has one of the oldest sewerage systems in Australia which uses common sewer and stormwater mains, which are now not up to the demands placed upon them and are in serious danger of collapse. Some of these old mains are under buildings and it does not need much imagination to foresee the problems that would be created by a collapse from stormwater overload under one of the buildings in the centre of town. But fortunately, Launceston appears to be an isolated serious example of potential catastrophe. There may well be other sections of water and sewerage mains in other cities which are in need of major maintenance, but the Committee was not given sufficient evidence to assess this carefully. It says something for the managers of public assets that they have been able to maintain infrastructural assets with a generally declining share of national resources. But this situation is about to change with increasing requirements for rehabilitation and maintenance expenditure in the 1990s. Perhaps of more concern than the state of the nation's assets at this point is the failure to thoroughly examine other areas for potentially productive investment. For example, many overseas countries have intermodal links between rail and ports and rail and airports-links which are generally missing in Australia. The report identifies a number of gaps and areas where it is desirable to increase investment. These include urban arterial and ring roads in capital cities; intermodal links such as standard gauge rail to ports such as Brisbane, Melbourne and Geelong; standard gauge rail to Sydney international airport; increasing airport capacity in Sydney; sewering significant areas of Perth; dealing with salination problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, and the quality of Adelaide's water supply; and improving telecommunications, there being great potential to invest in the integrated services digital network. The Committee found that there is quite a significant backlog in the replacement and updating of scientific equipment in universities. Many items of equipment were just not accurate enough for research results to be accepted for publication in scientific journals. Examples of scientific research undertaken with home-made or improvised equipment point to the ingenuity of the researchers but disguise the waste of time and talent in the process, both directly in lost time of those researchers who stay, and through the loss of skilled researchers overseas to institutions where equipment is not a constraint. Yet the sums involved to tackle this equipment backlog are not huge-a significant impact could be made with perhaps $20m a year for five years or so. There are likely to be many other areas where greater infrastructure investment is likely to be in the national interest if the research is undertaken. Perhaps the most striking example is the study of a very fast train between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. This is being undertaken by a private consortium and the pre-feasibility study has been sufficiently promising for the group now to be doing a full feasibility study. But there must be other examples such as the very fast train which require initial vision and then a thorough assessment of viability. Among the submissions received, the desire for greater efficiency in allocation and use of funds for public infrastructure was universal. At the national level the Committee found that the Loan Council had been too rigid and was not facilitating the infrastructure funding needs of those States experiencing the most rapid population and economic growth. The Federal Departments of Treasury and Finance were particularly concerned with the efficiency aspect of public enterprises. But there was some doubt that the present and proposed controls on public enterprises would allow the management flexibility that was essential to achieve substantially improved efficiency. While objective measures for selection of investment projects such as assessing rates of return are fine in theory, in practice there are many difficulties. For example, how does one value an asset constructed at the turn of the century-depreciated historic cost, scrap value, replacement value or opportunity cost? The problems of valuation are often greater for public infrastructure items than for private assets because of a greater age range and often the absence of a market in the assets to establish a value. Further work in this area will assist in easing these problems, and the forthcoming Department of Finance manual on cost-benefit analysis could make a contribution. Assuming that a more thorough and accept- able procedure for selecting public infrastructure investments is established, the question remains as to whether all viable projects will be funded. If present practices continue to be followed, potentially profitable public investments may still be excluded by a cut-off in funds through the global limits on Loan Council borrowings. Private investment does not face the same absolute cut-off in funds once a certain level of investment is reached. Rather, projects are considered on their merits and if finance is not available locally, overseas funds are sought. If the project return is less certain, the cost of funds will be higher but provided the positive yield is there funds are seldom denied absolutely. The Committee recommends, therefore, that borrowings by commercial public authorities be excluded from the public sector borrowing requirement as in at least some other Western countries, such as the Federal Republic of Germany and France and as recommended by the United Nations. To examine the place of public investment in Australia's economy the Committee commissioned a paper by Professor John Nevile from the Centre of Applied Economic Research at the University of New South Wales. This study has been well received by economic commentators and breaks new ground on a number of important issues. Nevile found that `in Australia the public sector plays a greater role in increasing the capital stock than is the case in the majority of Western European and North American economies'. This is an important point because, as the Committee shows in its report, the size of government in Australia is not large when compared with other OECD countries, whether measured on the basis of total tax raised or total government expenditure. Furthermore, public investment takes only about 17 per cent of government expenditure. Nevile found that public investment has been an important source of productivity growth in the past, and will be an essential part of any successful efforts to raise the long run rate of productivity growth in Australia. Much of the report discusses the options available for funding public infrastructure. These include reducing public or private consumption, increasing taxation and borrowing either domestically or from overseas. There may be some scope for restraining growth of public consumption in order to increase investment but the opportunities are clearly limited, given the severity of the expenditure cuts in recent years. Already Australia spends less on social security, education and health as a proportion of GDP than do most Western countries. Australia already finances a significant proportion of public investment from current revenue, and has done so in every year since 1950; that is, in every year since the end of the forties a portion of public investment has been financed from recurrent revenue. There may be some scope for financing increased investment from revenue, but public opinion would not favour any form of tax increase at present. However, as recent events in the United States have shown, attitudes can change quickly. Only a year ago, it was unthinkable that the United States budget deficit could be cut by tax increases or military expenditure cuts, but both are now accepted policies, even if the hard decisions have been difficult to agree about. Increased borrowing to finance public investment may well be warranted, however. Contrary to general belief Australia has a relatively low level of public debt as a proportion of GDP-in fact we are second only to Finland having the lowest level of public debt to GDP amongst OECD member countries. There is little empirical evidence to support a view that public sector borrowing crowds out the private sector. Australian interest rates are set principally by interest rates in the United States, by expected changes in Australia's exchange rate, by our inflation rate and by monetary policy. Therefore, there is clearly scope for increased borrowings. It would be essential, nevertheless, to minimise potential damage to market perceptions from any increase in public sector borrowing. One way of doing this would be to separate the capital and recurrent sides of the budget. This would show that recurrent outlays are entirely covered by recurrent revenue and that recurrent revenue also pays for some investment, as I have already said. It would demonstrate clearly that all borrowing is for investment and is therefore justified by the long term rate of return. Publicity about the returns and other economic benefit of that investment would then contribute to justifying the borrowing. One major constraint on investment is simply that Australia's saving rate is too low. The spread of occupational superannuation may contribute to increasing household saving. It is interesting though to consider methods used for encouraging saving in countries where the saving rate is high, such as Japan. There, substantial tax concessions are offered to encourage saving. The Committee recommends that such policies should also be considered for Australia. The Committee concludes, by the way, that privatisation has nothing to offer as a means of mobilising resources for public investment because it is likely to involve an equivalent reduction in private investment. Sale of public assets is unlikely to mobilise a significant net addition to aggregate national investment. Many other issues are also addressed in this report, but sufficient have been mentioned to give a flavour of the conclusions. I recognise the work of colleagues who were members of the committees involved in the preparation of this report, and in particular the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), Chairman of the new Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, who has assisted greatly in seeing this report through to tabling. The staff who have worked on the inquiry and report have been indispensable to the outcome. Peter Hamburger's quite outstanding analysis and drafting was essential to both completion and the quality of the report. Evan Tully made an important contribution through his knowledge of the industry and his sustained and intelligent application. Ian Dundas has been indispensable to the conduct of the inquiry and completion of the report through his work as Secretary of the Committee. Many others whom I have mentioned in the foreword made important contributions. This report is an attempt to outline a strategy for providing the infrastructure framework for increasing national productivity and restructuring the economy. I hope that the report will be extensively discussed and influence thinking about appropriate national economic policies. Ideas can be powerful. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —by leave-As a member and the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I want to emphasise the point that is made by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) in the foreword of this report; that is that this report was prepared under the guidance and the direction of the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and with the assistance in particular of the staff of the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The role of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in this report is simply to be used as a device for enabling the report to be tabled. This report and its recommendations by no stretch of the imagination have the imprimatur of the Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Committee. It would be quite wrong for the Committee's recommendations to be used because they are not the recommendations that have been agreed by the full Committee. The Committee has simply been used as a device to enable this report to be tabled. A great deal of work was done on this report, particularly in the previous Parliament. Indeed, I personally disagree with many of the assessments and conclusions that are made in this report. For example, the report is very critical of the role of foreign investment in the building of Australia, which is not a view I agree with. It does not do anything to distinguish between the role of-- Mr Langmore —It does not mention foreign investment. Mr DOWNER —It does, in paragraph 6.22. It does nothing to distinguish between equity and debt investment in the context of foreign investment. It places enormous emphasis on the role of public investment and recommends an increase in public investment, whereas personally I would be placing the emphasis on private sector investment and incentives to ensure there was more private sector investment. The report recommends an increase in public investment in research and development. Again, I think the emphasis should be on more private investment in research and development. That is the fundamental problem in Australia. After all, we have one of the highest levels in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of public investment in research and development and one of the lowest levels in the OECD of private sector investment in research and development. The report goes on to make a number of other recommendations. One recommendation could be construed as meaning that there should be an increase in tax on heavy road transport and motor vehicles. That is not a recommendation I would be associated with and it calls for government involvement in a joint venture relating to the proposed very fast train, which is also a view that I do not hold. In conclusion, I emphasise that there are a large number of points made in this report with which I am not in agreement. I am sure many of my colleagues on the Committee from this side of the House, probably all of them, would agree with me on them. This report should not be seen as a reflection of the views of the Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Committee. Mr SMITH(Bass) —I seek leave to make a few brief remarks about this report. Leave not granted. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Consideration resumed from 21 October. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987 marks a major turning point in the administration of bankruptcy law in this country. The amendments proposed by the Bill have been developed in response to: The finding of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union that bankruptcy laws were being abused by fraudulently motivated insolvency claims; The Government's commitment to sensible and considered law reform; and The need for modern bankruptcy law to attack insolvency fraud while also providing appropriate protection for those whose bankruptcy is caused through misfortune. Honourable members will recall that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986 amended the Bankruptcy Act in a number of ways, including significant changes to the administrative powers and functions of the Official Trustee. This Bill takes that process one step further by implementing Mr Costigan's recommendation that the trustee in bankruptcy should be equipped with wider powers of investigation in order to combat insolvency fraud. The Bill amends the Act in three significant areas by: Extending the investigative powers of the trustee; Reforming part X of the Act and introducing a pre-bankruptcy moratorium period; and Modernising the Act in relation to spouses' claims and the retention of personal transport. Insolvency Fraud It has been recognised for many years that the duty of the Trustee in Bankruptcy is twofold: to realise the debtor's property and distribute the proceeds amongst creditors and also to protect the public interest by investigating a bankrupt's conduct with a view to upholding standards of commercial morality. The powers which the Bankruptcy Act presently gives the trustee to facilitate the discharge of this duty have not kept pace with the wider use of modern commercial structures of companies and trusts. The trustee's ability to investigate companies and trusts associated with the bankrupt is severely circumscribed. For example, a bankrupt who is being examined on oath cannot be asked questions as to any actions he took in his capacity as managing director of a number of companies. Such limits on the trustee's powers have opened the way for unscrupulous debtors to defeat the aims of the bankruptcy law. By using a plethora of family trusts and companies, debtors have been able to organise their affairs so that they are apparently without any assets, while they continue to enjoy the use of property and assets which have the guise of being owned by a company or trust. Practices such as `remuneration skimming', which put assets of companies or trusts associated with a debtor beyond the trustee or creditors, fall into this category. As well, provisions which presently limit which property of a bankrupt may be realised by the trustees exacerbate the problems. In broad terms, only that property in which the bankrupt had a beneficial interest at the date of the bankruptcy is available to the creditors. These provisions are ineffective to deal with `remuneration skimming'. This Bill proposes to deal with these problems by extending the trustee's powers to investigate the bankrupt's affairs and by enabling the trustee to recoup from companies, partnerships, trusts and other persons assets which have been acquired by the personal efforts of the bankrupt. The Bill will introduce related concepts of `associated entities' and `examinable affairs' and a proposed division 4a of part VI which will enable a court to make orders in relation to the property of entities controlled by a bankrupt. An associated entity will be one which the bankrupt is able to influence by virtue of close business or family relationships or which is under the control of the bankrupt. The examinable affairs of the bankrupt which the trustee will be able to investigate the financial affairs of an entity associated with the bankrupt insofar as those financial affairs are relevant to the bankrupt's financial affairs. This will be in addition to the existing powers of a trustee to investigate the conduct, dealings and transactions of the bankrupt himself or herself. Associated entities will be placed under an obligation to co-operate with the trustee by making books of account and financial records available where this will assist in shedding light on the bankrupt's financial affairs. The extension of the powers of the trustee to investigate all the circumstances surrounding a bankruptcy is of itself not enough if at the end of the day no real benefit will flow through to the creditors. Accordingly the court is to be empowered, on application of the trustee, to transfer specified property or an entity to the trustee, or to order the payment by which the net value of the entity has been enhanced, where the trustee establishes: That the entity acquired the property or the entity's asset position was enhanced during the `examinable period'; During the examinable period, the bankrupt supplied personal services to the entity in accordance with the bankrupt's directions, wishes or instructions; and The entity made property available, or would in the future, make property available, for the use and enjoyment of the bankrupt in accordance with his or her wishes or instructions, as if the property actually belonged to the bankrupt. There are a number of provisions requiring the court to take account of the interests of third parties who have an interest in property of the entity, and creditors of the entity. The Government is confident that the new division 4a of part VI will be an effective weapon in stamping out insolvency fraud. Pre-bankruptcy Moratorium The Government recognises that bankruptcy is and must be a remedy of last resort. While an insolvent person must be able to obtain relief from his or her creditors, people should be encouraged to explore the alternatives to bankruptcy which are available. Those alternatives include the three forms of voluntary arrangement available under part X-a deed of arrangement, a deed of assignment, or a composition-or by an informal repayment scheme. These alternatives all involve consultation between a debtor and creditors and accordingly they usually proceed in a more co-operative fashion than bankruptcy. The introduction of pre-bankruptcy moratorium period will allow a debtor to consider the alternatives to bankruptcy. Under a new division 2a of part IV, a debtor will be able to present to the Registrar in Bankruptcy a declaration of intention to present a debtor's petition. Once this declaration is accepted by the Registrar, the debtor will be able to invoke a limited stay upon certain debt recovery processes for a maximum period of seven days. The Registrar will be obliged to direct the debtor's attention to the sources of advice and guidance with respect to the debtor's financial affairs, and to the procedures under the Bankruptcy Act for dealing with insolvency. Reform of Part X At the same time the Government is aware that there are flaws in part X which have been exploited by a small number of unscrupulous trustees and solicitors in order to defraud the creditors. The Government has therefore moved quickly to include a group of amendments to part X to minimise the facility for abuse of its procedures. The Government has identified three particular problems with the procedures set out in part X. First, creditors do not receive sufficient information about a debtor's affairs before they accept arrangements under part X. Secondly, there are no provisions in the Act which ensure that previous dealings between a debtor, a particular creditor or creditors and the trustee are disclosed. Thirdly, there is no effective supervision of part X arrangements. This Bill addresses the first of these three problems by requiring a debtor to submit a statement of affairs at the commencement of the process, rather than at the first meeting of creditors. At present, under part X a debtor may execute an authority to authorise a registered trustee to take control of their property or a solicitor to call a meeting of their creditors. This Bill will require this authority to be supported by a recently prepared statement of affairs which has been given to the trustee or solicitor. The trustee will be required to prepare a report on the debtor's affairs and indicate in that report which of the alternative modes of administration-deed of assignment, deed of arrangement or composition-would be in the best interests of creditors. The trustee will also be required to indicate whether the creditors should accept a part X arrangement or require the debtor to present a bankruptcy petition. A registered trustee or solicitor will also be required to prepare a statement setting out the alternative special resolutions that may be passed by a meeting of creditors, namely, that that debtor execute a deed of assignment or a deed of arrangement, that the creditors accept a composition or that the debtor present a debtor's petition within seven days of the day on which the resolution is passed. The report by the controlling trustee and the statement outlining the alternative special resolutions which creditors may pass at the meeting are required to be circulated, with notice of the meeting by the controlling trustee or solicitor. These measures are complemented by changes to the proxy provisions relating to voting at meetings under part X. In relation to the second problem of ensuring that prior dealings between debtors, creditors and trustees are fully disclosed, a new provision is to be inserted into the Act so that a resolution purporting to nominate or appoint a registered trustee to a particular trusteeship will be deemed not to have been duly passed unless the registered trustee has consented to the nomination and has made a declaration concerning his or her professional, business or personal relationship or connection, if any, with the debtor or the creditor or creditors who proposed the resolution. To overcome the third problem-the inadequacy of the supervisory power in relation to part X arrangements-the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy is to be given the right to apply to the court for orders setting aside deeds and compositions. The Inspector-General will also be empowered to apply to the court for an order that a trustee make good any loss that is caused by a breach of duty by the trustee, and for orders cancelling or suspending the registration of the person as a trustee. Where the court makes an order cancelling the registration of the person as trustee, the bond into which the person entered as a condition of becoming registered will be able to be called in. In another significant change in this area, examinations of registered trustees will now be conducted before a registrar, rather than before a court. These changes will continue the reforms of administration of the Bankruptcy Act which are designed to free up judicial resources to enable them to be used in the resolution of more important disputes. Modernising the Act Numerous other important reforms to modernise the Bankruptcy Act are introduced by this Bill. Section 111-`Postponement of spouse's claims'-is to be repealed. In addition, the provision whereby certain property of the non-bankrupt spouse which had been `made available to or lent to' the now bankrupt spouse was expropriated and made available to the creditors will be repealed. Sub-section 116 (2) will be amended by including in the category of property not available to the trustee, a motor vehicle or other form of personal transport to the modest value of $2,500. Typically, creditors get little or no benefit from the sale of motor vehicles and this action places considerable hardship on the bankrupt and his family. Summary The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill will introduce significant changes to the bankruptcy legislation which will greatly improve the administration of insolvencies in the future. The amendments will, on the one hand, ensure that trustees in bankruptcy can investigate sophisticated commercial arrangements which have used the bankruptcy laws to defraud creditors. On the other hand, in recognition that bankruptcy is not the most appropriate solution in all circumstances, the Bill also introduces procedures to encourage debtors to consider possible alternatives to bankruptcy in appropriate circumstances and introduces reforms to part X to ensure that these alternative procedures can be of real benefit to both debtors and creditors. Financial Impact Statement The amendments proposed by the Bill will not involve any additional financial impact upon government expenditure. Following the restructuring of the Official Trustee to which I referred earlier, the resources necessary to discharge the wider investigatory powers conferred by these amendments will be available within the Official Trustee Corporation. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.24) —I am reliably informed that the word `bankrupt' has its origin in the Italian word `banco' which means bench. If one was a banker who went bust, one's bench would have been broken up. Of course, `ruptus' is the Latin word for `to break up'. The word `bankrupt' is defined in Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, fifth edition, by Street and Maxwell-left over from my university days- as `a debtor whose estate is vested in a trust deed for division amongst his creditors . . .'. Bankruptcy has a very long tradition in Australia. Next year we will celebrate 200 years of experience with bankruptcy. It is probably true that the first people who came to Australia in 1788 were convicts because they were bankrupt, to use the word as we know it today. They would have been people who had not paid their debts. It is not surprising that this Government should turn its mind to the laws of bankruptcy once again. Its economic policies unquestionably have done a lot to encourage bankruptcy in the Australian community. Australia has the highest taxing, the biggest spending government it has ever had. This Government is also the biggest debt creating government that we have ever had. I am very glad to see that the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples)-I think that was the title he was given when the Government was looking around for something for him to do as a result of the need to satisfy factional balances-is at the table. One of his Press releases announced that we were to have a debt summit. What a classic that is from this Government, which is the expert when it comes to the production of debt in Australian society. I said to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) before I got to my feet, `Have you heard what the latest is about when we are to have this summit on debt?'. He said, `No'. He said that he had heard that the Government was having trouble finding a stadium big enough to hold all the delegates for this debt creating exercise. The Minister professes an interest in the Government's wages and industrial relations policies which are so rigid that young people cannot get jobs. This is a government that does not move unless it is given its marching orders to do so by Australian Council of Trade Unions. This Government has a deliberate policy of very high interest rates and that in itself places a tremendous burden on ordinary Australian families. The crash of the Australian dollar is very much a direct result of many of the policies that this Government has been pursuing and has not had the political will to redress, and this has contributed to the bankruptcy rate. The number of bankrupts in 1985-86 was 5,539. One might say that that is bad enough. But for the first nine months of 1985-86, the number was 3,899 whereas for the first nine months of the last financial year we had nearly as many bankrupts as the year before. In other words, in nine months we had just about broken the number of the year before; 1985-86 was a record year. Sadly, 1986-87 smashes that record in providing a new benchmark for the bankruptcies in the Australian economy. Before the figures came out, I predicted that the 7,000 mark would be broken for the first time. Of course, that prediction came true. The figure, Australia-wide, in 1986-87 was 7,495-a massive increase in the number of bankruptcies. What a telling indictment that is of the policies of this Government. If that is not bad enough-this Government had broken the record two years in a row-the figures for the first quarter of 1987-88, which have come reluctantly, from the Attorney-General's office, show another great increase in the number of bankruptcies. There is no doubt that 1987-88 will smash last year's record breaking effort. Bankruptcies are climbing in the first quarter-they are at least 17 per cent over that of the year before. Of course, this had happened well before the stock market crash and does not reflect whatever repercussions that might have. If this Government lasts until the end of 1989 or early 1990-assuming that there will be about three years to the next election-on a conservative figure nearly 51,000 Australians will have gone bankrupt. The Minister loves to make comparisons with the Fraser years-and there was an international recession at the end of those years-- Mr Kerr —And the drought. Mr REITH —I am glad the honourable member mentioned the drought because that was a significant factor in the economic scene in Fraser's time. With all those adverse conditions the Fraser Government had to put up with-compared with the basically benign economic conditions internationally the present Government has had to face since it came to office-in its seven years of government from 1975-76 there were just over 25,000 bankruptcies; so the present Government is going to double the record of the Fraser years on the number of bankruptcies. The Minister can sit back and smirk and smile and whatever but what we are talking about is the bottom line effect of the Government's policies on ordinary Australians. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard tables which I have shown to the Minister which show the bankruptcies by State from 1959-60 to 1986-87 and give the figures on bankruptcies in the July to September period of 1987. The information was prepared by the Parliamentary Library Statistics Group. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Bankruptcies by State, 1959-60 to 1986-87 Year (a) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT Total 1959-60 ... 813 395 211 319 119 91 1 1,949 1960-61 ... 783 362 232 421 127 76 3 2,004 1961-62 ... 795 441 259 504 141 93 6 2,239 1962-63 ... 806 511 236 528 171 116 3 2,371 1963-64 ... 717 551 255 552 186 125 6 2,392 1964-65 ... 746 541 240 597 236 92 1 2,453 1965-66 ... 757 522 245 556 197 103 4 2,384 1966-67 ... 613 496 242 664 195 69 5 2,284 1967-68 ... 567 524 291 702 222 71 2 2,379 1968-69 ... 499 520 266 690 224 100 3 2,302 1969-70 ... 536 494 249 602 229 121 5 2,236 1970-71 ... 626 512 264 611 292 122 1 2,428 1971-72 ... 612 602 277 622 408 156 7 2,684 1972-73 ... 521 452 228 528 364 151 10 2,254 1973-74 ... 425 270 211 258 300 69 4 1,537 1974-75 ... 520 408 291 427 336 75 4 2,061 1975-76 ... 594 346 316 341 201 94 8 1,900 1976-77 ... 711 393 356 448 180 97 11 2,196 1977-78 ... 951 585 519 655 261 148 15 3,134 1978-79 ... 1,083 765 540 816 408 223 22 3,857 1979-80 ... 1,215 1,235 695 964 581 267 22 4,979 1980-81 ... 1,168 1,279 812 952 625 287 30 5,153 1981-82 ... 964 1,290 644 804 549 294 30 4,575 1982-83 ... 1,161 1,315 703 912 729 295 36 5,151 1983-84 ... 1,161 1,107 865 775 705 256 40 4,909 1984-85 ... 1,185 897 1,011 662 597 270 42 4,664 1985-86 ... 1,405 921 1,251 922 652 328 60 5,539 1986-87 ... 1,776 1,289 1,717 1,353 916 393 51 7,495 (a) Includes the ACT. Figures for the ACT are not separately available. Source: Attorney-General's Department. BANKRUPTCY STATISTICS July-September 1987 Bankruptcy District No. of bankruptcies and Administration Orders (Part IV and Part XI) No. of Arrangements Assignments and Compositions (Part X) Total N.S.W. & A.C.T. 560 (452) 69 (86) 629 (538) Victoria 414 (313) 90 (45) 504 (358) Queensland- South 384 (331) 34 (24) 418 (365) Central 20 (21) 2 (2) 22 (23) North 53 (46) 457 (398) - (6) 36 (32) 53 (52) 493 (430) South Australia 356 (338) 39 (16) 395 (354) Northern Territory 14 (15) - (-) 14 (15) Western Australia 245 (207) 46 (57) 291 (264) Tasmania 146 (84) 3 (2) 149 (86) Total 2,192 (1,807) 283 (238) 2,475 (2,045) Note 1: The figures in parentheses are for the corresponding quarter in 1986-87. Note 2: Full-year figures for 1986-87 were: Part IV and Part X: 7,495, Part X 1,102-8,597. Mr REITH —I thank the House. After all the euphoria of the recent Budget Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, very properly reminded us all that we were heading down the road to Argentina. Those bankruptcy figures give chilling support to his predictions. And we were on that road well before the crash. These figures really give cause for concern because they represent the lives of ordinary Australians suffering under the burden of so many of the Government's economic policies: so much for this argument about Australia being ready for the crash, being able to cope with it and our not worrying about adjusting. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today was lecturing the rest of the world about what it should and should not do. The reality is that before the crash the position of the Australian economy was such that we were in poor shape economically to meet the circumstances arising out of that crash. We were not ready for it by a long way and these figures really tell the story on that. The Opposition supports in general the proposals contained in the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987. The Bill is fairly comprehensive with 62 pages of amendments to the principal Act and 177 pages of explanatory memorandum. It comes at a time when the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has just handed down a discussion paper entitled `General Insolvency Inquiry' which itself is over 250 pages long. The Bill addresses a number of matters including the problem of insolvency fraud, some reforms to part X of the Bankruptcy Act, the introduction of a pre-bankruptcy moratorium, various provisions to modernise the Act and provisions to enhance the investigatory powers of bankruptcy trustees. The Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act 1966 deals with individuals and the co-operative companies legislation, of course, deals with corporate bodies. There are three types of proceedings-involuntary bankruptcy, which is initiated by a creditor; voluntary bankruptcy, which is by far the most common; and voluntary administration, which is a means of avoiding bankruptcy by coming to terms with creditors. The procedure for this sort of proceeding is dealt with under part X of the Act. A meeting is called to agree to a deed of assignment or a composition or a deed of arrangement; or the meeting can require that the debtor voluntarily file a bankruptcy petition; or it can clear the way for a creditor's bankruptcy notice to be issued. In the year to 30 June 1986 there were 1,090 involuntary bankruptcies, 4,453 voluntary bankruptcies and 905 persons who had their financial affairs administered under part X of the Act. I now turn to some of the specific proposals. In regard to insolvency fraud, it was really the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which raised this issue and I suppose brought it to public light. The Costigan report, for example, referred to the activities of a person called Lockyer who had spent 23 years as a bankrupt and who had used his bankruptcy as a shield against his creditors. In 1980 he and his wife were estimated to be worth $5m. Not surprisingly, Costigan recommended that the Act be amended. The recommendations from Costigan were then the subject of an advice which the Attorney-General's Department obtained from counsel in Melbourne which, I understand, was received in the second half of 1985. The Australian Law Reform Commission states on page 118 of its discussion paper-I am paraphrasing-that in a number of cases the spirit of part X has been deliberately abused. It goes on to say that the process has been manipulated by resort to such devices as giving misleading or inadequate information to creditors, convening meetings in obscure places, not giving sufficient notice of meetings, stacking meetings with persons who exercise or purport to exercise voting rights in favour of the debtor and conducting meetings without an impartial chairman. The Bill introduces a range of measures, including wider powers of investigation for the Trustee in Bankruptcy, and gives the court the power to require a third person to pay an amount to a trustee. The Bill establishes five criteria which must be met before the court can make such an order. The scope of the provisions to lift the corporate veil is to be found in the definitions of associated entities, close relatives, examinable matter, et cetera. The Opposition, of course, supported the Proceeds of Crime Act which had not dissimilar provisions. A number of points need to be made about these proposals. Firstly, contrary to what the Minister has just said in his second reading speech when he talked about the Government acting with due haste, the fact is that the Government has been inordinately slow in bringing forward these amendments. Like many of the recommendations of the Costigan Commission, it has been dragged reluctantly to introduce these proposals. That brings me to refer to some remarks of Athol Moffitt in his very good book A Quarter to Midnight. He is a former supreme court judge and the first royal commissioner to investigate organised crime in Australia, in 1973-74. On page 120 of his book he said: . . . it is inaction and negativism of the present Australian ALP Government, in Canberra and Sydney in particular, which have become and now are matters for grave concern. I make that comment about this legislation because it is significant. When this Government first came to power, the coalition Government had passed legislation establishing the National Crime Authority. This Government fiddled around with it, had a summit and then introduced some more legislation. It has fiddled around for years and years with legislation. On telephone tapping it has fiddled around for years and years and it is still fiddling around. We had a Bill which has just come from the Senate which really is as a result of the prevarication that this Government has entered into on the question of powers that ought to be available for telephone tapping. Even in the proceeds of crime legislation, which we supported, the Government has been slow to act and I must say that I have real doubts about its capacity to organise and administer properly that sort of legislative initiative. The comment by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in his recent report about the lack of staff is certainly noted. But I think what there needs to be is some emphasis on the use of staff and the quality of staff. There are problems in that area in having pay rates which are sufficiently attractive to attract and to keep staff. There are questions such as the interaction between the DPP and the Australian Government Solicitor and the client department such as the Australian Taxation Office. Those are very important issues which we in the Opposition now see it as important to be focused upon. We have had some success with our prodding in regard to the civil remedies area of the DPP. We see an increase in dollars-77 per cent in fact-in that area in the Budget and an extra 20 staff. That is good. We give credit where credit is due, but this has occurred after the prodding that we have undertaken. I put some questions on notice on this matter because I think it is important that the Government get on with this job. We will certainly keep it up to the mark as best we are able to do so. Honourable members will also remember that prior to the Proceeds of Crime Act amendments were necessary to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It took over 12 months before they were prepared and through this place. Some particular points need to be made about the investigative powers. Under clause 98, the owner of premises must allow reasonable use of facilities to a person holding a warrant. The provision is similar to that in the fringe benefits tax and other recent legislation. On those occasions we moved amendments, unsuccessfully, to require reasonable reimbursement of any expenses incurred-those amendments, obviously, being refused by the Government in this place. The clause in this Bill is drawn in very wide terms. However, it is my view that the court should properly read down those powers and even introduce a requirement for reimbursement. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), in his comments to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, pointed out that the sanction against non-compliance is available only when non-compliance occurs without reasonable excuse. Whilst I note what he said, I draw to the attention of the House the Opposition's concern about the width of some of those provisions. On the other side of the coin, in a sense, whilst those powers appear fairly wide, they all beg the question because by and large the powers rest on some link back to the bankrupt: for example, I interpret new section 77a (2) (e) to mean that whether a matter is relevant to the investigation would be reviewable by a court and, to that extent, it may be said that it is not much different from the provision under the existing legislation. I dare say that one day that will be subject to a dispute in the courts as the provisions lifting the corporate veil come into effect immediately and will be relevant to existing bankrupts or persons in the courts. I presume that someone such as Dr Edelsten will be in to test some of the provisions sooner rather than later. Some of the Trimbole relations who are still in the courts may have reason to try to fend off the implications of some of the amendments. The Northern Territory and South Australian branches of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPAA) have been in contact with my colleague Senator Messner. Basically, they issued some warnings about the extent of some of the provisions in division 4a. I say in response that, in the end, it is a matter of competing policy interests-the need to stop fraud, to prevent transfers intended to defraud creditors, against the need of commerce to have a system of corporate entities with restrictions on liability. In many respects, the extent of those measures is not new. I have mentioned the proceeds of crime legislation. We support the Bill, but I share the Association's concern. I think that, as a Parliament, we will need to keep that under review as time goes on and as we have experience of dealing with the provisions. I now turn to the proposal for a pre-bankruptcy moratorium which is properly and better referred to as the Tuckey amendment because I understand that it came about as a result of representations by my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor to the Attorney-General. The measure gives debtors seven days to consider the alternatives to bankruptcy. The Registrar is to direct the debtor to sources of advice and guidance, although no additional resources have been made available for this purpose. The Law Reform Commission says that some debtors have become bankrupt unnecessarily; in other words, part X may have been more appropriate. It says that there is no public counselling or advisory service and proposes that such a service be funded by Commonwealth legal aid agencies. The IPAA has not supported the proposal. Its view was that creditors would be disadvantaged while the trustee cools his heels in the cooling off period. This is one of those issues which, in the end, is very much an on-balance decision. I am told that there are no counselling facilities available. Certainly, none are provided for in the Budget. Whilst not opposing the proposal because there have been some circumstances, such as those which the honourable member for O'Connor raised, where people have been adversely affected by the `sudden death' nature of the existing arrangement, I think that the Government ought to at least provide a response to this matter today. The reform of part X includes a range of matters-a requirement that a statement of affairs be prepared prior to the debtor authorising the calling of a meeting; a requirement that the statement be provided to creditors when they are notified of the meeting; a requirement that the trustee prepare a report for creditors to assist the meetings of creditors; provisions to the effect that meetings that do not fulfil certain criteria are invalidated; the Inspector-General to have the right to apply to set aside part X deeds, et cetera; the examination of trustees to be by Registrar, not the court; the creditor spouse be not entitled to vote at the creditors meeting; and the giving of proxies, which is referred to in the ALRC report. The requirement that a statement of affairs be prepared and provided to creditors prior to the meeting has been resisted by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia. It says that there will be consequent delay to the disadvantage of creditors and that creditors will not be better informed. It says that meetings can be adjourned and that that is preferable in the few cases where additional information is needed. It also resists the requirement that the trustee prepare a report for the creditors. It says that the new requirements are an overreaction to the activities of a small minority who have abused a process that has otherwise worked well. However, the Law Reform Commission report supports the proposals in the Bill. In my view, the proposal to ensure that creditors have information prior to a meeting is reasonable and, in fact, corresponds to a not dissimilar requirement in bankruptcy. It is worth reading to the House the statement by the Law Reform Commission on this subject. Before doing so, I note that the discussion paper also proposes that only a registered insolvency practitioner should be able to accept an authority under part X. This is not taken up in the Bill, but I think that the Government should give very serious consideration to that proposal. On the question of information being provided prior to meetings, page 120 of the Law Reform Commission's report states: The Commission considers that creditors should be provided with adequate information about the debtor's financial affairs and the debtor's proposals a reasonable time prior to the meeting. If that were mandatory, it would lessen the prospect of voting manipulation and adjournments. Also, as will become apparent from another proposal in relation to proxy voting, providing creditors with sufficient information before the meeting will enable them to participate in the decision-making process-even if they do not actually attend the meeting. The report goes on to outline the proposal. I think that that is a sensible outlook to take. I have spoken to Mr Ron Harmer, the commissioner in charge, about it, and that is the basis upon which the Opposition has come to its view, although it has listened very carefully to the views which have been put to it. The proposal about the proxy power is another area raised by the IPAA. On balance, I am not greatly convinced that the solution proposed in the Bill, although it might be a marginal improvement, is the best possible solution. The IPAA has suggested that the difficulty with the amendment is that creditors may become locked into a position before a meeting and that that position may not be appropriate to the mood of the meeting. The amendment really aims at overcoming the problem where the chairman effectively collects proxies and then uses those proxies to the disadvantage of the other creditors. The fear of the IPAA is that, by prejudging the situation, we may end up with more part Xs going into bankruptcy with assets dissipated rather than encouraging people to trade out of their difficulties. It has been suggested to me that maybe there is a halfway house on this matter. The suggestion revolves around the idea that the proxy would not be directed where there is no possibility that the proxy will be an interested party-for example, where a finance company appoints a proxy to represent its interests. I do not today raise a solution to that. It is an area that needs to be looked at further and I encourage the Government to do so. Other matters which are raised by the amendments include, firstly, maintenance agreements under section 86 of the Family Law Act, which are given protection under the bankruptcy legislation. Apparently there have been some fraudulent abuses and that matter is referred to at page 254 of the Law Reform Commission report dealing with matrimonial property. The amendments will remove the protection in cases of fraud. Secondly, the repeal of section 111 is supported and recommended by the Commission. That is referred to at page 189 of the report. The effect of the repeal is that a spouse's claim will rank with those of other unsecured creditors. Thirdly, section 116 (2) lists property that is not divisible-that is, it does not vest in the trustee and is thus kept by the bankrupt. The amendments allow a bankrupt to keep a vehicle to the value of $2,500. Existing provisions include clothing, tools of trade, compensation and rural assistance grants. The IPAA also has doubts about the proposal to allow a bankrupt to keep a vehicle to the value of $2,500. There is some suggestion that impending bankrupts will be out there buying their cars in anticipation of bankruptcy. That is obviously a possibility, but the reality is that there will always be some abuses in this area, and the abuses of a minority should not necessarily be the basis upon which the majority ought to suffer-an argument put by the IPAA on another matter. In my electorate, there are many places where there is no reasonable public transport, and to be without transport is to be deprived of the opportunity to get off the treadmill, to get a job and to get out of adverse financial circumstances. I and the Opposition support that provision. We believe it is a reasonable measure. Again, we have been careful to take into account the various points of view that have been put to us. One of the matters that are not covered in the Bill relates to priority among creditors as it affects the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner's priority was the subject of a Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs report in 1978. The Senate Committee's report was partially accepted by the passage of legislation in 1981, which diminished the extensive priority given to debts due to the Commonwealth. The existing priority is for unremitted group tax, withholding tax, unremitted natural resource and royalty payment deductions and prescribed payments deductions. I will not say anything about the substantive matters because time will get away from me and these are not specifically before us in the Bill, but the Commissioner has called for public discussion on that, and I think that that is another area at which the Government could look. Lastly, I want to go back to my opening remarks. Insolvency is a valuable indicator of trends in the economic system. It is an indictment of the Government that the level of bankruptcy in Australia has reached an all time high. This year the record set last year was smashed, and it looks as though another record will be set in 1987-88. That is a considerable indictment of the Government's policies. It is the biggest taxing government in our history. We had that promise about the trilogy, which was just a sick joke. The Government told people that it would bring down the levels of taxation, but they have gone up and up as a result of the Government's ideological views and the way in which it attempts to run the country. No wonder Gough Whitlam spoke this weekend about what a disaster the Government is. He is probably right. He was bad enough, but this Government will take the cake, according to that former Prime Minister. I thank the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, Mr Ted Andrew, Mr Michael Mount and others who have been in contact with us. The Bill is now in the House of Representatives, so the Opposition is not in the position to move amendments successfully against the Government, but I am concerned to raise the issues that have been brought before us and I hope that the Government will look at them in a constructive and sensible way. I also want to pay a compliment to Mr Ronald Harmer, who has been the commissioner in charge of the Law Reform Commission's reference into insolvency. Until 30 November, he was calling for submissions and I found his report useful. It was easy to read and it competently covered many areas of this important policy subject. The Opposition supports the Bill in principle. We have raised a number of matters and I look forward to the Government's response later this afternoon. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.54) —The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) tried to make out that the level of bankruptcies in this country is an indictment of the Government. I also have the statistics that the honourable member used and I think that he stands condemned, and can be criticised for his selective assessment of the figures that he has presented to the chamber. If he had a degree of political honesty, he would have pointed out that the figures he has from the Attorney-General's Department clearly show that, when it comes to business bankruptcies, the group affected by economic conditions-he talked about high interest rates and government policies-amounts to 19.7 per cent. It clearly shows the reasons for business bankruptcies. One is lack of ability, and the percentage of bankruptcies caused by that in 1985-86 was 22.1 per cent. The percentage of bankruptcies caused by economic conditions affecting business was 19.7 per cent. When the report refers to non-business bankruptcies, it speaks about `major causes'. It does not talk about government policies or economic conditions but about excessive use of credit facilities, and how 41 per cent were caused by people who failed in their personal business management. That has nothing to do with government policy. Mr Reith —Where are you reading this from? Mr WRIGHT —I will give the honourable gentleman these figures, but they are the same ones that he has. They are the figures that have been produced for all members of parliament. I note also that the honourable gentleman did not bother to point out that the greatest number of failures of businesses in this country occurred in Queensland where there was a 60 per cent increase. Clearly, the honourable member for Flinders was selective in the figures that he presented to the House. I will make these figures available to him. Mr Reith —There is nothing selective about them. I tabled them. Mr WRIGHT —It is the way that the honourable gentleman has referred to them. He has referred to them selectively, and it is no wonder that his whole credibility is in question. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in his second reading speech on the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, it marks a major turning point in the administration of bankruptcy law in this country. I believe that it will be welcomed by all sectors of the community, especially those that have been concerned about the way in which bankruptcy laws have been abused. It will be welcomed by those who have long seen the need for modern bankruptcy law to attack insolvency fraud. It will be welcomed by those who believe that the system has not worked properly, who have listened to the calls of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and of the Law Reform Commission, which have said that things have not worked as they should. Anyone with a reasonable mind will say that the amendments before the Parliament are a significant reform. They will address the problem of insolvency fraud yet at the same time will acknowledge the need for appropriate protection for those whose bankruptcy is caused not by some rort but by misfortune. The Attorney-General and the Government deserve commendation from everybody who is involved and interested in this issue for the legislative action that is being taken now. It is the Hawke Government that has taken the action. The honourable member for Flinders criticised the Hawke Government but he was in the previous Government when the same problems existed. The figures that he has used go back for years, to when the Fraser-Howard Government was in power. Did it do anything to solve the problem? No; it has been the Hawke Government that has been prepared to tackle the problems and find solutions. It is the Hawke Government that has heeded the calls of the accounting and legal professions and has acted on the findings of the Costigan Commission, that bankruptcy laws were being abused by fraudulent claims involving insolvency. It has been the Hawke Government that has acted to curb the activities of unscrupulous debtors, and has put an end to the questionable practices of some trustees who seemed more prepared to look after the debtors and the future of those debtors than to do anything for the prosperity and the rights of the creditors. It is the Hawke Government that has been willing to introduce a Bill and a new era into the bankruptcy arena. It must result in better returns for all creditors. It will now be possible to get at the assets of the bankrupt who, in the past, has camouflaged his true wealth amongst family trusts and companies. I know that in my area there has been case after case of people who have gone bankrupt and yet, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they have left tied up-as we say, dogs are tied everywhere-and the number of creditors that they have left in trouble, they have been back in business a little while later. I instance the case of one fellow who stood for the Liberal Party of Australia on, I think, three occasions who went bankrupt twice and still got back into business in another town. Only recently, he has gone bankrupt again in Rockhampton. It just amazes me how this can continue to happen. However, it has happened because of the way these people have hidden away their assets. I am hoping that this will change. Clearly, bankruptcy has been abused as a form of relief from debt. The Government deserves credit for taking action to curb that abuse. I think that the importance of the bankruptcy issue has come to the fore recently not just because of the concern that people have had with the business sector but also, more importantly, because of the failure in the personal bankruptcy area. In May this year a number of reports were published, I suppose because it was just after the statistics came out. The Australian Financial Review carried a report entitled `Personal bankruptcies hit a record high'. The journalist, Julie Power, said: High interest rates and the availability of plastic credit cards have led to a record number of personal bankruptcies. She went on in her article to say how the South Australian Small Business Corporation had found steep rises in personal bankruptcies in all States. She said that the worst is yet to come. The thing that concerned me most in that report was that my home State of Queensland topped the study with an increase in bankruptcies to 30 March this year of 60 per cent. South Australia recorded a 50 per cent increase, Western Australia 49 per cent, Victoria 44 per cent, the Northern Territory 35 per cent, New South Wales 33 per cent and Tasmania 30 per cent. On 18 May the Melbourne Age carried an editorial entitled `So who is to blame for Australia's bankruptcy boom?'. It is a pity the honourable member for Flinders is leaving the chamber because I think he should read that editorial. It might give him some understanding of the situation. That article pointed out that last year 6,500 individuals and businesses went into bankruptcy. It stated that the figure painted a disturbing picture of the extent of credit distress in Australia. I ask honourable members to note the emphasis in that article which is not on the economic policies of the Federal Government but on the issue of credit distress. That is the issue on which I want to dwell. The Melbourne Herald of 25 May had a headline entitled `Rising bankruptcy rate creates a new social class'. The writer, Bill Hitchings, made the point that the level of personal debt in Australia was increasing such that the social stigma once attached to bankruptcy was fast disappearing. He said that the number was so great and that so many people were being caught up that bankruptcy was not longer a social stigma. He said that the number of bankruptcies had increased from 3,889 in 1986 to 5,478 this year. Again in the same month, the Queensland Courier-Mail of 27 May had a headline `Australia counts its Bankruptcy Costs'. The figures it cited showed that between June 1986 and March 1987, 1,299 businesses and individuals went into bankruptcy in that State. This may not sound very much if one says it very quickly, but that is 16 more bankruptcies than New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory combined. Clearly, there is a major problem. I suppose that of all the States Queensland is of the greatest concern. I am concerned that this is taking place. We need to ask why. I believe that whilst we might say that this relates in some way to the lack of support given in Queensland to small business, I still believe that it comes back mainly to credit availability. I refer again to the Melbourne Age editorial because it was the most enlightening. It targeted the causes of bankruptcy, as well as citing the statistics. The editorial referred to a Mr Denis Nelthorpe, the Co-ordinator of the Consumer Credit Legal Service, who said that finance companies no longer stand out as a great menace in the credit industry. That is a very interesting point. He claimed that the banks and credit unions were becoming equally as aggressive in both lending and debt collecting. I believe that Mr Nelthorpe has hit the nail on the head. There is a need for lending institutions to rethink their credit policies and practices. Fortunately, this Government realises that there is a problem. It was only last week that a joint announcement was made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) of a review of consumer financial services. The essential purpose of the review is to examine the provision of adequate protection for consumer interest and also the need to maintain an efficient financial system. As the Minister for Consumer Affairs has also explained to the consumer affairs committee which I chair, this review will be carried out by a group of officials from the Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, the Reserve Bank of Australia the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Social Security. Because this is a nationwide problem, the Minister and the Treasurer have ensured that the nation will be involved. Invitations have now been extended to all the States and Territory governments to become members of the review group. The review is to examine a wide range of consumer financial services and products such as housing finance, credit cards, personal loans and the charging of fees on some financial transactions. Anyone who is interested in this issue must realise how timely this review is. Certainly, it is in line with the action being taken individually by the Minister for Consumer Affairs when he announced, I think, in October this year that he intended to hold a mini-summit or a conference on consumer debt in 1988. I applaud him for this. I know that that is the feeling of consumer groups right across the nation because they are fed up with what is taking place in the credit market. They are fed up with being ripped off. They are fed up with being the underdog. It is time that someone took charge of the issue. I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister. The mini-summit will examine the rapid growth in consumer debt in Australia. I am told that consumer debt now amounts to something like $23 billion. That is a debt of $23,000m in this small country of Australia. The summit also will consider State credit laws. Importantly, it will consider the rapid rise in overcommitment and bankruptcies. This is the issue that the newspaper editorial was talking about. It discussed the availability of easy credit that has led to overcommitment which, in turn, has led in many cases to personal bankruptcy. I believe that it is time for the banks, the building societies and credit unions and all the other financial institutions to rethink their responsibilities. It is time for them to rethink their responsibilities to people, those people who cannot afford the credit they are offering. Also, it is time for them to rethink their responsibilities to pay their way in credit education. It is all very well to lend money, but what about counselling people and educating them so that they know how to use the money and what they can afford to borrow; so that they know their capacity to repay. That does not seem to be done. It seems more like a situation of bank managers in some sort of competitive race trying to outdo the next one; trying to lend more money, regardless of whom they might be lending to and regardless of the consequences at the end of the road. I suggest that there is a need for credit providers to rethink all these responsibilities. I believe that the banks in particular, but the other institutions as well, are shirking this responsibility. There is a need to look at their promotion tactics. Everywhere one looks there are pamphlets describing how easy money is to get and saying that one can walk in and get it or ring up and get it within 24 hours and that there is no check on the borrower. It is nonsense to believe that this is how the money markets ought to operate. It is nonsense to suggest that that is how the credit providers ought to practise their profession. There is a need also to look very hard at credit charges, the cost of money the institutions are lending. Recently again the Minister for Consumer Affairs briefed a number of members on consumer credit insurance. If ever there is a Pandora's box in the area of credit, this must be it. I congratulate the Minister for taking the initiative to ensure that members of parliament everywhere have received the excellent report entitled Need or Greed, a report on consumer credit insurance prepared by the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association. I suggest that it should be compulsory reading for every member of parliament, both State and Federal, to understand what is taking place. That report cites the case of a consumer who borrowed $10,000 but had to pay an additional $6,396, not for interest, but just in insurance costs. The consumer credit insurance cover cost $3,248 and there was an additional $3,148.46 in credit charges on the insurance premiums. Just imagine a person who borrowed $10,000 having to pay an extra $6,396. Talk about a rip-off. I wonder who would have counselled persons who took out such a loan. I wonder who would have had the opportunity to tell them that if they borrowed that $10,000 they would be required to pay not only interest charges but also, if they wanted to insure themselves against having an accident and being prevented from working, the cost of that insurance. It could cost them so much that they could lose everything they have. The Victorian Consumer Credit Legal Service Co-operative Limited has conducted studies that have found that the average cost of consumer credit insurance added as much as 15 per cent to the amount financed. Its studies found that across the board insurance related costs represented in most cases 69 per cent of the net amount financed and 24.4 per cent of the total amount payable. Surely no one can accept that situation; no one can say that is fair. I believe it should not be allowed. Yet at this time deregulation of the industry is being sought. At this time people are calling for the number of rules to be reduced and for the impediments placed on business to be removed. Let us ensure that there is competition. Let us ensure that the industry has its own rules. Let us ensure that consumers who borrow money are made aware of the full details applying to loans and the ultimate cost of loans. Let us try to ensure that there is true competition in this field. The second matter I wish to mention is that of overcommitment. That matter was mentioned in the report to which I have just referred and was raised at the consumer conference that I attended in New Zealand with the Minister for Consumer Affairs. It is an issue that concerns all the States. A working party has been looking into it. It is an issue that must concern every person who has a social conscience. There is a need for lenders and credit providers to show self-restraint. If we cannot achieve that by legislative means, we must find some way of achieving it by embarrassment. We must expose those who cause trauma and harm and who destroy the quality of life of thousands of Australians by demonstrating a lack of restraint in the lending of money. The question must arise whether the courts should get tough on finance houses that knowingly lend money to people who lack the capacity to repay. A few judgments have been handed down in respect of unconscionable contracts. The courts have ruled that the lender should have known the consequences of providing the loan. We must get tougher. We must make suffer those bank managers who approve loans over the telephone when they know that they will not get the money back. The reputation of the bank managers must be put on the line. It is time also that the banks rethought the value of plastic credit. Easy credit sounds wonderful. It is simple for a person to purchase items from a retailer by using a credit card. However, there is a cost at the end of it. It amazes me that banks send off letters informing people that their credit limit has been increased from $1,200 to $2,000 or from $2,000 to $3,000. Such a person might be unemployed, but the banks carry out no check as to that person's financial position at the time. It seems that every now and again banks with extra money increase the amount of credit available to their clients who use plastic credit cards. I suggest that that is irresponsible and it deserves exposing. On behalf of those members of parliament who work with me in the consumer affairs area, I give an undertaking to this House that we will expose those banks that continue to act irresponsibly. We will expose the building societies and the credit unions that do not act responsibly by testing the capacity of their clients to repay borrowed moneys. We will expose those lending institutions that are not carrying out what we believe to be their responsibilities to the community in the provision of credit. I know that that undertaking will be backed up by honourable members opposite and by people in every other legislature in this land. We are getting to the point where we are seeing people destroyed because of the availability of money. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.14) —The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987 is the result of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission on debt recovery and insolvency. That report made quite a few recommendations, although only some of them have been incorporated in this legislation. The report contains 47 recommendations, covering about 12 pages. It appears to me that insolvency is a Commonwealth responsibility and that not many people specialise in treating its causes. All we seem to be interested in is the act of insolvency and wrapping up the affairs of a person who is put in that unfortunate situation. It appals me that honourable members on both sides of the House today have cited figures selectively. The Opposition spokesman in this area, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), cited some statistics from an official report. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said that those figures were cited selectively, but then embarked upon citing figures selectively himself. However, he cited only percentage increases. It never ceases to confound me that the honourable member for Capricornia takes every opportunity in this House to slam his own State. I would have thought that members of this House would have had at least some responsibility to be loyal to their own State. However, as I say, that seems to be a hallmark of the honourable member's contributions to debate. The honourable member for Capricornia cited the number of bankruptcies that occurred in a period that he selected. I intend to select the period from 1985-86 to 1986-87. The honourable member claimed that Queensland had the largest increase in bankruptcies at some 60 per cent. The figures for the two years to which I referred show that bankruptcies in Queensland increased from 1,251 to 1,717, which is a 37 per cent increase. I have not examined all of these figures, but the increase in South Australia was 46 per cent and the increase in Victoria is 40 per cent. I think that the figure for Western Australia would be similar. Although the honourable member accused the Opposition of citing figures selectively, he did the same thing himself. It is not my contention that the States are responsible for the bankruptcies that occur within their jurisdiction. The Bankruptcy Act is a Commonwealth Act, and it is fairly well known that bankruptcies are not the sole responsibility of the individual State in which they occur. Like anyone else, bankrupts have the unfortunate ability to cross State borders. Bankruptcies, like liquidations, affect more States than one. However, it is on record that over a three-year period the number of bankruptcies has increased immeasurably. Although I acknowledge that there is a delayed reaction element to bankruptcies-in other words, the point of impact of the bankruptcy can be removed from the place in which the circumstances of the bankruptcy occurred-the Government cannot walk away from the fact that it has been on the treasury bench for the past four or five years. It cannot suggest that the increase in the figures for that three-year period is the result of what occurred during the years of the Fraser Government. Let me make some comparisons. In 1984-85 there were 4,664 bankruptcies throughout Australia; in 1985-86, when the influence of the Fraser Government must have been lessening, there were 5,539; in 1986-87, when the influence of the Hawke Labor Government would have had a full impact on the figures, there was a massive increase in bankruptcies to 7,495. That is quite a considerable increase over the figure for 1984-85. One could cite these figures selectively. Bankruptcy details were fairly well embodied in the 1984-85 report on the Bankruptcy Act. Table No. 10 in that report sets out the major causes of bankruptcy. The report selected 1,284 examples of such bankruptcies. The report shows that in 596 cases the reason for failure was economic conditions. In other words, 46 per cent of bankrupts claimed that they failed because of economic reasons. I am not suggesting that the Government is responsible for all of those bankruptcies. However, it is worth doing a breakdown of those 596 bankruptcies. I note that 262 bankruptcies were due to lack of sufficient capital. In other words, the bankrupt person could not borrow in the current climate sufficient funds to do what was needed to expand the business. In 247 cases economic conditions were given as the reason for failure; excessive interest payments was given as the reason in 40 cases; and bad debt experience was given as the reason in 47 cases. In all this, the Government must take some considerable blame for setting up an economic climate in this country that encourages bankruptcy. The honourable member for Capricornia spoke about the extent of credit. Nothing disturbs me more than to think that in most instances Australians are financially extended to levels greater than their capacities to service, and certainly to levels greater than individual companies lending that money would appreciate. It is a plastic society and I suggest that at the moment any person under the age of 21 could have available credit of about $2,000 to $3,000. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot blame this on the lending institutions when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tells us that the economic situation in this country is so good. It does not matter whether the dollar is up or the dollar is down, we are always told that the economy is in good shape. There is an expectation among people that if the economy is so good and companies are prepared to lend, they have the capacity to borrow to the extent that the lenders are prepared to give them. In many instances, the reason given in the report on the reasons for bankruptcy in 1984-85 still apply. I mention a couple of areas of government responsibility. One is interest rates. Many bankruptcies result when interest rates contract to a low figure, economic conditions turn around and then interest rates rise appreciably. At the beginning of this year I took a sample from a major bank which showed that in a period of about 12 months there were 21 adjustments of interest rates. Unfortunately, those adjustments were not downwards; they were mainly upwards. Someone who could have borrowed money at an interest rate of 12.5 per cent was eventually paying 21 or 22 per cent. Interest rates are a direct responsibility of this Government, a government that has had massive deficits in its Budgets in the past four years. This Government has had to borrow some $23 billion. Again, this is an example to the people. People think that if it is good enough for the Government it is good enough for them. The impact of the Government's action has sent interest rates sky high. This has a major economic impact on bankruptcies in this country. The Government must bear some responsibility for all the circumstances I have just mentioned, quite apart from interest rates. Mr Millar —A good point. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Government ought to appreciate that. It should not slam the building societies and the banks of this country, the people who give credit, when they are actually operating on a standard set by the Government. The honourable member for Wide Bay is evidently in agreement that the Government must take some responsibility in this regard. The report does not show the impact of interest rates over the past few years. I just want to mention the fringe benefits tax. That is a tax that is paid when no income is being earned. It is fair enough that personal income tax or company tax is paid on a profit earning basis but fringe benefits tax is quite the reverse. There is also a domino effect well down the line. The effect of a rural bankruptcy or a small business bankruptcy goes right down the line to the individual. That is the accumulating or domino effect. These are areas for which the Government has a direct responsibility. I must also condemn the Government for allowing companies going into liquidation and bankrupts to accumulate Commonwealth debts well in excess of what a prudent lender would allow. It has come to my notice that the taxation authorities-not so much in connection with the amount of tax owed personally by a business but in sales tax, group tax and in circumstances where people act as agents-have allowed some individuals to continue for nine to 12 months before they have called in their debts. If a business is operating on that basis but to all external appearances it is paying its way, who would question giving that company further credit in light of the fact that the Government is already doing so? That is what the Australiamn Taxation Office is doing. Some fees-landing fees, licence fees and so on-are due also to the Department of Transport. I know of one instance in which the former Department of Aviation extended credit on such fees to a company that could not make its way for two years. I believe the Commonwealth has a responsibility to deal fairly with people but also to treat them as businesses wanting advice and to call in its debts when it should. No business in Australia would allow credit beyond 30, 45 or 50 days without calling in its debts. It could not afford to. A company's cash flow would be such that the credit manager would have to demand that money. If that is the case so far as individuals are concerned, surely payments of taxes and fees must be insisted upon by the Commonwealth. Of course, in many cases the Commonwealth stands in a priority position to other creditors; so that is an anomaly. Mr Peter Fisher —They are also pretty slow payers. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I was just coming to that point. It is an important one. How many bankruptcies have been forced on individuals because of slow payment by the Government? The Government will hold up some progress payment because of some minor dispute. Again, I suggest the Government is not the best party to join in a contract with a private individual or someone in private enterprise because it does not know the ramifications, but a delay in progress payment can be substantial to a person in business. I know of cases where a sole practitioner or an individual could have a debt owed by a government-not only the Commonwealth, the States are involved also-of $80,000 to $100,000. That is a substantial part of that person's cash flow and capital requirements. As the honourable member for Mallee says, the Government has a responsibility to prevent some of these bankruptcies by acting towards its clients as it should in private enterprise. These bankruptcies are only one of the indicators of how our society is failing. Our society is failing also because of government action. I would hesitate to try to number the lost opportunities in society because of government initiated action-the businesses that have failed to expand, the businesses that cannot take opportunities because of their economic positions and, above all, the businesses that do not want to expand in the face of massive red tape forced upon them by government. It is a rare occasion when a business is able to take on the challenge of government regulation, government licensing, government fees and government approvals, fight through and establish a business in what I regard as a very harsh economic climate compared with the climate in other parts of the world. The Bill addresses some of the problems I have found for quite some time not only in bankruptcies but also in liquidations. One is that so often when one compares bankruptcies with company liquidations there is no parallel or comparison to give equal emphasis to both sides. I note the Bill will give a right to the court, the Inspector-General or a trustee to go further than just the face value of what a person has in a company. They can inquire into a company structure. This has arisen from an anomaly brought out in the Costigan report of a person who spent 23 years as a bankrupt but who was able to accumulate, with his wife, the amount of $5m. These amendments are timely. In fact, they are probably long overdue, but they do try to address one of the problems. A major cause of bankruptcies today comes from the advice or counsel available to people in society. The Bill before us tries to address this problem to make sure that the people who are in insolvent conditions are given the opportunity of trying to work it out with their creditors and with society. Some provisions allow official arrangements where creditors come together and try to get a person out of trouble. I believe this is right and proper, but it flies in the face of a report that came to us at the beginning of this year concerning the South Australian Department of Social Security advising clients on how they might proceed with a bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, it was encouraging bankruptcy so that people could then enter the social security system and get something from it. No one knows the distress people feel when they are in a situation where they cannot pay their debts. But there is not the same onus on people these days to meet their debts as there was years ago. To have a government department actually encouraging people to go into bankruptcy I think again flies in the face of what this Bill is about. I am happy to see that some attempt has been made to rectify that. Obviously what is being suggested here has the approval of the Opposition. Again, I think it depends on the material that is used, in an argument of this kind, as to how one takes facts and figures, but I do believe that a lot more attention has to be paid to the method of advice and counsel that is available. I have found that many people are good technically in the work they undertake in the small businesses that they are in, but they fail in the final aspect of being able to come to grips with the cash flows, cash requirements, debtor control and stock control in such a way that they are faced with the situation where the easiest opportunity might be to go into bankruptcy or liquidation. If this Bill does nothing else but try to set the record straight and assist a person to recovery, it is going in the right direction. As far as I am concerned, the domino effect is very important. I have had experience over the last two years in this field, and this is where I have a slight advantage over the honourable member for Capricornia, who, as I understand it, has never really been in the heartland of business full time. I know that he has been a newspaper proprietor, but that was when he was also holding down the job as the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland, so it has never been a full time proposition. Many examples over the last two years would suggest that the major cause of liquidations is the amount of insolvencies, bankruptcies and bad debts that a firm has to suffer. My experience over the last two years, which I believe is a reflection on the market-place and the economic situation of the country, is that liquidations are running at record highs. Many companies are being placed into insolvent positions caused by the credit that they have granted in normal commercial transactions to people who are going bankrupt and who have taken the line of least resistance and taken that through the courts on a company or individual basis. This matter is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. No one doubts that. The Commonwealth also has a responsibility in this matter to make sure that the symptoms that people suffer are no longer within our society. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.34 to 8 p.m. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.00) —It is my pleasure to speak on the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill tonight and to follow the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) in this debate. The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation from the perspective of government, business and consumers. Primarily it provides for changes to the Bankruptcy Act which permit investigation of a bankrupt's ability to access or use assets which may be indirectly owned through a maze of corporate arrangements. As was mentioned earlier in this debate by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the need for this investigative capability was pointed out by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union during its review of the dealings of that union some time ago. The increasing incidence of so-called insolvency fraud is now widely recognised. This Bill will ensure that the investigatory powers available to the trustee in a bankruptcy are sufficient to permit penetration of the corporate veil in pursuit of a bankrupt's true assets. Persons who have been discharged from bankruptcy will be liable to be examined on oath and persons who are, or may be, associated with a bankrupt and with corporations, trusts and partnerships with which a bankrupt is or has been associated will also be liable to be summoned for examination. The scope of questioning at such an examination will be widened to take in all of the financial activities of the bankrupt, including activities in his or her capacity as an officer of an associated company. It should be remembered at this juncture that the creditors who are cheated as a result of insolvency fraud will often be small business proprietors who rely on payment of their debts to maintain their own financial viability and stay out of the bankruptcy arena themselves. To this extent, and only to this extent, I concur with the comments of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) on the domino effect of bankruptcy. However, he is quite wrong to claim that our Government's economic policies have caused an increase in business bankruptcies. In fact, the rate of business bankruptcies has been relatively stable in the years since the Hawke Government attained office. The overall increase in bankruptcies is attributable to the substantial increase in non-business bankruptcies and I intend to discuss some of the reasons for this at a later stage. There are many protections to business as creditors in this Bill, particularly the requirement that a statement of the debtor's financial affairs must be presented to the initial meeting of creditors and that a trustee must declare any association with the debtor so that a potential conflict of interest may be exposed. Other amendments contained in the Bill include the reform of part X of the Act and the introduction of a limited pre-bankruptcy moratorium to enable debtors to consider possible alternatives to bankruptcy. Some time ago the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to consider ways in which the Act could be amended to ensure that the incidence of mistake bankruptcies was minimised and the pre-bankruptcy moratorium will enable a debtor contemplating bankruptcy to consider all the possible alternatives to that course of action. It is obvious that many people declare themselves bankrupt without recognising the full consequences of their actions and certainly without properly considering the alternatives. Frequently such people would be better advised to approach their creditors for a reduction in the overall debt in return from early settlement. Creditors are seldom enamoured with the prospect of a debtor going bankrupt and will usually see reason when the person's predicament is made clear, especially if there is some way that the major portion of the debt can be paid. Like other members of this House, I have come across a number of cases where a bankrupt has compounded the problem by withholding property from the bailiff. Such action stems from panic in my view and may be less likely to occur if the person contemplating bankruptcy is properly advised of its ramifications and is acquainted with other ways of working through the debt. For instance, one of my constituents recently experienced severe financial difficulties in his business-through the theft of client records by a competitor I might add-and was seriously considering bankruptcy as the only option remaining to him. He was fortunate enough, however, to receive advice which drew his attention to the alternatives and he is currently trading his way out of debt, with the assistance of his wife in the business, while also holding down another job to improve the cash flow of the business and his own ability to repay the debt. By and large ordinary people do not want to be in debt, neither do they want to become bankrupt. They will usually do everything in their power to pay a creditor. Unfortunately, too often the financial deck is stacked against them. Contrary to the claims of the Opposition, bankruptcy is not the province of unsuccessful business alone; it is also the domain of the poor, the harassed, the credit crazed and the exploited. On a significant number of occasions business itself is the cause of bankruptcy rather than the victim. In fact, the majority of people becoming bankrupt each year are consumers who become bankrupt through misfortune or poor judgment. The widespread use of the plastic fantastic credit card, 24-hour accessibility of automatic bank telling machines, electronic funds transfers and the ready availability of expensive credit have all combined to exacerbate the likelihood of consumer bankruptcy. There is little competent advice available for even the most wary consumer on the actual cost of money borrowed. For instance, how many people in Australia are using their bank credit cards as a regular means of extending the purchasing power of their pay packets without realising that failure to pay the accumulated balance will result in an interest charge of 22 per cent or thereabouts? Some banks even levy the charge when the balance has been cleared within 30 days. The proliferation of expensive consumer credit insurance has become a blot on the financial landscape in Australia and many hundreds of people are falling prey to its ravages. I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Capricornia in this regard. Such people are misled by the product propaganda and the sales pitch of the people who are trying to sell them a product, which they probably cannot afford, to believe that their repayments will be fully covered by consumer credit insurance should they have the misfortune to become ill, or unemployed, or be otherwise rendered incapable of earning an income. Nothing could be further from the truth. A report on this area of activity entitled Need or Greed has recently been compiled by the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association. It points out that financial counsellors have become increasingly alarmed at the hardship caused to their clients from the selling of consumer credit and credit related insurance. It is obvious from this report that the benefits available under each type of policy are subject to many limitations and that, generally speaking, the policy does not provide the benefits which are attributed to it. What the consumer does get comes at an extremely high cost, usually including substantial commission to a trader or credit provider acting as an insurance intermediary. The report also indicates that consumer credit insurance is oversold, in that policies are sold to consumers who could never claim on them, or consumers are sold cover far in excess of their needs. In other cases consumers are unaware that they have been sold an insurance policy at all. Consumers are frequently denied their right to choose whether to take out such credit insurance. They are even more frequently denied their right to the insurer of their choice and are frequently frustrated in their attempts to claim, even where the cover offered should meet their circumstances. For instance, with reference to unemployment cover, page 9 of the report states: It is fair to say that in the form it is usually sold unemployment insurance is of little or no value to the consumer. This smacks of exploitation to me. Banks will frequently provide borrowers with a life insurance policy for the amount of a mortgage on a home. However, they do so at their own expense because they recognise that the lender is the ultimate beneficiary of this type of policy. Contrast this approach with that of the car sales industry where exorbitant rates for credit insurance are charged and a high commission paid, all of which is to be included in the general contract for time payment, which is itself one of the most expensive methods of paying for anything. However, should the hapless consumer endeavour to claim on the insurance at some stage, he or she may well find that the policy either does not cover the remaining payments due-with many only meeting payments for a month or two-or that the value of the cover provided is actually less than the amount paid to obtain the insurance in the first place. This area is certainly one which warrants attention and I am confident that the Minister for Consumer Affairs is looking into the problem. As most honourable members would realise, people who became bankrupt still need to work and earn money to pay off their debts and start their lives again. To this end, this Bill provides for amendments to section 116 of the Act to permit the retention of a form of personal transport in which the bankrupt's interest is not more than $2,500. This is a small but significant improvement which will assist bankrupts to gain or retain employment, thus altering their relative ability to repay outstanding debts and to come to terms with society. With Christmas upon us, the prospect of an escalation in consumer bankruptcy is very real indeed and many newspapers and financial counsellors are presently issuing a sombre warning to people to avoid the Christmas debt crisis and the January blues. During Christmas people are under great pressure to spend money they do not have. Even for people on a reasonable income the financial burden of Christmas can be heavy. For low income earners and pensioners, Christmas can mean a very large debt through overreliance on expensive forms of credit and an inability to resist the sales hype of retailers. The use of credit cards to pay for extra spending at Christmas may well be the last straw that drives the family into bankruptcy. I hope, however, that the provisions of this Bill will ensure that some of these unfortunate people do not neglect the alternatives available to them as less drastic mechanisms for the resolution of a continuing debt crisis. Simultaneously, of course, the amendments contained in the Bill will protect the legitimate interests of creditors and enable proper scrutiny of the business activities of any bankrupt seeking to avoid creditors' claims for payment by use of the infamous corporate veil. This is an excellent and necessary piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister for his continuing interest in the welfare of the consuming public and commend the Bill to the House. Mr KERR(Denison)(8.13) —I adopt the remarks just made about the extension of the trustees' powers in investigating bankrupts' affairs and enabling trustees to pursue a fraudulent bankrupt through the processes that he may have erected to try to protect his assets. The introduction of the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill is an appropriate and long overdue step. This legislation will be, I believe, welcomed by all those concerned with the proper, efficient and appropriate administration of the legal system. I think also that all those who have a genuine concern for the administration of the system of bankruptcy laws will welcome the seven days' cooling off period for those who may be minded to go into bankruptcy that the Bill now provides. It certainly strikes me that there is a need for such cooling off provisions to be provided more particularly in those areas where credit provision is an issue. Many people face bankruptcy because of the availability-the too ready availability, the pressured availability-of credit. I have been privileged in this debate to hear many speakers express concern on bankruptcy issues, but I must say that some of the analysis, particularly by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), was simply crude nonsense. The rhetoric of this debate needs to be distinguished from the reality. The reality is that business bankruptcies in Australia have, in fact, declined. Mr Wright —Under a Labor government. Mr KERR —Under a Labor government, indeed. The statistics show that from 1981-82 business bankruptcies have declined marginally from 2,003 in the first year to a figure of 1,920 bankruptcies in the past year. It is not true, it is fraudulent, it is nonsense, it is cheap and it is disgusting behaviour to suggest that there is an increase in bankruptcies due to the conduct of this Government. On the non-business bankruptcies, personal bankruptcies, we have seen a fairly significant increase from just over 2,500 in 1981-82 to 3,624 in the past year for which figures are available. Why is that? The returns themselves give the answer, because 41 per cent of those affected by personal bankruptcy give as the reason for their plight the excessive use of credit facilities. That is extraordinary. Recently I was made aware in my electorate of credit providers who are writing to people without any invitation offering $1,000 without investigation, without any credit checks, to anybody who cares to post a letter back-$1,000 for 37c. That kind of free credit which is thrust upon people who perhaps are finding temporary difficulty in meeting their accounts, people who are put in a position where they are given the opportunity for easy access to credit, places them in a most invidious position. It is not surprising that some people make bad judgments in those cases, judgments perhaps that they can stretch to yet another payment, yet another opportunity to defer the pressing accounts that they have and to take up credit that they really should not have pressed upon them at all. There is a failure of social responsibility on the major institutions that do provide credit if they do not set in train mechanisms to ensure that they are not causing social dislocation, not by helping people by providing credit but by hurting those for whom credit is the last thing they need in their personal lives. The real cost of credit provision, of course, can balloon out. It is not merely the direct cost of credit but also additional costs that may be called upon for credit consumers to absorb. For example, credit consumers are now often asked to take out credit insurance. There is a very interesting report that has been produced by the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association titled Need or Greed. It is a very appropriate title. It points out that one of the servicing costs that are now occasioned by the availability of credit is premiums for insuring the loan. What that means is well demonstrated by a table that the Financial Counselling Association has displayed at page 18 of its report. It shows in table 1 of the document the true cost of credit insurance. It instances a net amount of $10,000 financed in cash to a borrower. Interest on that borrowing would represent 37.5 per cent of the total amount and would come to just under $10,000 itself. On top of that a premium on insurance and commission would add $3,284 and on top of that again interest on that insurance amounts to another $3,148.46. So the original base loan of $10,000 would be met subsequently by payments somewhat over $25,000. Of that, just under 25 per cent would represent the cost of credit insurance. Speaking of that impact, it is a regrettable fact that some credit or insurance organisations appear to be stimulating the process of people going bankrupt. It has been brought to my attention that there are certain insurance companies, which insure persons against bad debts, which will pay out on those bad debts only when a debtor is made bankrupt. That is gross social irresponsibility. I hope the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) will take account of the matter I have just raised and have it investigated. It seems to me that if that is the conduct in the financial market-place, if that is the behaviour that is being insisted upon by those who provide credit insurance, it is something that this Government needs to look at very seriously. I strenuously urge this House to take seriously the problems that arise with credit provision. I urge those who are responsible for formulating the response of the Opposition to treat the matter a little more seriously than the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), the shadow Attorney-General, and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the shadow Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, appear to treat it. Both have responded to the very sensible proposal by the Minister for Consumer Affairs that there be a conference to look at the problems arising from the too ready availability of credit and to look at consumer debt by dismissing the idea, by giving it no credit. They have not responded to the very real and important social issues that are behind that call. It does them no credit and does no good to the real issues that are involved when they trivialise credit provision. This was manifested by the speeches made in this House today which do not deal with the substantive problems in the field of consumer protection and consumer credit. Rather, they have sought to make political capital out of the fact that personal bankruptcies have increased. I welcome the initiative of the Minister in calling that conference. It is incumbent upon those who are in the market-place providing credit to show that they are socially responsible. Those who are in that market-place say that the Government should not be involved in regulation, that it should not be involved in constraints on how they operate. I imagine the Government could accept that argument if credit providers demonstrated that they were acting with proper self-restraint and organised their affairs in such a way that the kinds of abuses of the system that are now being reported to, I think, many members of this Parliament were restrained and checked by internal self-discipline. No one wants to see the need for greater business regulation. I think all of us in this Parliament would wish to see business conduct itself in an appropriately self-regulated manner. But if it does not, I believe our voices need to be raised to ensure that proper, convenient and efficient protection is given to those who are in the most need, those who are perhaps the easy and gullible victims of people who press too ready and convenient credit into the hands of those who are not in a position to afford to repay it. This is an issue not just for the Government but for the credit provision industry. May I say just before Christmas that it seems to me that this is not just a partisan issue. It may be that now it is the Australian Labor Party which is speaking out most strongly on this issue. But this is certainly a matter that the Liberal State Government in Tasmania has recognised. The State Consumer Affairs Council has seen the need to ensure that those who are going into the pre-Christmas season are not swayed too heavily by those who seek to provide so-called cheap credit for the Christmas period. It has been very creditably involved in organising an educational campaign designed to ensure that consumers are also made aware of problems that arise with credit as well as the opportunities. So it is not just a matter of the Australian Labor Party in the Federal Parliament being concerned; responsible Liberal parties at a State level are also concerned. Responsible consumer affairs councils and consumer organisations at all levels are also concerned. Unfortunately, it appears the only group that is not responding to this concern, the group that is treating this issue with a disdain, a failure to come to terms with the real issues involved, is the Federal Opposition. I hope that those who are responsible for formulating a response are able to see their way clear to make a more constructive contribution to the process than appears to have been the case to date. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.25) —I will make some technical comments about the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill later, but I think it is probably worth spending a couple of minutes responding to the comments that have been made about consumer credit. I have been marvelling at the prospect of a debtors football match in which many people will be asked to come along to explain how they could best improve their relationship with their creditors or their debtors. It has always struck me that at a time in which money was amply available to everybody, with advertisements in newspapers presenting a very appealing picture by financial institutions towards lending, the educators of this nation should have been inspired to include within the syllabus, in terms of management and of basic training, what could be best achieved in the management of financial affairs. I can recall that in my university days very few students in the technical courses of engineering, medicine, dentistry and so on, except for a few weeks at the end of the courses that were given over to office management and the like, were given any real understanding of financial management. I suspect that today's educational courses are no better than they were in those times. So when this great summit gets under way-I find the proposal extraordinary-I hope a lot of attention will be paid to the education of people in relation to the use of credit, the use of money and what one might call basic accounting or housekeeping. I think as a result of that we would all be better off. I do not know how many times we have heard the analogy about running the nation and running the house. It is said that one cannot spend more than one has and all the rest. There is no doubt temptation is placed in the hands of a lot of people with the use of credit cards and the like. But until such time as the educational authorities address themselves to ensuring that the young people of the nation understand their responsibilities, our youth will fall for the excessive use of credit. There has been a huge use of credit and all sorts of techniques have been evolved to allow access to funds which, in the normal course of events, would be denied. For many retired people, their home is their only substantial investment. A number of institutions have found a way for such people to use their only substantial investment to gain access to money, the amount depending on the value of the house, the market price at the time. Such people can use this and maybe pay off some debts, have a trip or whatever. An extension of that ability would lead to enormous excesses in use of credit within Australia. I was a bit surprised when this practice occurred. I think this American innovation has become fairly well used even in Australia. The general use of consumer credit in the nation relates very much to consumer optimism. The use of one's credit card or one's ability to borrow relates very much to how one feels in one's employment and income earning capacity. The rise in one's psychology of spending may well be in poor relationship to the trade cycle. For example, many people who have used credit excessively in the last two or three years will find themselves in difficulties. There is no use attempting to turn that around and blame the institutions. Institutions lent the money in times which were totally different from today and from what they will be in six months when there may be a lot of pressure on consumers who spent on credit. I get back to the educational process. We must condition people to the realities of the problems associated with debt and to their responsibilities in taking out loans when they commit their assets, and sometimes the blue sky, when trying to raise money. It is not always the avarice of the lender that causes the problems, as I have read so much in the newspapers, particularly from the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples). Those who take on the responsibility should be well and truly awakened to the problems at the time. No one should claim not to have read the small print. Caveat emptor applies today as much as it ever did. It will always apply. There is no doubt that, in the general mainstream, people should be very cautious about handling money. In my professional career outside politics, I seldom found people who could manage money. That is one of the great problems in the nation. I found that those who were technically trained were probably the worst and those who were dependent upon a salary under the pay as you earn taxation system were probably the best. That came about through experience and training. If anything were to come out of this summit I hope it would be that institutions train people so that they have some understanding of accounting. Within the curriculum of all schools there should be a basic course on understanding one's finances and the management of money. I dare say that the majority of broken marriages are caused by money problems. I dare say that the majority of small business failures are caused by the mismanagement of money. I dare say that the majority of people who have dropped out of society and are dependent on the remaining taxpayers' handouts have a total lack of understanding of the management of money. Because of that we have a responsibility to put into the education system, for the young people of today, basic systems of training in the management of money. Without that we will leave our successors a huge legacy of problems in that area. I make those comments about credit as one who has seen the situation from both sides. When the Bankruptcy Act was last amended I was the Minister responsible for it, so I do know something about the problems involved. I have before me a letter from Mr W. J. Wilde of Coopers and Lybrand. He is a well known practitioner in this area, not only in Queensland but throughout Australia. He is one of the company's senior partners. Mr Wilde had two things to say in the letter and later I will read some of the technical aspects involved. One of the things that we tried to do in the last amendments to the Act was to take away from the Federal bureaucracy the management of many of the estates. We did so because there was a consistent log-jam in getting answers. There was a requirement, because some estates were not commercial, to put together a bag of those which were possible and those which were impossible. That certainly produced a new interest from the trustees in this area and bestowed upon the Department a far greater responsibility. That met with resistance. I heard all sorts of reasons from the registrars around Australia as to why changes could not be made. The most common was that those involved were all crooks, or something like that. That is nonsense. Once again, the amendments before us to part X are based on the premise that people are crooks. What happened? I will read from the letter from Wilson Joseph Wilde in which, among other things, he said: The reasons given by the previous Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General for the extensive amendments being made to part X are quite simply ridiculous. Both persons- this is in terms of a misdemeanour- have claimed that the amendments are necessary to counter activities of dishonest trustees who they claim have been practising in Australia. As far as the Insolvency Practitioners of Australia is aware, both trustees concerned were partners of the same firm and both have been dealt with, and in any case the suggested amendments have no relationship to the activities in which these two gentlemen took part. I have no reason to disbelieve that person. Not only is he well known but also he was on the Government's advisory committee. I will quote him in a couple of other areas, because I happen to think that the proposed changes to part X do not relate to what I would call reasonable commercial activity. We do not condone any fraudulent activity in this area. I am quite sure that the writer of this letter would not do so. But there is a huge difference between commercial activities and what I will call the bureaucratic view of life in the commercial sector. There was a hard case fought in 1980. To get those involved turned round to the situation took some effort. It took some convincing to get the private sector to join in. It was not convinced of the necessity to get into it either. But it was a way in which I believed a fresh approach could be brought to areas in which some of the registrars were well and truly bogged down. I raise two other matters concerning the provisions regarding the preparation of statements of affairs. This senior practitioner goes on to state: Similar provisions with regard to the preparation of a statement of affairs into the companies code for creditors voluntarily winding up administrations and, as a result, the number of such administrations in Australia has dropped to such an extent that creditors voluntarily winding up is now a rare event and, as a consequence, returns to creditors in liquidations have been considerably reduced. A creditor's voluntary winding up is just not practical because of the voluminous amount of information required before the administration can be put into effect. This same situation will now be the case with regard to part X administrations. This is a very senior practitioner and market-place operator writing this. He continues: If the proposed amendments are allowed to become law, then the losses to creditors will be further exacerbated through the fact that insolvent debtors will trade on and incur liabilities while they take their time in preparing their statements of affairs. Secondly, proposals in the Bill are simply impractical because the information supplied by a debtor in insolvent circumstances is always unreliable and inaccurate, and the debtors in the majority of cases have no knowledge or understanding of the significance of securities given- hence, my reflection on educational standards- the terms of contracts signed, the concept of preference and the concept of priority creditors. The correct approach to a Part X administration is that, as now, we see set out in the Bankruptcy Act. During the period in which the collecting trustee is in charge of the debtor's affairs, correct information for the benefit of creditors is able to be collected, and proper and sensible discussions can be held with the debtor to formulate a proposal which is then put to creditors at a meeting where they are given a copy of an accurate statement of affairs, and where they are able to question the debtor in full concerning his past actions and his proposed future actions. They are then able to make an informed decision through personal contact with regard to future arrangements which they consider will be in their best interests. If the proposed amendments become law, then the only trustees in Australia stupid enough to accept an appointment as controlling trustees would be those very trustees the Attorney-General is complaining about. No self-respecting or experienced trustee would allow the statements proposed in the new Bill to go out to creditors under his name, particularly when he knows that, at the meeting of creditors, they will be treated by creditors as statements of the trustee. Thirdly, there is no doubt in my mind that if the new proposals become law, then the cost of administration will be increased considerably and money available to creditors will be further reduced. Fourthly, the proposal that an instrument of proxy must specify the manner of voting at the meeting will provide no benefit for creditors and in most cases will act to their disadvantage, as at the meeting of creditors it is possible for the creditors, after discussion with the debtor, to decide on a number of courses of action, some of which will allow preference to be recovered and others not. Creditors who have received a preference are likely to attend a meeting to ensure that if any proposal is accepted, it will be one which will have the effect of preventing recovery of preference. If a proxy has been instructed to vote in a certain manner prior to the meeting, then obviously creditors may be seriously disadvantaged. From the amendments and from the comments in that quotation one can see the real reservations about the position of creditors in relation to those items and the way in which these meetings are proposed to be constructed. After all, that is at the heart of these amendments in relation to those creditors meetings and the preparation of statements before them. I welcome the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) to this discussion. The right wing might be rampant without him. As a consequence of what I have said, I hope the Minister will look at these considerations, because they are based on practical experience, not on whims or Public Service advice. One must bear in mind the background of this person, who is one of the foremost operators in this area. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(8.45) —The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987 is the Government's response to the demand within the community and to the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Bill attempts to present a total package that will tackle not only bankruptcy fraud but the difficulties for debtors, and in particular, consumer debtors. I was somewhat amused to hear the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) talk about a consumer education program, given that he belongs to an opposition that does not even have a consumer policy. Do we believe him? Does he genuinely believe in the value of money management programs, or are we simply to dismiss it as another of his meanderings? We in the Government have responded to the demand to move into this whole area of bankruptcy fraud and the allied problem of consumer indebtedness. One of those who called for bankruptcy law reform was the head of the Law Reform Commission, Mr Ron Harmer. His call came when he tabled the Law Reform Commission report, at a time when we had a record number of bankruptcies. What is of greater concern to us as a Government, and to the Minister, is that consumer debt is now estimated to be $23 billion. The Law Reform Commission stated that its recommendations were designed to streamline the 700,000 legal actions to recover debt which take place in Australia every year. The growth in the number of bankruptcies in all States has been one of our most distressing concerns. In my State of Queensland, 1,860 bankruptcies were recorded in 1986-87, which was a rise of 34 per cent over the previous year. In the July-September quarter of this year, there were 493 bankruptcies in the south, central and northern regions of Queensland. This compares most unfavourably with the 430 of the previous year. What is of concern in the 1985-86 figures is that, of the 5,544 bankruptcies, 3,624 were of the non-business variety. There is definitely a rise in the indebtedness in our community, particularly in the consumer and credit card area. Indeed, the report on consumer credit insurance looks at the need or greed factor. That is a question that we all need to look at. We also need to look at the rise in these bankruptcies and ask ourselves whether fraudulent business people are choosing the easier path of voluntary insolvency, and hence evading their rightful dues, or are people simply not able to pursue any other course of action which would enable them to meet their debts? The problem in Queensland is centralised very much on Brisbane and the Gold Coast and one has to ask, in terms of the Gold Coast, which is the heartland of the National Party State Government, why the number of bankruptcies is so high, given that that Government is supposedly committed to progress and the small business and is supposed to have the corner on money management. The figures would belie this, and we as a government are here to attack and wrestle with this question. This Bill attempts to address these issues in terms of fraudulent insolvency. It has been recognised for many years that the duty of the trustee in bankruptcy is twofold. Firstly, it is to realise the debtor's property and distribute the proceeds amongst creditors. Secondly, it is to protect public interests by investigating the bankrupt's contract. In 1983, an inquiry was set up to assess the practices of trustees. This departmental task force still exists and is continuing to monitor the way in which trustees work. This Bill will extend the trustee powers to investigate bankrupt's affairs by enabling the trustees to recoup from companies, partnerships, trusts and other persons assets which have been acquired by the personal efforts of the bankrupt. This Bill will introduce related concepts of associated entities and examinable affairs which will enable the court to make orders in relation to the property of entities controlled by a bankrupt. Associated entities will be placed under an obligation to co-operate with the trustee by making books of account and financial records available where this will assist in shedding light on the bankrupt's financial affairs. Indeed, as we all know, many of the problems associated with voluntary insolvency simply resulted from attempts by persons declared bankrupt to shift their financial affairs out of the arena in which the trustee was able to participate. However, this will now not be enough. A number of provisions will require the court to take account of the interests of third parties who have an interest in the property of the entity and creditors. Voluntary insolvency is, and must always remain, a last resort. It is important that an insolvent person be able to gain relief from his or her creditors. However, she must also be encouraged to explore the alternatives to bankruptcy. The introduction of the pre-bankruptcy moratorium of a maximum period of seven days will give some scope for dealing in this particular area. There are many people active within the family action and family support groups who claim that many of those people who declare themselves bankrupt are, of course, casualties in this consumer credit system. There is a need for tightening controls on the whole financial situation. Indeed, the corollary of the deregulation of the financial institutions is the need to look at and demand of those institutions some sort of control on their consumer credit and the way in which they operate their financial institutions. We can all cite cases of families that have been granted loans of $50,000 for a house, $20,000 for a car and then $5,000 for smaller debts. They have been given credit cards and so on. Of course, once a partner gets sick or a marriage breaks up they are unable to pursue those debts and, of course, fall very quickly into arrears and then become bankrupt. Indeed, Jan Pentland, a credit advocate at Family Action in the Dandenong Valley, cited a case in which a single mother with two children found herself with debts of $17,000 which had accrued as a result of her estranged husband's failed business and for which she was now responsible. In this case, bankruptcy was her only option and the debts will probably remain unpaid and unpayable. Such a moratorium now will in fact be able to address some of those very real problems and may lead to a resolution of better facilities for insolvents. Indeed, there has been a suggestion that, contrary to winding up companies, insolvency practices involve the utilisation of a wide range of resources, such as accounting, legal and other, to investigate and arrange a person's affairs so as to minimise the rates of bankruptcy which are occurring in our community. It has been suggested by a number of solicitors who deal in insolvency cases that what needs to be looked at in terms of these insolvencies is a way in which businesses can become more viable. Commercial reality must dictate the solution. Such arrangements must be accepted in the eyes of business proprietors and all debtors as a viable alternative to labouring under the weight of mushrooming debts. Indeed, the honourable member for Ryan pointed to a very real need for education of those people who run our businesses. In fact, what we should be looking at constantly is the demand for commercial viability and that businesses should be forced to develop processes whereby they can develop and work their way out of debt rather than taking the easy way out through voluntary insolvency. The Government has established a group of officials to undertake a comprehensive review of the provision of financial services in this area. The essential purpose of this will be to examine the adequate protection of consumer interests. Indeed, if we are to tackle the whole problem of insolvency within our community we must address it in two areas. The question of fraud has to be attacked. That has been done in this Bill. The Bill attempts to make some very significant changes to ensure that trustees in bankruptcy can investigate vested commercial arrangements which have used the bankruptcy laws to defraud creditors. On the other hand, in recognition that bankruptcy is not the most appropriate solution in all circumstances, the Bill encourages debtors to seek other solutions. Some of those solutions are as I have just mentioned. What we must address also, of course, is the question of consumer credit and who is responsible for allowing people to be loaned money in situations in which they are unable to pay. There has even been a suggestion from some financial counsellors in Victoria that financial institutions which irresponsibly extend credit to consumers should be compelled to contribute to court and other bankruptcy costs. As honourable members can well imagine, the Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association, Mr Cullen, has said that this idea is impractical. He has said that irresponsible lending accounted for a minuscule proportion of consumer bankruptcy. He has claimed that the most common reasons for bankruptcy are unemployment, divorce and illness. However, we have seen from figures cited by my colleagues on this side of the House that the real reason has been the overextended use of credit facilities. Indeed, Mr Cullen has said that to suggest that lenders are responsible for bankruptcy is a gross oversimplification and quite unfair. I would suggest, with respect to that gentleman, that he needs to look much more carefully at the kind of people to whom he is making credit available. Perhaps the consumer summit next year will address this very real problem. What the consumer summit will attempt to do is to look at the whole package of facilities and financial services which currently are available to people within our society which tempt people to get themselves into situations in which they are overcommitted. Indeed, a number of cases can be cited here in terms of the insurance industry in which people have been granted insurance for times when they may become unemployed or disabled. It has transpired that in fact those people have been unemployed or disabled at the very time of the signing of the contract. There are other instances of husbands and wives signing contracts only to discover that when the wife becomes unemployed she is not eligible. Indeed, the report states: The consumer credit insurance market is characterised by reverse competition. Insurers compete with each other to charge the highest price to consumers in order to be able to pay the highest commissions and so gain the greatest number of traders and credit providers selling their product (virtually) exclusively. I hope that this will be addressed very definitely by the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Staples) in his consumer and debt summit next year. It is not, as members of the Opposition have suggested, some sort of debtors football game. Indeed, this is a very serious business; people's lives are at stake. As a government we are attempting to respond to the demands and needs in our community. Hence, this Bill is a commitment by this Government to sensible law reform and a recognition of the need to attack fraud while protecting genuine victims. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(8.58) —in reply-I noted at the outset of this debate on the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill the rather cynical remarks of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) about the credit conference on overcommitment next year. I suppose it is the best we could hope for in the circumstances from those honourable members opposite. I point out that the proposal for a summit has had a very positive response from consumers in the community, from industry and, indeed, from the national media. Mr Reith —That is important. Mr STAPLES —It is important. The honourable member for Flinders also suggested in his speech that bankruptcy increases were due to government economic policy. He cited causes such as unemployment, high interest rates, the crash of the dollar and taxation policy. However, the overall reality is, of course, that a lot of these-this is particularly exemplified by the so-called crash of the dollar-were a result of the Opposition's policies when in government, in particular during the Fraser years when it desperately propped up the dollar at a fixed rate. If it had let the dollar float to its real world parity instead of hiding behind the facade of competence, for which it was well known over its years in government, perhaps the dollar would be in a different situation today. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Flinders did nothing-nor did any other honourable member opposite who contributed to the debate-to address the economic and industrial problems that faced Australia at that time, whether this was through protectionism or the inefficiencies that that engendered at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. The Opposition did nothing to address the basic economic and industrial problems in relation to wages and industrial relations policy, fiscal and monetary policies and, indeed, the Budget deficit. There is no need for me to justify this Government's economic performance, or its taxation policy for that matter. It has been judged twice by the people. One reason that I have to sit on the Opposition side of the House now is the success of those policies; I virtually have to sit next to the honourable member for Flinders. It has been a long time since members of the Australian Labor Party have sat on the left hand side of the Speaker and enjoyed it so much. Mr Reith —You obviously do not know anything about bankruptcy; that is the message. Mr STAPLES —I know a lot about bankruptcy because I sit so close to Opposition members and its policies have been bankrupt for so long. Mr Reith —At least we are not intellectually bankrupt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting and the Minister will not respond to interjections. Mr STAPLES —Business bankruptcies were also mentioned. The number of such bankruptcies has been decreasing in the period that this Government has been in office. The percentage of bankrupts claiming that economic circumstance was the cause of their bankruptcy has fallen from 25.1 per cent in 1981-82 to 19.7 per cent in 1985-86. The honourable member for Flinders also said that bankruptcy statistics were released reluctantly. I think that is the word he used. I point out to the honourable member that under the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) provisional unverified statistics on bankruptcy are now released quarterly, whereas under the administration of the Fraser Government and his Party they were released only in the annual report. I think honourable members will acknowledge that the word `reluctantly' was hardly the word to use when the statistics are available more often now than they have been in the past. To sum up in this regard, the foray of the honourable member for Flinders into economic matters was blinkered ideological exaggeration, to put it mildly. However, I appreciate that the honourable member's remarks tended to make more sense after listening to the contributions of other honourable members to the Bill. For the sake of the debate I shall respond to a couple of the points raised by the honourable member for Flinders. He spoke about the reimbursement of costs incurred in complying with a warrant. Unlike the provision in the fringe benefits tax legislation, under proposed new section 130, the warrant is issued pursuant to judicial authority. A warrant issued under the fringe benefits tax legislation is issued by administrative arrangement. The occupier of the premises is obliged to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance. I think those two factors will provide a control on any unreasonable demand by an officer executing such a warrant. Under section 178 a person aggrieved by any act or omission of a trustee may apply to the court and the court may make an order of the sort about which the honourable member for Flinders was concerned, if the court believes it is justifiable. The honourable member also said that only registered trustees and not solicitors should be able to call meetings under part 10 of the Act. He may or may not be aware that the sort of provision that he wanted inserted was very seriously considered by the Government. One practical problem in taking up that proposal is the fact that there is only a relatively small number of trustees and these tend to be concentrated in the major cities. The proposal to exclude solicitors could present substantial difficulties to many debtors in rural areas in gaining access to a registered trustee. I am sure that this matter will be given further consideration. The honourable member raised the matter of priority being given to tax debts. I note the honourable member's proposal that tax priority should be abolished. Mr Reith —I did not say that. I said that the Law Reform Commission had raised the issue and it should be looked at. Mr STAPLES —As the honourable member indicates, the Law Reform Commission did raise the matter. The Government has been considering its recommendation but it is not prepared to entertain it at this stage. However, the remaining priorities for taxation and income tax liabilities relate to amounts that have been deducted by any one person to remit to the Commissioner of Taxation on account of another person; for example, tax instalment deductions which have not been remitted by an employer to the Commissioner and that employer becomes bankrupt. I hope that that covers some of the points raised by the honourable member. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) raised the matter of personal bankruptcies. He said that it was reported to him that some people in the Adelaide office of the Department of Social Security were recommending to people that they should declare themselves bankrupt in order to increase their income. I have heard some anecdotal evidence in relation to the matter raised by the honourable member for Dawson and from other sources as well. Bankruptcy is of as much concern to me as it is to the Government. I think it is a problem that is well and truly recognised by honourable members on both sides of the House but, unfortunately, perhaps not so much by the community. Declaring oneself bankrupt is a very serious step for a person to take. Advice of the nature referred to by the honourable member does not really state accurately the situation in which the person might find himself or herself. Hence the Government proposes that a seven-day cooling off period should apply. The sort of advice to which the honourable member referred could be one of the reasons for the statistical increase in personal bankruptcies. Whereas in the past such bankrupts formed part of the overcommitment statistics, some of those people are now included in the personal bankruptcy statistics. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), whom I welcome to the debate, spoke quite a lot about consumer education. I for one agree in principle with the comments of the honourable member for Ryan in this regard. However, he did not explore the matter sufficiently for me to get to the bottom of his concerns. I would like to know whether he expects the taxpayers to pay for this consumer education or whether he thinks that the financial institutions should contribute some of the cost. The financial institutions should acknowledge that they have a greater responsibility to contribute to consumer education in Australia with the deregulation of the Australian financial system and the resultant freedom that has been provided to them. They have greater responsibilities flowing from that freedom, which I am sure is a good Liberal Party philosophy. It should be acknowledged that many of the financial institutions operating in the United States of America take the role of consumer education much more seriously than do the financial institutions in Australia. The State Ministers responsible for consumer affairs and I are very concerned about the lack of involvement of financial institutions in consumer education, and we believe that is a matter that must be addressed. I am sure that the honourable member for Ryan would applaud the fact that this year government expenditure on consumer education is to increase substantially. Unfortunately, we cannot rely upon consumer education being undertaken only in our schools, which is what the honourable member for Ryan seemed to concentrate on. We cannot wait for 20 or so years for the people who do not understand the implications of taking credit they cannot afford to move off this earth and for this wonderfully educated group of people to come through. Consumer education needs to take place in the schools and in the broader community as well. The honourable member for Ryan in his comments referred to a letter from Mr Wilson Wilde which stated that only two trustees had had their registration cancelled or in relation to whom application had been made for removal of their registration. In fact, despite Mr Wilde's position in this field, he might be interested to know, as well as the honourable member for Ryan, that in fact not two but seven trustees have had their registration cancelled or in relation to whom application had been made for removal of their registration in circumstances involving misconduct. These trustees were carrying out approximately 500 separate administrations under the Bankruptcy Act. A number of other trustees are also under investigation. One major trustee has proceedings pending against him for his removal. The honourable member for Ryan, in his comments on part X, quoted criticism again by Mr Wilde that the statement of affairs provided for at the start of a part X administration would be disastrous and would delay the start of a part X matter. That is incorrect. The debtor would be able to use the new seven-day bankruptcy moratorium to obtain a breathing space in which to prepare a statement of affairs. Debtors will be protected and creditors will receive full and timely information. The Law Reform Commission in its recent discussion paper recommended that this step be taken and that creditors receive full and timely information. I sum up by thanking Government supporters-the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobson), the honourable member for Davison (Mr Kerr) and the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford)-for their constructive comments in this debate, particularly on the issues of overcommitment and the finance industry in general. I expect a full and detailed response from the Insurance Council of Australia and other interested finance bodies to the consumer credit insurance report that was presented by the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association. I think it is important for the community to see that before much longer. The honourable member for Forde and the honourable member for Capricornia noted also that a working party has been established between the Treasury and the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs to examine the provision of adequate protection for consumer interests and the need to maintain an efficient financial situation. I believe that working party will make an important contribution to the understanding of these issues by the Australian community. I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I thank the members of the Opposition for their generous support and contributions to this debate, for the good quality and standard of debate and for the manner in which the speeches were presented. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 November. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the restructuring and reorganisation of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) in line with the majority of the recommendations of the report of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism, known as the Kennedy Report, which were endorsed by the Government in December 1986. The Commission was established in 1967 by the Australian Tourist Commission Act. This Act, now 20 years old, and amended on a number of occasions, is deficient in many ways and does not reflect current legislative drafting practices. Therefore it was decided that rather than introduce substantial further amendments of the current Act, it would be desirable to introduce a new Bill which would not only reflect the recommendations of the Kennedy report endorsed by the Government, but also take into account recent Government reforms concerning statutory authorities. Background On 19 January 1986 I announced the establishment of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism. The inquiry was established in response to the rapid expansion of tourism in the previous three years and the industry's increasing importance to the Australian economy. In accordance with its terms of reference, the inquiry was principally concerned with the `effectiveness of Commonwealth administration of its tourism promotion functions and related issues'. In specific terms the inquiry was asked to review: The appropriateness of existing provisions of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967; Funding, contracting, and staffing arrangements and structures appropriate for achieving the Commonwealth's tourism promotion objectives; Relevant operational arrangements, services and systems of the Australian Tourist Commission; Relationships between the Australian Tourist Commission and Commonwealth, State and other organisations with responsibilities that impact on tourism; Future policies and strategies that might be adopted by the Commonwealth to achieve greater effectiveness in its tourism promotion activities overseas and in Australia; and Any other matters referred to the Committee by the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism during the period of the review. The inquiry was carried out by a committee of five. The Chairman was Mr Jim Kennedy, Deputy Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission and Deputy Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Other members were Mr Jon Donohoe, Chairman of the Tourism Commission of New South Wales; Ms Geraldine Paton, publisher of the Australian newspaper; Mr Thomas Derry, General Marketing Manager, Ansett Airlines of Australia; and Dr Emanual Klein, then my Senior Private Secretary. I would like to place on record at this point my and the Government's sincere appreciation for the untiring work of the committee, whose members gave freely a vast amount of their own time to carry out the most thorough investigation ever undertaken into tourism in this country. Miss Sue Hunt, the Secretary of that committee, who at that time was in my Department, also performed a brilliant task. The 96 recommendations of the committee's report were supported by a most comprehensively documented report. The report was produced after wide consultation with the industry and State and Territory Government authorities. The large number of detailed submissions and comments received by the committee from industry and government bodies also reflected the growing importance of this industry's place in the Australian economy. On 7 May this year I outlined to the House the contribution of tourism to the economy. In doing so, I detailed the spectacular growth in the last five years which is due in no small part to the solid backing the industry has received from this Government and, in particular, the support it has given to the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission. I do not propose tonight to repeat in detail the areas in which this Government has laid the foundations to make this industry the fastest growing industry in Australia. Suffice to say that our achievements, spearheaded by the more than trebling of funding of the Australian Tourist Commission from $10m to over $33m, the easing of foreign investments guidelines, and encouragement of career training of people for the industry, to mention just three areas of progressive Government initiatives, have greatly assisted the tourism industry to move into its current dynamic mode. The recommendations of the Kennedy report, most of which were adopted by the Government, will make the Australian Tourist Commission a much leaner and more commercially-oriented organisation with greater emphasis on marketing, planning and evaluation. This Bill provides for a new legislative base on which the Australian Tourist Commission will meet the exciting challenges of the future to make Australia a premier international tourist destination. Major features of the Bill THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION The principal object of this Bill is to restructure the Australian Tourist Commission to enable it to perform its functions more effectively. This Bill will provide a new focus for the Commission and will update the Commission's purpose and operating methods. This will act as an important lever for development of tourism in Australia and enable the Commonwealth to obtain the best return on the resources it has allocated for this purpose. Under this Bill, the scope of the corporate mission of the Commission will be narrowed. The Commission's activity will now be directed towards promoting Australia as an attractive tourist destination in the international market-place. It will withdraw from the field of promotion of domestic tourism, leaving that to the States and Territories. The Commission will, however, retain a role in enhancing the awareness of the importance of tourism to Australia. It will also have a role in monitoring the effects of international tourism on Australia's natural environment and society. The development of tourism in Australia in relation to the inbound market requires specific planning and it is not proposed that the Commonwealth proceed down this track in isolation. We will be seeking the co-operation of all concerned. But it needs to be emphasised that rationalisation of the amount of money spent overseas by governments and industry is required to maximise the effects of those resources for the benefit of Australia's economy overall. Accordingly, the principal objects of the Commission are: (a) to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas; (b) to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors; and (c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism. In order to achieve this the Commission's functions as set out in the Bill are: To promote Australia overseas as a tourist destination; To enhance awareness of Australia overseas as a tourist destination; To co-ordinate the overseas promotional efforts of the Australian tourism industry, in co-operation with State and Territory tourism authorities and with the Australian tourism industry; To enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry; and To closely monitor and report the effects of international tourism on Australia's natural environment and society. STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS This Bill provides for a Board of Directors of the Australian Tourist Commission to consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, a government member, who will be an officer of the Australian Public Service, a managing director and five other members. Of the five other members, at least two will be drawn from representative national tourism organisations. This provides for a board of nine members as opposed to provision for 13 members under the existing legislation and is in line with government statutory authority reforms which aim to streamline boards to a workable size. The Kennedy report found that the current Board of 13 did not encourage efficient operations. In fact, a number of submissions, including that of the Australian Tourist Commission itself, advocated a smaller board. A number of submissions to the inquiry reflected the desire to restructure representation on the Board including the statutory requirement for representatives from the States and Territories to sit on the Board on a rotational basis. The States themselves criticised the current rotational system, particularly on the basis that they were disadvantaged when not participating on the ATC Board and did not have ready access to agenda papers for meetings and current market intelligence. It would be impractical to have simultaneous representation of all States and Territories on the Board. This Bill removes the current formalised State representation on the Board. However, close consultations with the States is essential to the operations of the ATC and alternative and more effective consultative mechanisms are now being developed and implemented. For example, a round of newly instituted planning meetings held individually with each State and Territory has taken place over the last two to three months. The Bill retains the existing provision for the appointment of a board member from the Australian Public Service, now referred to as the Government member. It is appropriate that the Board continues to have the facility to draw on knowledge and understanding of public administration and statutory accountability requirements, and Government policy. The Bill provides for the appointment of the chairperson on a part time or full time basis. At present it is considered appropriate for a chairperson to be appointed on a part time basis. However, should circumstances dictate at some future time that it would be more appropriate to appoint a full time chairperson, the Bill does provide that flexibility. Accordingly, and in line with the report recommendations endorsed by the Government, the Bill provides for the Board members to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and experience relevant to the tourism industry. The Bill provides that at least one of the members will be a person who has environmental or sociological expertise relevant to the tourism industry. It is also envisaged that a board appointee will have extensive commercial experience at a senior level, and have demonstrated track records of successful management. CORPORATE PLANNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY A major focus included in this Bill which affects the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission and an important area not covered under its existing legislation, concerns corporate planning and accountability as set out in part IV of the Bill. The Kennedy inquiry examined in detail, and made a number of recommendations relating to, an appropriate management framework for the ATC. Its report stressed that adequate evaluation of marketing and operational programs is essential. The analogy was drawn that just as all elements of Australian tourism should responsibly carry on their tourism business within a strategic, co-ordinated framework, the same principle must apply to the ATC. It is now intended that the Board of the ATC become more active in the establishment of corporate goals of performance and the setting of corporate priorities to enhance the strategic planning process, and in the use of its available resources. Section 25 of the Bill requires the Board to prepare a corporate plan. The corporate plan will include a statement of objectives of the Board and an assessment of the market and economic outlook for inbound tourism to Australia. The plan will span a rolling five-year period and will be subject to review and revision each year. It will be submitted to the Minister for approval as soon as practicable after it is prepared. The corporate plan will provide the basis of accountability to the Parliament and the industry at large of the ATC's activities and is in accordance with the Government's reforms for statutory authorities. In addition to the preparation of a corporate plan, section 26 of this Bill provides for the Board to prepare an annual operational plan. The annual operational plan for a financial year will contain an estimate of the Commission's receipts and expenditure and specify the programs that the Board proposes to carry out and the resources that it proposes to allocate to each such program giving effect to the corporate plan for that year. Division 2 of part IV of the Bill details accountability of the ATC. It sets out the requirement for the Commission to prepare an annual report and also empowers the Minister in exceptional circumstances to give directions to the Board. It is included in accordance with standard and accepted legislative practice. The Future This Bill, the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987, provides a new and comprehensive legislative base for the Australian Tourist Commission to equip it to meet successfully the growth and the challenges of a dynamic tourism industry up to and into the twenty-first century. It is appropriate that the legislation under which the Commission has so ably performed for the last 20 years should now be replaced with new and amended legislation which more adequately provides for the future operation and direction of the Commission. These legislative changes are the result of this Government's initiative to commission a far-reaching inquiry to examine the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission. On the advice received from the Kennedy Committee of Inquiry, the Government has been able to formulate this Bill confident that it will provide the legislative basis for an efficient and effective Australian Tourist Commission. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 2 November. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the existing Managing Director of the Australian Tourist Commission to continue in office in accordance with the terms and conditions of his original appointment and to repeal existing Acts to allow the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 to come into effect. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Debate resumed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Australian Tourist Commission Bill concurrently with the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.30) —The purpose of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill is to reform the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) following the recommendations made by the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism-the Kennedy report. The Australian Tourist Commission was set up under a Liberal-National Party government to promote Australia's tourist product overseas in a co-ordinated and effective fashion. Since its inception, the ATC has grown in importance as our tourist industry has grown and has increasingly contributed more and more to the Australian economy and to employment. Tourism today is one of our most important industries; in fact, it is our fastest growing one. In 1986-87 tourism earned Australia $22 billion and employed more than 400,000 Australians. It is one of our largest industries and, with time, will compete for our number one spot. Tourism employs more people than our textile, clothing, footwear and motor vehicle industries combined. It is worth noting that for every 32 international visitors one job will be created in the industry. Our agricultural industries represent collectively 4 per cent of gross domestic product. Tourism represents 6 per cent of gross domestic product. Of course, in addition to the economic benefits, having people from around the world coming to us as visitors has an immense intangible value in our relations with other countries. I state these facts to highlight the need for the Parliament to recognise the importance of what we are doing today. We are dealing with one of the most crucial facets of the tourist industry-the body that promotes it overseas. Consequently, a good decision in relation to its restructuring will enhance tourism's potential contribution to our economy and to our society. A wrong decision will seriously weaken the industry reducing our chances of creating jobs for those hundreds of thousands of Australians who so desperately need them and, equally important, reducing the income earning potential that the industry's future represents. So let us not treat this legislation lightly. We are dealing with Australia's future, both economic and social, and when we are dealing with those things we must recognise how few bright lights we have on our economic horizon. Tourism is one of those bright lights. We must treat it with great care and we must ensure that everything we do in this Parliament will not reduce our potential to make jobs and to make income for Australia. The Government has made a complete botch of this legislation to reform the ATC. Sure, it has picked up the bulk of the recommendations in the Kennedy report, but it has picked up only the ones from the easy basket. It has left the important recommendations untouched in the too hard basket. In fact, looking at the legislation after it was amended in the Senate, we can say not only that the Government is gutless but also that the Government is crazy. The principal recommendation of the Kennedy report was that terms and conditions of employment within the Australian Tourist Commission be removed from Public Service rules to more flexible private sector-type rules. The Government has completely ignored this, leaving the Australian Tourist Commission bound up by the limitations of Public Service rules of employment. It is a great shame that this is the case. Here we have a golden opportunity, a chance to amend our principal body that promotes our tourist product overseas. We have a chance to ensure that the future of this body will be maximum in its effect. We have a chance to get the very best people that the industry has to offer to work within the ATC. Unfortunately, we are passing up that opportunity. Unfortunately, the Government is not prepared to pick up this somewhat harder recommendation in the Kennedy report-a recommendation that, no doubt, goes against the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, an organisation which is very much in association with this Government, and the union movement in general. But I still say to the House that the Government should have done it. The net effect of what the Government has done is that the ATC will not be able to meet the market if it wishes to employ the best people for the job. In other words, the best people for the job will not bother to apply because of the inflexible nature of the Public Service. Wages will not be attractive enough so we will possibly end up with second stringers in the job. This is immensely sad; in fact, it is disastrous. Here we have the premier tourist promotion body in the land promoting an industry that we so desperately need and, because of this Government's gutless approach, we will find that it will not be able to do the job 100 per cent because it will not be able to employ the best. This factor concerns all those in the industry. It concerns the authors of the Kennedy report and it concerns the Liberal and National parties because we believe that it is vital to have at the top of one of the most competitive industries in the world the very best possible talent to carry out the job. For these reasons we will be moving amendments in the committee stage that will relate to the application of private sector rules and conditions of employment. For the Government to reject these amendments would be a sheer act of stupidity-an exercise of sticking its head in the sand as far as it can go. I know that there are members of the Government who stand with me in this claim. I know that there are people right throughout the industry who recognise the importance of changing the terms and conditions of employment within the ATC. Our fastest growing industry deserves the best. This Government is denying it the best. As a result, every Australian will pay the price. As I have said, our tourist industry has the potential to create immense wealth for Australia. It has the potential to create many jobs, for young Australians in particular, but because we will not be promoting it to the maximum that we could, every Australian will pay the price. Our standard of living will not be as high as it could be. The number of jobs created will not be as great as it could be because of this decision. The ATC has recently moved it offices from Melbourne to Sydney. This has been an expensive move in more ways than one. It cost $3.3m to move, in effect, four public servants and some files and to provide adequate facilities for them. Of the 45 staff employed by the ATC in Melbourne, only four chose to move to Sydney. This cost the taxpayer $1.48m in severance and redundancy payments. The 41 staff who left each received from $5,000 upwards. In fact, the average payment was about $34,000. But the additional and intangible cost is that the ATC has been left with only a handful of experienced staff. It lost some of its best in the move-and I suppose, to be fair, it can be said that it also lost some of the worst. But either way the ATC is really strapped for experienced personnel at the moment. Of the four people who moved from Melbourne to Sydney, one was the Executive Director, whilst others were people such as Annie Burfitt and Bill Gray. Annie Burfitt is now Director of Corporate Planning, which is a crucial role mapping out long term strategy for the tourist industry. I understand that as at the end of November she had no staff to assist her. That is a very big task-one of the biggest tasks within the whole operation of the ATC-for someone to carry out on her own. Mr Gray, a former journalist with the Melbourne Herald, who used to run the public relations section, has been skyrocketed in importance. He now heads four divisions within the ATC-public relations, advertising, publications and information. That is a mighty task for one person to perform. I am quite sure that both these people are very competent at their tasks, but the purposes of these examples is to highlight how badly off the ATC now is under the Government's administration following this legislation. If we add to that the fact that the Commission cannot offer attractive wage packages to get the very best people, we will see that things will go from bad to worse. The cost of the move has had to be borne by the ATC from its normal operating funds, and that $3.3m represents about 10 per cent of its total budget. Mr Rowe, the Executive Director, said-I think at a Senate Estimates committee hearing-that this will have to come from the ATC's promotions budget, which is the only area of flexibility. This means that, in the year of our Bicentenary, when more than two million people from overseas will be visiting Australia, we will not be promoting and marketing Australia as a tourist destination as well as we should. At a time when more and more people want to come to this country, we will be spending, in effect, less and less on telling them how they can get here because of the Government's approach to the administration of the Australian Tourist Commission. The other exclusion in this legislation from the Kennedy report relates to the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS). I am grateful that this legislation gives me the chance to speak on this matter as it is in the eyes of the industry not only one of the biggest issues of the day but also one of the great scandals of this Government. TOPS, as it is known within the industry, was created to help Australian tourist operators to promote and market their product overseas. The collective good that this did for Australia is well documented. Its most enthusiastic supporter was the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) himself. I could quote from pages of documents quoting the Minister who was crowing about what a marvellous innovation TOPS was, how clever he was for introducing it and what good it was doing for the industry. He always had at the top of his list of achievements for the Labor Government for the tourist industry the creation of TOPS. Tourist operators recognised the value of TOPS and used it to its fullest. It was one of their most popular activities in relation to the Australian Tourist Commission and the Department of Tourism. The Opposition also recognised the importance and effectiveness of TOPS. Despite the Minister's claims that the Liberal and National parties would axe TOPS if elected to Government-claims he made repeatedly throughout the campaign-we do support an effective overseas promotion scheme such as TOPS. The Minister was plainly wrong in his assertions. The proof is in black and white in our policy document. I believe that it was mischievous to state throughout the election campaign, as the Minister repeatedly did, that we would axe the scheme if we were elected to government. Of course, quite the opposite was the effect. Because of the value of TOPS industry grew to use it extensively and, at the same time, it grew used to the processes of applying for funding. Earlier this year rumours circulated that TOPS would be cut out. Quick to respond, the Minister said that this was not the case. On 4 June he released a statement to put a stop to such `ill-informed and mischievous rumours'. A Press release dated 4 June 1987 and entitled `Tourism Overseas Scheme to Continue' states: I am happy to say that the Government has agreed to a forward commitment cover for the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS) of $9 million for 1987-88, Mr Brown, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism said today. The Press release continued: TOPS is a sound Scheme which has been designed specifically for the tourism industry. Those applications which have been held up pending the resolution of this matter will now be processed forthwith. There we have, in unequivocal language, a clear statement from the Minister saying that TOPS would continue in the following year and that not only would it continue but also it would have an 80 per cent increase in its funding from about $5m a year to $9m a year. People in the industry heard this message loud and clear. People were told by the Minister that if they voted for Labor TOPS would continue; if they voted for the other lot it would be axed. Of course, this was a very persuasive argument in the whole scheme of things in winning votes in the tourist industry in the 11 July election. But since the election the Minister repeated those claims. I understand that even the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in a letter at the beginning of September continued to repeat the claim that TOPS would continue under a Labor Government. All of this was seen to be completely misleading. On Budget night the real truth was out-TOPS was axed. I quote from the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He said: The Government is convinced now that the industry is able to conduct its own promotion activities without direct assistance . . . It is for this reason the Government will end . . . (TOPS) . . . which had provided Government assistance to the industry for promotion activities. There we have a clear indication of the Minister, on the one hand, saying that the scheme would continue and would have its budget increased by 80 per cent and, on the other hand, only weeks later the Treasurer saying, `Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, TOPS will no longer exist. You do not need it. It is now officially axed'. That decision has left the industry in uproar with claims that it was taken for a sucker and led up the electoral garden path. I have spoken to so many people over the last few months about this issue. I have spoken to people who had applications pending, applications which received a registration number, applications which according to them met the guidelines, applications which, if funding were to be continued and increased in 1987-88, would certainly have been successful and would have received funding. All of those people are very upset at what the Minister and this Government have done. If we are to appreciate the impact that that has had, we have to recognise that the tourist industry is basically made up of small businessmen. Very few operators are like the Hiltons, the Sheratons or the Regents; more likely they are small hotel or motel proprietors, small tourist operators, bus companies, boat charters, restaurants and so on. So the funding that TOPS represented to them could in some cases have made the difference between bankruptcy and viability. I do not use exaggerated language when I say that. Since the Government's backdown on TOPS I have been inundated with correspondence expressing outrage and concern. Many people have told me outright that their overseas promotion from this day on is over, that they simply cannot afford to do it without help. The damage that this reaction will have on the potential income tourism could generate for Australia is inestimable. It will, without doubt, reduce the number of people who will come here in the future. It will do it because TOPS helped to ensure that people such as travel agents had all the information that was necessary in order to get tourists into this country, to inform those tourists what is available in this country, to inform them as to how they can travel around within the country. TOPS provided all of those services and those services will now no longer be available. Our industry will certainly suffer. Mr Tim Fischer —A breach of contract. Mr SHARP —It is a breach of contract. The industry is looking at that from a legal point of view at this very moment. I know that in 12 months time the Minister will trot out figures attempting to show that my last comments are false. He will show that tourist numbers have increased dramatically. That no doubt will happen. How much more would they have increased if TOPS had been left to operate? How much more income would have been generated? How much more employment would have been created? These points are the relevant ones to consider. To try to deny them is to attempt to hide from reality. There is no doubt that we will not achieve our full potential because of this decision to axe TOPS. Over the last few weeks the Minister has tried to play down this breach of faith. May I say to the House that this has fooled no one except perhaps himself. I want to quote some people who have written to me expressing their feelings about the Minister's actions. I remind the House that these words are not my own words; they are the words of people who are desperate, who have been seriously let down by the Government. I quote from a letter from a reasonably sized company based in New South Wales. It states: My major objection is the blatant dishonesty with which John Brown at every possible opportunity was coaxing companies to spend big and promote overseas. To be duped by the Government . . . is nothing more than a dishonest copout by someone who obviously couldn't properly manage and administer the scheme. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. There needs to be a substantive motion if an accusation of dishonesty is made against a member of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The Minister has a valid point of order in that an honourable member may not abuse Standing Orders by quoting from correspondence, reports or newspaper articles of any sort as the honourable member for Gilmore is doing. I ask him to avoid references which are of a personal nature. Mr SHARP —Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall continue with this quote as I do not think any of it contravenes Standing Orders. The letter continues: The tourism industry will no longer trust, support or co-operate with any project where Mr Brown and his Department- that is, the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories- are involved. I refer to a letter from another reasonably sized company in New South Wales. It states: We expended these monies- that is, moneys it spent on overseas promotion- in good faith after numerous reassurances from the Government that TOPS would continue. These funds are essential to our survival. A smaller company from Western Australia writes: A grave injustice has been perpetrated. I feel that the Government has misled us and let us down. In the view of our company and our industry colleagues what the Government has done is totally immoral . . . We lost $30,000-a huge amount for small business. A company from Darwin in the Northern Territory wrote: I am extremely disappointed in your failure- the letter is to the Minister- to uphold the promises made to us at the Australian Tourism Exchange in June this year . . . I would not have undertaken promotions of this dimension without having believed in your commitment to this scheme. For a new small business struggling to get established the withdrawal of this subsidy is devastating. A company in Victoria, a reasonably sized bus coach company, wrote: This organisation has found it necessary to virtually chop most of our budget for international activities. This organisation has found it necessary to cancel our visit to the Japanese marketplace and it is purely based on having to adjust our budgets. A Queensland firm says: Assurances at A.T.E. Sydney June 1987 said that this scheme would continue and helped boost my plans for the future. I am faced with having to curtail some of my projects-I will not be employing additional staff as planned-in fact I am now very much considering the prospect of making cuts in the existing number of employees. I feel my integrity is being questioned. These are words of the industry. They are not my words; they are the words of people out there who have been adversely affected by the decision of the Government, adversely affected by statements made by the Minister. I am afraid on this occasion neither the Minister nor the Government can wriggle out of this one. Their credibility has been put to the test. The other area that is causing concern within the industry in relation to this legislation is that the Government, in cahoots with the Democrats, has effectively weakened the Australian Tourist Commission by turning it into some sort of sociological and environmental watchdog. Now, thanks to this Government, the Australian Tourist Commission, with no extra resources of personnel, has to monitor and report on the effects that international tourism has on the environment. This may sound like noble stuff. Everybody on this side of the House has a genuine concern about the environment. Certainly I recognise that as far as tourism is concerned protection of the environment is vital. It is vital because it is the environment that we sell in the tourist industry. We do not sell softer beds or hotter showers; the tourist industry sells the Australian environment. It is in the best interests of every tourism operator to protect, to maintain and indeed to enhance it. So everybody is agreed that the environment is very important, but the ridiculous nature of these inclusions into the role and functions of the ATC are unbelievable. The ATC-and I can say that this view is shared unanimously in the industry-should be wholly and solely out there promoting and marketing our tourist product overseas. If we divert its attention away from that we do the industry and Australians a disservice. There are countless State and Federal government bodies set up at taxpayers' expense to monitor the environmental effects of all sorts of things. I did some quick research into the matter, courtesy of the Parliamentary Library and I discovered hundreds of such bodies. I have here lists of State and Federal government bodies set up to monitor the environment. Many of them have already put out reports on the effect of tourism on the environment. There must be 20 or 30 pages in the list of existing government bodies which deal with the environment. How the Government expects to maintain any respect within the tourist industry with this sort of inclusion is beyond me. It is a disgrace. It is not necessary. All the Government is doing is duplicating existing services. Another disturbing aspect of the legislation was an inclusion within the Bill which gave the Minister the power to direct, in secret, the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission and, having given that direction, to expect the Board to follow it to the letter and not to reveal the existence of the direction if the Minister deemed it in the public interest so to do. This is an extraordinary inclusion. Not even the Treasurer has that sort of power of secret direction. One can only guess that this sort of power would be necessary if the nation's security were in question. But we are not dealing with a national security organisation; we are dealing with Australia's Tourist Commission. To give the Tourism Minister this extraordinary power is unnecessary and I believe the claims that it is outrageous are valid. Surely the Minister does not want to give directions to the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission that he believes need to be covered up. I am glad that at least one of our amendments in the Senate was agreed to by the Democrats and an alteration was subsequently made by the Government. If this had not been done a very nasty precedent would have been set. The final concern with the legislation relates to appointments to the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission. Now the Board of nine members will be completely appointed by the Minister. This creates the opportunities for claims of jobs for the boys. The Liberal and National parties propose a very simple solution to this; that is, appoint two representatives from a panel of names from the Australian Travel Industry Association as nominated by the board of directors of that Association. This would guarantee that there is a flow of information between the peak industry body representing tourism-and it is that despite the Government's attempts to state otherwise-and the Board of the ATC. The amendment accepted by the Government is a very clever trick designed to fool the Democrats. As the amendment reads now, our amendment is superseded by one which states that two representatives be selected from a national tourist industry representative body. In other words, anyone who is a member of any one of a number of national tourist industry organisations can be deemed to be the industry representatives on the Board of the ATC. I can assure the House that nobody, with the exception of the Democrats, will be fooled by that. Overall, the Kennedy report is very good. It sets in place the way in which the Government should structure our Australian Tourist Commission. Unfortunately, this Government has neither the courage nor the interest to follow this move to its full potential. I believe the ATC is now a weaker body than it could have been. It has consumed a large proportion of its funds moving from Melbourne to Sydney. It has lost its experienced personnel and will be a long time replacing that experience. It has been given a new role and function-that of monitoring the environment, without any extra skills or resources to carry it out-thus diverting its efforts from its proper function. And it has also lost the chance to employ the best people to promote our fastest growing industry and our brightest light on the economic horizon by not giving it the flexibility of private sector terms and conditions of employment. At the same time the Government has done its best to offend the tourist industry's peak association by denying it representation on the board. All in all, the Government has done a good job of messing up a damned good report and an industry with heaps of potential. As a result of this legislation and the Government's decision to axe TOPS the Government has lost respect and credibility in the eyes of the tourist operators of Australia. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.58) —Tonight the Parliament is discussing the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC), which is just another example of this Government doing its very best to assist the development of the tourism business in Australia. However, from listening to the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), with his negative, carping criticism, one would have thought that we were considering something else altogether. The Opposition says that it believes the Government's approach to tourism is gutless. The Opposition spokesman repeated that accusation throughout his speech. I hoped that I would hear from the honourable member for Gilmore a policy from the Opposition on what it might do if it were ever the Government of Australia. But once again all we heard from the Opposition was negative, carping criticism. There was no recognition that this Government has done more for the tourism industry than any government in the past, no recognition of the work that the current Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has done to develop the tourism industry and no recognition that this restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission will do something to assist the flow of tourists to Australia. I suppose in listening to the honourable member for Gilmore we were really hearing the echo rather than the substance of the Opposition's position on tourism. Recalling speeches on this matter in the past, we will really hear the Opposition's point of view on tourism when the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) speaks in this debate after me. The unfortunate thing from the Opposition's point of view is that the fellow who knows all about tourism on its side of the House is on the back bench and the fellow who purports to know-that is, the honourable member for Gilmore-is on the front bench. I suppose in many ways that points up the weakness in the Opposition in that the empty vessels that make the most sound are put on to the front bench to bay and make the most noise and the people of substance are kept on the back bench. While I had hoped to hear something from the honourable member for Gilmore about tourism, obviously I will have to wait to hear from the honourable member for Fadden and other Opposition members to find out something about this subject. Mr Tim Fischer —You will never sit on the front bench so I would be a bit careful. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member for Farrer is also one of those empty vessels that make most of the noise in this House. I think that the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission is very much a function of the work of the Kennedy committee-the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism. That committee presented a two-volume report, which the Government commissioned, and brought down 96 specific recommendations, the great majority of which have been implemented by the Government. The recommendations cover the whole breadth of what we should be doing in the tourism industry in Australia. I think that Mr Jim Kennedy, the chairman of the committee, and the other members of the committee-Mr Donohoe, the Chairman of the Tourism Commission of New South Wales; Miss Paton, the publisher of the Australian; Mr Derry, the General Marketing Manager of Ansett Airlines of Australia; and Mr Klein, who was the Senior Private Secretary to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories-did an excellent job in terms of the report which they brought down. It is very interesting to look at the people who were on that committee because this gives an indication of the lengths to which the Government will go to get the best input into how we should restructure public authorities. The Deputy Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, the Chairman of a State tourist commission, the publisher of the only national daily newspaper in Australia, the General Marketing Manager of one of the major airlines in the country and a senior public servant were on the committee. That is the type of input that one would expect one should have in terms of a government inquiry. One would have thought that, with that type of input, the Opposition's response to the Government's acceptance of most of the committee's recommendations would have been more than, as the Opposition spokesman said, a gutless approach by the Government. I do not know what the Government has to do to attract the support of Opposition members, but it tends to be more and more a case of their taking their bat and ball home rather than attempting to have a real influence on the direction that Australia and the marketing of government instrumentalities will take. As I said earlier, all we hear from the Opposition is carping criticism. It should be remembered that the Australian Tourist Commission legislation was first brought into this House about 20 years ago. Frequently we hear the Opposition say that there should be reviews and sunset clauses. Twenty years on the Government has said that we will look at the legislation and make some changes. The changes will ensure that the ATC becomes a more lean body. Quite frankly, there were too many people on the previous Commission. Various sectional interests were represented. Other sectional interests claimed that they were not getting copies of papers, and so on. The whole thing was becoming a dog's breakfast. This time the Government has sought to make the ATC competitive, so it can get on with the job of selling Australia overseas and attracting people to this country. In combination with changing the Commission and moving its headquarters from Melbourne to Sydney, the measures contained in the Bill will allow ATC precisely to get on with that-encouraging people to come to Australia. When they get here, the State and Territory tourism organisations can rightly help them to decide on which destination in Australia they should go to. The important thing for us to do as a national government is to get tourists to Australia. I believe that the current Labor Government's record in this area is the envy of the world. In view of the carping attitude of the Opposition, it is obviously the envy of the Opposition as well. Since coming to office in 1983, the Labor Government has overseen a remarkable growth in international visitor arrivals. Under the previous Liberal Government in 1983, we have gone from 900,000 arrivals to an estimated 2.2 million arrivals this year. Mr Mildren —How much is that again? Mr LEO McLEAY —It is estimated that this year there will be 2.2 million arrivals. The Opposition says that that has nothing to do with the Labor Government. My goodness, I do not know whom it has to do with. Certainly it has nothing to do with the honourable member for Gilmore who can only stand up in here and attack people. He is a carping, sniping, lazy Opposition member. The easiest thing for a person in opposition to do is to get up and whinge. We are in government because we sat down when in opposition and worked out ways to be the government of Australia. All we hear from the knockers on the other side is what we have done wrong. The honourable member for Gilmore said that because someone in Melbourne did not like having to move to Sydney the Government should abort its program to move the Commission's headquarters. I can say to the honourable member that if he could ever come up with something that increased the number of arrivals to Australia from 900,000 to 2.2 million, he might end up sitting on this side of the House. Instead, all we get from the honourable member is a number of pieces attacking people personally-indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, you had to pull him up to stop him from that with some little funny story about the monorail at Ayers Rock. This Government has put a real effort into the increasing the number of arrivals into this country. It is interesting that we hear this carping criticism from members of the National Party of Australia. Some of the people who have been able to profit the most from what this Government has done have been the honourable member's colleagues in Queensland. What this Government has done for tourism in Queensland has been the envy of everybody. Because of the activities of this Government people are now arriving in Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane, which was not the case before. It is interesting that under this Government the tourism and hospitality industry has a net value of $24 billion. Under the stewardship of the colleagues of the honourable member for Gilmore in 1983, it was $8 billion. But the honourable member for Gilmore says that we are a gutless bunch and that we have made some awful mistakes. We have managed to improve this country's income from tourism and hospitality from $8 billion to only $24 billion! If that is an example of gutlessness, I hope that we keep it up. A whole lot of people in this country who are profiting from this industry were not doing anything in it when the honourable member for Gilmore and his colleagues were on the treasury bench. I think the work that the honourable member for Parramatta, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, has done has been magnificent for the tourism industry in Australia. One of the reasons he has done such a good job is that he has been willing to listen not only to the industry but also to his colleagues. Indeed, if the honourable member for Gilmore came up with something for him to listen to, he would listen to that. I know that he listens to what the honourable member for Fadden says because the honourable for Fadden, unlike the rest of the Opposition, makes a lot of sense on this subject. I have two brief points that I would like to mention which the Minister might like to take on board and do something about. The first and most important is that we need to do something about the congestion at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The stock answer from the Opposition on that is, `Let's build another runway'. Of course, there are many other things that one can do at Sydney Airport than build another runway. One is to have a look at the flow of inbound traffic to Australia and in particular at where people stop off before the plane gets to Sydney. If the honourable member for Gilmore had thought about this, which of course he has not, but my friend the honourable member for Fadden has, he would realise that one of the smartest things that we could do is process people arriving in Australia in Brisbane. I would like the Government to take this on board. When the flights from Japan that go on to Sydney stopover in Brisbane for an hour, rather than just having the tourists sitting around in the transit lounge, we might look at doing some of the Customs, health or immigration checks. I see that the honourable member for Fadden, who is an expert in this area, agrees with me. That would be a sensible way to use the Customs, quarantine and immigration personnel in Brisbane. It would ensure a much more speedy through-put at the terminal in Sydney. I would like the Minister to have a think about that proposal. I think that when the Government Pharmacists properly considers it, it will realise that that is something intelligent to do. I feel sorry for the poor member for Gilmore. He is sitting there looking at me wishing that he had thought of that himself. If he had talked to his mate, the honourable member for Fadden, he might have put him up to it. However-- Mr Holding —They don't get much chance to think. Mr LEO McLEAY —As the Minister says, the Opposition front bench members do not get a chance to think much-- Mr Smith —Cut that out. Mr LEO McLEAY —With the exception of some of the more astute people from Tasmania. Unfortunately for the honourable member for Bass, he probably will not be around if the Opposition ever gets over to this side of the chamber. He is pretty young now, but he will probably be older than the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) and me by the time that he gets to this side of the House. The other thing that I would like the Government to look at, and which I know the Minister is interested in, is the question of in-bound duty-free-one of the larger industries in Australia. Unfortunately, at present some of the operators working in the in-bound duty free industry, especially at Sydney Airport, are not willing to provide the whole range of Australian products that should be made available. I suggest that the Minister and the Australian Tourist Commission should look at that national attitude to tourism in Australia. We should be getting the duty free dollars off people when they come back to Australia, and we should be talking to the duty-free operators at the major gateways here in Australia about expanding the range of goods that they have on sale. It is not good enough to have just cigarettes, whisky and perfumes for sale. There should be offered a range of electronic and other items that people really wish to buy. I ask the Minister to turn his mind to that. All in all, the Minister and the Government are to be commended for the proposals that they have in this legislation. The Opposition's carping criticism should be rejected. I look forward to hearing the genuine Opposition position on tourism when the honourable member for Fadden speaks in the continuation of this debate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.15) —Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to apprise the House of the sterling work undertaken in my electorate and surrounding electorates by the Waverley Employment Resource Centre, the WERC. The WERC administers a highly successful employment training scheme that assists unemployed people of all ages and the school leavers of Waverley to obtain work through suitable training. The Centre was created in May 1984 by the Waverley City Council and, since its creation 3 1/2 years ago, the Council has financed its operations throughout. During its time of operation, approximately 700 unemployed residents of Waverley have moved into the work force. The program has a consistently high 75 to 80 per cent success rate. The objectives of the Centre are to prepare each job seeker for his or her role in the work force, and to make a common meeting ground between employers and potential employees. People attending the Centre are taught the skills related to accepted personal presentation, which include good telephone manners as well as the ability to express themselves comfortably and adequately in a job interview. They are assisted with letters of application and equipped with a resume. They are then guided through all the channels of job advertised resources and ongoing supported assistance continues to be given until they are employed. The Waverley Employment Resource Centre is very well supported by the local community, including the four Rotary clubs in the area which provide representation on the advisory committee and volunteers who assist with the Centre's training programs. Other volunteers provide administrative and clerical support when needed. Furthermore, the Centre works closely with the Commonwealth Employment Service office at Mount Waverley with the manager of the office being a member of the Centre's advisory committee. This scheme not only assists young people to have a real future, but also assists in restoring a mutual respect between employers and the people from WERC who have been `groomed' to match employer needs. The unemployment figures in the Municipality of Waverley have without doubt been considerably reduced through the operations of WERC. I might add, Madam Speaker, that this service is provided by the Waverley City Council free of charge to its users. However, there is now a very real possibility that this excellent and pioneering service may have to be closed because of a lack of funds. The cost of maintaining the Centre, which is borne solely by the Waverley Council, is proving to be financially onerous for the City of Waverley. Both the Centre and I have attempted to alert the Federal Government to the Centre's plight and secure Commonwealth funding to ensure the Centre's survival. On 22 September 1987, I wrote to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) strongly urging him to grant the necessary funds to WERC to ensure the continued operation of this unique, successful and very worthwhile resource. By way of reply I received a letter from the Minister's office, dated 17 November 1987, enclosing a copy of the letter to Mr Leo Canning, Chairman of the Centre's advisory committee. The letter, signed by a Mr Garth Lampe, a First Assistant Secretary, whilst not directly saying no to funding, says in the last paragraph: I trust that the Centre will be successful in securing funds to enable its continued operation. In other words, I think it is fair to say that the very Department responsible for employment and training is washing its hands of an organisation with a proven and successful track record in employment and training-the WERC. This Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in its efforts to fight unemployment, particularly the crisis of unemployed youth. If this Government is really concerned with tackling the basic issues of unemployment rather than concentrating on the public relations value of the next new job scheme it could not do better than provide funding to the very effective WERC. Finally, I would like to say, for the benefit of the Minister more than anyone, that the Waverley Council at a meeting last week voted to continue funding the Centre until the end of its financial year. Considering the financial pressures that the Centre places on the Council's overall budget, the Waverley Council is to be much commended for its sense of civic duty in maintaining financial support for the Centre. On the other hand, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, together with his Department, should hang their heads in shame. If the financial pressures do indeed force the closure of the WERC it will be as a result of this Government's insensitive and callous attitude towards the unemployed, especially those in the City of Waverley and in my electorate of Bruce generally. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.19) —In 1960, Cyprus became an independent republic and its sovereignty and territorial integrity were guaranteed by the treaty of guarantee signed by Britain, Turkey and Greece. In 1974, northern Cyprus was invaded by Turkey and what later was purported to be an independent state in northern Cyprus was proclaimed. About 50,000 Turks were settled in northern Cyprus as a result of the invasion and occupation of that area. In the process of that occupation about 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees were forced to flee the northern area, leaving their homes and properties. Tonight I just want to draw attention to the fact that last month a few hundred brave Greek Cypriot women braved the minefields at the border of the northern state to storm the United Kingdom controlled buffer zone to reach the Turkish Cypriot north for the first time in 13 years. The report indicates that the demonstration was orderly. Of course, the women subjected themselves to considerable danger. What they were attempting to do was to reassert the right of Greek Cypriots to return to the land which they had occupied, the land in which they still own property and from which they were forced to flee, leaving their homes and other possessions. I am delighted that the position which the Australian Government has adopted in relation to this unfortunate situation which prevails in Cyprus has been made perfectly clear, by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). Only recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade wrote to members on the Government side, and perhaps to other honourable members as well, to indicate the Government's attitude towards Cyprus, because Australia had abstained in regard to a particular question which came before the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. I think that that action on Australia's part has, in some quarters, been misunderstood. I do not think it should be taken to suggest or to imply in any way that Australia's attitude towards the Cypriot question and Cypriot problem has, in any way, been reduced. In that recent letter the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said in very positive terms: The Government- that is, the Hawke Government- remains firmly in favour of a peaceful negotiated settlement of the Cyprus problem which would provide for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-aligned status of Cyprus. We continue to support the negotiating efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General as the most promising means by which such a result can be achieved. Australia continues to give its full support to the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. We continue to recognise it as the sole legitimate government in Cyprus and we refuse to give any recognition to the claims of the so-called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus''. We condemn the continue presence in Cyprus of Turkish troops. Against this background it is clear that Australia supports the legitimate concerns of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and is concerned for the human rights dimensions of the issue. There is only one country in the world which recognises northern Cyprus as a separate republic in Cyprus-that is Turkey. No other country recognises it, nor should any other country in the world. Australia does not, and Australia will not. In order to restore the rights of the people of Cyprus, particularly the Creek Cypriots who were forced to flee from their homes as a result of that illegal invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus, it is quite clear that the Turkish armies should be withdrawn. The present build-up of forces in northern Cyprus which threatens the integrity and independence of Cyprus should immediately cease. The Greek Cypriots should be given the opportunity to return to their homes in northern Cyprus. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.24) —Tonight I would like to tell honourable members about a very fine achievement in my electorate-something that has resulted from some very hard work by several individuals in the City of Portland. I am talking about an event that will come to pass in the Bicentenary. All the work started 10 years ago. I think it is a real compliment to the individuals involved at the time that next year they will see their efforts come to fruition. I am referring to two individuals in particular. One is the current mayor of Portland, Councillor Keith Wilson, and the other is Mr John Francis. The two of them have worked tirelessly to obtain the opportunity for the Tall Ships sailing to Australia to celebrate the Bicentenary to call in at Portland. Mr Lee —Outrageous. Mr HAWKER —For the benefit of the honourable gentleman opposite who shows his ignorance, Portland was the first port of European settlement in Victoria. It has a very fine record. I would like to tell honourable members a little bit about this matter tonight. Back in 1977 when these two gentlemen, Keith Wilson and John Francis, knew about the bicentennial celebrations, they started their efforts to get the Tall Ships to visit Portland in 1988. Having achieved so much for the 150th celebrations in Portland, these gentlemen resolved in 1984 that they would make sure that the Tall Ships would visit Portland. Following many discussions and a lot of effort, they in fact got to the point at which a deputation from Portland could, with the agreement of the Premier of Victoria, go to the Sail Training Association meeting in London to discuss the whole thing. The Portland committee is also very grateful to Qantas Airways Ltd for assisting with the transport of those two gentlemen to the Sail Training Association meeting where they were able to put their submissions on behalf of the city of Portland. While their submissions were favourably received, it was in fact found subsequently that the Tall Ships would not be able to visit Portland. However, the two gentlemen were not prepared to give up easily and continued to lobby very hard in all directions to change the mind of the co-ordinator of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Tall Ships Australia program. It was not just the two gentlemen who were involved. The whole city of Portland worked tirelessly. It was a community effort, one which I think everyone should take their hats off to. The people of Portland were prepared to take not just one knock-back but about 10 knock-backs until, eventually, Rear Admiral Swan, who by this stage the local community had demoted one rank a week to something close to midshipman, finally relented and agreed to allow the Tall Ships to come to Portland. Therefore, it is to the efforts, particularly, of John Francis and the Mayor of Portland, Keith Wilson, that I pay tribute for obtaining this visit-not only for the people of Portland but the people who live around Portland. If honourable members look at the map and the facts, they will find that over 180,000 people live within two hours drive of Portland. I think that many of those people will make the effort to get to Portland on 26 and 27 March to see those Tall Ships because it will be one of the great spectacles of the Bicentenary. While I am talking about the Tall Ships, I must say that it was a great honour for me 2 1/2 weeks ago to go to Portland to board the Young Endeavour, which is the British Government's present to Australia for the bicentennial celebrations. I can tell honourable members that it is a very fine ship. What impressed me even more than the ship-it is a magnificent sailing ship-was the young Australians who crewed that ship. What a fine bunch of people they are. It was an absolute delight to meet them. They are a tremendous tribute to the youth of Australia. I am sure that that ship will be seen not just as a present but as an ongoing thing and something that all Australians will feel very proud of. Those people who are fortunate enough to sail on that boat will have an experience they will remember for the whole of their lives. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.29) —Tonight I am pleased to be able to make the House aware of the fact that pharmacy in the Australian Capital Territory has now grown in stature to the point of being a separate branch of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. This was agreed to by the Guild National Council late last month. ACT pharmacists have had a long association with pharmacists in Queanbeyan, Goulburn, Cooma and other nearby towns. I know that they too are going to benefit from this increased strength in the Australian Capital Territory. The most pleasing feature of the formation of the ACT branch of the Pharmacy Guild is the hard work done by a Red Hill pharmacist, Kate Carnell. At the national council meeting of the guild held last month, she was the only woman representative of her profession in which more than 50 per cent of graduates from the pharmacy schools at our universities are women. Kate Carnell has shown great leadership qualities since the recent moves towards the formation of the ACT branch of the guild. I publicly congratulate her on her efforts. Kate Carnell is dedicated to the interests of consumers as well as pharmacists in health care delivery. Australia is known to have one of the best pharmaceutical service deliveries in the world. That efficient delivery results from a very finely tuned approach by both the pharmaceutical benefits group in the Government in its negotiations-I might say that at times they border on the tight side-and the efficient service provided by the pharmaceutical profession. The profession will face three important challenges in the next few months. The first is the recently announced reduction in the wholesale margin. The Government proposes to reduce the 15 per cent wholesale margin to pharmaceutical wholesalers to 10 per cent from 1 January 1988. Wholesalers estimate that they have been providing pharmacists with discounts averaging 6 per cent. I point out that that is larger than the reduction proposed. Wholesale profits before tax have increased by 89 per cent over the past four years. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme price paid to pharmacists will be closer to the actual average price paid by pharmacists. The wholesalers and the Pharmacy Guild have expressed opposition to the proposed change, claiming, first of all, that surcharges on small quantities of drugs and slow moving drugs will increase. They have claimed also that the surcharges will mean that pharmacies will carry fewer stocks of vital drugs that attract the surcharge. They have said that pharmacists will receive 34c less remuneration for typical pensioner scripts. The Government has argued that wholesalers will absorb some of the reduction in the wholesale margin available to them. On average the margin reduction will be able to be fully absorbed by reducing wholesalers discounts, if the wholesalers are so inclined. I notice that some of the wholesalers are not doing that. Pharmacists have enjoyed something of a gain as a result of the combined effect of the recent increase in average pharmaceutical benefits scheme prices and the percentage mark-up in pharmacists' remuneration. I believe that the 34c reduction in pharmacists' remuneration which has been calculated will be taken into account by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal when next it determines the dispensing fee for pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions early in 1988. Although the Tribunal will probably not meet until then, it will not be able to make payments to pharmacists retrospective to the present. Although this will disadvantage pharmacists, it will be able to determine that such payments should increase on that date. In the coming weeks the safety net entitlement card scheme for pharmaceutical benefits will have been operating for 14 months, and at the end of 12 months some 400,000 cards had been issued. I guess this will mean increased pressure being placed on pharmacists over the next few weeks to the end of the year when requests by patients-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.34) —I wish to take a few minutes tonight to talk about a matter that has been raised in this House before. In a bipartisan way I wish to join with my counterpart on the Government side of the House, the Minister for Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), in speaking about the importance of superconductors. Mr McGauran —What about the Nella Dan? He let that sink. Mr SMITH —Perhaps we will talk about that tomorrow. There is a need for research in Australia into superconducting materials which, if they can be improved, could result in incredibly cheap power and usher in a torrent of stunning possibilities. What is superconductivity? Superconductivity is the ability to convert electricity with no energy loss. Since no energy is lost, any electrical device becomes far more efficient when built with superconductors. Materials differ in their ability to conduct energy. Some are very poor conductors-we use them to insulate our homes-while others, all metals, are quite good conductors. However, these conventional conductors lose a proportion of the energy they carry because the energy-carrying electrons are scattered by thermal vibrations and impurities. Copper wire, for example, soaks up 5 per cent to 15 per cent of the electricity that surges through it. This is expensive. A study by California's Pacific Gas and Electric indicated that its losses through copper wire amounted to $US200m a year. The problem with superconducting, a phenomenon discovered early this century, has been that it could only be achieved at extremely low temperatures, that is about minus 273 degrees celsius. The expense involved in handling liquid helium to achieve these temperatures makes any commercial application unthinkable. The challenge then is to find a material that will superconduct at higher temperatures. Two years ago, Karl Muller of Switzerland and Johannes Bednoz of West Germany, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics this year, discovered a new ceramic that raised the temperature to minus 238 degrees celsius. Since then other researchers have used similar materials to achieve superconductivity at even higher temperatures. Paul Chu and his colleagues at Houston University reached minus 175 degrees celsius. In July this year, his team observed superconductivity at minus 43 degrees celsius-well above the temperature of dry ice and conventional freezers. The goal is to push the limit to 60 to 70 degrees celsius, more or less room temperature. What materials have this magical superconductive capacity? It is ironic that the new superconducting materials-ceramics-are those that usually act as insulators at room temperatures. The specific types of ceramics that have been found to do the job of superconducting are those based on `rare earths', in particular, barium and yttrium. We will be hearing a lot more about these elements in the years ahead. The problem is that while the superconductors are easily made-the oxides are ground into dust, fired, then pressed into their final shape-their quality is uneven. Some tend to crumble when produced in batches. The Soviets, for example, have already produced a room temperature superconductor material, but its shelf life is less than a day. All the products are brittle and the most disturbing factor is that scientists have no idea how these normally non-conductive oxides conduct energy at certain temperatures. There is a great deal of work still to be done. That is the point the Minister made back in October. What are the possibilities and/or applications of superconductors? They are many and various. Among them are superfast trains, floating on invisible magnetic tracks; pea-sized supercomputers; frictionless bearings; and more powerful medical imaging machines. However, one of the most important possibilities in an energy hungry world is 100 per cent efficient power lines which will result in incredibly cheap energy. The most immediate possibilities are for short distance links of a few millimetres within computers. However, some researchers predict that superconducting transmission lines for long distance communications could become a possibility. These would have 100 times the capacity of optical fibres. Why should Australia be involved? What should Australia be doing? We should be more involved than we are. Australia has the research strength in solid state physics, crystallography, and superconductivity physics. My plea is that we make a far more substantial commitment to further research in this premier high technology area. Indeed, that was the Minister's plea in October. There is no doubt that Australia will be left behind the rest of the world unless we recognise our potential to contribute to research in this area. Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union have all launched crash programs, and we must do the same. There is no doubt that superconductivity is becoming the glamour industry for the future. National recognition of this high technology revolution which is now under way is crucial if Australia is to have any part in its development. I ask at least those honourable members on the Government side who have an interest in this matter to make sure that the Government responds, at least through the agency of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, by providing more funds to do the job that is vitally necessary for all of us. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The Chair keeps a log on adjournment debates. The honourable member for Stirling has participated in an adjournment debate only once this session. I call the honourable member for Stirling. Mr McGauran —It must be a misprint. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will keep his comments to himself. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.39) —In the light of the needs of other members, I shall keep my remarks brief. I wish to raise tonight two matters that I believe are important. One concerns a recent decision by Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio in Western Australia to curtail cricket broadcasts to country areas. In my view that is a very backward step, particularly in view of the fact that the Australian cricket team succeeded today and that the vice-captain of the Australian cricket team, Geoff Marsh, comes from the country area of Wandering. So, a large number of people in country areas of Western Australia are now receiving a curtailed radio coverage of cricket. I believe that this Government has recognised for some time that there has been a deprivation to people in country areas. We have made some major reforms to rectify that communication gap. Despite the general tendency we have towards communications, I am disturbed that the ABC management in Western Australia has taken this backward step and deprived people in rural areas. We ought to be saying to people in country areas that they are part of the larger Australian community, particularly for important activities such as cricket, and, as my colleague says, especially when we are winning. We are pleased about this success today but it is important that people in country areas have a full coverage of it. The other matter I wish to report on is a matter that is currently concerning the Australian community-drug taking in sport. Recently on behalf of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), I attended the Margaret River Thriller in Western Australia. That was backed by the drug offensive. As all honourable members know, its commitment is to give out a strong message to the Australian community about the dangers of drug taking. Mr Lee —Was that a surfing competition? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, it was a surfing competition. There are two observations to make. The first is that the winner of that competition was Tom Carroll who, as all honourable members know, refused to surf in South Africa and has taken a prominent role in respect of drug taking. Another important thing is the number of other prominent surfers-in fact the top surfers in the world-who have signed the register indicating they will not take drugs as part of their surfing activity. People of the calibre of Barton Lynch, Tom Carroll, Mark Richards, Tom Curran, Damien Hardman and Gary Linden are willing to say they do not have to take drugs to succeed in this sport. Sadly, some people in other areas of athletic activity in Australia are condoning drug taking in sport. I am delighted to see these prominent sportsmen, and Australia's top wave skier, Natalie Fuhramann, who lives in my electorate of Stirling, sign this drugs register because they are prepared to put their names on the line. They are prepared to say people do not need drugs to engage in their sporting activity and to get to the top. I wish to say to many people in the Australian community that they should choose as their examples these men and women who are successful in their sport because they do not need the support of drugs. People who were fortunate enough to be at this competition would have seen that these were the healthiest, fittest, best examples of young Australians we could have. I make that point clearly to the House. The third matter I raise is of some local concern. Recently activities were carried out in my electorate with funding from State and local government. As a result of that road making activity the homes of some local people were damaged. Unfortunately, the major contractor, Malavoca Pty Ltd, and the local government authority, the City of Stirling, have refused to provide any compensation to these people for their damaged homes. I believe it is a gross neglect of their obligation and duty of care to residents that when people's homes are damaged in this way either the prime contractor or the local government authority will not take responsibility and will not exercise their duty of care. Despite the fact that a bond was paid to cover such damage no compensation has been provided to these people. This is a matter of grave injustice and I wish to put it on record in this chamber. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.43) —This Government's handling of FM applications has been characterised by gross incompetence, inconsistency and outright negligence. It would be almost comical if it was not so serious for both the applicant and the general public. In my area of Gippsland a serious problem has arisen of late because there are indications from the junior Minister, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan), that a high power service will be set up in the Latrobe Valley. Honourable members should realise that there are two service areas in Gippsland. One is serviced by 3UL and the other by 3TR, and they overlap in the Latrobe Valley. Radio station 3TR services east Gippsland and all the rural hinterland and 3UL also services the rural south Gippsland hinterland. So, there are about 160,000 people in the 3TR service area and 170,000 people in the 3UL service area, and there is an overlap in the Latrobe Valley of about 90,000. Can honourable members imagine, if the Minister's hint that a superstation will be set up in the Latrobe Valley is correct, what it will do to those two existing stations? It will mean the major proportion of the business houses and the population will be covered by one new FM station, effectively putting out of business the AM stations which service rural areas but which overlap in the Latrobe Valley. Mr Martin —Isn't that competition? Mr McGAURAN —It will not be competition, as the honourable member interjects, because the national advertising companies will inevitably pour their advertising into this one superstation, and 3TR and 3UL depend largely on national advertising. Of course, the national advertisers will not be so interested in the outlying rural hinterland serviced by 3TR and 3UL as much as they will be in one superstation servicing that very attractive catchment area of the Latrobe Valley. Therefore I believe that FM licences should be granted to existing service areas. If the new FM stations want to set up in the Latrobe Valley, that is fine; it does not matter where their offices are located so long as they service the existing AM service areas. Mr Holding —Isn't that a matter for the Tribunal? Don't you believe the Tribunal should decide that? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister suggests we should leave it to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to decide. That is a comment made in sheer ignorance because after all it will be the Government that determines the service areas for which applications can be made. It worries me enormously that two large industries in my electorate can be effectively destroyed by the concept of one super FM station in the Latrobe Valley. I support the idea that service areas for FM licences must correlate or reflect existing AM service areas, otherwise the existing AM operators are put at an enormous disadvantage. It worries me greatly that there seems to be a mood emerging from the Government for a super FM licence based on the Latrobe Valley. It has been put to me by the General Manager of 3TR, Mr Tony Bell, that there should be simultaneous FM and AM telecasting at present to educate people so that by 1990 or 1991 when FM comes to Gippsland people will be used to it. It will be offering another service. So, from now on why cannot FM be broadcast simultaneously with AM? As Mr Bell argues, it will be an educative process and will prepare people for the introduction of FM. Obviously it will be at some cost to existing AM operators and will be of no real advantage to them because it does not enlarge the audience in any way, but the idea is worthy of consideration. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(10.48) —Today marks the twelfth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of East Timor. East Timor is little more than 500 kilometres from my office in Darwin. East Timor has been sealed off from the rest of the world, with the exception of some carefully guided delegations, for the past 12 years. The city of Darwin and its people welcomed the thousands of East Timorese refugees who fled their country during and post-1975. I now have the responsibility of representing the largest population of East Timorese in any electorate in Australia. Some 3,500 Timorese now live and work in Darwin. While many have settled and prospered in the country that welcomed them to its shores, the continuing denial of human rights and lack of progress in negotiations to settle the issue of self-determination for East Timorese people remains a point of bitterness and betrayal for these members of my electorate. Darwin, of course, has been the location of several radio transmitters set up to maintain contact with Fretilin forces. These transmissions have been a vital, if legal, source of information to the outside world of the current struggle that continues in East Timor. As we enter the thirteenth year of the occupation of East Timor by Indonesian forces, it is clear that the present situation is marked by gross violations of human rights. The report by Amnesty International released in 1985 detailed extra-judicial executions, disappearances, systematic torture and political imprisonment of the local population. The report of the Uniting Church's Social Responsibility and Justice Committee, published in June this year, states in part in relation to East Timor: Freedom of speech and assembly are heavily curtailed, Press censorship is part of daily life and the right to organise is very restricted. Most importantly, the report states: The actions of the Indonesian Government suggest that the intention is to destroy the East Timorese people, spiritually and culturally. Since 1975 it is reported that some 200,000 East Timorese people, or a third of the population, have died in the conflict with Indonesians. This is nothing short of genocide. It is alleged that Timorese women are being forced into family planning programs and that Indonesian language has replaced the indigenous Timorese language in schools. The East Timorese fear that they will become a minority in their own land. East Timorese resistance fighters continue to wage war against the Indonesians. The Government of Indonesia claims that the people of East Timor have already exercised their right to self-determination. They claim that Fretilin is now only a rag-tag band of guerrillas. I ask the obvious question: if this is the case, why does East Timor remain sealed off from the rest of the international community? If there is nothing to hide, open the doors to East Timor. The issue of East Timor remains a compelling one, both in terms of basic principles of international law and by virtue of the thousands of lives that have been lost on this small island over the past 12 years. The history of the position of successive Australian governments on this issue is well known and, I am afraid, is not an inspiring one. It is difficult at times to understand Australia's priorities in terms of its defence of human rights and self-determination when so often we prefer to ignore what is happening in our own backyard. In a more general sense the Western history of colonialism and exploitation hardly justifies our claiming to be the champions of human rights. We in the West do not have any proprietorial claims to `universal humanist' values. Such ideas transcend time and place; they transcend arbitrary geographical boundaries. If we in Australia wish to be considered as adherents to the universal values of human rights and of cultural, religious and political freedom of the right to self-determination, we must be consistent. We must be consistent both within our national boundaries and in our relations with other countries. Over the past 12 years the struggle for self-determination of the East Timorese has taken place on two fronts. There has been, and continues to be, the physical war fought in the hills and countryside of the island. The other front has been the diplomatic war-the war that we are part of that is essential to the final solution for the people of East Timor. I am firmly of the belief that we must renew our efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement. But that settlement must not be dictated from the top. The people of East Timor must be allowed to have a voice in any political settlement regarding their country's future. It is not only the governments of Portugal and Indonesia which should determine the final outcome of any political settlement regarding their country's future. The representatives of East Timor, the East Timorese people, must be allowed to partake in these discussions. There must be unrestricted access allowed by international humanitarian agencies in East Timor. There should be positive action taken on family reunification and emigration. Finally, I wish to make this pledge to my Timorese constituents: while ever I take my place in the House as a member for the Northern Territory, I will continue to support and make representations on their behalf to ensure a just and durable peace in East Timor. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.53) —Over the weekend I was appalled to read that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) joined with the Minister of Health in Victoria to condemn sugar as a health risk. It seems inconsistent to me that the Federal Minister and also his Department have, over the years, waged a war against the benefits of sugar as opposed to some alternative diet while the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has contributed quite a lot to restoring the industry in the north to a profitable situation. We have within the same Government two departments which seem to be opposed in this point of view. I am very happy to see the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) in the chamber. I am sure that he would agree with me and would also question this great inconsistency that the Minister for Community Services and Health exposed over the weekend. I have on many occasions challenged the Department of Community Services and Health to produce the evidence that sugar is a health risk. It is obviously as natural a sweetener as that contained in fruit and other foods. Yet, quite categorically, the Department, in suggesting diets, has always said that sugar is a health risk. Sugar poses no risk whatsoever to the economy of this country. The sugar industry is a major employer, it is a major contributor to our trade opportunities throughout the world and it is a major contributor in redressing the adverse balance of trade that we suffer. My figures indicate that about 6,500 farmers have a direct manufacturing input. It would not be an unfair estimate that in Queensland 100,000 to 150,000 people derive direct or indirect sustenance from the sugar industry. The remarks of the Minister for Community Services and Health automatically make one think of the alternative to sugar-artificial sweeteners. I suggest that there is very definite evidence throughout the world that artificial sweeteners are a risk to the health and life and limb of those who use them. What the Minister did not say was that an alternative to a reduced sugar intake is healthy exercise. Perhaps the diets recommended by both the Department of Health and the Federal and Victorian Ministers should emphasise that. An assistance package being worked out by this Government and the Government of Queensland involves $25m to $30m to deregulate and rationalise the sugar industry. Just a few weeks ago in my electorate of Dawson four mills merged as a co-operative to ensure that the sugar industry remains a viable part of the economy of that region. The sugar industry in Australia is the most efficient and the most health conscious in the world; it has the best technology of any sugar industry in the world and it spends a large amount of money on research. Through CSR Ltd, the industry spends a lot of money on positive research and positive advertising. The Government's attitude towards sugar is not inconsistent with its attitude towards rainforests and the World Heritage listing of the Daintree. Timber from rainforests makes a contribution to the domestic production of timber. In its absence, of course, we would have to import rainforest timber and again that would affect our balance of trade. However, there is an inconsistency with the Government's uranium policy. It maintains that some uranium is good and some is bad but is prepared to tolerate acid rain and the other effects of using conventional energy resources. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.58) —In the couple of minutes left tonight I wish to commend the Government for its promotion of multiculturalism, and I want to highlight some words that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) used in a speech late last week when he said: The social justice dimension of multiculturalism acknowledged that all Australians, irrespective of their background, have the right to participate as full and equal members of the community. They are entitled to a fair go and a fair share-which is what our policy of access and equity is all about. In promoting the concept of multiculturalism I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Whittlesea Ethnic Communities Council that operates in my district. I congratulate the Council on its third ethnic communities festival, which was held yesterday in Lalor. Mr Martin —Did you open it? Mr JENKINS —I spoke at the opening. I wish to congratulate Mustafa Goksan, the Chairman of that Council, who is a Turkish Cypriot, born in Cyprus. He migrated to Australia and is making a great contribution to his local community. I also recognise the efforts of George Ishkan, who is an ex-councillor of the Shire of Whittlesea and the inaugural Chairman of the Ethnic Communities Council who did a lot of work for the first two festivals. At this year's festival the master of ceremonies was Councillor Frank Merlino, who was born in Italy. I believe that these people are representative of those in the Shire of Whittlesea, 36 per cent of whose population was born overseas. This festival is a significant effort in trying to promote the concept of multiculturalism, which is not just to do with migrant communities but also something in which all Australians should be involved. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Holding —Madam Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs)(11.00) —The honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) raised a question which falls clearly within my portfolio responsibilities when he talked about the work being done by the Waverley Employment Resource Centre. I say to the honourable member that I have received representations not only from him but also from you, Madam Speaker, in your capacity as the member for Henty. Both honourable members have commended the work of this organisation. I think it is a matter of concern to the Government that this is a voluntary organisation, working with support from a local community, which is dedicated to finding work for young people or mature people who are unemployed. That commends itself to the Government. Madam Speaker, I give an undertaking to you and to the honourable member for Bruce that I will personally examine the matter, discuss it with departmental officers who are responsible for examining these matters and get back to you and to the honourable member for Bruce, hopefully with a view to seeing what can be done to ensure that a worthwhile project is given appropriate support by the Government. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, may I just thank the Minister for taking up the matter so promptly. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member was quite out of order. However, the sentiment was in order. House adjourned at 11.02 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of the session with effect from 15 March 1988 with the exception of proposed new standing order 28d: (1) New standing order 28d be inserted: Selection Committee ``28d. (a) A Selection Committee, to consist of 11 Members of whom 6 members shall be Government members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to arrange the timetable and order of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on each sitting Thursday pursuant to standing order 101. (b) Private Members' business which is to be accorded priority, the order of consideration and the times allotted for debate on each item shall be approved by a majority of the members present at a meeting of the committee and in accordance with general principles adopted by the House after report by the committee. (c) The Selection Committee may determine the order of precedence and times allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business and shall report its determinations to the House in sufficient time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the first sitting day of each week. (d) Reports of the committee made pursuant to paragraph (c) shall be deemed adopted when laid upon the Table and shall be printed in Hansard. (e) Five members of the committee, including 3 Government members, shall constitute a quorum of the committee. (f) For the purpose of private Members' business in this and any other standing order, a private Member is any Member of the House other than the Speaker or a Minister.''. (2) Standing order 48a be amended to read: Adjournment and next meeting ``48a. At 7.30 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday and at 10.30 p.m. on each other sitting day, the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, that division, and any division consequent upon that division, shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday, or at 11 p.m. on each other sitting day, the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.''. (3) Standing order 101 be amended to read: Routine of business ``101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Matter of public importance. 5. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Thursday 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Presentation and consideration of reports from parliamentary committees and delegations. 3. Private Members' business (commencing no later than 11 a.m., debate concluding no later than 12.30 p.m.). 4. Grievance debate. 5. Members' statements (at approximately 1.45 p.m.). 6. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 7. Presentation of papers. 8. Ministerial statements, by leave. 9. Matter of public importance. 10. Notices and orders of the day.''. (4) New standing orders 102a, 102b and 102c be inserted: Committee and delegation reports ``102a. Following the presentation of petitions each sitting Thursday, parliamentary committee and delegation reports may be presented and orders of the day called on for the resumption of the debate on motions moved in connection therewith in the order determined by the Selection Committee. Statements on committee and delegation reports ``102b. Upon presentation of a report of a parliamentary committee or delegation pursuant to standing order 102a, the Member presenting the report and one other member of the committee or delegation may, subject to any determination of the Selection Committee, each be accorded priority in making a statement to the House for a period not exceeding 10 minutes and a specific motion in connection therewith may be moved without notice by the Member presenting the report whereupon the debate on the question shall then be adjourned until a future day to be determined by the Selection Committee. Precedence to motions regarding committee and delegation reports ``102c. Following the presentation of reports pursuant to standing order 102a, the resumption of proceedings on motions relating to committee and delegation reports shall have precedence until 11 a.m. according to the order of priority and times allotted for debate determined by the Selection Committee, each Member speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes or any lesser period determined by the Selection Committee. If the consideration of any question has not concluded at the time appointed by the Selection Committee or at 11 a.m., the debate shall be interrupted and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a future day under private Members' business.''. (5) Standing order 104 be amended to read: Precedence to government and private Members' business ``104. Government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of private Members' business except that, on each sitting Thursday, private Members' business shall have precedence of government business from the conclusion of consideration of committee and delegation reports but commencing no later than 11 a.m. and debate concluding no later than 12.30 p.m. At the conclusion of consideration of private Members' business, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, any questions on which a division had been called for earlier in the day, and which had been deferred pursuant to standing order 193.''. (6) New standing orders 104a and 104b be inserted: Private Members' business-Procedure ``104a. In the period during which private Members' business is accorded precedence pursuant to standing order 104, notices and orders of the day relating to private Members' business shall be called on by the Clerk in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. When the time allotted by standing order 104, or by the Selection Committee, for an item of business has expired, consideration shall be interrupted by the Chair and the question before the Chair shall be put: Provided that, where the Selection Committee has determined that consideration of a matter should continue on a future day, at the time fixed for interruption- (a) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings; (b) if the House is in committee, the Chairman shall report progress, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the next sitting Thursday for the further consideration of the matter. Priority will be given to notices by private Members of their intention to present bills in the order determined by the Selection Committee. Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes in support thereof. The bill shall then be read a first time and, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 218, the next sitting Thursday shall be appointed for the Member to move `That this Bill be now read a second time'. If the motion for the second reading of any private Member's bill is agreed to by the House, further consideration shall be accorded precedence of other private Members' business and the Selection Committee may allot times for consideration of the remaining stages of the bill. Withdrawal of private Members' business ``104b. Any private Members' business not called on, or any private Members' business the consideration of which has been interrupted pursuant to standing order 104a and not re-accorded priority by the Selection Committee on any of the next 8 sitting Thursdays, shall be removed from the Notice Paper by the Clerk.''. (7) Standing order 106 be amended to read: Grievance debate ``106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each sitting Thursday shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker, at the conclusion of consideration of private Members' business, `That grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. If consideration of the question has not been concluded at 1.45 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on Members' statements pursuant to standing order 106a.''. (8) Standing order 106a (General business and grievance debate) be omitted and the following standing order be substituted: Statements by Members ``106a. At the time indicated in standing order 106, a Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 90 seconds. The period allowed for these statements shall not extend beyond 2 p.m.''. (9) Standing order 109 (general business procedure) be suspended for the remainder of the session. (10) Standing orders 112, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 127, 129, 130 and 132 be amended to read: Petition to be lodged with Clerk ``112. Every petition shall be lodged with the Clerk by 12 noon on the Wednesday previous to the Thursday at which it is proposed that it be presented. To bear Clerk's certificate ``113. Every petition when presented must bear a certificate signed by the Clerk or Deputy Clerk that it is in conformity with the standing orders. To request action by House and be legible ``115. Every petition shall request action by the House, shall be fairly written, typewritten, printed or reproduced by mechanical process, without interlineation or erasure and shall be free of any indication that a Member may have sponsored or distributed the petition. To be signed by persons themselves ``118. Every petition shall be signed by the parties whose names and addresses are appended thereto, by their own hand, and by no one else: Provided that persons unable to write shall affix their marks in the presence of a witness, who shall as such affix his or her signature and address, and the address of the petitioner. To be signed on same sheet ``119. Every petition shall contain the signature and address of at least one person on the sheet on which the petition is inscribed. Signatures not to be transferred ``120. Every signature and address shall be written upon the petition or upon sheets containing the prayer of the petition, and not pasted upon or otherwise transferred thereto. Member to affix name and electoral division and the number of signatories ``127. Every Member lodging a petition with the Clerk for presentation to the House shall clearly affix his or her name and electoral division at the beginning thereof, together with the number of signatories. Clerk to announce particulars of petitions lodged ``129. The Clerk shall make an announcement as to the petitions lodged for presentation to the House, indicating in the case of each petition the Member who lodged it, the identity and number of the petitioners and the subject matter of the petition, and any Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The terms of the petitions presented and responses given shall be printed in Hansard. No discussion upon the subject matter of a petition shall be allowed at the time of presentation. Petitions deemed to have been received: Other questions on presentation ``130. Every petition presented shall be deemed to have been received by the House unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. The only other questions entertained by the House on the presentation of a petition shall be 1. That a particular petition be printed; or 2. That a particular petition be referred to a committee. Petition referred to Minister: Minister's response ``132. A copy of every petition lodged with the Clerk and received by the House shall be referred by the Clerk to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the petition. A Minister may respond to a petition by lodging a response with the Clerk for presentation to the House, such response being announced at the end of the petitions announcement.''. (11) Standing order 133 be amended to read: Notice of motion-how given ``133. Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by: (a) delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table; or (b) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106a and delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion given by a Member in accordance with paragraph (a) which expresses a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity.''. (12) Standing order 135, as amended by sessional order, be further amended by inserting ``28d,'' after ``standing orders''. (13) Standing order 193 (When division may be taken) be amended by adding: `` Provided that, on sitting Thursdays, any division called for in the House before 12.30 p.m. on a question, other than a motion moved by a Minister, shall stand deferred until 12.30 p.m.''. (14) Paragraph (b) of standing order 211 be amended to read: ``(b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a Member by either: (i) delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table; or (ii) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106a and delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table.''. (15) Standing order 347 be amended by omitting ``the chairman'' and substituting ``a member of the committee''. (16) Standing order 348 be amended by omitting ``no discussion of the subject matter may take place; but''. Mr Young to move- That standing order 10 (Business before Address in Reply adopted) be omitted. Mr Young to move- That this House endorses in principle the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure that the procedures for the tabling of ministerial papers following questions without notice, pursuant to standing order 101, be altered in accordance with the following arrangements: (1) By 12 noon on each sitting day a schedule of papers to be presented will be made available to the manager of Opposition Business and will be circulated to all Members in the Chamber at the first opportunity; (2) Following questions without notice a Minister will present the papers as listed on the circulated schedule; (3) Papers presented will continue to be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings, and (4) A Minister shall present each paper individually if a schedule has not been circulated in accordance with these procedures or the paper has not been listed on the schedule, and shall retain the option of presenting a paper separately from the list if a statement is to be made or a motion moved in connection with the paper. Mr Young to move- That this House endorses in principle the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure that legislative action be taken to reduce the quorum of the House from one-third of the Members to one-fifth and requests the Government to introduce legislation to achieve this end. Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following standing order be adopted as a sessional order: Reading speeches ``62. A speech shall not be read unless a Member is (a) making a maiden speech, (b) moving `That this bill be now read a second time' or speaking to such motion as the Member next speaking, (c) making a ministerial statement or making a statement as the first speaker for the Opposition in response to a ministerial statement, or (d) making a statement on behalf of a committee or delegation following the presentation of a report; Provided that, in applying the provisions of this standing order, the Chair may have regard to the technical nature of the subject or any special circumstances concerning the speech. Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament. Fitout of accommodation for the Department of Administrative Services, Chatswood, NSW. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 December 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island-Annual report and financial statements 1986-87. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 278. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1987- M38/87-Australian Meat Accreditation required for slaughtering, boning, packaging and processing of meat for export. MQ22/87-Sheep and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1988 Quota Administration scheme. MQ23/87-High quality Beef to EEC-1988 Quota Administration Scheme. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 8-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Winding up). No. 9-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Amendment). No. 10-Services Corporation (Amendment). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1987- No. 3-Interpretation (Amendment) (in substitution for the paper presented on 17 November 1987). Excise Act-Declaration pursuant to section 78b, dated 11 November 1987. Health Insurance Act- Approvals pursuant to subsection 23db (1), dated 26 November 1987 (2). Determination pursuant to subsection 23dn (1), dated 26 Novmber 1987. Statements of particulars of Ministerial determinations made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 16 November 1987 in respect of- Dr M. D. Readett. Dr S. Sinnathamby. Lands Acquisition Act-Land acquired for the purposes of- Defence, W.A. National Park, Gimbat Station, N.T. Pipeline Authority, Cobar, N.S.W. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 279. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1987-No. 9-Marine, Part 7. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 23 November 1987 as the day on which the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987 shall come into operation. Public Service Act- Determinations-1987-Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 270. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 272. Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 274. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 276. Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 275. Radiocommunications (Test Permit Tax) Act-Re-gulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 277. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 273. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987/11-Deputy Chairman, Australian Institute of Sport and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 65-Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 66-Real Property (Amendment). No. 67-Stamp Duties and Taxes (Amendment). States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Direction-1987-No. 30. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 271.