Tuesday, 8 December 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Question Time today on government business. Questions normally directed to the Treasurer should be addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins. Mr SPENDER —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Minister will recall that I issued a statement on 1 December on the subject of Libyan training of Vanuatu police. Has the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Father Lini, authorised in response to an offer from Libya the recruitment and then the training in Libya of 35 police? Did the Vanuatu Government indicate to the Australian Government about three months ago an interest in training these recruits in Australia? Has the Government in fact failed to respond positively to this request, so increasing the risk that these recruits will be trained in Libya, with a considerable and dangerous increase in Libyan influence in Vanuatu and the South Pacific? If the Government has responded, when did it do so and what did it say? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his question. Extensive discussions have recently been held with the Vanuatu authorities about possible Australian police training assistance. A team of Australian officials visited Vanuatu in August to assess and report on training requirements. As a result of that visit, training recommendations are close to finalisation and will soon be sent to the Vanuatu Government. I understand that the honourable member for North Sydney was aware of the discussions that had taken place with the Vanuatu authorities and the assessment made in August when he made his accusation against the Government of inaction in this area. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is the Minister aware of what actions individual athletes are taking to support the drug offensive? Can he inform the House of what the Government is doing to assist these athletes? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. I acknowledge very freely his very active part in the campaign against drug use in sport. I applaud him for his efforts. I am pleased to inform honourable members that, amidst all the spurious and unsubstantiated allegations about drug taking in sport made by a few disenchanted sports people, there are large numbers of elite sports men and women who are publicly and quietly taking an individual, positive stand against the use of illegal drugs in sport. Just last month in Western Australia, at the Margaret River drug offensive surfing thriller, the competition of around-the-world professional surfing champions, over 50 of the world's leading surfers signed the Government's sports against drugs register. I hold the register up for honourable members to see. This was organised by the honourable member for Stirling. Included in the list of people who signed the register are Robert de Castella; Ann Sargeant, the captain of the world champion Australian netball team; Wayne Pearce, the Balmain footballer; Phil Smyth, captain of the Australian basketball team; Pat Cash, the Wimbledon champion; Wally Masur, a member of the Davis Cup team; Neale Fraser, the very distinguished captain of our Davis Cup team; Diane Holden, the Australian sprint champion; and Jeff Fenech, world bantamweight and featherweight boxing champion. I applaud all of thoses surfers, particularly, who signed up, for their positive action and the achievements they have made in their sport without taking drugs to try to improve their performance. Thousands of other athletes around Australia have also joined the Government's offensive against drugs in sport. Robert de Castella, whom I mentioned, slipped quietly into the Australian Institute of Sport last week and signed the register. The positive statements made by our top athletes are attracting insignificant public exposure and credence in comparison to the statements of the few negative and often disgruntled sports people who have spoken out in sympathy for drug use in sport and whose personal performances, they have admitted, have been reliant on artificial and illegal drug aids, often to the detriment of their long term health and well-being. I only wish that those athletes who are giving comfort and sympathy regarding the use of drugs in sport would realise that as elite sports men and women they are role models for hundreds of thousands of Australian kids. Last week in Surfers Paradise, in conjunction with the ex-Premier of Queensland, I opened a life education centre for Ted Noffs. I made the observation that it is a pity that people like Sue Howland, Gael Martin and a couple of others who were advocating the use of drugs in sport and condoning their use were not there to see the thousands of kids who are faced with all the pressures of life these days. They should realise the responsibility they have to those kids. For the information of honourable members, the Australian Sports Commission's sport against drugs register is just one of a number of constructive and effective measures which this Government is taking as part of its national program on drugs in sport and its strong policy against the use of drugs in sport. The program, which is funded by both the Australian Sports Commission and the Commonwealth Department of Health Drug Offensive, has been highly successful. We have now developed a systemic drug education program which includes the distribution of thousands of role model posters of elite Australian sporting teams and individuals; the distribution of over 600 drug education resource kits to client groups; the production of a video on drugs in sport for school children; and the provision of funding for sporting events which do not promote drugs, such as the Margaret River drug offensive thriller. Mr Tuckey —Is this the reading that you are going to stop, Mick? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is a pity the honourable member did not get off drugs. There is something wrong with his head. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr JOHN BROWN —I withdraw. We should be concentrating our efforts and our attention on spreading the message that drugs in sport will not be condoned in Australia and are not necessary, as people can win fairly on talent and hard work alone. I notice the smile of satisfaction on the face of the honourable member for Perth who is probably the world's greatest hockey player. It strikes me as being very evil that people with influence in this community, people who are role models, heroes and heroines to thousands of Australian kids, should be condoning the use of drugs in sport. This Government, the Sports Commission, the Australian Olympic Federation and the Australian Institute of Sport condemn, out of hand, the use of drugs in sport. I am sure that all honourable members will support the Government in its decision that anyone in Australia who is involved in taking drugs in order to improve performance in sport will be barred for life. Mr SMITH —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories who is the Minister responsible for the Antarctic Territory. I ask the Minister to report to the House, as a result of the demise of the Nella Dan, on the full extent and danger of oil pollution, the repercussions for our Antarctic scientific program this season and the details of the replacement for the Nella Dan. Will he indicate when a decision by Cabinet will now finally be made? Will the Minister also confirm that such a replacement vessel will now be provided by one of four tender proposals which includes Thomas Nationwide Transport (TNT) Ltd? Finally, I ask the Minister to provide full details of the selection process for the Nella Dan replacement. Mr JOHN BROWN —As all honourable members know, the Nella Dan ran aground at Macquarie Island at approximately 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 December. The passengers were safely removed, although there was a very big surf running, 17 of whom are now on Macquarie Island. As I understand it, some officers are still on the ship. The ship was holed. It is unlikely that it can be salvaged. There was a leakage of some very light crude which, fortunately, evaporated and dispersed. No pollution dangers have been posed to the fragile environment of the Antarctic because of the grounding of the Nella Dan. As the honourable member probably knows, a ship is coming from Canada as a replacement vessel for the Nella Dan. As I understand it, it will arrive in five weeks. Most honourable members know that the Government has been considering a replacement for the Nella Dan. The tendering process will be conducted as tenders should be conducted by the Government-with all due processes. It is a pity that the honourable member brought up the subject of TNT. If TNT tenders it will have no advantage from this Government in the tendering process. Honourable members may rest assured that the best possible replacement will be obtained from the Nella Dan. Mr Smith —Will it be Australian built? Mr JOHN BROWN —Whether it is built in Australia or overseas does not matter very much. The fact is that the Government has a very responsible view to our position and our representation in the Antarctic. Every effort will be made to replace the Nella Dan as quickly as possible with the best possible vessel. If it is possible to have it built in Australia, that will be the preferred option. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House of the implications for the dairy industry of recent developments in Australia's relationship with New Zealand? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Honourable members are very well aware that the closer economic relations (CER) agreement between Australia and New Zealand is of great interest to the Australian dairy industry. Ever since the CER was negotiated by the previous Government, in the last three parliaments, the conservative forces, the now Opposition, have sought at every opportunity, to confuse and to put fear into dairy farmers about CER. For example, a recent article in the Bulletin said that the Government will have to bulldoze the dairy industry if we are to achieve further progress under CER. It has become very apparent in recent days that the only people who need bulldozing are members of the National Party of Australia who, for opportunistic reasons, still want to spread confusion. For example, a meeting of the joint industry consultative committee of the two dairy industries was held on 13 November. I would have thought that the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Gippsland, who like to spread a lot of nonsense, would at least have read the Press release which said in part: Trans-Tasman trade in dairy products can be progressively liberalised in accordance with the fair trade objectives of the CER trade agreement. In other words, the two industries are adopting a positive approach. On Australian industry initiation, they agree to establish a joint working party to consider the definition of fair trade in that context. Honourable members will be aware that the new dairy marketing arrangements are based on the premise that eventually there will be free and fair trans-Tasman trade in dairy products. These arrangements will place the Australian dairy industry on a competitive footing against unsubsidised, undumped New Zealand imports by 1992 at the latest. So I welcome the fact that the Australian industry, at the highest levels, has accepted this fundamental aspect of the Government's policy. However, last Friday the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Murray, issued a statement criticising the Government for allegedly bringing forward the date of free trans-Tasman trade to 1990, and his little parrot, the honourable member for Gippsland, repeated that. This is simply not true. What the Prime Minister said to this House only two weeks ago, and the philosophy of it was agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition, is that the two governments will examine the scope for bringing forward to the early 1990s the implementation of free trade in goods across the Tasman. The two dairy industries have already been meeting on this question, and it is through those two dairy industries that we shall be handling this matter. It may come as a surprise to the National Party that 1992, when the dairy industry will be fully competitive against New Zealand, is in the early 1990s. So the possible further acceleration of progress under CER holds no threat whatsoever to the dairy industry. The only losers will be those in the National Party-I see that they propose to put forward a matter of public importance in which they say that they are economic rationalists now-who attempt to create fear, division and confusion at every available opportunity. Mr WHITE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I refer the Minister to the assurance that she gave on 25 November that she had nothing to do with the issue of guidelines setting out special rules about how service spouses should behave in the presence of a Minister. How does the Minister square this assurance with the statement made by Senator Ray to the Senate the following day, that, in relation to these guidelines, he was `advised that the initiative involved some discussion with the staff of the office of Mrs Kelly'? Who is telling the truth, Senator Ray or the Minister? Mrs KELLY —With all the issues that exist in the Defence portfolio, it is interesting that the Opposition chooses to concentrate on this issue. To refer specifically to the points that were made in the question, there was no consultation with me or my office. Senator Ray misunderstood a briefing that he had. But there was no discussion with me or my office. Since I answered the last question on this matter in this Parliament, I have had four sessions last week with spouses, adding to my record, which I referred to in Parliament last time, as having met more defence spouses than any other Minister for Defence. At all of those meetings we had a good exchange of views. I listened to their point of view and they listened to mine and I think all of the meetings were very satisfactory. It is important that this Government has given a voice to defence spouses. Last week I met with the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses. I found it very co-operative, and I look forward to continuing to work with it in a close working relationship. Mr LEO McLEAY —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the steps that the Government is taking to implement its social justice objectives? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his penetrating and relevant question and I understand the immediate context in which the question has been raised. Let me say in regard to that context that, as far as this Government is concerned, there will be no wealth inquiry. However, the policies of this Government have been aimed at creating a fairer, more compassionate and more prosperous society. In large part, that is being done to repair the enormous damage done to our economy and our society by seven years of conservative government. Everyone concerned with economics or sociology knows that unemployment is the single greatest cause of poverty. We have created jobs in this country at four times the rate of the coalition Government. To be precise, we have created 837,000 new jobs since April 1983. Our rate of job creation, as I have had cause to say before, is twice the rate of growth of the rest of the world. In addition to that we have made the tax system fairer by introducing a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax and removing the free lunches. We have made the social service system fairer by cracking down on fraud and abuse, by introducing the assets test and by implementing the family package. We have made it easier for the poor to stay at school and to get adequate training. We have more than doubled the number of child care places in this country. That, not exhaustively, but relevantly, is our record in reversing the callous neglect of the previous coalition Government. I remind the House that that was a government which swelled the unemployed queues by a quarter of a million people in a single year; which cut the real value of the pension in this country by 2 1/2 per cent; which made tax avoidance, according to its own royal commissioner, the fastest growing industry in this country; which bequeathed to the country a school retention rate at the miserable level of 36 per cent; and which left two million of our fellow Australians without health insurance. My Government takes very seriously its commitment to social justice. To help facilitate work in that area further, I am establishing a secretariat in my Department to prepare reports on issues associated with the advancement of social justice. That is our record of social equity and justice. It is one of which we on this side of the House are justly proud. Of course, it is one which is anathema to those opposite who remain obsessed with bringing back the tax rorts, returning the pension to millionaires, pulling Medicare apart and removing compassion from the area of social policy in this country. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and is about another of those noxious weeds, this time Paterson's curse. Is the Minister aware of yet another delay to injunction hearings against the biological control of Paterson's curse, with the matter now deferred to late February next year in the South Australian Supreme Court? Will the deferral beyond this month mean that, even if the injunction is lifted, the control program will be delayed by a full year due to seasonal considerations? How can this be justified when the injunction has remained unresolved since July 1980? What steps is the Government taking to expedite a decision in the court rather than allowing the issue to linger on the back-burner for yet another year? Mr KERIN —Perhaps we need another helicopter trip. What my colleague the Minister for Science and Small Business has said to me in a letter, which I read only this morning, basically is that it is a fact that there is delay in the courts in respect of lifting the injunction. I think that delay means that the case will not be heard until February next year. Effectively that will mean that we cannot release the organisms concerned with biological control of Paterson's curse at least until August next year. This is a legal matter. All I can say is that both I and my colleagues, the Minister for Resources and the Minister for Science and Small Business, regard this with a lot of displeasure. But the matter is held up in the courts. I think what the honourable member has put to us is a pretty accurate statement of this state of play. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether he can advise the House of developments relating to Kampuchea and, in particular, the recent meeting in France between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen. Mr DUFFY —Australia has been following with close interest recent diplomatic activity relating to Kampuchea. We saw Dr Mochtar's visit to Pyongyang in July and later to Vietnam as being of importance in the context of exploring the prospects of holding some informal meeting to bring the parties together. We were encouraged by the recent meeting between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen just outside Paris in an apparently positive atmosphere. One of the main objectives has been to enhance the prospects of dialogue between the opposing parties. It is our hope that now that the initial steps have been taken other principal parties will join in the process in a constructive way. All sides recognise the key role which Prince Sihanouk must play in any successful process relating to the Kampuchean problem, and Australia appreciates his persistent efforts. We hope that other outside parties will not stand in the way but will also use their influence positively to promote a political settlement. Australia hopes that further progress will now follow, leading to a resolution which results in self-determination for the Kampuchean people, the safe return of displaced Kampucheans to their homeland, and the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces for Kampuchea, matched by arrangements to prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot group. Mr DOBIE —Is the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs aware of differing interpretations being given by some of his departmental officers to people seeking to gain refugee status in order to obtain permanent residency in Australia? To avoid this confusion, is the Minister in a position to give the House a definitive answer as to what constitutes refugee status? If so, will he now do so? Mr YOUNG —I have not been made aware of difficulties that people have experienced as a result of the interpretation given to that term by my departmental officers, as people seeking refugee status would have their applications assessed by the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status, the DORS Committee, which comprises a representative of my Department, a representative of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and an observer from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). They would decide that position of a person applying for refugee status. That process is not carried out by departmental officers within Australia. Mr Dobie —Will the Minister give me an answer to the question? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member raised another question. What the honourable member suggested in his question does happen from time to time. We are told continually that people are given different answers to the same question both within Australia and in various offices of the Department in other countries. We try to overcome that problem. I think it is a human problem which occurs not just in my Department but, I suggest, in lots of departments. If the honourable member knows of a specific case of people having been disadvantaged, he should draw it to my attention. Australia works very closely with the United Nations in the declaration of people as refugees. The status of those people is much clearer because they are people who are outside their home country and who have good reason, as decided by the UNHCR, to be declared as refugees as they cannot return to their home country for fear of persecution. Australia participates in the global programs of taking refugees. Decisions in those cases are not made by any committee. The DORS Committee operates internally, domestically, in determining the position of people who arrive in this country, usually illegally, and then seek refugee status. I shall take the remainder of the honourable member's question on notice and ascertain whether there is further information that can be given or whether in fact problems are being experienced as a result of the answers given by departmental officers to people who apply for refugee status. Mr CLEELAND —My question, which frankly I thought a member of the National Party of Australia would have raised in this House rather than a member of the Government, is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Senator Alston's call for an end to what he has called the cross-subsidisation of uneconomic mail and telephone services to families in country areas? What is the Government's view of the economies of these services? Does the Government take into account other matters in considering the future of such services? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see the comments that were made by the Victorian Liberal Senator, Senator Alston. Mr Beale —Did you read them in detail? Mr DUNCAN —I did. What I detected was that he seemed to be very keen that the people of provincial and rural Australia should have a miserable Christmas. There is no doubt that the call he made for an end to cross-subsidisation of Australia Post and Telecom services for country people would lead to just that, a very miserable and unhappy time for those people. Mr Beale —You are wrong. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the Minister resume his seat? I inform the honourable member for Deakin that he may disagree with everything the Minister says but that does not give him the right to go outside the Standing Orders and continue to interrupt. Mr DUNCAN —The benefits provided to people in rural and provincial areas by Telecom alone are estimated to cost in the vicinity of $600m a year. I might say that the attitude of Senator Alston is in stark contrast to this Labor Government's proud record of service to rural and provincial people, a record that will stand in marked contrast to the treatment handed out to them by the former Liberal Government. People living in rural areas face many difficulties not shared by people in the cities of this nation. The Labor Government has introduced many measures to ensure improvements in the condition of rural life throughout the nation. Non-metropolitan employment has grown at least as strongly as city employment since this Government came to office and of course this has been of fundamental importance. Rural communications have improved quite dramatically through the services provided by Aussat Pty Ltd which, of course, offers Australian Broadcasting Corporation service to rural and remote audiences. Through the extension of the remote commercial television service, commercial television is also being extended. Telecom plans to have fully automated telephone services for all rural areas of the country by 1992, at a cost of $450m. This Government, probably with the support of the Nationals against the Liberals, will continue to apply the sorts of policies that will ensure that the standard of living one can enjoy in the electorate of Maranoa, for example, will continue so long as this Government and the Labor Party continue to occupy the treasury bench. Mr ADERMANN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Why are students at recognised and long-established theological colleges ineligible for Austudy and such assistance, even when, as part of their study, many are undertaking degree courses recognised by, or even associated with, Australian universities? As students at other colleges and tertiary institutions are afforded assistance, why is there such an apparent discrimination against students at theological colleges? Will the Government give urgent consideration to the removal of this inequity? Mr DAWKINS —This Government has continued the policy which used to apply under the old tertiary education assistance scheme. That scheme extended assistance only to courses which were publicly funded, that is, courses provided in publicly funded institutions. That is the policy we have continued and recently reaffirmed although we have slightly extended it. The Northern Territory college was not one of those which qualified for support in relation to students at that institution, because it was not funded by the Commonwealth, but we have extended the principle to apply to those institutions which are publicly funded whether by a State, Territory or Commonwealth government. But we continue to persist with the policy that it is available only to courses in publicly funded institutions. It is important for us to retain that kind of qualification so that we do not have an explosion of private institutions which, of course, would substantially blow out the cost of the Austudy arrangements. We have concentrated our support for Austudy into substantially improving the level of benefits to those students who are qualified for it. Mr FITZGIBBON —Is the Minister for Science and Small Business able to throw more light on the infestation of the Barrington Tops area by Scotch broom? Is this problem causing local concern? Should the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) assist and, if so, in what way? Mr BARRY JONES —In the last 18 months there have been persistent representations to the CSIRO and the New South Wales State Government about the serious spread of Scotch broom, Cytisus scoparius, through the Barrington Tops National Park and nearby State forests and farmland. According to the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, in the national park alone approximately 10,000 hectares have been severely infested. A particularly virulent strain of Scotch broom appears to have developed in the area recently. Young plants grow at what has been described as a phenomenal rate of one to two metres every year, depriving native species of light and nutrients. The species produces a massive number of seeds-600,000 seeds per bush over 10 years; it has a laboratory life of up to 80 years. So one can imagine what feral animals and the use of four-wheel drive vehicles does to spread it around. Apparently this is not a matter of great concern to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. In fairness to the Deputy Leader, it has to be recognised that he had, until yesterday, no understanding of the seriousness of the problem, which was not commonly found in the Murray electorate. It now poses a new problem because it is found on high ground. The Deputy Leader has now been joined in his criticism by the National Farmers Federation (NFF). The National Farmers Federation gives Scotch broom a low priority because it does not, so far, threaten cash crops. In February 1987 a workshop was held in the area representing State and local governments, recommending that a broom council be set up. Mr Hawke —Was it a Scotch broom? Mr BARRY JONES —The Scotch bit was left out because it is also sometimes known as Spanish or English. One can get too ethnic in this. In May the Barrington Tops Broom Council was created to foster public awareness of Scotch broom. The original members of the council are the New South Wales Forestry Commission, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Hunter Pastoral Co. which is, I concede, a Packer company, the shire councils of Scone, Gloucester and Dungog, the Department of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation Service, the Upper Hunter Pastures Protection Board, the Gloucester Pastures Protection Board, the Hunter District Water Board, the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust, the University of New England and the Barrington Tops National Park Advisory Committee. That is not a bad group to start with. They asked CSIRO to reassess its priorities on weed control. In October this year, Mr Wran was invited to the area by the Barrington Tops Broom Council. When he went up there he made the proposition, with which I entirely concur, that the problem had to be addressed by joint efforts of the New South Wales Government, the local land owners and local interests and the CSIRO. Because CSIRO was increasingly receiving funding from outside sources, which is absolutely proper and in accordance with government policy, the extent of the commitment would depend naturally on how much came in from the New South Wales Government and from the local land owners. But there is one member of the National Party of Australia to whom I wish to pay some tribute-that is, Miss Wendy Machin, the National Party State member for Gloucester who has been most assiduous in her representations since at least April last year. I suggest that, if the Deputy Leader of the National Party has not talked to her already, he should discuss the issue with Miss Machin. I think she will straighten him out. Mr Lloyd —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a document which indicates that Scotch broom is not in the top 10 weed priorities of the New South Wales Pastures Protection Board. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Leave is not granted. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has sought leave to add briefly to the answer from the Minister for Science and Small Business. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —My current sources of information indicate that this broom is called sarothamnus scoparius and not the botanical name given by the Minister for Science and Small Business. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, is supplementary to the question asked of him by the honourable member for McEwen. I ask the Minister: In view of the answer he gave regarding the comments of Senator Alston, is it a fact that a memorandum circulated by Senator Gareth Evans to the members of the infrastructure committee of Federal Cabinet contains a number of options relating to the deregulation of Telecom Australia? Is the most favoured option the introduction of direct on-Budget subsidies to achieve social objectives? Would that involve the removal of cross-subsidies? In view of his misleading denunciation of Senator Alston's remarks will he, in the name of consistency, confirm that the Hawke Government will not introduce on-Budget subsidies to replace cross-subsidisation of rural Telecom services? Mr DUNCAN —I am not aware of that matter. But in any event, this would involve a Cabinet document which would be a matter for the Cabinet and not for the Parliament. Mr CAMPBELL —I draw the attention of the Minister for Science and Small Business to natural beta carotene, which has a large future as a food colouring agent. Could the Minister give the House some idea of the implications of the recent bid by the Hoffman-La Roche Co. to take over the industry in Australia? How does this interfere with the present Commonwealth Government's investment in that area? Mr BARRY JONES —Wesfarmers Algal Biotechnology Pty Ltd was contracted in 1984 to perform the industrial research and development on a section 39 public interest project under the old Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. That project to examine the viability of producing algal products in Australia was terminated in May 1986. Intellectual property remains vested in the Commonwealth although an option on this property was separately negotiated. This option rests with Bionova, a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Biotechnology Ltd, which is itself subject to a takeover offer by Roche. The proposed takeover of Western Biotechnology Ltd by Roche is currently the subject of Foreign Investment Review Board examination. The release to industry of the intellectual property resulting from the public interest project is currently under consideration. On this basis, it is not appropriate for the Government to be making statements regarding the intellectual property on the proposed takeover. While I am on my feet, for the information of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I point out that the former name of Cytisus scoparius was sarothamnus scoparius, known commonly as Scotch, English or Spanish broom, but because of the revision of the Linnaean classifications by Dr Ernst Mayr, with whom the Minister would be very familiar, I prefer to use the updated version. It may be different in his Department. Mr MacKELLAR —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with reports suggesting that a major change of direction is taking place in the foreign policy of Fiji? Is there evidence that this change of direction is away from Fiji's traditional close relations with Australia and New Zealand? What implications would such a change have for Australia's foreign policy objectives in the Southern Ocean? What response will the Australian Government be making? Mr HAWKE —Let me say by way of a general opening response to the question from the honourable member that the state of governance in Fiji is, as he understands, undergoing changes at present. I make the observation that it would be unwise to project, as of today, what the future direction of the policy of Fiji will be either internally or externally. I do not say that in any attempt to avoid the question from the honourable gentleman. I think he will appreciate the point I make, that we have just witnessed the voluntary standing aside by Colonel Rabuka and his securing the agreement of the previous Governor-General to accept the first presidency of Fiji and of Sir Ratu Kamisese to accept the prime ministership. That very fact, as I think the honourable gentleman will agree, means that it is very difficult to predict-against some of the tendencies that appeared during the period of Colonel Rabuka's rule-with any certainty what those directions will be. However, I hope that the honourable gentleman will agree with me that in a general sense the re-emergence of the two gentlemen to whom I have referred should be, generally speaking, regarded as a move in the right direction. It does not, as far as my Government is concerned-nor I believe as far as the Opposition is concerned-represent yet the sort of return to elected parliamentary democracy that we would want to see in Fiji. But it is a step in the right direction, to the extent that with that background, we could say there is evidence under the regime of Colonel Rabuka of some sort of tendency to divert, away from Australia for instance, some of its sourcing of imports and some of its, if you like, strategic associations. I express the hope that these new changes to which I have alluded will offer the opportunity of a reversal of those tendencies. I believe, and I notice some acquiescence from the honourable member, that there will be agreement across this chamber that the changes to which I refer will represent the beginning of a return to those attitudes and policies of Fiji with which this country was not only more comfortable in the past but which also, in our objective assessment, will represent the best interests of Fiji. Mr SNOWDON —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of attempts by the Northern Territory Government, through its Minister for Mines and Energy, Barry Coulter, to lobby members of the World Heritage Committee in Paris this week against the listing of Kakadu stage 2? Can the Minister inform the House whether the efforts by the Northern Territory Government come as part of the Commonwealth Government's delegation to the Paris Committee meeting and whether such efforts enhance Australia's standing in the international community? Mr JOHN BROWN —Mr Coulter is not a member of the Australian delegation to Paris regarding the World Heritage listing of stage 2 of Kakadu. He is wasting the money of the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and is embarrassing Australia in the process. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service controls Kakadu National Park. It is a Commonwealth responsibility; it has nothing to do with the Northern Territory, except that it happens to be sited in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth has managed to obtain World Heritage listing for stage 1. We will obtain World Heritage listing for stage 2, despite the best efforts of people such as Barry Coulter and others in the Northern Territory to ravage and vandalise one of the most important environmental areas in Australia. I can assure Mr Coulter and others of his ilk that, despite his best or worst efforts in Paris, the proposition will succeed and Kakadu National Park will be saved by this Government for not only the people of the Territory and Australia but the people of the world. Madam SPEAKER —I present an erratum to the explanatory memorandum to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987. The erratum corrects a clerical error which appeared in the explanatory memorandum which was tabled both in this House and in the Senate. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-second session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva from 4 to 25 June 1986. I also present, as required under article 19 of the International Labour Organisation constitution, instruments adopted by the Conference relating to the convention No. 162 and recommendation No. 172 concerning safety in the use of asbestos, together with the text of a statement relating to the instruments. 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 Local Government and Administrative Services. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report No Port in a Storm and seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The House of Representatives Standing Committees on Expenditure decided in 1985 to hold an inquiry into allegations made by Mr Dick Smith concerning various safety regulatory actions affecting aviation in Australia. Some of the actions in question occurred many years ago and were taken by the then Department of Transport and its successor, the Department of Aviation. The relevant regulatory functions are currently exercised by the Department of Transport and Communications which was established in July 1987. The Standing Committee released an interim report in November 1985 which presented conclusions it had reached in regard to one specific matter, namely the restrictions placed on the use of a helicopter landing site at Darling Harbour in Sydney. Events which ultimately led to the Standing Committee deciding to inquire into that particular matter commenced in 1978. In June 1987, the Chairman of the Standing Committee, The honourable member for Banks, made a statement in this House regarding the future of the Inquiry. He announced that in view of the initiatives taken by the former Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to enhance the administration of Aviation in Australia, the Committee would maintain a watch on the implementation of changes but would not continue with its Inquiry. Before I go on to discuss the overall administration of aviation safety regulations in Australia, which was the thrust of the statement made by the Honourable Member for Banks, I would like to address the recommendations of the interim report of the Committee. In summary, the Committee found that there were administrative problems which contributed to the situation at Darling Harbour developing to the dissatisfaction of all parties concerned. The Committee did not, however, support the primary contention that personality conflicts among a number of officers of the Department were the root cause of operational restrictions being imposed on the Darling Harbour helicopter landing site. The Committee concluded that on the evidence presented to it, there were personality conflicts within the Department but that these did not have a major influence on the events in question. I now turn to the five specific recommendations made by the Committee in its interim report. Recommendation 1 calls for administrative arrangements to be reviewed by the Department within the framework of its existing structure, with particular attention being given to communications between Central Office and Regional Offices, to the distribution of information within Central Office, and to communication between Divisions within Central Office. Over the last few years the Department has developed comprehensive management systems for communicating within the Department. These include regular meetings of senior officers, reporting systems and regular audits of regulatory programs and practices in the five Regions. An exhaustive system of aviation industry consultation is also undertaken, particularly on regulatory proposals. Recommendation 2 calls for the Department to publish a document which clearly explains the operational design criteria and the licensing procedures applicable to types of helicopter landing sites. The Department has prepared such a document and it is made available to the Standing Committee and to the industry. Recommendation 3 is directed to the helicopter industry itself and proposes the establishment of a forum for the discussion of important matters affecting the industry. The Committee saw one of the main functions of such a forum to be the promotion of close consultation with the Department. I endorse this proposal and hope that the helicopter industry will act upon it although I am advised that it has not done so to date despite having the matter brought to its notice. The Department will co-operate in any initiative that would help promote more effective consultation with the industry. Recommendation 4 calls on the Department when issuing and renewing Instruments of Authorisation for helicopter landing sites to specify the types of use permitted for each site. This recommendation is being progressively implemented as Instruments of Authorisation for Helicopter Landing Sites are issued or at the next annual renewal of each such Instrument. The document I mentioned in regard to Recommendation 2 also contains information relevant to permitted usage of individual landing sites. Recommendation 5 calls for the Flight Standards Division to accord a high priority to its stated aim of dispensing with or refining all operational requirements where the net safety benefit is not commensurate with the costs imposed on either the aviation community or the Department. This task is a key objective of the Department as it will be for the intended Civil Aviation Authority. Helicopter operations, particularly over urban areas, do however remain an area of public interest. It is not uncommon to read and hear of public debate regarding this topic. On the one hand, media and private operators seek to expand their activities in major population centres such as Sydney and call for relaxation of standards. On the other hand, local communities are concerned at the introduction of new risks, noise and other perceived unwarranted intrusions. To assist the Department in this difficult area, a recent review was undertaken on the standards specified for Helicopter Landing Sites in Australia. An expert from Transport Canada undertook the review and his report supports the view that the prescribed standards and practices are basically sound and are in general conformity with international practice. The regulatory body cannot be, nor should it expect to be above criticism. Equally it should be able to look to this House and to the broader community for support against unwarranted criticism which may seriously erode morale and detract from the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities. Particularly at a time when we are experiencing major changes to the structure of the aviation industry in Australia and there is a heightened awareness of the need to monitor our safety standards. The overall intention of the Committee's inquiry was to look at just such issues and to improve the overall administration of aviation safety regulations in this country. I believe that, in recent years, we have made considerable progress in this area and the Committee's work was a valuable stimulus. The Flight Standards Division of the Department has responsibility for the administration of safety and operational standards for civil aviation. These relate to the airworthiness of aircraft, the physical and technical fitness of flight crew and the manner in which aircraft are operated. The Division has undergone major re-organisation and re-building in recent years following its relocation from Melbourne to Canberra during 1981-82. This process has involved the recruitment and training of staff and the implementation of organisational arrangements to provide for the review and updating of standards; as well as for policy guidance to regional officers and the facility to monitor the consistency of practices on a national basis. We intend that the training of staff in up to date management practices relevant to the industry will be an ongoing feature. The Flight Standards Division now has a strategic planning capacity. It now annually publishes its programs and plans for the next five years which set priorities for future activities and identify management issues for further attention. Measures have been taken to improve communications, both between the Department and the aviation industry, and between various Divisions and Regions of the Department itself. For some six years now, proposed changes to safety rules have been promulgated to the industry through Aviation Regulatory Proposals to allow the aviation community the opportunity to comment. Unfortunately the response rates from the industry have been very low (only about 15% of those who received copies of the proposals responded). The responses have also been inclined to take rather parochial positions rather than commenting on what may be best for the industry and the community. Working groups of departmental and industry people are also convened as required to develop these proposals or to help iron out difficulties that arise through the responses received to the proposals. During 1986 representatives of the general aviation industry and the Department participated in a joint study to identify more precisely what communication difficulties still existed between the industry and the Department at the grass roots level, and how these might be resolved. The Department has accepted and for its part implemented the recommendations and this will lead to significant improvements in communication to the advantage of all concerned. Regional Offices of the Department are now better equipped to deal with flight standards matters, particularly in the helicopter area. Each Region has a dedicated Flight Standards Branch and helicopter specialists are now located in each Region. The absence of a helicopter specialist in the NSW Region was a major factor in the early stages of the Darling Harbour matter. Honourable members would be aware that in announcing the termination of the two airline agreement, Senator Evans also detailed arrangements for the intended Civil Aviation Authority to have responsibility for the safety regulatory function. He also foreshadowed a comprehensive review and updating of the legislative framework used for safety regulation. It is the Government's stated intention that safety regulations be continued and enhanced, and the bodies responsible for setting and administering safety standards will have ample resources, including legislative compliance tools, to ensure that safety regulation and surveillance are in no way diminished. Both safety standard setting and day-to-day regulatory control will be the responsibility of the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority which will also have responsibility for air traffic control, flight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance systems, and rescue and fire fighting services at airports. The Authority will be required to give primacy to safety considerations over commercial ones, and the enabling legislation will make provision for the Minister to give directions in relation to the safety regulatory role to ensure that that occurs. The name of the intended Authority has been changed from the originally intended Civil Aviation Corporation as another means of reflecting and demonstrating this safety priority. The Government will ensure that the organisation and structure of the CAA adequately addresses the administrative problems identified by the work of the Committee. Modern management practices which are relevant to the industry will be a feature of the CAA as they will be in the Department. I recently announced the start of a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for safety regulation as part of the preparation for the aviation environment in the 1990's and the operation of the Civil Aviation Authority. The review will seek to simplify the aviation safety regulations and place them on a more rational basis. For example over the years many day-to-day practical problems in the safety regulation of aviation operations have been resolved by various administrative means. Each such administrative action may have been quite appropriate in itself at the time the action was taken. However, the end result now is a proliferation of documents that support and interpret the basic regulations. The overall mass of documentation is voluminous, and it is difficult to use and understand. The overall task will be large but it will be possible to implement the results progressively. I have commissioned a task force with a broad charter to review existing aviation safety regulatory legislation and associated administrative instruments compliance practices and procedures promulgation and dissemination of regulatory provisions and requirements within the regulatory authority and to the aviation industry. I would like to thank those members who made up the sub-committee which undertook this inquiry for their interest and for the incisiveness of their work. They have made a valuable contribution to the future well being of aviation safety regulation in Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety report on sports aviation safety and seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- In April 1985 Mr Morris requested the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety to undertake an Inquiry into Sports Aviation. He requested that the Committee review the whole spectrum of sports aviation but was particularly interested to have it look closely at ultralight aeroplane activities. This was because there were concerns that, while self-administration appeared to be working for other sport aviation activities such as gliding and parachuting, it appeared that little headway was being made with respect to ultralight aeroplanes. The Committee had a complex task. Some of the fundamental issues that were placed before it concerned the right of the individuals to participate in the sport of their choice and accept a level of risk with minimum regulation; the expectations of the community with regard to protection against being unwittingly exposed to dangers; and the obligations of the Government to protect individuals who participate in sports aviation activities. All these major issues involved complex legal, technical and philosophical considerations including the standards for the design and construction of aircraft, aircraft maintenance practice, the operating characteristics of aircraft used in sports aviation and the training and licensing requirements for pilots. The Committee tabled its report on 24 February 1987. The Report is a thorough and incisive study of sports aviation in Australia. It clearly addresses the major issues and provides recommendations which help the Government to ensure that sports aviation in this country will continue to develop in harmony with the aspirations of the participants in the sports concerned, the wishes of the general public for safety and the concerns of all that the cost of aviation services and regulations are kept to the minimum. I wish to record my appreciation of the work done by the Committee. The Report addresses all aspects of sports aviation. However the Committee's examinations showed that the Department's approach to the regulation and administration of gliding, hang gliding, parachuting, gyroplanes, ballooning, aerobatics and model aircraft was both appropriate and effective. Of those who do participate in sport aviation, most (some 85%) are involved in these activities. The Committee's inquiries also confirmed that the area in need of closer attention involved the residual 15% or so of the sports aviation fraternity-that is those in the growing field of ultralight aircraft activity. As a consequence almost all of the Committee's recommendations concern ultralight aircraft design, manufacture, marketing, operation or pilot training and certification. Twenty two recommendations were made in the Report and I am pleased to inform the House that I agree with the thrust of those recommendations. I seek leave to table a document which addresses each of the recommendations in turn and discusses the course of action that I intend to take regarding their implementation. I do not believe that it would be profitable for me to speak of the details of each recommendation at this time. However I would like to spend a few minutes to highlight to the house the major matters which arise from the recommendations and the Statement that I have just tabled. Firstly out of the twenty two recommendations made, I have stated my agreement to the implementation of nineteen and a good percentage of those are already in place or are close to being finalised. Some of the recommendations, naturally enough, involve technical issues which will need to be resolved in consultation with all airspace users. In a few technical areas, the needs of other sectors of the aviation community and detailed technical consideration may also require some flexibility to be applied to how the spirit and intent of the Committee's recommendations will be met. For example, we currently have a category of ultralight aircraft weighing up to 115kg which does not require airworthiness standards. There is a considerable number of aircraft which at the present time may legally operate in this category. However there are also aircraft which weigh more than 115kg but which have not been designed or built to meet the standards established for the heavier class of ultralights. The issue of how to overcome the practical administrative and legal problems of these ultralights and whether there should be airworthiness standards for all ultralights was one of the most difficult matters that the Inquiry addressed. The Committee concluded that there should be appropriate standards for all ultralights and that a twelve month amnesty be provided for the aircraft which do not currently comply with airworthiness requirements and which weigh more than 115kg to allow them to comply with the new requirements. My Department will need to phase in these recommendations as immediate implementation may disadvantage aircraft which are below 115kg and which at present do not have to meet airworthiness requirements. Another recommendation calls for the operating altitude limit to be lifted to 1500 feet for ultralight aircraft without radio and to 3000 feet for ultralights which carry radios. After consultation with the airspace users through the National Airspace Users Advisory Committee, it may prove to be more practical to permit all ultralights to operate to 5000 feet above mean sea level without radio once all ultralight pilots are appropriately trained. This possibility arises because of the way airspace is divided and managed. Secondly, through the Recommendations, the Committee has clearly stated that it sees a need for a greater emphasis to be applied to protecting participants in ultralight activities. I am pleased to endorse this view. it also provides useful guidance to those in the Department who oversight sports aviation activities and who had also expressed their concern that there was a need for enhanced guidance on how individual participants in these activities are to be protected. This protection is to be increased through the implementation of airworthiness standards for all ultralight aircraft, more formal training of pilots and an emphasis on consumer protection for those who wish to purchase ultralight aircraft. Thirdly, the Department had over a number of years established a system of self-administration by national sports aviation organisations. This system involves assistance (including financial assistance) for national bodies to enable them to administer the safety aspects of their sport on the basis of standards set by the Department. I believe that this is a cost effective arrangement which fosters sports aviation by allowing the participants to control their own activities while also minimising Government involvement and costs. I am very pleased that the Committee has confirmed my views. Concerns which prompted this Inquiry were originally raised against a background of increased ultralight activity and the difficulty that the fledgling AUF was ex- periencing in administering that activity. Developments have occurred during, and I believe because of, the Committee's inquiry to the extent that the AUF is now on a much firmer footing and is currently well placed to take up the role envisaged by the Committee making its recommendations. The Government's continued support for the Federation, including financial assistance, has also been a key element in the progress that the organisation has achieved. In summary, the overall philosophy and objectives which the Report and its recommendations support can be seen as the requirement to prescribe airworthiness standards for all ultralight aircraft. the need to ensure that appropriate consumer protection measures are in place. the necessity to provide for adequate pilot training and pilot certification. the desirability of maximising the benefits of self administration of standards by a responsible national body. In the case of ultralight activities, the Australian Ultralight Federation will undertake this task. the importance of prompt investigation of accidents and serious incidents and the operation of good communication systems to ensure that critical information on defects and operational problems are brought to the attention of all those who need to know. As I mentioned earlier, I fully endorse these objectives and the Department will be moving to implement those recommendations that have not already been acted upon. Honourable members will appreciate that the cost of sports aviation activities also need to be carefully assessed against the needs of other sectors of the aviation industry bearing in mind the overall needs of the Australian community for aviation services. Consequently, aspects of the strategies for implementation of those recommendations which have budgetary implications will also need to be weighed against other competing aviation and Government priorities. For example, I will have to carefully assess the requirements for additional resources in areas such as investigation of incidents involving ultralight aircraft against the need for additional work to be done in sectors of the industry where the public is more directly involved. This latter category would involve charter, aerial work, agricultural and regular public transport operations. In the past similar considerations have had to be applied to requirements for the surveillance of ultralight activities as opposed to the needs of other areas of the aviation industry. I thank the Committee and its Chairperson, the honourable member for Lilley, Mrs Elaine Darling, for their excellent and most useful work. I am sure that in the years to come the honourable members who participated in this Inquiry will be able to look at the Australian sports aviation scene with considerable personal satisfaction given the significant contribution that they will have made to its well being. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT SAFETY INQUIRY INTO SPORT AVIATION IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Preamble This document addresses the twenty-two recommendations made by the Committee and details the implementation action to be taken in respect of each recommendation. Recommendations Recommendation 1: That the Minister for Aviation; (a) introduce legislation making the registration of ultralights compulsory; and (b) in conjunction with the AUF, examine ways in which comprehensive national statistical records can be collected on ultralight aircraft. Response: Agree. Comment: The Department will consult with the Australian Ultralight Federation in order for that organisation to put in place a registration system for ultralight aeroplanes. Changes will be made to the appropriate Air Navigation Orders to make such registration compulsory. Once the registration system is in place it will provide an information base on which statistical data can be collected. Recommendation 2: That the Minister for Aviation; (a) re-allocate priorities within the Department to ensure that ultralight accidents and incidents are comprehensively investigated; and (b) ensure that the criteria and priorities used in ultralight accident investigation are clearly documented and published. Response: Agree with qualifications. Comment: BASI will investigate all reported accidents but clearly in an environment where conflicting demands are competing for scarce resources priority must be given to investigating accidents involving members of the travelling public. Additionally BASI will make appropriate training available for AUF members to enable the AUF to investigate ultralight incidents. Following consultation with the AUF, the criteria and policy relating to the investigation of ultralight accidents and incidents will be revised and published. The revised criteria and policy will be made available to the AUF. Recommendation 3: That the Minister for Aviation; (a) ensure that the Department either publish ultralight accident investigation findings in a recognised national aviation magazine, or individually mail this information to all ultralight operators through a national mailing notification scheme; and (b) take steps to rectify the current situation which allows a 12-18 month period to elapse before any safety information is released on an ultralight accident, by examining ways of releasing interim warnings within a 3 month period. Response: Agree. Comment: Future ultralight aeroplane accidents reports will be published in the Aviation Safety Digest. Preliminary reports on accidents will be made available to the Australian Ultralight Federation as soon as practicable after each accident and the target will be to ensure that final reports are available within 3 months. The Federation will be asked to publish these reports in its monthly newsletter. Recommendation 4: That the Minister for Aviation introduce legislation to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920 to require the tabling of ANOs in each House, so that Parliament can oversight the use made of the delegated power. Response: This recommendation will be considered in the overall review of legislation that has been commissioned. In the interim I have instructed that copies of all new or revised ANOs be provided to the Parliamentary Library for perusal by interested members. Recommendation 5: That the Minister for Aviation examine the adequacy of funding provided to the AUF and make appropriate provision for financial assistance in future budgets. Response: Agree with qualifications. Comment: Funding for the AUF will continue to be considered in the budget context along with funding for other sports aviation organisations and priorities across the portfolio. However it should be noted that the AUF has been very favourably treated to date with regard to funding in recognition of the need for extra-ordinary support during its formative stages. However the Government has to weigh priorities and assign scarce resources bearing in mind the overall needs of the Australian community in aviation services. For 1987-88 the Government has allocated $53,000 for the AUF. This level of funding represents a small real increase from that provided in 1986-87 and is generous when compared to funding made available to other sports aviation organisations. Recommendation 6: That the Services Agreement be amended to incorporate a section which clearly delineates the specific responsibilities and lines of authority of the Department and the AUF. Response: This has been done. Comment: The Services Agreement between the AUF and the Department was revised for 1986-87 and 1987-88 and I believe that the current agreement clearly delineates the specific responsibilities and lines of authority of the Department and the AUF. Recommendation 7: (a) The height restrictions applying to ultralight aircraft be lifted to: (i) 1,500 feet for aircraft which are registered; fitted with an approved, calibrated altimeter; and flown by a pilot who holds at least AUF pilot certification; and (ii) 3,000 feet for aircraft which, in addition to meeting the requirements in (i) are fitted with a radio to ANO 20.8; and that (b) the new height ceilings be reviewed, on application by the AUF, after a minimum period of 3 years. Response: Agreed. Comment: Both Air Navigation Orders 95.10 and 95.25 currently provide for the present 500 feet a.g.l. height limit to be varied to permit higher operating ceilings and such variations have been routinely issued. For example all approved ultralight flying schools are provided with a block of airspace extending to at least 1500 feet a.g.l. to permit stall training to be carried out safely. The Department will consult with the AUF and with the National Airspace Users Advisory Committee with a view to permitting ultralights to fly to 5000 feet above mean sea level outside controlled airspace. This height is an existing boundary between airspace where different operational requirements apply and is more appropriate than the lower heights recommended in the Report. Recommendation 8: That the existing 95.10 category of ultralight be replaced by a category limited to owner-designer-builders, covering single-place aircraft with a maximum empty take-off weight of 150 kg, together with basic airworthiness requirements to at least the standard specified in the AUF Technical Bulletins Nos. 1 to 4. Response: Agreed. Comment: I have instructed the Department to implement this recommendation as quickly as possible. It will be necessary to clearly define `owner-designer-builder' and it is intended that the definition will be sufficiently flexible to enable small groups of enthusiasts to pool their resources to build and fly an ultralight of their design. Conditions will need to be specified to limit the number of ultralights an individual or group could build over a specified period to ensure that the intent of ANO 95.10 is not circumvented by individuals or groups building ultralights for the purpose of sale. Recommendation 9: (a) Owner-designer-builders under the new 95.10 category be actively encouraged by the AUF and the DoA to use more comprehensive standards; (b) that construction of aircraft in this category be comprehensively supervised by a team of qualified inspectors and technical officers in the airworthiness area, as nominated by the AUF, (c) that sale of this category of aircraft not be permitted until a data package is presented to and approved by the AUF, including: drawings, specifications and basic structural elements; proof of compliance to acceptable structural loading tests; a signed statement by an AUF qualified person defining take-off weight, centre-of-gravity range, maximum speeds and power limits; and a history of safe operation for over 50 hours. (d) the aircraft is clearly placarded as a limited airworthiness prototype and not used for training purposes. Response: Agreed. Comment: The Department will encourage owner-designer-builders to use more comprehensive airworthiness standards and will provide every assistance possible to the AUF to establish an airworthiness advisory service for owner-designer-builders. However it will take some time before the AUF will be able to institute formal inspection procedures for ultralights under construction. The need for owner-designer-builder aircraft to be placarded to prohibit their use for flying training is recognised and such placarding will be made compulsory. Recommendation 10: (a) A 12 month amnesty be granted to existing overweight aircraft which have a maximum empty weight not exceeding 150kg; and (b) this amnesty be in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix C, with the additional conditions that flight in an aircraft below Category 3 is limited to syndicated ownership and that an aircraft can neither be re-registered nor sold until it meets the requirements of Category 3. Response: Agree in principle. Comment: The Department will give effect to this recommendation by publishing an amended version of ANO 95.10, to become effective on 1 March 1988, which will specify that all existing single place ultralight aeroplanes having an empty weight less than 150kg and registered with the AUF by 1 June 1988 must comply with the airworthiness standards contained in the new version of the Order by 1 June 1989. Recommendation 11: The Department of Aviation examine and document the areas where a civil or mechanical engineer could perform structural tests and approvals for ultralight aircraft. Response: Agree. Comment: The Department will be providing formal advice to the AUF and other interested parties of the adoption of this recommendation. Recommendation 12: The Department give priority to the finalisation and promulgation of 101.55 incorporating a provision for a glide path ratio of at least 15:1 and incorporating specific requirements for performance and handling standards and engine propeller standards. Response: Agree with qualifications. Comment: The Department will issue ANO 101.55 (and ANO 100.55) incorporating the standards recommended without delay. However a glide ratio of 15:1 far exceeds those of typical general aviation aircraft which have glide ratios of approximately 7-8:1. Aeronautical engineers both within and outside the Department advise that it would be technically impracticable to impose such a requirement on ultralight aeroplanes. However, ultralights can be expected to achieve similar results to general aviation aircraft. It is believed that the Committee's concerns in this regard stemmed from the present height restriction of 500 feet a.g.l. which, when combined with the typically low glide ratio of ultralights, restricted the choices of safe forced landing areas in the event of an engine failure. I believe, however, that the proposal to permit ultralights to fly to 5000 feet, as outlined in my response to Recommendation 7, should alleviate many of the Committee's concerns for the safety of ultralight pilots by enabling them to fly at heights which will provide a far greater choice of safe forced landing areas. Recommendation 13: That in addition to the use of BCAR(S) as the design standard for ANO 101.55, the Department of Aviation prepare a list of recognised overseas equivalent or higher standards which would be accepted as alternatives under ANO 101.55. Response: Agree. Comment: Action is in hand to list the acceptable higher standards in ANO 101.55. Recommendation 14: That manufacturers of all ultralight aircraft sold in kit form be required to demonstrate that the completed aircraft will comply with ANO 101.55. Response: Agree. Comment: Both ANO 95.10 and ANO 101.55 will be amended to require this for all ultralight aircraft manufactured or imported on or after 1 November 1987. Recommendation 15: On advice from the Department of Aviation, import controls be exercised to ensure that imported ultralight aircraft, kits and components comply with the relevant Air Navigation Orders. Response: There are a number of difficulties with this recommendation. Comment: Currently aircraft and aircraft parts and components are prohibited imports. However there are practical difficulties in ensuring that disassembled ultralight aircraft which are not appropriately declared, are subject to the controls. The Government has announced the lifting of all import controls on aircraft as part of its new policy for domestic aviation. Consequently when this policy is implemented in 1990, import controls will not be available for this purpose. In conjunction with Recommendation 16, the Department will investigate means through which ultralight aircraft would be required to meet airworthiness standards prior to sale. Recommendation 16: That the Attorney-General, under the Trade Practices Act, declare the airworthiness provisions of the revised ANOs as product safety standards for the two categories of ultralight. Response: Agree in principle. The Department will consult with the Attorney-General's Department. Comment: This recommendation has my support and contact has already been made with the Attorney-General's Department in an effort to have the appropriate airworthiness provisions of the ANOs declared as product safety standards under the Trade Practices Act. However initial advice from the Attorney-General's Department indicates that there may be some difficulties with this proposal. Recommendation 17: (a) The Department of Aviation eliminate the current inequities in the acceptance of local design under the amateur-built category, ANO 101.28; and (b) for ultralights built under the amateur-built category delegation should be given to approved organisations or individuals, such as the AUF and approved engineers, to administer the process in a similar way to that currently operating in the Gliding Federation of Australia. Response: Agree. Comment: The Department has undertaken a major review of its policy with respect to amateur built aeroplanes and is hopeful that the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia will accept greater responsibility for design and manufacturing standards. Amateur built ultralights will be catered for in the proposed new ANO 95.10 in which the AUF will assume responsibility for the application of airworthiness requirements. Recommendation 18: All ultralight pilots be required to be certified to the standards specified in the AUF Operations Manual. Response: Agree. Comment: This recommendation is already being implemented. The AUF requires all ultralight pilots to hold an AUF pilot certificate. The forthcoming issues of ANO 95.10 and ANO 95.55 will specify that all ultralight pilots must hold AUF pilot certificates. Recommendation 19: That the AUF, in consultation with the Department of Aviation compile a short training program appropriate to pilots who hold existing licences, emphasising the different flying characteristics of ultralights and appropriate emergency procedures. Response: Agree. Comment: The AUF Operations Manual already contains such a syllabus. Recommendation 20: That Section 21 of the AUF Operations Manual be amended to require the pilot instructor candidate to demonstrate competency in aircraft handling and a command of sound instructional ability before certification as Pilot Instructor. Response: Agree. Comment: The Department will be consulting with the AUF on the implementation of this recommendation. Recommendation 21: That the AUF prepare and implement a syllabus, in consultation with the Department of Aviation, for a formal instructor certification training course of at least 2 weeks duration which incorporates effective airborne instructional techniques and an appropriate level of operational, emergency and procedural spin/stall training. Response: Agree with qualifications. Comment: Whilst there is agreement with the thrust of this recommendation, the need to specify a minimum duration of the training course needs further consideration. Existing standards and training requirements for instructors will be reviewed by the Department and AUF technical officers in the near future and the duration of the instructor training course will be addressed in that review. Recommendation 22: That current legislation be changed to legalise spin/stall training for ultralights and that spin/stall training in 2-seat aircraft be incorporated into the flight training syllabus of student pilots. Response: Agree with qualifications. Comment: The syllabus of training contained in the AUF Operations Manual already includes spin training, but this training must currently be done in gliders or light aircraft approved for spinning as no ultralight is currently approved. ANO 101.55 will contain the airworthiness requirements to be met by ultralight aeroplanes before they can be approved for spinning. However, given the general characteristics of ultralights the Department believes that in general it should not encourage spinning in ultralights and would prefer that spin training continue to be given in gliders or light aircraft approved for spinning. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-From 27 November to 4 December, I made an official visit to Singapore, the Soviet Union and Japan. I make this report to Parliament on the issues raised during that visit. My principal purpose in making the trip was to assess the nature, direction and implications for Australia of the policies being pursued by the new Soviet leadership-in particular as they affect our region-in order that we may be well placed to respond to any new political or commercial developments that may arise. On my way to the Soviet Union, I made a brief visit to Singapore, to deliver the 1987 Singapore Lecture; on the way back, I held talks in Tokyo with the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Takeshita. During a stopover between Singapore and the Soviet Union I also had a useful talk with the Prime Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh al-Khalifa, on the situation in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, and on bilateral matters. Singapore In Singapore, I held useful discussions with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Ministers Goh Chok Tong and Ong Teng Cheong. These talks reaffirmed the close, friendly and co-operative relations which Australia enjoys with Singapore. While in Singapore, I delivered the 1987 Singapore Lecture on the topic `The Challenge of Change in the Asia-Pacific Region'. The invitation to deliver this lecture was extended to me by Mr S. Rajaratnam, Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office, on behalf of the Institute of South-East Asian Studies. I table, for the information of honourable members, a copy of the lecture. In the lecture, I discussed a number of developments likely to have an important influence on our region in the forthcoming period-principally, the emergence and modernisation of China, the current reforms in the Soviet Union and the requirement of the major Western economies to solve their fiscal and current account imbalances and to resist protectionist pressures. I drew particular attention to the paradox that at a time when both China and the Soviet Union are, in different ways and for different reasons, giving greater recognition to the Western concepts of competition and open markets, the leading Western economies are making disturbing moves in the opposite direction. In particular, we are facing a growing threat to our collective prosperity from the pressures of protectionism in the United States, western Europe and Japan. I made the point that economic reforms, however necessary, can be stalled or frustrated where they are not accompanied by a co-operative response from the whole community. The bottom line in achieving successful change is the informed co-operation of those who will ultimately be charged with implementing it and those who will be affected by it. This broad prescription is particularly valid in democratic societies whose institutions are created for the purpose of public involvement in public affairs. But I added that it was an essential task for all societies, whatever their political systems, to win the understanding and acceptance of their entire communities in the making of necessary changes. The importance of this task is, I believe, well understood by the current leadership of the Soviet Union. It is my visit to that country to which I now turn. The Soviet Union From 29 November to 2 December, I visited Leningrad and Moscow at the invitation of the Government of the Soviet Union. This is only the second visit made by an Australian Prime Minister to the Soviet Union, although it was the fifth visit I had made. Since I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), my visit in fact represents the most senior level of contact which has taken place between Australia and the Soviet Union. This high level of contact is appropriate in view of the significant global and bilateral context in which the visit took place. The policies of perestroika and glasnost which are being pursued by General Secretary Gorbachev and his colleagues are of potentially profound significance for the internal arrangements of the Soviet economy and society. Beyond that, we in the West, including Australia, may well be profoundly and directly affected by those new policies through, for example, improved Soviet economic performance and greater involvement in the world economy. Perhaps most significantly of all, we will be affected by the new directions in Soviet foreign policy which are related to the internal reforms. They include a stated intention to become more involved in the Pacific region, some greater sensitivity to Western concerns about human rights issues, and, of course, a commitment to engage in far-reaching negotiations over arms control and disarmament. Bilaterally, the Soviet Union is an important, though still unpredictable, customer for Australian primary products. Government to government contacts have been steadily improving since 1983 including, most significantly, the valuable visit to Australia last March of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, and the constructive preparation of the four agreements signed in Moscow by Mr Hayden and Mr Shevardnadze last week. Accordingly, the talks I held with Mr Gorbachev, with the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Mr Ryzhkov, and with other Soviet leaders, were aimed principally at exploring the style and substance of perestroika and glasnost in domestic policy and `new thinking' in foreign policy. My objective was to advance further the already improving relationship between the Soviet Union and Australia in trade and other contacts, and to encourage greater Soviet flexibility on humanitarian issues including family reunion and the free movement of Soviet Jews. I sought also to discuss global and regional issues including the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement and the prospects for further arms control agreements, and Soviet activities and intentions in Afghanistan, Indo-China and the Pacific region. I made it clear, of course, that Australia's relationship with the Soviet Union would continue to be based for our part on our continuing membership of, and commitment to, the Western Alliance-an alliance which is not solely of a military nature but which derives its greatest strength from a shared and enduring commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. Madam Speaker, before I address the substance of these discussions let me take this opportunity to comment on the statements which the Federal Opposition issued during my visit. I put to one side the Opposition's apparently wilful distortion of my remarks in Singapore, where I said I would welcome a constructive-I repeat, a constructive-involvement of the Soviets in our region, and where I cautioned that we would judge them not by their words but by their actions in, for example, Indo-China and Afghanistan. Australians have paid a very high price indeed for the predilection of the conservative parties in this country to project their domestic political preoccupations on to the screen of foreign policy. One need only recall the tragedy of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War to recall both the myopia with which the then Liberal-Country Party Government viewed our region, and its determination to derive and advance domestic political gains from the region, which it failed, or refused, to comprehend. That was more than 15 years ago. But it seems the current leaders of the conservative parties have learned nothing of the lessons of the past. Indeed, to judge by their recent statements about the Soviet Union, one would be forgiven for assuming the Opposition yearns for the confrontationist days of the Cold War, when any issue could be judged simply in black and white terms. The essence of the Liberals' world view, which we are now seeing applied to the Soviet Union, is that we should explicitly ignore any signs of change and continue to operate on the assumptions of the past. That attitude-which, not coincidentally, has also coloured the conservatives' view of events in China-is at odds with that of conservatives overseas, such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Mr Downer —It is just nonsense. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mayo will cease interjecting. He is totally out of order. Mr HAWKE —In that respect, it is interesting to read the commentary that I have just received today on the meeting between Mrs Thatcher and Mr Gorbachev on his way to visit President Reagan for the summit. I refer to this observation: On Gorbachev and his reforms in the USSR, Mrs Thatcher emphasised that he is a leader with whom you can do business. She wished him well in his bold initiatives in the USSR, particularly where they had significance for human rights. I repeat that the attitude on the other side of the House is at odds with that of conservatives overseas such as President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher; nor is it one shared by significant parts of Australia's business community; nor, importantly I believe, is it shared by the Australian people as a whole. I put it to Mr Gorbachev that he would never find Australia frightened of ideas. We would always be prepared to discuss any concept or idea advanced by the Soviet Union or anyone else as to ways in which existing mechanisms for dealing with regional problems may be improved. That is a frank and constructive approach which I believe enhances Australia's capacity to protect its own interests and influence events in the region. It is not, apparently, an approach of which the Opposition approves. But it is an isolated Opposition. In holding out against a cautious and deliberate response by the West to events in the Soviet Union, the Australian conservative parties are showing themselves as isolated from the mainstream of foreign policy thinking as their election defeat in July showed them to be isolated from relevant domestic policy. While in Moscow I held more than eight hours of formal talks with Mr Ryzhkov and other Ministers and a further 3 1/4 hours with Mr Gorbachev. Despite this generous allocation of time we were not able to cover fully the fascinating and complex question of the nature of the changes under way in the Soviet Union. However, I believe this much is clear: the Soviet leadership has embarked on a wide ranging and genuine attempt at restructuring the Soviet economy. It is motivated by a recognition that the Soviet command economy-an economy which, for instance, requires 200,000 separate decisions on wholesale and retail pricing-was, as Mr Gorbachev had put it, in a `pre-crisis condition'. They recognise, too, that changes are necessary if the Soviet economy is to resume its growth and if, in particular, the unfulfilled material needs of Soviet citizens are to be met. The measures suggested clearly do not amount to any renunciation of Marxist-Leninist principles. However, there is an explicit acceptance that excessive emphasis had been placed on the notion of centralised planning of enterprise-level activities. As Mr Ryzhkov put it, this had led to the loss of creativity in the work force; egalitarian tendencies, as he put it, hindered others from exercising initiative and resulted in apathy. Since the late 1970s the economy had begun to perform well below its potential. Such sentiments convince me of the genuineness of the Soviet leadership's commitment to change in domestic economic practices. They leave unresolved of course the question of whether the leaders will be prepared, or permitted, to go far enough to make a success of perestroika. Clearly, great changes of attitude are required on the part of both the government and the governed. Political pressures will undoubtedly impose their limits. I believe Mr Gorbachev and his colleagues will mix vision with caution as they seek to implement their plans. What I think can be said is that the changes proposed are in the right direction and, if carried through, hold the potential for some improvement, perhaps significant improvement, in the efficiency of the Soviet economy. Certainly there will be no overnight transformation. Restructuring and openness have a long way to go in practice. Clearly, therefore, we must not be naive or complacent. But, on the whole, my talks leave me with a sense of cautious hope for the long term. The implications of perestroika for international trade are profound. I had lengthy discussions on trade with Mr Ryzhkov; the First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of GOSAGROPOM, Mr Murakhovsky; and the Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of the State Foreign Economic Commission, Mr Kamentsev. My discussions with Mr Gorbachev also ranged over multilateral and bilateral trade issues. At my meetings with Mr Murakhovsky and Mr Kamentsev I was accompanied by a delegation of 11 Australian businessmen. This allowed those businessmen to make direct contact with the top echelons of the Soviet leadership and to express their views to the leadership on ways of facilitating and expanding trade and other forms of economic co-operation between Australia and the Soviet Union. I want on the floor of this Parliament to thank again those businessmen for taking so active and constructive a part in the meetings. In turn, I am gratified by their observation that my visit has opened doors previously closed to them. Mr Ryzhkov emphasised on a number of occasions that, as an integral part of perestroika, the Soviet Union wanted to become, and I use his words, `organically involved in the international division of labour'. The Soviet Union was seeking to do this through both multilateral and bilateral approaches to the rest of the world. Mr Ryzhkov and I agreed that the Australian-Soviet trading relationship should be put on a more stable footing. One of the four agreements we signed deals with economic co-operation, which offers the prospect of expanded commercial exchanges between our two countries. The other agreements, covering space science, sport, and medical co-operation, also hold out the prospect of closer and mutually beneficial ties between Australia and the Soviet Union. Mr Ryzhkov and I agreed that progress towards remedying the trade imbalance between Australia and the Soviet Union-which heavily favours Australia-should be through growth in trade. In that context, Mr Ryzhkov passed to me a detailed list of products that the Soviets believed might find a market in Australia. I undertook to make the list available to the Australian business delegation and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I did so. I indicated that in redressing the trade imbalance the Soviet Union should play its part by getting to know the Australian market better. In that context I made an offer for a Soviet delegation to visit Australia to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the Australian market. My offer was accepted and the delegation will visit Australia at a mutually agreeable time early next year. I also invited the Soviet Government to send a ministerial representative to Australia-the Prime Minister if he could find the opportunity-to share in our bicentennial celebrations next year. Perestroika also encompasses the concept of joint ventures between the Soviet Union and foreign companies, with a 49 per cent holding by the foreign partner. I believe that this is an area in which a number of Australian companies will have considerable interest and therefore will give us the opportunity to derive a mutual benefit from these new changes in the Soviet Union. As a first concrete step in fostering joint enterprises between Australia and the Soviet Union I urged the Soviet leaders to expedite the approval of a proposal by Comalco for a joint venture integrated aluminium complex in the Soviet Far East, ultimately consisting of a one million tonne per annum alumina refinery based on Australian bauxite, and a half million tonne per annum aluminium smelter. Each of Messrs Gorbachev, Ryzhkov and Kamentsev undertook to have the proposal considered as a matter of priority and expressed optimism about its approval. Other areas of potentially expanded economic co-operation identified during our meetings included agricultural machinery, food processing, sheep breeding and shearing, cattle breeding, forest products, and mineral extraction and marketing. I believe that the involvement of Western companies, including Australian firms, in the development of the Soviet economy, on mutually advantageous terms, can only have a positive impact on East-West relations. Just as the `open door' to China has been welcomed by us, so I believe it is in our interests to have an open mind to economic co-operation with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me turn now to the second of the elements of the Soviet reforms, namely glasnost. We must understand that the Soviet leadership is not trying to reproduce liberal Western democratic features within the Soviet Union; far from it. But there are some attempts to allow greater freedom and greater diversity of expression, and these will succeed, in my opinion, to the extent that perestroika succeeds. In other words, any lifting of the dead hand of the command economy and any devolution of decision-making power in economic affairs will encourage and almost inevitably be accompanied by a greater desire and capacity to exercise the freedoms suggested, in however constrained a way, by glasnost. I pressed Mr Gorbachev and the other Soviet leaders firmly, but without antagonism, on the merits of a greater respect for individual human rights within the Soviet Union. Australia has been negotiating with the Soviet Union for several months on a human contacts agreement which aims to win Soviet commitments to a more liberal approach in this field. Negotiations continued during my visit, including directly between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Shevardnadze. Though agreement has yet to be reached, progress was made during the visit and we shall continue our efforts in the future. Mr Gorbachev understands that the differences between the Soviet Union and the West on human rights are fundamental and our capacity to have full and constructive co-operation will reflect our perceptions of progress in this area. Australia is concerned about family reunion, about the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate, about the right of entry and exit for visits and about the plight of prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. I acknowledge the consistent and hard working efforts which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and his Department have made since we formed government in 1983, and the important role which you, Madam Speaker, played in bringing these concerns to the Soviet Government. We have been achieving progress in family reunion and we welcome this. We also recognise and welcome the steady increase this year in the numbers of refuseniks allowed visas. Emigration approvals since April have been at a monthly rate of some 800-close to the entire year's emigration in 1986, but still well short of the 2,000 approvals granted per month during the early 1970s. In my discussions with Mr Gorbachev, I presented a list of six cases of refuseniks-cases which were typical of a larger group, of 28 cases of which we are aware. He said that past practices on this matter were now under review and he gave me an undertaking that he would personally study the cases nominated on the list I presented to him. As honourable members will be aware, two of the groups of people I raised with Mr Gorbachev were in fact given subsequent approval to leave the Soviet Union. This news was conveyed to me by one of Mr Gorbachev's assistants immediately prior to my departure from the Soviet Union. The two cases cover five people-Pavel Abramovich and his wife, Marta, and Professor Alexander and Rosa Jofe and their daughter, Anna. I had already had the deeply moving experience of meeting them, and some 20 other refuseniks, at a reception at the Australian Embassy. Indeed, I had met Mr Abramovich on my 1979 visit to Moscow when I had attempted, unsuccessfully, to negotiate exit visas for a number of refuseniks. I can only add that my reaction to hearing the news of their release was one of great personal satisfaction as well as joy on their behalf. As I reported to the Parliament yesterday, the Soviet Union has also granted, after seven years refusal, permission for Mr Leonid Romanovsky to be reunited with his wife, Danuta, who lives in Melbourne. While too many cases remain outstanding, there is the prospect of further visa approvals-not least while East-West relations improve and countries like Australia insist that this issue be part of the dialogue with the Soviet Union. As I said in the House yesterday, this Government will continue to make every effort to obtain a positive resolution of every outstanding family reunion case and every outstanding refusenik case. As well as discussing these developments, my talks in the Soviet Union covered the related issue of Soviet perceptions of and initiatives in global and regional affairs. I congratulated the Soviet leadership, together with the United States, for their achievement in reaching the agreement on intermediate range nuclear forces. This is a treaty of truly historic proportions. It is the first time in which the super-powers' nuclear arsenals have been cut rather than simply having their rate of growth reduced. I expressed the view that the INF treaty should be a first step, and that the co-operative approach displayed by the Soviet Union and the United States in reaching this agreement should not be turned to the search for progress in reduction of strategic weapons and chemical weapons. This was a view which was accepted by Mr Gorbachev. Equally, the United States has indicated that INF is only a first step. Indeed, the Soviet Union expressed the hope that agreement on strategic nuclear forces could be reached in time for a possible meeting between Mr Gorbachev and President Reagan in Moscow in the first half of next year. In view of the fact that my visit took place immediately prior to the current Reagan- Gorbachev summit, I have passed on to President Reagan a report on my talks and my views on the current situation in the Soviet Union. In my Singapore lecture, I made the point that the changes within the Soviet Union were likely to lead to a more subtle and imaginative diplomacy by the Soviet Union. In our own region, we have already seen some manifestations of a greater interest by the Soviet Union in the affairs of the Pacific. I refer in particular to Mr Gorbachev's Vladivostok speech of July 1986 and his interview with the Indonesian newspaper Merdeka of last July. The Soviet Union is of course a Pacific nation and it therefore has a legitimate interest in the Pacific. We recognise the fact that the Soviet Union is entitled to economic relations with Pacific countries. No amount of sabre-rattling by the Opposition will change those facts. What is important is that we seek to ensure that the South Pacific not become an arena of super-power rivalry, and that the rest of the region-which paid a heavy cost for super-power rivalry in the Korean and Vietnam wars-never again be forced to pay such a cost. The Soviet Union's influence on Vietnam and Kampuchea is already significant and it has a large naval base at Cam Ranh Bay. I told the Soviet leadership that we would judge the Soviets' intentions in our region not by their words but by their actions in, for example, Indo-China and Afghanistan. That is in part what I mean when I say that we would welcome a constructive involvement by the Soviet Union in our region. We do not want any fishing agreement signed by the Soviet Union with an island state to be anything other than just that-a fishing agreement. To take another case, we would welcome a full and unambiguous association by the Soviet Union with the protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. What we are seeking is a businesslike and fruitful relationship with the Soviet Union which is of benefit to both nations. It comes at a time when our Western friends and allies in general are seeking to build such a relationship. I trust that my visit has constituted a part in that process. Japan I took the opportunity of a stopover in Tokyo to meet the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Takeshita. We had a warm and constructive conversation reflecting the close ties between our two nations. In my Singapore lecture, I dealt at some length with the emerging economic and political role of Japan, both in our region and more generally. In particular, I made the point that the real test of Japan's leadership will be its performance in the crucial area of economic adjustment. Japan's massive current account surplus and its associated accumulating wealth imposes a responsibility on Japan's economic leadership which is just as heavy as that on the United States. The Maekawa report provides clear guidelines for Japanese economic reform which involve reduced Japanese reliance on exports and a greater willingness to open its domestic markets to imports. It is essential that Japan begin to give effect to the principles enunciated in that report-principles which will impose their own economic and social pressures on Japan but which nonetheless are an essential element in restoring global economic balance. I was therefore pleased in my discussions with Prime Minister Takeshita to hear him reaffirm the theme of his policy statement to the Diet-that Japan would be embarking upon a program of restructuring which would increase import penetration into the Japanese market, and which would seek to substitute domestic demand in the place of exports as the major engine of growth in Japan. I welcomed this objective. While acknowledging the political difficulties which Japan's leadership would encounter, I noted that we in Australia have not been afraid to confront and overcome such difficulties ourselves in our efforts to open up our economy, to make it more efficient, to diversify our economic base, to integrate our economy with our region and to improve our competitiveness in the world economy. I also had more detailed discussions with Foreign Minister Uno on both multilateral and bilateral trading issues. Mr Uno advised me of Japan's attitude to the new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Japan, like Australia, wanted an early harvest from the negotiations but had some differences with Australia and the Cairns group on agriculture. I expressed Australia's deep regret that Japan did not fully support the Cairns group proposals, noting that Japan has to face up squarely to the questions of agricultural reform in order to meet the broader national and global interest. I stressed that if there were not a substantial early harvest of agricultural trade reforms there could well be a bitter harvest in years ahead which would have disastrous consequences for all nations. I also raised with Mr Uno the particular issues of access for our beef and the state of the markets for iron ore and coal. I sought and received assurances that Japan would not allow non-commercial considerations to enter as a factor in its efforts to remedy its trade imbalance with the United States. Australia is happy to trade on its merits. We welcome free and open competition. My discussions also touched upon the growing political role of Japan in the Asia-Pacific region. I welcomed Japan's perception of itself as both part of the West and of this region. In doing so, however, I registered the deep regret of the Australian Government of the stance which Japan has taken on New Caledonia in the United Nations General Assembly-a decision which does not sit easily with that perception. The summit now beginning in Washington is an event of historic international significance. The relations between the super-powers now present the real prospect of producing a more stable and more constructive world. I feel privileged to be the leader of an Australian Government which has done its part to encourage this. And we are all, I believe, both privileged and challenged to be part of this critically important and potentially rewarding point in history. We should all by our own words and actions be worthy of that challenge. If we can maintain our patience, our determination and our realism, we can yet achieve a meaningful and constructive peace between nations and a commensurate capacity for turning the world's resources more directly to meeting the material needs and aspirations of its people. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) observed in the concluding portion of his speech, this debate appropriately takes place on the eve of a quite historic intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement about to be signed by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Despite a number of sharp differences on foreign policy and strategic matters, to which I will refer in a moment, the Opposition shares to the full the sense of hope that the prospective Reagan-Gorbachev agreement will begin a new era of lessened international tension and will, in turn, lay the groundwork for further effective arms limitation agreements. No person-no party-in this Parliament has a monopoly of concern or passion for world peace; it is something that is common to us all. Moreover, the Opposition acknowledges to the full the importance and the significance of the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union. We have no quarrel with the fact of that visit. Our quarrel may be with some of the perspectives that surrounded the visit and were derived from the discussions that took place. The coalition recognises to the full the importance of bilateral heads of government contacts, irrespective of differences in ideology. Such visits do not of themselves bestow any imprimatur or connote any particular degree of approval. Rather, it is a fact of international life that communication between all nations is a means of lessening misunderstanding and tension, and it is in this context that I view the Prime Minister's visit in particular to the Soviet Union, even if in Australia's foreign policy priorities I and the Opposition believe that it has been accorded an exaggerated importance. In a number of respects we regard the Prime Minister's report on that visit and the visit itself as having been emotionally clouded, intellectually inconsistent and strategically unsound. The pinnacle is perhaps reached when the present Prime Minister of Australia reaches for endorsement of his position from none other than the British Prime Minister who he has been pleased to deride time and again on other foreign policy issues. If ever there were an example of the capacity of this Prime Minister to cast around and grasp for any remark to endorse what he has had to say, it is that. In passing I also say that all members of the Opposition find it profoundly puzzling that the Prime Minister should accuse the Liberal and National parties of having some kind of negative attitude towards this country's relations with China. I would have thought that, if there were relations with one country over the last 15 years where a persistently constructive bipartisan approach has been adopted ever since Nixon changed the attitude of the West towards China in 1972, it has been in relation to China. We have given credit to what Whitlam did on China; the Prime Minister ought to give credit to what Malcolm Fraser did on China. We are very happy to have a bipartisan and intelligent attitude. The Prime Minister should not misrepresent our position on China in the way in which he has. While we are encouraged by the potential for a more stable nuclear balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, culminating in today's arrival of General Secretary Gorbachev in Washington, prudence and circumspection must continue to guide any redefinition of Australia's and, indeed, the West's relationship with the Soviet Union. Australia's position ought to be characterised by an interest in the process of restructuring-indeed, welcoming it if it leads to more individual freedom and towards genuine liberalisation. On the other hand, our position when developing practical co-operation with the Soviet Union must be marked by a sober attitude based on our own strategic interests. The Prime Minister's invitation for what he describes as a constructive Soviet political involvement in the Asia-Pacific region marks the sharpest divergence yet in the fundamental approach between the coalition and Labor in regional outlook and interpretation of Western alliance responsibilities. The onus is now on the Prime Minister to define clearly the terms by which he seeks Soviet political involvement in our region. He is yet to take up the coalition's challenge to nominate one region in the world where Soviet involvement has been objectively judged to be constructive. The Prime Minister ought to ask a Latvian Jew about how constructive Soviet occupation of the Baltic states has been. He ought to ask a Catholic in Gdansk how constructive Soviet involvement in Poland has been. He ought to ask a Buddhist in Ho Chi Minh City how constructive the Soviet involvement has been there. He ought to ask a Moslem in Kabul how constructive the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has been. The Prime Minister would have us believe that 40 years of history have not been swept under the carpet. But the fact that there are four million to five million refugees from Afghanistan on the Afghan-Pakistan border and the fact that there are still over 120,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan did not rate a mention in his speech. Mr Hawke —This is pathetic. Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister says that this is pathetic. He says that it is pathetic to talk about the largest exodus of refugees since World War II. The Prime Minister interjects that it is pathetic to talk about the four million to five million Afghan refugees on the Afghan-Pakistan border. The Prime Minister can say that that is pathetic-the only thing that is pathetic is the plight and the life to which refugees from Afghanistan have been condemned. Yesterday in Question Time the Prime Minister sought to sweep 40 years of history under the carpet. He does not want to be reminded of the refugees of Afghanistan and of the continued Soviet penetration and domination of eastern Europe. The point of mentioning these matters is that if in fact we are to change our attitude towards nations, that change has to be based on observable facts and not flamboyant rhetoric. The past must act as a major guide to the future unless it is proven different by concrete action. For the Prime Minister to categorise what we have said in terms of Cold War rhetoric is to ignore the reality of what the Soviet Union still is in 1987. I welcome the fact that at least there was some reference in the Prime Minister's speech to Afghanistan. That is at least some improvement on his own Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) who, by his own admission, had not even found time to raise the subject of Afghanistan in earlier meetings with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze. The fact is that numerous and, as yet, unsubstantiated claims have been made about glasnost and perestroika. It has been interesting to note the many recent reports by Western journalists of the few tangible signs of glasnost in the Soviet citizenry. It is still too early to judge whether glasnost represents a genuine attempt to open up an entrenched party and military structure or whether it remains a fairly elaborate and sophisticated Western public relations exercise. The West needs to pause and assess whether Gorbachev really marks the transition from one era to another. After all, the essentially authoritarian nature of the Soviet state and the supremacy of communist ideology remains unaffected by the catchcries of glasnost and perestroika. I do not, nor would anybody in this House, question the sincerity of the Prime Minister's response to the plight of the refuseniks in the Soviet Union. But he is not alone on either side of this House in having a compassion for this great human issue. Whilst the coalition, together with all Australians, shares the delight of the six individuals and their families, and in particular the Jewish community of Australia, for their having been granted permission to leave the Soviet Union, it is difficult not to see their release as part of a cynical and manipulative exercise by the Soviet authorities. It has taken these people a large slice of their lives to achieve the right to emigrate; a fundamental liberty which has been acknowledged by civilised societies for centuries. The right to move from one country to another is, after all, a basic liberty. I am concerned about the implication of any linkage developing in the Soviet official mind between the issue of human rights and the personage of our Prime Minister or of any other Prime Minister. I would be justifiably concerned, as I am sure all Australians would be, if the Soviet authorities were encouraged to think that the human tragedy of the family reunion issue can be used as a cynical coin to gain influence in our part of the world. If the rosy picture of glasnost painted by the Prime Minister has any basis in fact, there is no justifiable reason for the Soviet authorities slowly to continue issuing exit permits to the 26 people they approved for family reunion to Australia as long ago as 23 July this year. If glasnost means what the Prime Minister says it means, why did we bear witness to the chilling sight after the Prime Minister's plane had left Soviet airspace of bus loads of KGB thugs, employed by Mr Gorbachev, descending on refuseniks who were exercising one of the most fundamental freedoms of any democracy-the right of assembly. The United States Secretary of State George Shultz recently stated: The most telling indicator of glasnost will be the Soviet human rights situation. The world is looking for results that bear out the rhetoric-not only for the sake of individuals and families involved, but because human rights as practised at home ultimately are related to international security. For a Government that does not respect the rights it has guaranteed to its own people will not respect its international obligations and the general norms of the world community. Let us look for a moment at some of the facts. The statistics show that despite glasnost the overall emigration pattern from the Soviet Union remains largely untouched. The total number of Jews allowed to leave the Soviet Union this year has averaged 800 to 900 a month which, although higher than the abysmal rate for 1986, is way down on the 4,250 a month achieved in 1979. Equally, we should never forget that there remain nearly 11,000 refuseniks in the Soviet Union. Is it then such a triumph of diplomacy when a handful of Jews are tokenly released, or is it rather an indictment on a political system that systematically and cynically abuses basic human liberties? A strategy of persistent diplomacy must be put in place whereby our concerns register loud and clear in the Soviet Union. Not only must individual cases continue to be strongly pressed, but also Moscow must be convinced of the need to adopt a relaxation of three particularly objectionable laws that restrict emigration from the Soviet Union. Firstly, there is the requirement that a Soviet citizen is eligible to emigrate only if he or she has a close relative-defined as a parent, spouse or child-living abroad. Secondly, there is the broad ban on immigration of those classified as having state secrets and, thirdly, there is the requirement that even adult children must have the permission of their parents to leave the Soviet Union. These restrictions, not commonly understood by most Australians, have created a large group that is simply afraid to apply to leave the Soviet Union. At the same time as presenting individual cases, it is important to stress the problem systematically. It is questionable how substantial the glasnost policy actually is. Internal dissent is still very hard to gauge. There are, however, indications that Gorbachev is facing stiff internal opposition to the policies he describes as glasnost. That opposition extends from the ideological purists to entrenched bureaucrats and powerful individuals who have a personal stake in maintaining the status quo. It should not be forgotten that despite all the talk on restructuring, the Soviet economy under Gorbachev remains poor. One needs, therefore, to ask the fundamental question: Why is the Soviet Union pursuing glasnost? The answer, I believe, has much to do with the need for a redirection of significant resources from the military to the civilian sectors of the Soviet economy. In this light one can see that a reduction in super-power tension, even for a limited tactical period, and arms control agreements which progressively favour a predominance of Soviet advantage in conventional military forces, will play an important part in the success of that glasnost policy. Glasnost is about making the Soviet economy and, by extension, communist ideology, more competitive with the West and a recognition that to succeed in this it desperately needs access to Western capital and technology. A more sophisticated public relations front to the West is part of that strategy. We believe that the Prime Minister has failed to put glasnost in this broad perspective. He has not been able to produce any evidence that glasnost has any application in the way in which the Soviet Union pursues its basic foreign policy objective or its external military objectives. It is now 16 months since Gorbachev delivered his speech at Vladivostok in which he clearly staked out Soviet claims in the Pacific and its more directed search for influence in our region. The Prime Minister's invitation for `constructive Soviet political involvement in our region' is a ringing endorsement of that Soviet claim made at Vladivostok 16 months ago. It significantly weakens his Government's ability to warn the micro-states of the South West Pacific of dealings with the Soviet Union. It contradicts his warnings that economic involvement is often a cloak for intelligence gathering. In view of the political and economic fragility of many of the micro-states of the region, this is a very real risk. Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile the welcoming of constructive political involvement with the explicit statement of the Prime Minister's host last week, Soviet Prime Minister Ryzhkov, who stated that the Soviet intention was to decouple Australia from the Western alliance and to see the end of ANZUS. Importantly, the Prime Minister's speech in Singapore erodes the accepted Western security policy of strategic denial. We have abrogated our responsibility in the region by not only failing to curtail Soviet inroads, but also now encouraging them. It is worth contrasting this with the previous coalition Government's coherent policy of strategic denial. It was a successful policy that comprised a desire to exclude all Soviet and Soviet surrogate activity in the South Pacific; the encouragement of regionalism; an expansion of bilateral, diplomatic and aid ties; the use of informal mechanisms to maintain a pro-Western alignment in the region; and an acceptance that Australia and New Zealand had a primary regional responsibility. The Prime Minister's speech in Singapore has seen him abandon the first point. His Government has cut aid to the region and regionalism has been fragmented. Useful informal mechanisms, such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting, were quickly dismantled by his Government. The Government has abandoned any pretence of regional responsibility through its passivity towards New Zealand's abrogation of its alliance responsibility, its irresponsible South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, its poor intelligence capacity and its misguided priorities. It has helped to create a serious vacuum in the region. It is all very well for the Prime Minister and others to get caught up pursuing global diplomacy on a grand international scale, but it cannot be at the expense of the difficult, often complex, regional issues that confront us. The Prime Minister invites what he loosely calls con- structive Soviet critical involvement, yet himself leads a government which has been notoriously deficient on constructive policies towards our Asia-Pacific region. Our relations with Indonesia remain uneasy and without a solid underpinning of substance. Our relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations have not progressed; our relations with the countries of the South Pacific are uneven; our relations with Papua New Guinea are tetchy, and it all adds up to a steady erosion of Australia's interests in this part of the world since 1983. I turn now to the Prime Minister's visit to Japan. If the objective of the visit was to influence the incoming Japanese Administration, I doubt very much whether he succeeded. I totally support, as the Opposition has consistently done, any legitimate attempts by the Government to improve the trading treatment of this country by Japan, the countries of the European Community or the United States. It is worth remembering that it was the Liberal and National parties that led the way in pointing out the great damage to Australia of the agricultural policies of the European Economic Community (EEC), the United States and Japan. Indeed, it is very ironic that much of the criticism that we made of the EEC in the 1970s was then criticised by the Australian Labor Party as being shrill, counterproductive and irrelevant to gaining an improvement in Australia's trading position. However, it is one thing properly to blame others for bad policies which damage our economy, but quite another, as the Prime Minister has sought to do, to comfort oneself by pretending that all our current ills are imported from overseas. The Prime Minister of Singapore summed it up well when he said that Australia is still changing too slowly for the world of the 1990s and beyond. He referred to institutionalised resistance like trade unions and he was not embarrassed to make plain those sorts of disabilities that he sees in the Australian economy. We cannot blame the Japanese, the Americans or the Europeans for the fact that our productivity will grow by half of one per cent this year, yet the overall productivity of countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will grow by 2.7 per cent. The fact is that the fundamental causes of Australia's lack of productivity, our lack of competitiveness and our vulnerability to the rest of the world, are home grown. It is irrational for the Prime Minister to suggest otherwise. I ask the Prime Minister: Is it rational or is it the fault of the Japanese that it costs $30 a tonne to shift phosphate rock from Christmas Island to Australia, while phosphate rock shipped to Australia from halfway around the world costs half that figure, or even less? Is it the fault of the Japanese, the Americans or the Europeans that it costs more to carry a cargo from Burnie in Tasmania to Newcastle than it does from Newcastle to Los Angeles? Is it the fault of the Japanese, the Europeans or the Americans that our inflation rate is double that of the OECD? Is it the fault of the Japanese, the Europeans or the Americans that our national debt has trebled in the 4 1/2 years that this Prime Minister has been in office? Is it the fault of the Americans, the Japanese or the Europeans that every Australian on a per head basis owes the rest of the world $7,000, yet other countries owe infinitely less than that? The reality is that when the Prime Minister tells the rest of the world to give us a fair trading deal, he speaks for the entire Australian nation. When he speaks to the rest of the world and seeks to blame all our problems on the rest of the world, he speaks from a position of irrationality and he misstates the facts. The reality, as distinct from the unreality, is that the great bulk of Australia's economic problems are home-grown; they have been educed by the policy failures of his Government in recent years. Any attempts to offload all the responsibility on to the rest of the world are bound to fall, ultimately, on the deaf ears of those overseas. I commenced my remarks by welcoming, as all honourable members do, the prospect of the INF agreement between the leader of the Soviet Union and the leader of the United States. Although there are differences in foreign policy approach and in the interpretation of the Soviet Union's motives-they are quite important and profound differences-there are no differences within this Parliament about the desire for a more stable international environment. To the extent that Australia, under different governments over recent years, has played a part in bringing about the prospect of a more stable and peaceful world, that is a fact from which all honourable members, whatever their political complexion, can derive considerable satisfaction. I can only say that all of us hope that what is about to take place in Washington represents a new era. I will retain, as many Australians will retain, reservations about the ultimate motives of the Soviet Union. Those reservations will gradually diminish not through fancy propaganda or public relations exercises designed to capture the interest of Western audiences but, rather, by hard facts. When we start to see the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and real evidence of human rights improvements in the Soviet Union, then and only then can we share some of the Prime Minister's starry-eyed idealism about perestroika and glasnost. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HUNT —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HUNT —Mr Peter Sawyer, the author of the October-November issue of a periodical known as Inside News, has included a most objectionable and scurrilous series of statements reflecting on the personal character of more than 50 members of this Parliament, of whom I am one. The author resorts to wild and unsubstantiated accusations in an attempt to give some credibility to his claims about the Deakin centre. Apart from the use of language such as `thugs' and `vermin' in relation to members of this place, the author has also used descriptions such as `total dolts', `traitors' and `idiots' in reference to some 50 members and senators, including me. Later this week I will be joining others from this place on an inspection of the Deakin national computer centre, following my earlier inquiries in this place to the Government. I have no evidence whatsoever at this stage which would give any credibility to Mr Sawyer's conspiracy theory. His resorting to slander and innuendo does nothing to assist his case, but brings into question his own credibility. I object to and resent Mr Sawyer's untrue and scurrilous assertions as to my own motives as a member of this Parliament and place on record my rejection of his descriptions, including `traitor' and `dolt'. If the other assertions in his publication are shown to be as groundless as his personal insults against me and others, one would be forgiven for treating those published claims not only with suspicion but with derision. 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 the 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 A.C.T. 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. Ensuring 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 Andrew,Mr Beale,Mr N.A. Brown,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr McVeigh,Mr Moore and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 Kent and Mr Scott. 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 Cadman,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 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 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 in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr 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 Government's discriminatory Anti-Smoking legislation in the workplace bans and on Domestic Airline travel. 2. Note that so called Environmental Tobacco smoke has not been proved as a major pollutant either in the workplace or on aircraft. 3. This legislation will discriminate against thirty per cent of the citizens of Australia, and 4. Call upon the Government to lift all bans and not proceed with any discriminatory smoking legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Macphee. The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that X-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens and permanent residents of Australia respectively showeth that: We the undersigned are deeply concerned about the sudden and unexpected cutback of the TAFE/AMEP English Language Program on Christmas Island. We ask the Federal Government to endorse the provision of English Language Classes to Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents as per government policy. We demand that no further cuts be made to the English Language Program on Christmas Island. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small business and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal; Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud. Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 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. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we are totally opposed to the Australia Card 2. That less intrusive methods, such as outlined in the Australian Federal Police Association's unpublished Review of Fraud Against the Commonwealth will more effectively combat fraud and tax-evasion without the surveillance of honest citizens 3. That the Australian voters surmised that the introduction of the National Identification System can again be prevented by the Senate and were unaware of S. 57 of the Constitution. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives urge the Government to reconsider the implementation of the ID Card against the people's will and uphold democracy. by Mr Reith. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Govern- ment 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 in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating tax evasion, illegal immigration and social security fraud; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax evasion and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Humble Petition of certain Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected their 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 of the Parliament of Australia assembled, we the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos, Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime, Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying, Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence, Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use, Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: 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 it 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gwydir electorate respectfully: Condemn the Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and state our total opposition to the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the House of Representatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The hypocrisy of the Government with its infinite capacity to preach to others but limited capacity to apply the lessons of economic rationality and sane policies to the Australian economy. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.59) —As members of this House will know, the genesis for the words of this matter of public importance comes from what one can only regard as a completely hypocritical response by the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) to a question asked of him by a Japanese journalist at a Press conference at the Imperial Hotel, Tokyo, on Thursday, 3 December last. The words themselves were used not to answer the question, which was one quite properly directed about the difficulties that Japanese purchasers have had with Australian industrial relations, but to try, yet again, to pass the blame for the Government's own failings on to the Government of Japan, in that instance, and, in others, other governments. He continued not only to blame Japan but to say that there was no limit to the capacity of the United States, Japan and Europe to preach to Australia and Third World countries about the need to apply economically rational and sane policies to their economies. The truth of the situation is that the blame lies with the Government. The fault, where there is one, and a serious one for ordinary Australians, lies in the deficiencies of and the policies being pursued by this Government. On this side of the House, we are concerned that the preaching and the ranting, the hyperbole and the hypocrisy continue to the point where, even in the statement made by the Prime Minister to the House this day, we have a repetition of the same condemnation of others. The House will recall that, in the course of his report on his recent visit to the Soviet Union, he said: While acknowledging the political difficulties which Japan's leadership will encounter, I noted that we in Australia have not been afraid . . . to improve our competitiveness in the world economy. If that were true, how much better off we would be. However, it is a fallacy. It is not true and the sadness is that not only is the Prime Minister trying to delude others, but he is deluding himself. Furthermore, it is not only the Prime Minister but also his Treasurer (Mr Keating) who is wandering around the countryside pursuing the same pretences. The alibi the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are pursuing is an alibi that does not stand up in fact and, regrettably, is imposing significant burdens on ordinary Australians. It is an alibi that cannot be allowed to continue, for if it is the proper policies that are needed to get Australia out of the mess it is in will never be adopted by this Labor Government. The truth is that it is a grand delusion. The fundamental causes of the lack of productivity, lack of competitiveness and the vulnerability of the Australian economy are all home grown. If anyone doubts that the reality is not seen by people outside the Government, all that he has to do is look at the editorial this morning in the Age, which pointed out that the Prime Minister is right to keep pressure on other countries to protect Australian interests, and everyone on this side of the House endorses his advocacy in that cause. However, as the Age said, the Prime Minister is wrong to imply that overseas countries are responsible for Australia's worrying trade imbalance and ensuing economic difficulties. The reality is that, within Australia, we have been going backwards fast. Of course, the Treasurer is constantly telling us that the biggest problem that Australia and the Australian Government have had to deal with has been an abundance of growth. Indeed! Australia is now falling behind the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in growth. The statistics for 1986 show that our rate of growth was 1.5 per cent against the 2.7 per cent OECD average. Every one of the pretences that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have used, and every claim that Australia is moving more competitively against the rest of the world, our customers and trading partners, is exactly the reverse. While that continues, the ordinary Australians, those trying to maintain jobs and gain employment, those involved in investing to cover their standards of living and those trying to acquire their homes are the ones who are suffering. In any international comparison, Australia today is falling further and further behind the position of other countries. I know that the Government pretends that interest rates are now on the move down, but again, in an international comparison, we all know that Australian interest rates are about 5 per cent higher than they are in the United States, and 3 1/2 times as high as they are in Japan. We have no chance of getting ourselves outside our present economic difficulties until this Government registers that there is a necessity for different economic policies in Australia and for the pace of adjustment to be accelerated. The Government must recognise the change in circumstances that is absolutely essential if we are to promote trade and get ourselves out of the economic mess that this Government has brought upon us. The real difficulty is that the Government does not comprehend the fundamental problems. There is within Australia essentially an economy still very dependent upon the export of commodities and minerals. No-one on this side of the House wants to deny the opportunity to manufacturers of high-technology or service industries to improve their share of our economic performance. But the reality is that, until we recognise the key reasons why Australia is falling behind, those sectors will continue to have difficulties. It is perhaps worth commenting that, in the whole field of commodities, this Government, in its restructuring following the last election, has now hived off Austrade, the body representing Australia internationally, into the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It is important that we also know that the major access that Australian manufacturing exporters will gain will be by riding on the backs of Australia's major commodity and mineral exports. Yet, this Government has split administrative responsibility in such a way that those who are in Austrade and trying to promote Australian trade overseas are separated altogether, in their administrative relationship, from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, which has the prime carriage of those major exports. What is worse is that in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade there is now to be the responsibility for trade negotiations. How one reconciles the policies of each of those three departments-Austrade, being in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce; Primary Industries and Energy, being responsible for Australia's major exports where the major demand and opportunity must continue to lie if we are to overcome our balance of payments and debt servicing problems; and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-and gets the departments to talk to each other, goodness only knows. We heard from the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) only today about the problem that he has in getting his own officers to give the same answer on a simple question relating to immigration. What chance is there of getting three government departments together? What makes it even worse is that the poor old Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) is thrown off on his own. He is supposed to represent every one of those departments, but seemingly he represents none. If one thinks that trade is important and the problems of trying to gain access are significant, as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have tried to pretend, all one has to do is see who will respond to this matter of public importance. It will not be one of the four Ministers responsible for trade and for trying to improve Australia's economic affairs. Instead, it will be the Minister for everything else, the Minister who has not got a hat to wear but who comes in here to answer matters of public importance because they did not think enough of him to maintain him in the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs-the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding). What is significant is that behind all our fundamental problems lies the difficulty of our burgeoning overseas debt. On this side of the House, we have constantly pointed out to the Government that it is not possible, practical or desirable for Australia to maintain, or seek to maintain, living standards while our trade deficit continues to balloon and our overseas debt blows up as it does. The reality is that an increasing percentage of our overseas trade is now required just to service that overseas debt and, given the level of our past monthly deficits, we all know that the Government is having to borrow further in order just to service those debts. That is no way in which to overcome the problems of our country. Until we are able to correct the fundamental problem of allowing Australia's manufacturing exporters, primary industry exporters and mineral exporters to compete within Australia, until we are able to get rid of the higher than comparable wage levels and the non-competitive interest rate regime, and bring inflation back to a comparable level, there is no chance of Australia or those exporters being able to earn sufficient even to service Australia's burgeoning overseas debt. As the Leader of the Opposition said, trouble with our overseas debt now represents $7,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. It is growing larger every year and now represents more than 40 per cent of our annual production. It is climbing and nothing being undertaken by this Government in its domestic economic policies will correct it. On any number of occasions, there has been an identification of our problems and in the few minutes that I have left this afternoon, I want to point to two in particular. There is no doubt that our labour costs are non-competitive. Labour costs in Australia increased by 7.5 per cent over 1986-87, compared with the average in our trading partners of 3 per cent, and that is one of the fundamental problems. Part of the difficulty lies in the way that that is then translated into particular areas of the economy. The one with which I have been concerned for a long while, and which, unfortunately, although it is now the subject of a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission has been almost totally neglected by the Government, is the difficulty in the cost of transport both within this country and in outward and inward bound shipping services. There is no doubt that the inefficiencies of our shore based shipping systems cost, as the Australian Shippers Council has said, more than $100m a year. Restrictive work practices were cited as being responsible for the closure only last week by a company called Conaust (NSW) Pty Ltd of its Consolidated Cargo Services container depot. That cargo service has been a facility for the unpacking, packing and storage of shipping containers moving into the port of Sydney. It employs 86 men who belong mainly to the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. The Chairman of Conaust (NSW) Pty Ltd, Mr Brian Baillie, said that the depot had lost more than $2m over the past three years due to outmoded, inefficient work practices. Anybody who has any association with any exporter knows the extent to which the costs of handling goods and services in our export trades are causing us to fall behind. This is not because of actions by Japan, the United States or Europe; it is all because of the inactivity of this Government. In the past four years unauthorised strikes and stoppages in Australia's grain export terminals have cost the nation the opportunity to load and ship six million tonnes of grain. Of course, wage claims are totally unrelated to the productivity of Australia's overseas competitors. As I have pointed out in this House on a number of occasions, the average throughput of grain per employee, for example, at the Sydney grain terminal is just 17,000 tonnes a year compared to 80,000 tonnes a man at Convent and Westwego and 120,000 tonnes a man at Kalama in the United States. Of course, the situation is even worse when we look at the relative port performances in terms of containers handled. A table of relative port performances released by Mr P. Stubbs in a publication called Australia and the Maritime Industries points out that on the basis of the number of containers handled per hour per crane, and using Australia as an index of 100, New Zealand-that much maligned country across the Tasman-has an index of 138, the United Kingdom 141, North America 250, Japan 312 and Singapore 200. The reality is that in every criteria of performance within the control of this Government, Australia is falling behind. There is absolutely no basis for the Prime Minister or the Treasurer to continue to berate overseas governments for this failure when it is as a result of lack of action by this Government. Of course, we all know that the conditions of waterside workers are significantly better than conditions for most employees in the work force. Waterside workers have a 35-hour week, five weeks annual leave and a 27 1/2 per cent annual leave loading. The base pay for an ordinary waterside worker starts at $383.20 and the top terminal rate is $410.10. Locally agreed penalties and extras boost this substantially, and some supervisory union workers are thought to earn up to $80,000 a year. Let us put to an end once and for all the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister who claims that it is all the fault of these overseas countries that we are falling behind. As I have pointed out before, a publication by Andy Stoeckel and Sandy Cuthbertson attributes 60 per cent of our trade problems to what is happening back here in Australia. At the weekend we all recall former Prime Minister E. G. Whitlam talking about the `smart-arse' comments made about his Government. Of course, he was referring to comments made by the Treasurer. The reality is that if this Government wants to start looking at itself it will get the respect and understanding of people throughout Australia. Those `smart-arse' comments about Mr Whitlam were no better deserved than are the comments that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer make about governments overseas. The Australian Financial Review concludes in its editorial today: If he wants his criticisms of the Hawke Government to be taken seriously, he must admit his own failings. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.14) —If one looks at the turgid rhetoric in which this matter of public importance is couched, one might think it has something to do with the economy; one might think that it has something to do with this Government's management, but, of course, I know, as honourable members opposite know, that if in fact there were to be a serious attack mounted on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) we would have heard from the shadow Treasurer, and if there were to be a serious attack mounted on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in respect of the economy, it would have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Therefore, the question we have to ask ourselves is why this embattled, mauled and embroiled Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has come into the Parliament to raise this matter of public importance. It has got nothing to do with economic management. It has nothing to do with this Government. What the matter of public importance is all about is that Sir Robert Sparkes is supporting Senator John Stone for the leadership of the National Party. It is important for the Leader of the National Party to come in here and to make a speech about anything at all in order to say to members of the National Party in this chamber that it is better to sink with Sinkers than to roll with Stone. That is the reality. Honourable members opposite know it. If I have to express my preference and give honourable gentlemen opposite some advice, I would prefer to stick with yesterday's politician than with yesterday's bureaucrat. I am perfectly happy to give that advice. Whether honourable members opposite follow it or not, is a matter for them. However, the reality of the situation in regard to the Leader of the National Party coming in here to reprimand the Government and advise us to take the advice of the coalition in respect of the management of the economy is that nothing that was said by the Leader of the National Party here today was not a simple regurgitation of the same things that were said during the election campaign. Honourable members know that. I know that. There was nothing new; nothing novel and nothing added. The truth of the matter is that the economic credibility of the coalition has been the subject of quite savage comment, not by the Treasurer because he at least, I think, deals with it with a forthrightness for which he receives great credit and praise. What do we do if we are trying seriously to appraise the contribution of the coalition when its own Senate leader goes to a public lecture-let me quote his assessment of the coalition's economic credibility and its policies-and says: . . . had the Labor Party lost-the conservative Parties would not have been truly ready for Government. They are his views. This is not the view of some backbencher who missed out in regard to the preference deals made in choosing the shadow Cabinet. This is the leader of the National Party in the Senate-the Joh clone. It does not say much for Senator Stone when he makes such a claim because four months ago he was wandering around Australia saying to the people `Vote the Government out. Vote the coalition in'. Deep in his heart he knew that what he was saying to the people of Australia was, `If you vote for the coalition, they won't be fit to govern'. Therefore, in a moment of rare truth he now admits the frailty of the Opposition's position, the incorrectness of its philosphy and policy. Why does he do this? Is it that he had some vision during the night and felt the need to be truthful? The reason is simple. He is making his run for the leadership. Mr Beale —Who is? Mr HOLDING —There is no point dealing with the honourable member because he is not really party to all this. He would not know who was stabbing whom in his own Party. The honourable member is on the front bench for one reason only, because he has been chosen as one of the articulate members of the New Right. That is the only reason the honourable member is sitting on the front bench. Mr Beale —Articulate, yes. Mr HOLDING —Articulate, but not intelligent. This is what the matter of public importance is all about. Members of the National Party had to fill the Parliament today. Members of the National Party had to sit here today. What it is all about is that honourable members opposite deep in their hearts really love the Leader of the National Party. He is a good bloke. He has been there. He has battled with and fought off Joh. He has had John Stone in and dragged him over the coals. He has said `You mustn't tell the truth because people might listen to you'. That is what it is all about. Let us just put the matter of public importance in its proper context. It is not worthy of reply but, in order to set the record straight, let us ask what it is, in fact, that the Opposition is telling us is new? The Opposition is not telling us anything new. If members of the Opposition want to know the Government's economic achievements over the past 4 1/2 years, I shall list them. We have floated the exchange rate; we have allowed the exchange rate to depreciate to enhance the competitiveness of export and import competing industries; we have reduced our reliance on commodity exports; we have reversed the disastrous overvalued exchange rate policies of the previous Government, policies that ripped the heart out or our manufacturing industries. These are some of the achievements of the Government, and anyone who adopts an honest approach will admit to the Government's credibility. Mr Braithwaite —Have you reduced our credit rating? Mr HOLDING —Will the honourable member stop yapping. The honourable gentleman opposite-- Mr Beale —Why don't you answer the question? Mr HOLDING —Because it is not worthy of an answer. We have progressively reduced the Budget deficit to free resources for private investment and for the net export sector; in the course of five Budgets we have eliminated the prospective Budget deficit of $9.6 billion that we inherited. The contribution of honourable gentlemen opposite to the economy was a deficit of $9.6 billion. The elimination of that deficit has been achieved by a rigorous evaluation of our spending priorities. We have put in place a highly effective wage fixing system, and that system has delivered considerable wage restraint when that was necessary to meet the economic circumstances. The trade union movement has adopted a highly responsible attitude and ordinary Australians have made sacrifices to ensure that external factors have not impacted on economic performance any more than is absolutely necessary. Yet honourable members opposite never make a speech on the economy without attacking the trade union movement. By doing that, they attack the average Australian wage and salary earner; they take the attitude that the present economic situation is all their fault. The Government has increased the flexibility of the Australian economy; we have introduced industry plans to improve productivity in key industries; we have deregulated the financial markets and fundamentally reformed the taxation system; we have increased flexibility in the labour market through the two-tier wage fixing system and through placing emphasis on increasing education and training. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said repeatedly that it is inevitable that the fall in share prices around the world will have an impact on both the level of domestic activity and our external trading position. But the reforms that this Government has implemented have meant that the Australian economy is in a far better position to cope with these intrinsically external factors. Just imagine how vulnerable our economy would be had we pursued the policies of the previous Government. Even if we did not take account of the decline in our terms of trade, the record of the previous Government was one of negative economic growth, double digit inflation and a double digit unemployment rate. The people who achieved those results want to lecture us and tell us that they have the solution to our economic problems. Imagine how vulnerable we would be if we had pursued the policies on which the Opposition campaigned at the last election less than five months ago-policies that were completely lacking in any semblance of economic rationality; policies which would have blown out the Budget deficit with an unfunded tax cut of more than $6 billion; policies that sought to give Australians an increase in their living standards by means of a tax cut when the rest of the world was demanding that we exercise restraint; policies that would have resulted in the re-emergence of the tax rorts and the rip-offs of the rich; and policies that were aimed at smashing the tax reform measures that this Government had introduced, measures that brought equity and efficiency back into the tax system. That would have been the record of a coalition government. Five months after advocating those policies, the Leader of the Opposition is still advocating massive cuts in the deficit. But he will not say in this Parliament, nor will any of his spokespersons, where those cuts ought to take place. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to advocate cuts to the value of $11 billion, surely he has a responsibility to tell us where he would make those cuts. Only last week the Leader of the Opposition was advocating cuts in expenditure of $7 billion. Where are those cuts to be made? He advocated cuts in assistance programs for the unemployed, the sick and single parents as part of a radical Budget agenda in the 1990s. What does it all mean? When the new shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was appointed, he indicated that it was desirable that the economic policies of the Opposition be taken in a new direction. He was right about that. I think he advocated that course with some sensitivity, as he did not want to expose the hopelessness of the program that his leader had put to the people of Australia and that had been overwhelmingly rejected. Last week the Leader of the Opposition put forward new proposals for further cuts which are again directed at those in society who are most in need. They are not directed against the Opposition's mates who turned the tax evasion industry into the biggest single growth industry during the coalition's period in government. The Opposition takes the view that the present economic situation is all the fault of the trade union movement. In view of that, it is interesting to note that when the Leader of the Opposition launched this so-called new round of cuts, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the person appointed as the Opposition's economic spokesperson, the honourable member for Kooyong, was not consulted about and not involved in any way with the speech that the Leader of the Opposition delivered to the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce. Not involving the Opposition spokesperson on economic matters in determining the details of a major statement that the Leader of the Opposition intended to make is no way to run a coalition Opposition. The Opposition is a shambles. At the same time as the shadow Treasurer is not involved in these matters, the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate (Senator Stone) quite forthrightly says without turning a hair that if by some mischance the coalition had won the last election it was not fit to govern. He made that statement, and some private discussions have been held with him. Mr Beale —That is not what he said and you know it. Mr HOLDING —Does the honourable member want me to quote him exactly? I would not want to get it wrong. For the benefit of the honourable gentleman, he said, `Had the Labor Party lost, the conservative parties'-that includes the honourable member and his friends-`would not have been truly ready for government'. Not even somebody as glib and as facile as the honourable member could make those words mean something different. Mr Beale —They can if you read them in context. Mr HOLDING —They can if one used the kind of slimy, sleazy approach that the honourable member adopts to this whole question of economic management. This matter of public importance has nothing to do with the management of the economy; it has nothing to do with the capacities of the Treasurer. What it is about is the internal fighting and bickering within the coalition. It is an attempt to save the Leader of the National Party of Australia from the freshest assault from the Joh clone in the Senate. That is a matter that must be worked out in the internal processes of the coalition. When the members of the coalition have finished their fights and their brawls they might begin to be a semblance of an Opposition. Until then they should not waste the time of the Parliament and this House by bringing forward these facile and ridiculous matters of public importance which are not designed to address the real issues that face this Government and the people of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(4.29) —I support this matter of public importance moved by my colleague the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) because of my deep concern that the Australian economy appears to be drifting like a ship without a rudder or without even a captain on board. I was disappointed to hear what was said by the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding). He spoke about leadership challenges, ancient history and Queensland politics-all manner of things except the issues raised by the Leader of the National Party. I believe the economy of this country is at a critical stage and for a Minister of the Crown to be speaking all that nonsense instead of addressing the issues makes me even more depressed. There is no need to go into the consequences of the stock market crash because honourable members are aware of the adverse effect that event will have on all Australians, whether or not they own shares. The real problem I see every day in my electorate and elsewhere is the general malaise that is gripping the population because of a lack of leadership and a lack of direction being shown by this Government. The fact that sycophants of the Government will not tell the king that he is naked is not helping the situation. I know of the reluctance of most responsible members in this House to talk down the economy but I am certain in my own mind that members of the general public want to know the truth and should be told the truth about the economy. They want to know the truth so they can adequately prepare themselves for the lowering of living standards that we must all face because of the inactivity and misguided policies of the present Government. I was interested to read in yesterday's Australian Financial Review a feature article by Mr McGuiness which stated: The chorus of optimistic assessments of the prospects for the world economy and the Australian economy is probably the most disturbing feature of the present economic situation. In other words, the Australian public generally is being duped by the Government's misleading propaganda campaign. One person who has not been duped is Mr Murdoch who, for his truthfulness is saying that Australia's economy was shaky even before the stock market crash, was lectured by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Other people who have not been fooled are those who live in rural Australia. They have been squeezed ever since this Government came to office. They know the reality of a socialist regime. The rest of Australia is on a learning curve that will, I believe, exponentially steepen in the next 12 months as the state of the economy deteriorates. Unless the Government takes decisive action this will have to be the case. It is bad enough that, in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), we have a banana republic, but to cap it off we have the Prime Minister, supported by the Treasurer, writing to President Reagan-imagine the cheek-telling the United States Administration what it is doing wrong and suggesting what it needs to do to get the US economy in order and, from that action, the world economy in order. Mr Cobb —I'll bet he did not tell Gorbachev that. Mr HICKS —I doubt if he told Gorbachev that. Though I agree that the American economy holds the key to the future economic health of the Western world and that this will be determined by that Administration's ability to deal with its Budget and the trade account deficits, what an embarrassment for thinking Australians these two gentlemen-the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-are when we start to look into our own backyard. With the self-proclaimed best Ministry in Australia's history, we have, in the short space of four years, quadrupled our overseas debt from $25 billion in March 1983 to $110 billion in 1987. Mr Cobb —A sorry record. Mr HICKS —It is a very sorry record indeed. This occurred long before any stock market crash. Our debt is increasing at approximately $1 billion a month; surely the world's best Treasurer should be concerned by this. For the first time in our nation's history we have lost our AAA credit rating. What a disgrace! Australia's inflation rate still outstrips that of all of our major trading nations. The Economist magazine commented: Australia fared worse-its annual inflation rate stood at 8.3 per cent in August, down from 8.9 per cent in August 1986, but still the highest of major industrial countries. With an overseas debt of $110 billion and with inflation and interest rates three to four times greater than those of our major trading partners, Australia is certainly handicapped in the present economic survival stakes. The figures we speak of are so massive that one could not blame Mr and Mrs John Citizen for not understanding that today they and each of their children are in hock to the rest of the world for nearly $8,000 each. Mr Cobb —It sounds like Argentina. Mr HICKS —I think the honourable member for Parkes is right; he has hit the nail on the head. That is the direction we are heading. What has the Government done to overcome the problems that confront this nation? It has adopted the classic defence strategy of attack. Guess who it has attacked? It has attacked the good old whipping horse, the United States of America. Certainly we all know that the United States, the European Economic Community, the Japanese and others have their own problems which, in turn, are causing us some difficulty, but the main cause for our discomfort rests with this country's leadership-and the buck must stop there. Honourable members will be aware of the present conflict between the former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and the present Treasurer. In my opinion, the Australian economy has never got over the Whitlam regime when the answer to every problem was to spend. Under the present Treasurer the situation worsens. What a great team they make. What else has the Government done to overcome our economic woes? It has certainly supported a two-tier wages system. Unions from the industry sector have begun to question the competence of some of the Federal Government's tribunals, claiming that the conflicting interpretations of the wage fixing principles are confusing to all parties. In other words, we have another Government debacle. Every day honourable members read in the Press about unions striking in order to gain the second tier increase, with the resultant loss of productivity-surely a suicidal reaction in today's climate. The recent wheat loading strike in South Australia is a good example. The farmers had to fight against all odds trying to produce overseas export earnings for Australia. When they got the wheat to the port, because of the actions of this Government, the unions were holding up shipments because they were trying to get their second tier wage increase. It was simply irresponsible. However, I do not blame the unions in this case. Confusion reigns all over the place and by its actions the Government has placed this nation at a great disadvantage. The Australian Council of Trade Unions effectively runs not only the domestic policy of the country but also its foreign policy. In the Fijian debacle, when we went close to losing a good friend and trading partner, we lost millions of dollars in the rice trade alone. This concerns me because it has a serious effect on my electorate. Today in a news item, statements were made by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), on behalf of a parliamentary committee, criticising the Aquino Government's human rights record. If the news item is correct, there is very little mention of the Communist insurgency and Communist terrorist tactics towards unarmed civilians. Unbalanced outbursts by left wing members of the Government certainly would not help us cement our relationships with our Pacific region friends and certainly would not help in our trading relationship with those countries. We refuse to trade with countries like South Africa and Chile and, although I acknowledge there are some problems with accepting the regimes that exist in those countries, we rely on trade with Russia, Afghanistan and with other countries with much more repressive regimes. The irony of the situation is that countries like Chile and South Africa have displaced our trade with other nations and are lifting their standards of living at our expense. We see the apparent swing of the Government in the education system towards producing more technocrats. This has caused great disruption in the education system. I do not argue with more technicians being trained but I object to the cynicism of the exercise. The funding of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is being directed towards the manufacturing sector at the expense of the rural sector. Despite what many uninformed people would have us believe, the primary industry sector has in the past provided, and will continue to provide, the basic export earnings that provide every Australian's bread and butter. However, the warning should be sounded that if this Government's policies towards the primary industry sector continue, all they may be able to provide will be bread and dripping. The honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) raised the question of cross-subsidisation of rural telephone systems. The program for providing digital radio concentrator telephone systems in remote areas has been postponed by this Government and the expenditure on road systems in rural Australia has been reduced in real terms. How the Government expects mining enterprises and the farming sector to produce products that will provide much needed overseas earnings is beyond my comprehension. If money is to be expended by governments, it should be directed towards assisting producers to export. Over the past four years, through Government ideology based taxes, much of this nation's incentive to save and invest has been destroyed. Even though the intake by the Government, according to some estimates, has increased by 70 per cent, this was criticised by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) as being oversold and not strict enough. Unless this Government gets political courage from somewhere we are in for difficult times. All these actions may produce some benefits in the long term but tough short term decisions have to be made such as curbing State expenditure and funding of services such as the Darling Harbour project-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.39) —I have listened carefully to this debate and I have looked at the wording of this matter of public importance. I have to say that this would be the most farcical matter of public importance that this House has debated all year. It is farcical because it has nothing at all to do with the economy. It has nothing at all to do with rational economic policy, as it purports to. It is aimed at trying to prop up the present Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair)-old Sinkers-against the continuing, ongoing onslaught from Queensland. That is what this matter of public importance is about. What an irony it is that we are debating a matter of public importance which is supposedly about rational economic policies when really the motivation for this matter of public importance is to give the present Leader of the National Party a forum in which to speak in which he is able to defend himself against the continuing onslaught of economic irrationalists from Queensland, the Sparkes and Joh brigade, who are still active and still trying to put John Stone, that senator in another place, into the leadership of the National Party in this House. That is what this debate is all about. Let us look at a couple of cuttings from newspapers over the last few days. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 December entitled `MP quits for Stone to make his run' states: The dangerously outspoken National Party frontbencher Senator John Stone gained a powerful weapon yesterday to cause trouble within the Federal coalition as his leaders tried to embarrass him into silence. Senator Stone's path to enter the House of Representatives was opened with the news that a National Party backbencher . . . would soon vacate his Federal seat. An article in the Australian of 7 December entitled `Reprimand unlikely after Stone backs off' states: The prospect of Coalition leaders reprimanding the National Party Leader in the Senate, Senator Stone, at a shadow Cabinet meeting today has faded after he played down differences over policy at the weekend. This matter of public importance is all about the bitter divisions which exist within the Federal National Party and they are now being manifested in this Parliament. As I say, very little which has been said in this debate has anything at all to do about rational economic policy; it is all about trying to protect the Leader of the National Party from that onslaught from the north. The Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) in this debate tried to peddle the untruth that the economic adjustment that is occurring in Australia has been slower than that which has occurred in the United States. They have tried to make the international comparison. But the fact remains, as our Treasurer (Mr Keating) has noted, that had the fiscal policy in the United States been addressed, as it has in this country, many of the problems which have emerged in recent times would have either not emerged or been muted in their effects. Between May of last year and August of this year, the Hawke Labor Government cut $7 billion from Budget outlays. I make the point clearly for the benefit of Opposition members that had the United States Administration cut outlays, real spending, by the same proportion as we have in Australia, that would have been equivalent to slicing $125 billion off the United States deficit. We have sliced $7 billion off government spending in Australia. Had the same scale of reduction been undertaken by the United States Administration, it would have resulted in a cut of around $125 billion. Further, the official Treasury estimate of the Australian general government deficit for 1987-88 is about one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP); that is about 1 1/2 percentage points lower than the figure for the United States. The sorts of points that the Opposition makes about comparisons between our performance and that of the United States simply are not valid. Let us look at some of the things that we have done in government in the last five years. We have wound the prospective Budget deficit back from $9.6 billion to less than zero. That is not a bad achievement. I would have thought that that was evidence of a rational economic policy. We have diversified our export base; we have got a more competitive, outward looking economy and in the last 12 months more than half of our export growth has come from the traded goods sector. I would have thought that that was a rational economic policy. We have had the fastest rate of job growth in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We have done that with most of the jobs coming from the private sector. I would have thought that that was a rational economic policy. We have reduced the gross public sector borrowing requirement from about 8 per cent of GDP when we came to government to 2.2 per cent this year. We have reduced it to a quarter of what it was. I would have thought that that was a rational economic policy. We have had the courage to deregulate the financial markets-we floated the dollar and we have cut away, wherever possible, unnecessary regulations and red tape. I would have thought that that was a rational thing to do. We have introduced a needs based welfare system in Australia. We do not have the sort of unfettered payments that occurred under the previous Government-the snouts in the trough type of policy. We have introduced a needs based system which pays limited government resources to those who need them. I would have thought that a needs based system was rational economic policy. We have reformed the tax system. We have cut out the rorts. We have brought in fringe benefits tax; we have cut out the free lunch; and we have introduced a capital gains tax. I would have thought that that has made our tax system more rational. I would have thought that the imputation system of dividends, the abolition of double tax on companies, was also a rational economic change. I challenge the Opposition to say that it was not. Finally, we have introduced a wages system which has ensured that the real level of labour unit costs in Australia has declined significantly over the last five years. All of those things demonstrate rational economic policy. They have been introduced by this Hawke Government and we are, by and large, being successful in turning around the Australian economy. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is farcical that this matter of public importance has been moved by the Leader of the National Party. Obviously the shadow Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), has not been consulted. He has not spoken in this debate. I know that he would not support some of the views which have been expressed by the National Party speakers in this debate. I want to say a few words about the hypocrisy of the National Party in moving this matter of public importance about rationality. I want to quote to honourable members a statement made by former Leader of the National Party in 1979, Mr Anthony, after returning from the latest General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) round, which he summed up in the following way: Australia has achieved a meaningful and advantageous settlement with the United States, EEC and Japan without reducing the current level of tariff protection on a single tariff item applicable to any manufacturing industry. In practical terms this means that the Government has been able to secure its major industrial tariff objective for the Multilateral Trade Negotiations of gaining full and offsetting benefits for the 25 per cent tariff cut implemented in 1973. This was, I believe-I am sure industry agrees with me-a commendable result. That was Doug Anthony in 1979, the then Leader of the National Party, the so-called economic rationalist. What Mr Anthony was saying was that, in other words, the National's objective in those days was to avoid reducing Australian manufacturing protection at all costs, including the cost of failing to get agriculture into the GATT. So these alleged rationalists did nothing throughout the 1960s or the 1970s-summed up succinctly by Mr Anthony in 1979-about making this economy more outward looking and more export oriented, and, indeed, they were willing to sacrifice any form of adjustment in the Australian economy, including the cost of failing to get agriculture into the GATT discussions. This Government has got agriculture into the GATT discussions. This Government has pursued rational economic policies. I find it the height of hypocrisy that members of the National Party, led in this place by the right honourable member for New England and in the Senate by Senator John Stone-the man formerly in charge of the Treasury, the failed bureaucrat who opposed any form of deregulation of our financial system; he opposed floating the dollar-come into this place and have the gall to speak about economic rationality. I think this matter of public importance is a joke. It is designed to prop up the right honourable member for New England and it has demonstrably failed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed from 7 December. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends various Acts concerned with crime, law enforcement and criminal justice and includes amendments to permit the Commonwealth to provide certain assistance to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland. The Fitzgerald Commission has sought the urgent assistance of the Commonwealth in a number of areas. The Government believes that there is a genuine public interest, including from a Commonwealth perspective in the fight against organised crime, in the Commonwealth providing all the assistance it properly can to the Fitzgerald Commission. The inquiry involves the integrity of a State police force that is involved, in conjuction with police forces of the Commonwealth, the other States and the Northern Territory in a number of common police services including the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. The National Crime Authority has also had to rely on the services of the Queensland Police Force. Accordingly, the Commonwealth has a real interest in ensuring that the inquiry is not impeded. The amendments made by parts VI, VII, IX, XI of this Bill will allow the Commonwealth to provide the assistance sought by the Fitzgerald Commission. Earlier this year, in the second term of the Hawke Labor Government, the weaponry against criminals who seek to undermine the honest endeavours of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens of this country, was greatly strengthened. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 is now law and the Government is confident that it will contribute greatly in our fight against crime. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 has also been enacted and it will ensure that the criminal will not find sanctuary by merely removing evidence or the proceeds of his or her criminal activities off-shore. This legislative armory will be enhanced by the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987, which has been reintroduced into this Parliament, and by modern extradition legislation. The Bill now before the House is not as grand in scope as those pieces of legislation. It is nevertheless important in maintaining this Government's momentum and commitment to monitoring and reforming the laws relating to crime and criminal justice in Australia. To mention but one more instance of this Government's decisive actions in this area I note for honourable members' attention the major review of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth presently under way. This review is being chaired by the former Chief Justice of the High Court, the Rt Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs and is due to report at the end of June 1988. I now proceed to outline the important elements of this Bill. Amendments to the Christmas Island Act 1958 The amendments of the Christmas Island Act contained in part II of the Bill are part of the legislative package developed in consultation with my colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). It addresses deficiencies in Christmas Island law highlighted by recent events in the Territory. This Government does not believe that the people of Christmas Island should continue to be denied the right to trial by jury. The fact that in a particular case difficulties may arise in empanelling an impartial English speaking jury does not provide a justification for denying to the islanders the right to trial by jury conferred on other Australians. Accordingly, a Juries Ordinance has been made for the Territory which establishes a system of trial by jury selected from eligible island residents which will apply to future trials on indictment conducted on the island. The Bill now before the House enshrines the right to trial by jury for indictable Territory offences. This right will no longer be able to be removed by ordinance, as was done in 1958, but only by Act of this Parliament. Furthermore, in recognition of the difficulty in empanelling a jury on the island to try a particular case highlighted by the recent events on the island, the Bill now before the House will enable the Supreme Court of Christmas Island, where the interests of justice so require, to sit in a State or Territory for the purpose of conducting a trial, with jurors drawn from the jury list prepared for that place. This is similar to the scheme applicable to a trial by jury in the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court in a State or Territory. The jury is summoned by Federal officials using State or Territory jury lists, and the cost is borne by the Commonwealth Government. Amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 The Bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 in three main areas. Firstly, various interpretative provisions concerned with criminal law are relocated into the Act from the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to improve accessibility to the law and reinforce the Crimes Act as the most important Commonwealth criminal law. Worthy of particular mention is proposed section 4g to 4j. This deals with the classification of indictable and summary offences and provides for a step-down mechanism to apply, in the absence of contrary intention, to all Commonwealth offences punishable by not more than 10 years imprisonment. This will enable many more indictable offences to be dealt with summarily. Presently such step-down mechanisms exist but they are restricted to offences against the Crimes Act. These measures provide some relief to defendants charged with less serious breaches of offence provisions carrying high penalties and may have implications for reducing court delays, whilst recognising the importance of jury trial in our society. Secondly, the Crimes Act is amended by terminating the application of the provisions creating inchoate offences in their application to offences against laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the external territories. This removes an impediment to the Government's program for the distribution of syringes by pharmacists and others to check the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Presently, no Territory law can give the pharmacists protection from criminal liability which, because of the constitutional paramountcy of Commonwealth law, now arises under the Crimes Act. Where necessary, replacement inchoate offences will be inserted into Territory laws. Thirdly, the enactment of the amendments contained in clauses 16 and 17 will provide a comprehensive Commonwealth legislative scheme dealing with escape and related offences for which appropriate penalties are prescribed. Because territory offenders will be covered by the new provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, consequential amendments have been made to the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 and the Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968. Amendments to the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 The Act seeks to prevent persons from Australia becoming involved in hostile activities outside Australia. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the situations in which the offence provisions in the Act apply by redefining `government' and introducing the concept of `foreign state' instead of `foreign country'. The amendments also create two new offences-the general offence of prohibiting persons from engaging in armed hostilities outside Australia, and the offence of using a vessel or aircraft in preparation for incursions into a foreign state. Certain deficiencies in the Act are remedied including the anomaly in section 7, which prohibits preparations for incursions into an overseas country, whereby proof of an offence against section 6-prohibition on incursions-may have had to be shown. The amendments made clear that the provision of humanitarian aid is not an offence against the Act. In addition, the use of ministerial certificates is provided for, certain penalties are increased and provision is made for imposing conditions by the Minister when permitting recruitment in Australia of persons to serve in overseas armed forces. Amendments to the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 The amendments of the Act contained in part V of the Bill are designed to overcome a number of difficulties in bringing prosecutions under the Act so as to ensure, as far as possible, that acts endangering the lives or damaging the property of persons whom, under international law, Australia is obliged to protect, are prosecuted under Commonwealth legislation. The amendments create a more comprehensive set of offences to cover such acts against both `internationally protected persons' in relation to whom the Act applies, and property connected with those persons. Penalties are provided which reflect the seriousness of those offences. Amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 Parts VI and VII amend taxation laws to enable the Fitzgerald Commission to have access to taxation information on the same basis, and subject to the same restrictions on further disclosure of the information that applies to taxation information disclosed to a Commonwealth royal commission, with the exception that the commissioner may disclose the information to State law enforcement agencies as well as to Commonwealth agencies. The information may also be used in evidence in certain proceedings to restrain dealings in, and confiscate, proceeds of crime under State and Commonwealth law. Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 As I mentioned before, the Government introduced in the autumn sittings legislation on proceeds of crime which was welcomed by all honourable members as a much needed initiative against major crime. At that time all honourable members recognised the novel nature of that legislation and the need to monitor its operation in order to ensure its continuing effectiveness. Since the enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, law enforcement agencies have identified a number of aspects which require clarification or minor modification. Part VIII of the Bill contains amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act which address these concerns. The Bill ensures that criminals cannot avoid the operation of statutory forfeiture by distancing themselves from the legal or equitable ownership of proceeds of crime, while retaining effective control over such property. It also limits the potential for property of a convicted person, which is in fact derived from unlawful activity, being excluded from statutory forfeiture on the technical argument that the property was not derived from the particular offence for which the criminal has been convicted. The Bill removes limitations on the granting of interim restraining orders. Practical experience has shown that, in relation to any property, including real estate and especially money held on call in a bank account, any notice to the defendant that dealing with such property is to be restrained extends an invitation to the defendant to deal with the property or to withdraw the funds. It should be borne in mind that such orders may only be made for a maximum period of 14 days. I have briefly dealt with only the more noteworthy of the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act. Other amendments are either to correct typescript errors, or to make minor amendments for the purpose of clarifying particular provisions. Amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1901 Part IX amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to insert a new section 7d which prevents answers given by a witness to the Fitzgerald Commission from being used in evidence against the witness in Commonwealth criminal or civil proceedings. The Act already prevents the use of evidence given before a Commonwealth royal commission in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. The Queensland Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 also precludes the use of evidence given before a commission in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. The Commonwealth provision is intended to supplement the Queensland provisions in relation to Commonwealth proceedings to ensure that persons cannot refuse to answer questions before the Commission on the basis of inadequate protection against self-incrimination. Amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1987 Parts X and XI amend telecommunications interception legislation to enable certain types of information obtained as a result of interceptions of telecommunications to be given to Commissioner Fitzgerald, and for evidence to be given to the Fitzgerald Commission in relation to such information. The amendments will permit further use of such information for the purposes of investigating serious offences and any resulting prosecutions. The amendments will also enable the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to continue to be able to obtain information obtained as a result of lawful interceptions, for a purpose connected with the investigation of serious offences. Under the Act as it now stands, this information is available to the AFP. Other amendments to the Act will enable evidence to be given, in proceedings begun before the commencement of section 21 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1987, of information obtained by interceptions carried out before the commencement of that section whether or not in contravention of the Act. These amendments will not affect a court's discretion whether or not to admit illegally obtained evidence. Amendments to the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983 The Parliamentary Counsels' Committee recommended to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on 2 May 1985 minor amendments to the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983. Clauses 70, 71 and 73 give effect to the Committee's recommendation. All the States and the Northern Territory have uniform interstate transfer legislation and the amendments will achieve greater uniformity with State legislation. The proposed amendments will also enable Northern Territory prisoners transferred to South Australia under the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 before the transfer of prisoners scheme came into operation to be covered as Commonwealth prisoners. At present there is no mechanism for their transfer interstate either for trial or welfare purposes under either the Commonwealth Transfer of Prisoners Act or the State scheme. Financial Impact Statement It is not anticipated that the proposals in the Bill as a whole will occasion any increased costs to the Commonwealth. It is not possible to provide quantitative estimates of savings. However, it is anticipated that these will eventuate as a result of the proposed amendments to the Proceeds of Crimes Act 1987, which are designed to ensure the effective operation of that Act, and by the proposed amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, which enable certain indictable offences to be dealt with summarily, thus producing cost and time savings in Commonwealth prosecutions. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.03) —I am constantly amazed by some things the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) says. He faithfully reads his prepared speech, errors and all. Obviously there has been a bit of drafting fairly late at night on the second reading speech. He just sails past a statement on page 2 of the speech about the Proceeds of Crime Act which he says is now law and the Government is confident that it will contribute greatly in its fight against organised crime. I certainly hope that it will do so and will continue to do so in the future. Today he introduces amendments to fix up a bungle in that very same legislation. He just glosses over things. Why should he not just say that there are things to be fixed up and that he is getting on with the job? But he talks about the momentum of some of the Government's legislative measures when the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill has not even yet been proclaimed. I think the Attorney goes a bit too far- Mr Lionel Bowen —You know why, don't you? Because of your silly amendments on the last occasion. Mr REITH —We will come to our silly amendments. I will be very happy to debate those and I appreciate the opportunity to do so because there are some matters in those amendments which I think ought to be discussed here. I will certainly come back to them. The Attorney-General talks about the Government's momentum and commitment to its fight against organised crime. The National Crime Authority is gaily heading towards a situation where the sunset clause in the National Crime Authority Act is about to come into effect. The best thing we have had from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) is the information that the Government is preparing an amendment to repeal the sunset clause in that legislation and that it should be ready some time in the New Year. We have had that Bill prepared since well before the last election. The Government could bring that repeal-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Why did you prepare it? Mr REITH —Because the Government would not prepare it. That is the reason we prepared it. The Attorney-General was not prepared to say that the National Crime Authority ought to be supported and he was not prepared to bring this legislation in. We would give the Government the opportunity to see that legislation-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! It does not expire until next year. Mr REITH —Yes, but the reality is that there are problems in respect of staff and commissioners of which the Minister is well aware. That legislation ought to be brought in and dealt with. I counter the sort of happy message from the Attorney that all is well in the garden and the Government is getting on with the job when there are matters which are not as they should be. Some of the matters raised in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill gives substance to that argument. This Bill could in some ways be referred to as a trilogy-a group of three related dramas. There are three sets of matters. My description is not entirely accurate because there is a fourth part which contains some of the amendments which the Opposition introduced in the Senate in an attempt to fix up some of these provisions. The three general areas are the Bill which the Government originally introduced in the Senate on 5 November; some Government amendments moved in the Senate-`amendments' is a fairly wide description of something that could have been placed in a Bill on its own; and the further amendments to the telephone taps legislation. I will come back to each of those matters as we go through this Bill. The original Bill introduced in the Senate on 5 November proposes amendments to the Christmas Island Act, the Crimes Act, the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act, the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Transfer of Prisoners Act. By and large we support those amendments in principle. We have already signified our opposition to the retrospective operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act amendments. That proposal has gone through the Senate. I want to say something about the Christmas Island amendments because I think they are of interest in raising what is a very significant issue. The concept of trial by jury is something that we in the common law countries-those nations which are fortunate enough to have those traditions-have had for a very long time. We can go back to the Magna Carta of 1215. It is an absolutely fundamental right of the citizen against the excesses of executives and back in the old days, the excesses of kings. On the face of it the proposal for trials to be held on the mainland goes against the original concept of juries which was to enable accused persons to be tried by their peers who were familiar with the character of the accused and the social circumstances prevailing in the area. It is very much a feature of the common law tradition. Against this is an apprehension that in a small, closely knit and isolated community such as that on Christmas Island where there are about 2,000 adults, there may well be, particularly in the case of a serious crime such as murder, a bias or predilection against the accused. A further practical problem is that only about 330 adults have sufficient command of the English language to follow a trial. The power to remove the trial to the mainland is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the presiding judge who would no doubt be in a position to assess whether the accused was receiving justice on the island. Of course, trial on the mainland still would be trial by fellow Australians. So it is with that sort of reasoning that the Opposition came to the view that it ought to accept that particular proposal. The amendments to the Crimes Act do not appear to the Opposition to raise particularly serious policy issues. We give our support to the Government. The amendments to the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act are designed, again, to overcome deficiencies in the existing legislation. They did not appear to us to involve substantive policy issues. The amendments to the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 apparently are intended to overcome difficulties experienced in certain recent prosecutions. Again, they do not appear to give rise to substantive policy issues. The amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act are generally designed to ensure that the statutory forfeiture provisions extend to all proceeds of crime over which criminals exercise effective control, notwithstanding that the legal or equitable ownership may reside elsewhere. This is not just a matter of lifting the corporate veil; it is a matter of ripping it apart. I think we ought to recognise that point. These are matters of competing policy interests and it is not a proposal that we would wish to oppose. The provision certainly does have potential to interfere with rights of innocent third parties. I think the Government ought to give an assurance that it will monitor these provisions and keep them generally under review. Because of the very wide definition of interests that we have as a result of these sorts of amendments, that is the very least that the Government could do. In regard to the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act, we did, of course, move one amendment in the Senate to remove an element of retrospectivity in one of the proposals put forward by the Government. The Government quite properly accepted that amendment. Its view was that it would not have any practical implications one way or the other. That was the basis upon which the matter proceeded. I take the opportunity to say something about retrospectivity. It has long been a feature of the common law that there is a general presumption in statutory interpretation that legislation is to be read prospectively. The presumption against retrospectivity is based on the principle that people are entitled to certainty in the law. There is, of course, no constitutional barrier to the Federal Parliament enacting retrospective laws. That was upheld as long ago as 1915 by the High Court of Australia, when it maintained the legislative competence of the Commonwealth Parliament to make provisions to the Crimes Act 1915. In regard to the Athlumney case in 1898, R. S. Wright, J. stated: Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than this-that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation otherwise than as a matter of procedure unless the effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed prospective only. I think that is a reasonable starting point on this issue. There is, of course, great debate about how to define retrospectivity and the definitional problems that arise in the context of interpreting legislation. In layman's terms, a retrospective provision clothes a past event or circumstance with a different and adverse legal consequence; in other words, it changes the rules of the game after the event. So the presumption against retrospectivity is founded in the rule of law. The rule of law encompasses the concept that legal rules must prevail over arbitrary decision-making, laws must apply equally and universally, and the content of law must be capable of being ascertained with certainty. Therefore, retrospective legislation is arbitrary legislation. It is quite right and proper that there should be that sort of presumption against it as a matter of statutory interpretation. Also, there ought to be, generally, a presumption against retrospective provisions as a matter of policy, because in the end it is a matter of policy. There are certainly cases in which retrospective provisions can be justified. One such case is the War Crimes Amendment Bill, although in that case the retrospective elements went primarily to the question of jurisdiction. One of the common justifications for retrospective provisions is the claim that any criticisms are met by the fact that a prior ministerial statement has outlined the proposed law. This practice is very much a common feature of this Government. It seems that Ministers are oblivious to the fact that it is Parliament that makes the law and not Ministers. Legislation by Press release, a common feature of this Government, was very much a common feature of the Whit- lam Government and I presume that this led Sir Anthony Mason, at the Australian Legal Convention in July 1975, to say: The inability of Parliament to enact legislation promptly has been clearly illustrated by another novel development which was roundly criticised at more than one session. This is the technique of the Ministerial statement by which it is announced that, at some time in the future, the law will be amended so as to take effect from the date of the statement. It is a technique which has obvious dangers. Ministerial edicts do not change the law-contrary to the belief of some. There is first the risk that the proposed alteration will not be made by Parliament and there is secondly the possibility, sometimes unfortunately realised, that the law, when enacted, will not correspond exactly with the antecedent announcement. Above all it is a technique calculated to encourage people to disregard and indeed to disobey the law. So it is a matter of policy, and there are times when the practice is virtually unavoidable. I do not propose a blanket prohibition, but such attempts at law-making by Press release are now too common. It is a practice which holds the Parliament, and thus the people, in contempt and it is wrong in principle in that it encourages retrospective legislative provisions. The Government has used this technique recently in relation to media ownership-and opened up a Pandora's box-taxation laws and other matters. It is time that the Attorney-General instructed this Department to prepare a statement to be circulated amongst his ministerial colleagues to the effect that they should desist from this practice. It is for those sorts of reasons that the Opposition moved its amendments in the Senate against the retrospective provisions. These measures were accepted by the Government in the Senate. It is for those reasons that I particularly support these measures in the Bill. I conclude my remarks in regard to retrospectivity by emphasising the fact that it is a matter of policy. I do not believe in hard and fast rules about these things. One has to have a sensible, balanced approach. But it does seem to me, on the basis of this Government's record, that the balance is on the wrong side of the ledger. It is about time that the Government did something about it. The second part of these related dramas relates to some Government amendments in the Senate. There are some further amendments to the Christmas Island Act which will allow order for transfer of trials to the mainland to be made on the mainland. We do not have any difficulties with that. The second reading speech of the Attorney also refers in detail to the amendments to assist the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. There are amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act to allow the Commission access to information on the same basis as a Commonwealth royal commission and for this information to be used for proceedings relating to proceeds of crime. The Royal Commissions Act is to be amended to enable witnesses to obtain indemnity against use of admissions in any subsequent Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act amendments allow access to in-house information-other than information about actual conservations-held by Telecom Australia. This relates to the machinery which records the time that a telephone call might be taken, the length of a call or the telephone number of the recipient of the call. The Opposition has no difficulty with all those matters. Today we have before us some provisions regarding telephone taps. This matter has had a very long history. This Government loves to tell everybody what a great government it is and this is one of those sagas. It reveals what a mess the Government gets itself into on important policy issues. It is a sorry story of factional infighting, incompetence and indecision. I go back to the time of the National Drug Summit when the Government announced that it would extend the telephone tap powers and provide powers to the States. Of course, that caused a storm in the Australian Labor Party (ALP). At around that time there was the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, which dealt with the Age tapes. That Royal Commission handed down a report in April 1985. In 1986 the Government introduced the first Bill on this telephone taps powers business. Again, that caused a storm in the ALP. The left wing kicked up a ruckus, as it often does on important policy issues, which diverted the Government from its preferred course of action. When something gets a bit hard, the Government sends it off to the too-hard basket, which is a committee. So a committee was formed in June 1986 to help the Government out of its political problems. There were no problems about what should be done; it was a case of how the Government could do it with all the factional infighting. There was a committee report in November 1986 which canvassed the issues. I see that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is in the chamber. He played a prominent role in that committee. I hope that he will address some of these issues later today. Finally, in May-June 1987, the Government introduced another Bill which was rushed through. It was virtually the last Bill that got through before the election. There was a problem with the Bill in terms of this telephone taps business. The problem was that one clause was retrospective in its implications. There was another problem in that a case was about to go before the High Court of Australia and the Government's Bill would have taken away people's rights to go to the highest court in the land and have their case heard. We said that we were not prepared to accept retrospective legislation, particularly of a criminal nature and, with support in the Senate, we knocked it out. The Government has reintroduced the legislation. Instead of knocking the whole thing out, we have been able to fix it up by adding a sub-clause to the clause which will ensure that it does not have retrospective operation and thereby does not force into a court a defective warrant, the admissibility of which would normally be a matter for the discretion of the courts. Whilst we go along with the amendment introduced by the Government, and our amendment to its amendment, I must say that we have reached an very interesting stage. Our position is this: if one comes across some illegally obtained information by way of telephone taps and wants to use that information in a proceeding in a court, whether one can have that information before the court as evidence-whether that evidence is admissible-ought to be for the courts to decide. Let the judges work out whether it is right and proper that that evidence be so admitted in a court proceeding. The Government does not like that proposal. So the Bill that went through in June contained a clause which basically says that the only telephone taps that can be admitted in a prosecution before a court are those which have been obtained as a result of a warrant under legislation. In other words, the only telephone taps admissible in a court hearing are those which have been obtained as a result of a warrant. Unless one has that, everything else is barred. That is the Government's policy position. This is an interesting situation because the Government is saying, in the amendments before us, that its policy position is to operate from when the Bill, which was passed in June, is proclaimed. But the Government has not yet proclaimed it. The Government wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to have the policy position, which we stand by-it has been our consistent position-in place because there are a couple of prosecutions in the wind, but it does not want to have that policy position in the future. I am told that there are prosecutions-I will mention names because obviously they have been leaked to the Press; they have appeared on the front page of the Canberra Times, so I am not revealing anything that has not been revealed before-against Mr Ryan and Dr Edelsten which will be able to go ahead once the amendments have been passed. We are happy to support the amendments because there is to be an additional sub-clause which will remove the difficulty about retrospectivity, but the Government's policy position is that it is happy to have prosecutions against those two people go ahead now on the basis of our policy position, but the Morgan Ryans and the Edelstens of the future are to get off scot-free because of the Government's policy position which will come into law when it finally gets around to proclaiming the legislation. The Government has revealed a policy position which is completely untenable. By the Government's amendments and its actions in wanting to proceed against two people on the basis of information obtained outside the provisions of the existing legislation, it is accepting our policy position. To me that is absolutely untenable and inconsistent. I think that the legislation should go back to the drawing board. This whole business has been going on for years. It goes back to royal commissioners talking about telephone taps. Finally, after a joint committee report, debates in this place and Bills going through here, the legislation has still not been proclaimed. Yet the Government says that it has momentum in its fight against organised crime. The Government's policy position is absolutely hopeless and is fundamentally flawed. I think that this debate and the amendments reveal a very sorry story of factional infighting, indecision, delay and prevarication. It does not reflect well on the Government that this situation has reached this stage. In conclusion, the Government is adopting, for a bit longer, our policy position on telephone taps; so naturally we support that. Every time the Government comes in with an amendment which extends the operation of our policy position or brings into being our policy position, allowing the common law position to continue, and as long as it does not have retrospective operation, we will support it. We are quite happy to do that. Mr Lionel Bowen —But you removed it. Mr REITH —The reality is that we removed a retrospective position which, in addition-- Mr Lionel Bowen —No. Mr REITH —I can tell the Attorney-General that everybody said it. The Law Council of Australia, judges, QCs and just about anybody who has ever read a statute gave us advice to the effect that it was retrospective. It was as clear as day. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills said that it was retrospective. The Attorney-General can shake his head until the cows come home. The reality is that it was retrospective and we did the right thing to knock it out, even though we were under pretty strong attack for doing so. I dare say the Attorney will get up and give me another serve today. We stuck up for our principles. The pressure is heaviest during an election in terms of retrospective legislation and criminal offences legislation in particular. We have absolutely no qualms about the course of action we took in June and absolutely none now because it is our policy position that the Government is preserving. In reality, the Government wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants our policy position now because it suits it to get a couple of criminal prosecutions going, or allow them to keep going. The fact is that out position has been maintained for a bit longer. I could move an amendment prospectively as to common law, but the Government would never get that through the Labor Caucus. The left wing controls it on that issue. So that would be a pointless and futile exercise-I understand that and the Minister understands that. I can see that he is about to smile and agree with me. That is the political reality of it. I do not mean this personally, but the reality of the hypocrisy of this amendment is there for all to see. The Government wants to have its cake and eat it. We have revealed that so that the Australian public can see what is going on in this Federal Parliament. However, the Opposition will support the Bill. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(5.30) —Tonight the House is debating a series of amendments under the general heading of the Crime Legislation Amendment Bill. Both the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), outlined the broad import of the Bill. I would like to address my remarks particularly to those amendments that will facilitate the conduct of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. There is no doubt that the impact on Queensland of Tony Fitzgerald's inquiry has been both profound and somewhat amazing. For over 10 years, the Queensland Government, principally through its former Premier and a procession of police Ministers, refused to accept any suggestion that something may be wrong with the Queensland police force. Instead, it portrayed Queensland as somehow magically clean of all the moral decay which it said dominated the southern States. These same men, the great moral leaders, claim the credit for the wholesome Queensland lifestyle. Joh was the man to keep Queensland strong. This was the myth that Bjelke-Petersen pushed-the myth happily accepted by the newly selected Premier and his Deputy. When the Queensland Deputy Premier and police Minister, Bill Gunn, announced that an inquiry into allegations of police corruption would be held following the Four Corners report and a series of newspaper reports, few, if any, foresaw the political demise of the QueenslandPremier within six months. Nor did anyone foresee that two senior Cabinet Ministers would be stood down. No, corruption was a problem of the decadent types of New South Wales-never Queensland. Yet the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, resigned last week following an extraordinary attempt to sack five Ministers and a successful, if only for a short time, removal of three Ministers. When dumped by Sir Joh, the newly selected Premier, Mike Ahern, stated that his dismissal was related to the continuance of the Fitzgerald inquiry. He made a not too veiled suggestion that Sir Joh planned to restrict or end the Commission if he remained as Premier. Since assuming office, Mr Ahern has not explained what he meant by this, but I believe that he should do so, as the allegations are most damning. In the event, Mr Ahern won the premiership, and the Fitzgerald inquiry continues. The extent of corruption, the perversion of justice and the web of illegality must be exposed completely. The Commission is, of course, a creature of the State Government and as such does not gain its powers from this Parliament. The amendments before the House are designed in part to assist the inquiry by allowing access to information within the domain of the Federal Government. These powers will help the Commissioner, Mr Fitzgerald, to determine the full extent of corruption, which seems to be spiral-ling ever upwards into the Queensland Government itself. Yesterday, the Premier announced that two senior Cabinet Ministers, namely former Transport Minister, Mr Don Lane, and Main Roads, Local Government and Racing Minister, Mr Russ Hinze, would not be considered for reappointment to the Ministry. The reason for this was that Mr Fitzgerald had indicated to the Premier that both former Ministers would be named again in submissions to his inquiry. There is no doubt that Mr Ahern has acted promptly in relation to these two former Ministers. What is in doubt is the ultimate extent of corruption within the Government. This is a question which gives rise to a number of amendments before the House. The amendments proposed are to three separate pieces of legislation-the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Royal Commissions Act 1902, and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The Income Tax Assessment Act will be amended to permit the Commissioner of Taxation to disclose the details of tax returns and records of individuals and organisations of interest to Mr Fitzgerald. This is, of course, a serious step, as the general rule is that tax records are protected by strict secrecy rules. It is always a question of balance between the pursuit of illegal activities and the legitimate privacy concerns attached to taxation matters. In this case, the balance must be in favour of disclosure, as the public interest demands that those who have profited from illegal activities while pretending to be protectors of the public must be exposed and prosecuted. The information given to Commissioner Fitzgerald will enable a complete background to be drawn of the links between those engaged in illegal activities. It is hoped that some of the money that exchanged hands can be traced in this process. The power proposed to be given to the Fitzgerald inquiry is no greater than that which has been given to recent Commonwealth royal commissions. One feature of the conduct of royal commissions is that witnesses are given protection from incriminating themselves in relation to statements given to the Commission. The purpose of the amendment to the Royal Commissions Act is to place statements before the Fitzgerald inquiry in the same category. It will supplement the rules already applying to the inquiry by State legislation. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act will be amended to allow certain information obtained by way of a telephone tap to be given to the Commission and made admissible in a subsequent criminal hearing. This amendment must be read closely with the earlier amendment to the Telecommunications Act, passed by both houses but not as yet proclaimed. The new provisions will allow `eligible information' as defined in the amendment to be communicated to the Commissioner. This information, specified in a new part IIA, is essentially a record of the transmission of calls between different telephone numbers, but not of the actual conversations which took place. For instance, a record of calls which took place in a certain period between an identified crime figure and a police officer or government official would be permitted to be given to the Commissioner. This information is valuable in establishing a relationship which, in the normal course of events, should not exist. This will open up a number of avenues that might otherwise not be open to investigation. Further amendments provide that evidence may be led in exempt proceedings which, apart from the amendment, would be inadmissible per se. This refers to illegally obtained records of interceptions in contravention of section 7 of the principal Act-an illegal phone tap. It was on this point that the shadow Minister had a bit to say. The case put forward by the Opposition is that, as a matter of policy, the common law provision espoused in a number of decisions, such as Bunning v. Cross, should always be allowed to apply to illegally obtained telephone taps-that is, that the evidence can be put forward to the trial judge and he, in his discretion, can decide whether the evidence is admitted. What the earlier amendment to the Telecommunications Act did, with the exception of a number of proceedings already on foot, was to decide that, as a matter of policy, the double whammy-that is, allowing illegality to obtain information which is then brought forward before the court-should not be allowed. This Government has decided, as a question of policy, that there is no dispute about information which can be obtained legally through warrant and there are certain safeguards and procedures set down for obtaining a warrant which make sure that there is a reasonable cause for the tap to be allowed in the first place. If the warrant is not gained and someone such as a Telecom official manages to get his hands on a record of a telephone conversation, the Government's position is that that evidence should be inadmissible per se. We will not be a party to encouraging the sort of scandalous thing-- Mr Reith —That is what this Bill does. Mr LAVARCH —Well, it does that in a very limited sense in relation to proceedings which are on foot and largely as a result of the amendments which the honourable member's Party proposed in the Senate. Under the combined effect of the earlier unproclaimed amendments, that is of the Telecommunications Interception Act, and the principal Act, a record obtained illegally is inadmissible in any criminal proceedings. As I said, the purpose of this was to clarify and resolve the public policy position-that is, the position of this Government. However, the common law principles espoused in cases such as Bunning v. Cross and Hilton v. Wells, will still apply in limited cases, as specified in the proposed amendment. A further valuable change in the proposed amendments is to the Proceeds of Crimes Act, as outlined by the Attorney-General. In light of the fact that the Act has now been proclaimed and has been in operation for some time, the proposed amendments will continue and will improve that legislation. I am pleased to see that both sides of Parliament support these provisions. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the full extent of relationships cultivated over many years by organised crime in Queensland will be exposed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. However, to date a network of crime and corrupt police officers in the Queensland police force has been indicated to an extent which probably goes beyond the imagination of most people. Already the third ranking police officer in the Queensland police force has confessed to being a criminal. The Police Commissioner has been stood down. Two Queensland Ministers, one a former police Minister, also have been excluded from the current Queensland Ministry by reason of the Fitzgerald inquiry. Despite Mr Ahern's description of it, the Queensland Government is not a new government. The old leader may have gone, but the same members and Ministers who presided over the obvious growth of a rotten police force remain. The two Ministers who have been discharged cannot be made scapegoats for incompetence and neglect on such a scale. Whether it is more than incompetence and neglect is to be determined by the Commission of Inquiry. It should always be remembered that Mr Ahern and Mr Gunn were Ministers for many years when the corruption was rife. They were colleagues of Bjelke-Petersen, Lane and Hinze. What has been their record in the face of allegations of corruption going back over 15 years? Did they do anything when former Police Commissioner Whitrod resigned amidst allegations of political interference? Did they demand that the Scotland Yard detective's report into the Queensland Police Force be made public? Did they question why the recommendations of the Lucas Committee of Inquiry into the Enforcement of Criminal Law in Queensland were never put into place? Did they ever make any attempt to respond to the serious allegations of police corruption made by the late Kevin Hooper, the Opposition police spokesman? The powers given to the Fitzgerald inquiry by the amendments before us are both welcomed and warranted. The attitude of openness of the new Queensland Premier is to be applauded, but his past inaction can neither be forgotten nor forgiven. Already the Fitzgerald inquiry has some disturbing features. For instance, the request for these amendments came from Mr Fitzgerald himself and not the Queensland Government. The terms of reference of the inquiry were extended only after direct representations by the Commissioner. The ultimate outcome of the inquiry will depend on Mr Ahern. No doubt he will be more willing to cast off the shadow of corruption which hangs over the Queensland Government than was his predecessor. However, it will remain a major test for him. This Government lends its support to the Fitzgerald inquiry. These proposed amendments will enhance its operation. I commend them to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.44) —I am thankful for the call to speak on this omnibus Bill-for that is what it is-the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill. It could almost go under the same title of a lot of other legislation that we have before us because it really is a `Crimes Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill'. It covers a wide range of issues, as will be realised from the speech of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) which we have just heard. Whilst I would have spoken later in relation to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and its request for co-operation from the Commonwealth Government, let me just say now that I think it is important to recognise that the Fitzgerald inquiry was established by the Queensland Government to investigate allegations made in relation to events and occurrences in Queensland. It is on record for all to see that although some people who are affected by this inquiry have put a degree of pressure on, the Queensland Government, particularly the Queensland Premier, has resisted any efforts to contain or limit the inquiry's investigation. I think that is a matter for some commendation. I think that the new Premier should be applauded for the strength of character that he and his Deputy have shown in being prepared to accept that when an inquiry such as this is being undertaken one must see where it goes. If there have been wrongdoings and people have been involved in illegal acts responsibility should flow accordingly. I think that the Commonwealth Government's willing support in relation to the request from Commissioner Fitzgerald in Queensland should be applauded as well. The Opposition has signalled that by the support it is giving this legislation. It is not opposing the legislation. A more important point to be made is that from time to time there are allegations about police corruption. Allegations that other people have been involved with police in corrupt activities are made in relation to people in other States. I happen to come from New South Wales. I know that at times very serious allegations have been made about the New South Wales police force. Whilst a number of inquiries have been established-very often instigated by the police themselves and by internal organisations established to look into such matters-one has not seen the same willingness in New South Wales, where the Australian Labor Party is involved, to set up a wide-ranging inquiry such as the Fitzgerald inquiry, nor has there been the same willingness to see where the cards fall and to accept that if such an inquiry happens to unearth some people who are known to or close to the Government, appropriate prosecutions in regard to any illegal actions should follow. From time to time I have heard suggestions that there is a need for a Fitzgerald-type inquiry in New South Wales. Some encouragement should be given to those who would seek to have particular events and circumstances examined from time to time. I am sure that if there were such an inquiry in New South Wales the Commonwealth would want to extend to it the same co-operation it has extended to the inquiry in Queensland. I said that I wanted to talk about the legislation. Although the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), foreshadowed my intention to speak in particular to the telecommunications aspect of the legislation, let me just give a brief outline of the nature of the legislation with which we are dealing. First and foremost, the legislation deals with the Christmas Island Act. It is proposed to restore criminal trial by jury. Because of problems in summonsing a jury in that small community this Bill proposes to empower the Supreme Court of Christmas Island to change the venue of a trial to a State or another Territory. We understand that something like 300 people on Christmas Island who have a reasonable competence in the English language might be able to be empanelled as part of a jury. When an important issue has arisen requiring a jury trial, as we have seen recently, in the case of a murder trial, it has not been thought likely that a trial jury could be properly empanelled from the small number of people able to serve on it and that it would be better to go to a forum with a larger number of people available to serve. It has been suggested that Perth would be an appropriate venue. In supporting the approach that has been taken on this matter, I refer to the remarks of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech, when he said: This Bill now before the House enshrines the right to trial by jury for indictable Territory offences. This right will no longer be able to be removed by Ordinance, as was done in 1958, but only by Act of this Parliament. One might be forgiven for saying, `Hallelujah', in response to that statement. Recently we have been discussing in this Parliament legislation to which the Government has not shown the same willingness to incorporate policy questions and to ensure the principal that important policy questions cannot be dealt with by way of delegated legislation. If the Attorney is stating a new principle by which the Government will in future deal with these matters, it is a very worthwhile advance, but I suspect that that is not what he is doing. I suspect that he just wanted to make a point in relation to this legislation. The Migration Amendment Bill, which deals with important questions of policy, is at present before another place. At present all policy questions are being addressed by way of delegated legislation, by way of regulation, but the Parliament has not even seen such delegated legislation before it is asked to approve it. The high sounding and well-stated principles advanced in this case are shown by the Government's performance in other areas to be of little value and to have little purpose other than to be used for the purposes of this debate. This omnibus amendment Bill seeks to amend the Crimes Act to relocate various interpretative provisions from the Acts Interpretation Act. The Opposition supports that proposed amendment. The Bill also seeks to deal with some other policy questions. It is designed to enable the Government's syringe exchange anti-AIDS program to operate in the Australian Capital Territory. Pharmacists who co-operate in committing a criminal offence will be able to be dealt with more adequately, and those who co-operate in the scheme presumably will no longer be liable to prosecution. The Bill also seeks to amend the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitments) Act to better define the scope of the legislation and to amend penalties for certain offences and to create new offences in respect of conduct associated with a foreign incursion. The Opposition supports that proposed amendment. The Bill seeks also to amend the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 to overcome various prosecution problems that have arisen. The amendments are specifically designed to better protect the property of an internationally protected person and to deal more harshly with those who cause property destruction by fire and explosives. The Opposition also supports those proposed amendments. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill seeks to amend the taxation laws to enable the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland to have access to taxation information on the same basis as other royal commissions. The Opposition supports that proposed amendment also. The Opposition largely supports the proposed amendments, except the possible retrospective effect of aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act with which the shadow Attorney-General dealt. The Opposition is critical of the Government for the inept manner in which it handled that matter. It is clear from the statement of the Attorney and the explanatory memorandum that a number of `minor drafting errors' appeared in that important legislation. We are now somewhat belatedly endeavouring to repair that legislation so that it can operate effectively in the area where it is meant to operate, and that is in detecting and obtaining the proceeds of those who have been involved in organised criminal activity. The Opposition gives its full support to the proposed amendments to the Royal Commission Act and the Transfer of Prisoners Act. I come now to the area to which the shadow Attorney indicated that I would address my comments, and that is the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications interception legislation. Two Bills have been introduced designed to expand the role of the Commonwealth and the States in obtaining certain information intercepted by way of a telephone tap where organised or serious criminal offences are involved. I was the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions that was established to report on telecommunications interceptions. I have spoken previously on several of the problems remaining in that legislation. I think they have emerged because of what I would describe loosely as the hangups that certain members of the Government have, arising out of certain illegal telephone taps that took place in New South Wales. I have noted the enthusiasm of the Government for the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry in Queensland and its willing co-operation in relation to it. However, in New South Wales information obtained from illegal telephone taps got very close to some present members and some former members of the Labor Party. I do not think Government members liked the direction in which that information led. The view that was expressed very clearly in the report of the Joint Select Committee was that if information derived from telephone tapping was tainted by any element of illegality that information ought not to be able to be used in any prosecution. The Government put that view strongly before the Joint Select Committee and the Joint Select Committee picked it up in its report. Certain dissenting reports were also presented, one from me and others from some of my colleagues. Nevertheless, the legislation that was introduced into this House and passed by this House sought to ensure that certain prosecutions that were in train and that were reliant upon telephone tapped information that may not have been obtained foursquare with the procedures outlined in that legislation would fall; the evidence would no longer be available. The Government, wanting to ensure that those prosecutions will continue, has introduced into this House legislation-it has already been passed by the Senate-which is designed to ensure that those prosecutions can continue. However, it is saying that if similar circumstances arise in any other case, the information that might have been obtained by a telephone tap and that might fail to be admissible into evidence because of even the most minor technical defect in obtaining it will not be able to be used in any prosecution. It might be an important prosecution relating to any of the serious offences that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act lays down. Nevertheless, such prosecution will fall to the ground if somebody has made a minor technical error in obtaining information sought to be used in such prosecutions. The Opposition wanted to put in place a procedure whereby the common law rules would operate. In a similar debate on a previous occasion, the eminent Queen's Counsel, Mr Spender, the honourable member for North Sydney, expressed the view that the operation of the common law rules could well give a discretion to a judge to permit intercepted material to be used in a trial where there was a mere technical defect in the obtaining of that material. If we allow those common law rules to operate as they have in the past and as determined by the High Court of Australia, that would cover the concern I have. There is an unholy alliance in the Government between those on the New South Wales Right, who are worried about where these illegal phone taps might lead-they are worried that if some discretion is given to the court, some information might come out that would lead to a call for a trial or an inquiry-and the more genuine concerns from members of the Labor Left who are worried about civil libertarian aspects. It is a very unholy alliance. I encourage the Government to look at the Opposition's amendment which proposes that the legislation ought to operate more widely to ensure that the common law rules determine these matters, that minor technical defects would not invalidate a proper telecommunication interception and the information available from it and that the information could be used in a trial to obtain a conviction when a serious criminal offence has been committed. It seems to me that that is a proper matter for the Government to address. I do not think this legislation goes far enough in that respect. I did not think the legislation went far enough before. As the shadow Attorney outlined, I think this Bill has been put forward for all the wrong reasons. This legislation seeks to cure a defect to ensure that intercepted material is able to be used in two trials that are on foot. But future trials involving serious offences may not be able to proceed unless information is available other than that obtained from a telephone tap. The Government ought to take the steps necessary to ensure that such prosecutions will not fail in the future. The Government has a wonderful opportunity to admit that it has made an error of judgment. Even at this late stage, it could agree, by bringing forward a further amendment, that it was in error in allowing this unholy alliance between the New South Wales Right and the Left, which is concerned with civil libertarian issues. It should ensure that telephone taps that yield information, notwithstanding minor technical defects, are able to be used in important and serious trials. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(6.03) —The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to amend various Acts concerned with crime, law enforcement and criminal justice. I was interested to hear some of the observations of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who preceded me in this debate. The honourable member took his contribution up every conceivable alley. In the course of his speech he attempted to establish some relationships that simply cannot be substantiated. I do not think it was particularly appropriate for some of those matters to be raised in the way they were. The failure to substantiate some of the claims that were made was not out of character with the general attitude adopted by the Opposition to this legislation. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who led for the Opposition, referred to what he called a bungle in legislation by the Government. I suppose that some people would view what we have to say in defence of our position on this legislation with some degree of suspicion or doubt. However, let me refer to a person who I think has probably adopted a fairly objective and independent attitude towards this legislation. Senator Macklin, an Australian Democrat senator, is on record as having said: It was understood when the legislation regarding proceeds of crime passed this chamber that there would need to be modifications. These modifications have come forward very rapidly as the law has been tested in the courts. If it were just a question of considering legislation, quite clearly there would be a responsibility on this Government, as there has been on all governments, to do so. The Government has a responsibility to consider legislation that has been passed through Parliament and to determine what types of modifications and what types of amendments are appropriate. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and his advisers have done precisely that. Senator Macklin says that these modifications have come forward very rapidly. I would prefer to accept the comments made by Senator Macklin that some of the unsubstantiated claims made by members of the Opposition. Honourable members opposite have been terribly confused, right from the time this Bill was considered in the Senate through to its consideration now in this House. They have attempted to put some rational construction on the attitudes that they have adopted. They have been incoherent and confused. Their strategy and tactics have been quite inadequate to deal with the questions involved in this legislation. The honourable member for Flinders went on to say that the Government had made incorrect claims in respect of the momentum and pace with which it had approached questions of legislation concerning crime and its commitment in dealing with organised crime. Again, we can more than adequately defend ourselves by referring to the legislative program that the Government has adopted concerning organised crime and other criminal activity. Let me refer again to what Senator Macklin has put on the record. He said: Australia has long suffered from serious defects in its approach to crime, particularly with regard to organised crime. It is only in recent times- how recent?-presumably since 1983- that we have managed to put together a more effective approach than was the case in the past. In what past? In the seven years of the Fraser Government? Of course that is the past to which he refers. Is he referring as well to the 87 years of the existence of this Commonwealth? Of course he is referring to that time. What parties in Australia have been responsible for controlling the Government for the greater proportion of that time? Certainly it has not been the Australian Labor Party. Of course, I am delighted to see that the Australian people finally saw the error of their ways. After returning the Hawke Labor Government for two consecutive terms, they applauded the wise decision they made and repeated it a third time. That was a great performance. Their decision has been more than vindicated. When people question whether or not there is momentum and commitment behind the attitude which this Government has adopted in relation to questions of crime and criminal activity in the community, they should examine what the Government has been responsible for in relatively recent months. We introduced the Proceeds of Crime Bill 1987 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill 1987. The Cash Transaction Reports Bill will soon be reintroduced. We have a much more vigorous and determined approach to the question of modern extradition legislation. In addition, a major review of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth is under way. Why was it left to us? Why was it left to this Government, a Labor government, to take the initiative with this legislation? I suppose it has something to do with the sorry record in relation to questions of that kind that the conservative coalition maintained for most of the time that it was in government. There was nothing surprising about the coalition's lethargy, its reluctance to act-its determination, often, not to act-against tax evasion and tax avoidance. There was a lethargy, an inertia, a reluctance to act and sometimes a determination not to act in relation to questions of this kind. Of course, members of the Opposition have brought up that old furphy again-the question of retrospective legislation. I am not a person who denies the importance of considerations concerning retrospective legislation, but there are occasions when there are some objective standards of right behaviour. It is not unusual for governments-either this Government or previous governments-to declare that legislation which has been announced will become effective from the day the intention is announced to enact legislation to deal with offences. Despite the fact that the Opposition pursued that same type of practice, it is now claiming that following that usual procedure represents some sort of illegal, immoral retrospective legislation. Ordinary, honest Australians-almost 16 million of them, because most Australians are honest-are just sick and tired of this type of pedantic argument. They are sick and tired of opportunities being given to individuals in the community who are engaged in all types of illegal criminal activities, which are objectively antisocial and which enable them to get away with the products of their crime. It was this Government, this Attorney-General, the Deputy Prime Minister, who accepted the responsibility of doing something about it. It brings little credit on the Opposition to come in and start grasping at straws, flagging some of these issues, chasing rats up alleys and drawing parallels in attempting to establish links which cannot be substantiated. It reflects more on the people who make those claims than on the people against whom the claims are made. This is wide-ranging legislation; it is very important legislation. It is designed in some respect to overcome technical deficiencies in existing legislation, to modify the legislation and to ensure that the legislation is more effective in doing the sorts of things that legislation seeks to do. I make no apologies for supporting legislation which is designed to deal with organised crime, illegal gambling, drug trafficking and the proceeds from prostitution and pornography. I make no apology at all for supporting legislation of that kind. In conclusion, there is no way that the community can ever be adequately compensated for the offences that are committed against it by criminals. There is no way that we can sufficiently redress the often tragic circumstances, the tragic experiences and the losses suffered by individuals at the hands of criminals. What we can do is to ensure that criminals are brought to book, that they are not given the opportunity to benefit from their crimes and to retain the benefits of those crimes in the terms of what they achieved for them. This legislation collectively is designed to ensure that criminal activity in Australia is dealt with effectively at the Commonwealth level. I think the Attorney-General, rather than being criticised, should be complimented for the initiative that he has taken since he has been Attorney-General to ensure that many of these deficiencies in the law, major gaps in the law that have existed for 87 years, are closed. He has served notice on the criminal community in Australia that honest Australia is sick and tired of that criminal activity and that honest Australia will support this Government in its endeavours to deal with it. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.16) —I want to address two matters that have been raised by the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill: the first is the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct and what has been said by previous speakers in this regard and, secondly, the amendments to the Christmas Island Act. I particularly refer to what the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) said in connection with this matter. It should be put on the record that the Queensland Deputy Premier and Minister for Police instituted the inquiry. It was done with the approval of the former Premier, something that is not generally known. The terms of reference have been extended to ensure that the inquiry conducted by Mr Fitzgerald is the most wide ranging and the deepest inquiry that the police force in Queensland has had in its history. For somebody to come into this chamber and suggest other than that the association of former Ministers and the Queensland Government with this inquiry does anything over the last six months but credit to them is misleading this Parliament. As has been suggested, there has been a determination that this alleged rotten core should be removed so that the police force in Queensland can go back to a position of integrity. TheAttorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has stated in regard to this legislation that there should be some integrity in the police force. There has been the inference that there is a lot of guilt in this regard by people such as Ministers, former Ministers of police and police commissioners. This legislation in regard to the Fitzgerald inquiry enacts three amendments, one in connection with the Income Tax Assessment Act, as I understand it, to allow giving of evidence. I think evidence had already been given by a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in this regard. The second amendment is in connection with the Royal Commissions Act which prevents answers given by witnesses to the Fitzgerald inquiry being used as evidence in a civil proceeding. I think that is very important because what is not understood in the minds of most members of the public who receive reports from the inquiry is that guilt has been attributed from hearsay evidence. I am sick and tired of guilt being implied against members of governments, particularly members of the Government in Queensland, and guilt by association being drawn from hearsay evidence when, in the long term, no guilt may exist. My only criticism of the inquiry-I do not know how we can overcome it-is that this hearsay evidence has already impugned some honest people of integrity in the police force in Queensland. Some of the witnesses have used the occasion to smear the reputations of honourable people. I wish that nobody would presuppose a conclusion in the Fitzgerald inquiry as far as guilt, corruption or rottenness are concerned. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) just mentioned that there are 16 million Australians and that most of them are honest. The majority of policemen in any State in Australia are honest, fair dinkum citizens. I am sick and tired of their being smeared by suggestions and hearsay evidence, as has been associated with this inquiry. There would not be a policeman in Queensland who would not want this full inquiry to take place. The sooner the better so that they can get back the integrity they deserve. I do not think that anybody from any other State could suggest that Queensland is unique in this regard. We have heard the word `corruption' mentioned so often. It is all a matter of degree. There is probably no other State and no other police force that could claim the integrity of the Queensland police force to which this legislation relates. I make a plea to the people of Australia not to prejudge the issue or listen to hearsay evidence. The legislation relating to Christmas Island gives the Opposition the opportunity which it has sought for a wider debate on the issues which have been raised over the last month. One involves the legal and constitutional rights of the Christmas Islanders dealt with in this amending legislation and another the fact that the assembly was dismissed after only two weeks in office. Those people on the island have a legal and constitutional right to know what the administration will be. They were allowed to go to an election and the Assembly was then dismissed quickly afterwards, as inferred from a leaked document from Cabinet. I do not believe that it does this Government or this Parliament any good to superimpose their wishes over the rights of others. In this legislation we are talking about updating what I understand to be 1958 law which was transferred after the British occupancy. The Government had had opportunities to do something. It has said on many occasions that it would be acting in this regard but it has not. Only out of necessity, because of a murder trial, are amendments being made. They are being made very late in the piece and probably at a cost that might have been eliminated had legislation been passed prior to this occurring. I think the matter has been rightly interpreted in an article in the Canberra Times of 8 November. In referring to the trial it states: The trial does have to take place, and it would be a monstrous injustice to the two accused were it to be any further delayed. The two men are in custody, and though, by normal (such as NSW) standards, the six months they have already been inside is not uncommonly long, no one could suggest that the type of incarceration which they are suffering is normal either. The Christmas Island jail is of the suburban lock-up variety, barely acceptable for locking up drunks overnight, but beyond the pale for long incarceration, the more so in the tropical Christmas Island clime. The clime may also prove a little more tropical than normal for those involved in the court case. With the Government's dismissal of the Christmas Island Assembly and the usual state of war between Christmas Islander workers and its mining management at fever pitch, there is every prospect that the trial will be conducted on an island without electricity (and, thus, air-conditioning) or most of the normal municipal services. It might be just a bit prickly under a wig and gown. The events that forced these circumstances were unfortunate. Two men are now being tried. The fact that we cannot get an impartial panel, as far as a jury is concerned, is also a matter that must have been known to the Government after the 1958 takeover, 20 years ago. All I can say is that $500,000 or $600,000 apparently has already been spent on this trial, which will have to take place on the mainland because an impartial jury could not be empanelled. This trial has been transferred to Perth. Again I say that it is too late. I just want to make particular mention of the Opposition's dissatisfaction at the lack of communication with the Government, firstly, in the dismissal of the Assembly; secondly, in the closure of the phosphate mine, particularly after an assurance had been given that the longevity of the mine would be subject to an arbitrated decision; and, thirdly, our request for the tabling of a report from the Australian Federal Police in regard to the inquiry into Federal Hotels. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has said that Federal Hotels came out squeaky clean. We will not be satisfied that that is the case until that report is produced. I understand that the Federal Police report was subject to a qualification that certain shareholdings in Tal Holding should be transferred before the company received the clearance that was necessary and that was sought by the developer. There are many matters on which I could speak in connection with Christmas Island. I had hoped that I would be given the opportunity to do so but, because of the lack of time, I will cut it short. The Minister should have given this Parliament the opportunity of a full debate on these matters. The Opposition is not necessarily opposing the Government's approach in this regard. All we want is some co-operation and some indication of what the Government is doing. As I have mentioned, we would be obliged if the Australian Federal Police report could be produced and tabled in this Parliament. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.25) —in reply-I want to thank all honourable members for their contribution and for their consideration of the fact that I have to leave and, therefore, for giving me an opportunity to reply briefly to some of the matters that have been raised. In response to the remarks made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), he said that the matters that he is concerned about really do not relate to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill; they relate to things which he says he wants to ask about Christmas Island which come under another ministry. Questions have been asked in this and other places about those matters. I have no doubt that the honourable member will continue to use the forms of this House to get that information. He acknowledges that the matter of being able to have a jury trial in Christmas Island might have been looked at in 1958. None of us was here at that time and certainly nothing was done. We are now rectifying that situation and I acknowledge that the honourable member supports what this legislation is about. But the legislation seems to have been devolving on the basis of two issues. The Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Queensland has rightly asked for Federal assistance in respect of the matters in this Bill and nobody disagrees with that. I pay tribute to Mr Fitzgerald as the inquiry is proving of the utmost value not only because it is flushing out criminal activity in Queensland but also because it obviously gives leads right across Australia. From the point of view of taxation gains, I can indicate to the House that the benefits of the Fitzgerald inquiry already run into millions of dollars of revenue. This inquiry should not be thought of as an inquiry that will not achieve anything; it will achieve a lot, and I am certain that it will assist in the fight against crime and, therefore, we are anxious to assist Mr Fitzgerald. I acknowledge that the Commission seemed to be set up by the Deputy Premier following some publicity, but the issues are very serious and they could permeate not only one police force but also many others, and this creates enormous problems for us in the administration of justice. I do not think that we have heard the last of the matter. The other issue, which has been the subject of a lot of unnecessary debate, was the matter raised by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). He spoke about illegal telephone intercepts and said that the Opposition was right in rejecting previous provisions in the Bill which allowed, where there were proceedings then pending, for evidence arising from illegal intercepts to be dealt with. Those provisions were rejected and taken out of the Bill, and that was a mistake by the Opposition. It has nothing to do with a change of policy. Those provisions have been brought back into the Bill for the simple reason that there were two cases pending, which are still pending, and we have not been able to proclaim the Bill because if we had proclaimed the previous Bill those cases would have had to be abandoned as the Opposition had removed those provisions. I am delighted that the Opposition has now seen its mistake. There is no change of policy here. Let me make it clear that there was no retrospectivity either. The issue was very clear, on the common law knowledge that the admittance into evidence of matters that had arisen from an illegal intercept was the subject of challenge in the High Court of Australia in the case of Hilton v. Wells. The concept of retrospectivity comes from correspondence from one of those parties, saying, `If the High Court overturned the position, as they say in Hilton v. Wells, it might be deemed to be retrospective'. But the High Court did not overturn the decision; it did not change the law. It would not have been retrospective anyway. I want to put on record that what we are doing here we tried to do before. The provisions were taken out of the legislation by the Opposition. It has seen the error of its ways and it has brought in some amendments, saying `If there is a defect in the warrant, we will accept that'. But that was already in the legislation under section 75. There is nothing new about that matter, so I want to put it to rest. On the question of retrospectivity, the issue was to allow two matters that are now before the courts to proceed and not to have them terminated. The question of retrospectivity comes on the basis that the High Court, allegedly, was going to overturn the decision and it did not do it. That has been proved to be a fallacy and I hope that the honourable member for Flinders begins to understand that. I thank everybody for their contributions and 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions, the North Atlantic Assembly and Finland 1987, and ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In September 1987, this delegation, representing both Houses of the Australian Parliament, visited several European cities to attend the autumn sittings of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The delegation also attended meetings of the North Atlantic Assembly, the Second Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy and conferred with officials of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. The delegation took the opportunity to visit the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels. The visit commenced with an official program in Finland as guests of the Finnish Parliament. The report tabled today records the official activities of the delegation and makes recommendations and suggestions for future visits to European parliamentary institutions by other delegations. The delegation's visit to Finland was the first extensive visit by an Australian parliamentary group to that country, although a shorter visit was made by a previous delegation to Scandinavia in 1982. An excellent program was arranged for the visit by our hosts in conjunction with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity, personally and on behalf of the delegation, to thank the Australian Ambassador, Ros McGovern, for her very competent assistance and support during the delegation's visit to Finland. While in Finland, the delegation's itinerary included briefings and a tour of the Industrial Power Co. Ltd and its facilities. It is a nuclear power station which imports Australian uranium. As well as meeting members of the Finnish Parliament and representatives of parliamentary groups, including members of the Agricultural and Forestry Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, the delegation also met the Minister for the Chancellery, the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament and the Prime Minister. The delegation also conducted discussions with representatives of the Finnish Australian Trade Association, the Finnish Australian Society, the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and visited the Helsinki shipyard of Wartsila Marine Industries Incorporated. In addition to the formal program of discussions and inspections, the delegation visited a wilderness area in Lapland, north of the Arctic Circle. As well as observing reindeer raising, which is a primary source of livelihood for the Lapps, the delegation spent time in part of the substantial wilderness area in the region and received an extensive briefing on the impact of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl on local flora and fauna. The delegation was gratified to learn that radioactive fall-out in this region of Finland was not as severe as it was in other parts of Scandinavia and did not pose a major threat to reindeer herds in Lapland. The delegation would particularly like to thank the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament and his staff for making special arrangements for the delegation to visit Lapland as guests of the Salla community. As with previous delegations, issues of agriculture and trade dominated many of the discussions held with European parliamentarians and officials of the institutions of the European Community. However, other important issues were also discussed and these are set out in chapter 2 of the delegation's report. These include the role of the Nordic countries, nuclear power, disarmament and security, the French role in the South Pacific, South Pacific security, European unity and parliamentary democracy. As well, the delegation considers that it was able to contribute to the kangaroo debate in Europe by providing a greater understanding of the issues concerned leading to the determination of a European position which is favourable to Australian export trade and earnings. In the delegation's discussions on agricultural trade and the European common agricultural policy, it was recognised that in order for Australia to have a major impact in this debate it is necessary for its representatives to adopt an Australian strategy in Europe. It became clear from individual discussions between delegation members and European politicians, that a ground swell is developing in Europe against the common agricultural policy (CAP). This derives largely from the fact that the major beneficiary of the policy is agribusiness, including large corporate farmers, fertiliser companies and other interests. The small farmers, for whom the common agricultural policy was developed initially, are in serious financial difficulty and are increasingly expressing their hostility. It is the view of the delegation that the political perspective of the common agricultural policy will change. This change could be accelerated if countries, such as Australia, were more aggressive in highlighting the discontent that exists. Europe needs to be made more aware that the more resources diverted to artificial support measures for an inefficient agricultural sector, the less is available for productive investment in manufacturing and service industries. Thus, the trend towards increased imports of manufactured goods and the greater need for foreign sourced capital for domestic investment will continue. Fundamental to the social implications of these issues is that not only has the common agricultural policy not been able to retain jobs in the agricultural sector but also it has caused a continued loss of jobs in manufacturing. It is vital that these implications are better known and understood, not only by those Europeans involved in the manufacturing sector, but also by Europeans from all walks of life. In this report, the delegation also makes recommendations of a practical nature designed to ensure that the greatest amount of benefit will be derived from future visits by Australian parliamentary delegations to these European institutions. The delegation considers that some continuity of membership would enable greater advantage to be gained from opportunities presented during these visits and therefore recommends, in line with previous recommendations of similar delegations, that whenever possible, the leader of any future delegation should have been a member of a previous delegation. The delegation also thinks that the inclusion of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was worthwhile and recommends that they be included in all future visits of this kind, preferably when the courts are in session. Furthermore, the delegation considers the visit to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Headquarters in Brussels to be important and informative and recommends that it should be maintained as part of the program for future parliamentary delegations to European institutions. As a matter of practical advice, the delegation recommends that a standard set of instructions for future delegations be prepared, specifically setting out the nature and scope for participation by the delegation at each of the institutions to be visited and indicating the aims of the delegation's participation at such sessions. The range of institutions visited and the number of meetings and discussions held, indicate that this was a demanding and sometimes hectic tour of the European institutions. I would like to add to the recommendations already made that a future delegation could spend more time in Brussels to gain a fuller understanding of the role and functions of the European Commission and Council of Ministers and their relationship with the European Parliament. Members of the delegation felt that not enough time was set aside to gain a thorough understanding of the complexities of these interrelationships. This direct contact with European institutions could not have failed to modify any confidence or concern with which members of the delegation may have previously viewed them. Certainly our understanding of their respective roles, procedures, objectives, strengths and problems has been significantly enhanced. In addition, the arrangement of this delegation provides one of the very few opportunities for private members of the Parliament from both Houses and from all parties to have direct contact with these major institutions of Europe and to participate in their deliberations. For these reasons alone, the delegation represents one of the more important exercises undertaken by the Parliament and it should be locked firmly into the parliamentary program. Both collectively and individually the delegates adopted and presented strong positions on such issues as the CAP, world trade and protectionism, democratic institutions, the coup in Fiji, nuclear testing in the Pacific, peace and disarmament and the need for major reforms in world economic policy. As the report indicates, the delegation was able to achieve some important practical results, especially by way of modifications to the way in which the Council of Europe expressed the European attitude towards the need for agricultural reform, and also in securing an undertaking from the European Commission on at least one matter of significance to Australia's export trade. The delegation visited Europe in one of the most significant periods of European history. The Single European Act became effective from July of this year. The implications of this Act for the development of a united Europe are enormous. The evolution of the European community since 1957 is possibly the most remarkable and deliberate co-operative effort ever undertaken anywhere in the world to reshape the destiny of a continent. As I have mentioned, the nature of our extensive program required a high level of support and assistance from host countries and Australian missions where these institutions were situated. Reference has already been made to our hosts in Finland, particularly Mr Matti Ahde, Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, and his very competent staff. The delegation would also like to thank the staff of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe who so ably assisted the delegation during its visit to Strasbourg and Brussels. Special mention should also be made of the President of the Norwegian Storting, Mr Jo Benkow, for the hospitality extended to the delegation during its visit to the North Atlantic Assembly. The delegation is also appreciative of the assistance and excellent briefings provided overseas by representatives of the Australian Government in Brussels and Paris. On behalf of the delegation I also express our appreciation to the Parliamentary Relations Office and to officers of the Parliamentary Library. I would also like to place on record the delegation's thanks to the Ambassador to Finland, Mr Slotte, and Mr Joul Jorgensen, Head of Delegation, European Communities Commission, for their assistance prior to the delegation's departure and for the friendship shown to us on our return. I also express the collective appreciation of all members of the delegation to Mr Bjarne Nordin, an officer of the Parliament, who accompanied the delegation as secretary. His quiet efficiency was appreciated. We were delighted to have Bjarne with us, especially when we visited Norway, his place of birth. I would also like to express special thanks to the deputy leader of the delegation, Senator Peter Baume, for his outstanding support as deputy of the delegation and for the way in which he projected and promoted, as did all members of the delegation, the interests of Australia generally. I also pay a personal tribute to all members of the delegation-the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), Senator Sanders, an Australian Democrat from Tasmania, and Senator Zakharov, a Labor senator from Victoria. In all respects all of those members of the delegation were a credit to this Parliament and to Australia. There was commendable unanimity in the position adopted by the delegates, despite the fact that they were drawn from all of the major parties represented in this Parliament and that they often held strong personal opinions on many of the major issues. They also took the opportunity, quite correctly, to project their own concerns on many of the issues which arose. Every delegate displayed absolute diligence throughout the entire period of the visitations, meetings, conferences, inspections and observations. They were also extremely understanding and supportive. In terms of the interests, attitudes and concerns represented in this Parliament, it was a very balanced delegation. As the leader of the delegation, I was very proud to be associated with them. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle) —by leave-I join my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) in expressing our appreciation to the Parliament for allowing us to make the visit to the institutions of Europe. It was an exhausting but interesting and informative exercise in which, at first hand, we were able to experience, not just the institutions as institutions but their personalities and characters and the human nature of European politics. In that process we were able to canvass with fellow parliamentarians from the European Parliament and national parliaments throughout Europe, their views of the world in terms of foreign affairs, trade, manufacturing and so on, and to understand the nuances of their constituencies and collective concerns. I confess that on returning to Australia I had a fairly deep concern for the future of world trade. There was clearly a recognition by those with whom we spoke, which also included people from Japan, Canada and the United States, that the world trade situation is in crisis. The word `crisis' was perhaps the most common word used in all of those discussions, yet the proposals put forward were for gradual change and a moderate approach. It seemed to me that if Europe, Japan and America were treating the crisis with moderation, the crisis would overtake them. The answer that we received from virtually all of those countries was that whilst they agreed they should move more quickly, they were not able to because of the internal political dynamism of their countries. I suspect and believe that the political dynamism in those countries, following the stock market changes in recent times since we returned to Australia, has changed and, if anything, we stand a better chance of averting the world trade war, that I believe was looming, than we have for the last 15 to 18 months. Another aspect that concerned me greatly was the tendency in Europe to ignore one issue. Whilst it was aware of the decline in investment and marketing in Asia, it was certainly not treating it as a serious issue. Its major preoccupation was with agricultural trade and how to handle the $30 billion or so a year being spent on the common agricultural policy, two-thirds of which is being spent on storage. Half of the products that are stored cannot be eaten. Those were the kinds of dimensions that were preoccupying its attention. Manufactured trade, the Asian market and manufacturing developments in Asia were certainly very low on its list of priorities. I express serious concern that Europe should recognise that it is part of a bigger world, and is not just part of the European market. Whilst its market of 340 million people is huge, it is still relatively small compared to the total world market. If Europe continues to turn inwards to its own markets and nowhere else, I suspect that we will see our trade problems continue. I have already expressed my appreciation to the House for the privilege of being a member of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions, the North Atlantic Assembly and Finland. It was a unique and gratifying experience. I also place on record my appreciation to the host countries that we visited which displayed great hospitality and warmth and an understanding of our monolingual nature. To my fellow delegates, particularly our Chairman, the honourable member for Charlton, I say that it was a privilege to be part of that delegation. As Chairman, the honourable member for Charlton presented not only the delegation but the whole country in as dignified and competent a light as one could imagine. On behalf of my wife, I express appreciation for the kindnesses that were shown to her by the host countries. In conclusion, I join the leader in recognising the contribution made by Mr Bjarne Nordin, the secretary to the delegation. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax) —by leave-I do not intend to speak at any length because I believe that the report which has been presented to the Parliament is comprehensive. I believe it effectively covers most of the aspects of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions, the North Atlantic Assembly and Finland. I express my appreciation for the opportunity of participating. I pay tribute to the leader, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), for the way in which he led the delegation, and Senator Peter Baume, who was the deputy leader. I believe that it was due to their leadership and interest in the delegation that there was a remarkable rapport among all members of the delegation. Indeed, it was one of the happiest delegations of which I have had the privilege to be a member. I endorse what my colleague has said about the common agricultural policy and the European Economic Community (EEC). I am not convinced that, as yet, the EEC is fair dinkum about dismantling the common agricultural policy. Although it admits that it has mountains of rancid butter and inedible food, I am not convinced that the imposition of fines and penalties for overproduction is effective at this stage. The EEC said that if there was overproduction, fines would be imposed, but often we find that the fines are imposed on farmer organisations with one hand and taken away with the other, which makes one wonder where the penalty is. It was heartening to see at least a recognition of the dislocation that the common agricultural policy was causing. I suppose hearing some words of intent is an advance on what we have had in the past. I particularly enjoyed being present at a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), although I wondered what our role was at that forum. We are members of the OECD, yet in the committee stages and in all the preliminary discussions, we were treated as invited guests. The leader of the delegation has already spoken of that. We pay tribute to all the host countries which treated us with respect and dignity and gave us more opportunity to speak at the forums than possibly we were entitled to. That says something for our nation and for the regard with which Australia is held in many countries and forums. I express again my appreciation to the Parliament for the opportunity to take part in the delegation because I can recall none that was so informative or instructive or, as I said before, so happy. Consideration resumed from 5 November. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, paragraph 4 (a), proposed new subsection 85 (2ab), lines 32 to 37, leave out the proposed new subsection, insert the following subsections: `` `(2ab) Before making a declaration under subsection (2aa), the Minister shall obtain the advice in writing of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in relation to the proposed declaration. `` `(2ac) An advice under subsection (2ab) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament with the declaration under subsection (2aa) to which the advice relates.''. No. 2-Page 7, paragraph 8 (1) (a), line 9, leave out ``subsection'' (second occurring), insert ``subsections''. No. 3-Page 7, paragraph 8 (1) (a), after proposed subsection 101 (2), insert the following new subsection: `` `(2aa) Appointments to the Committee under paragraph (2) (b) shall be such that when a person or persons is or are members of the Committee because of an appointment or appointments under that paragraph, the person, or one of the persons, shall have been nominated for appointment: (a) by the members of the association in Australia that is known as the Doctors' Reform Society; or (b) if the members of that association form an incorporated body having substantially the same purposes as that association, by that incorporated body.''. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.22) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Senate has requested that the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 be amended to provide that, before making a declaration to cease to list a drug or a medicinal preparation as a pharmaceutical benefit, the minister shall obtain the advice in writing of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. That advice, together with the relevant declaration, is then required to be laid before each House of the Parliament. The further two amendments have the effect of requiring the Minister, if he appoints additional medical practitioner members to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, to appoint as one of those additional members a person nominated by the Doctor's Reform Society. The amendments are relatively minor matters and the Government does not wish to further delay passage of the Bill. Accordingly, I ask that the amendments requested by the Senate be made without modification. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.24) —The Opposition has no objection to the first of this series of amendments on the grounds that it was our people, as much as the Australian Democrats who moved the motion which succeeded, who promoted this amendment in the Senate. But we give notice that we oppose the amendment relating to membership of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, I will use both allotments of 10 minutes to which I am entitled because the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) has chosen to put the amendments in a single motion. First of all, I address myself to the amendment to clause 4 of the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) which proposes new sub-sections (2aa) and (2ab). All these legislative measures are aimed at reducing the Government's costs. Pharmaceutical benefits are extremely expensive. The Government has estimated that this year it will spend $999.4m on its pharmaceutical benefits program. That is an increase of $128.6m, or 14.8 per cent, over last year. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Government has changed the rules and has introduced a $10 surcharge for the first 25 prescriptions-that is, the safety net program. It is also notwithstanding the cutbacks that are about to occur, which affect these estimates, where the margin of wholesalers is to be cut from 15 to 10 per cent. I think the Minister is now well aware that this has created great concern in the pharmacy profession. I was surprised to hear the Minister, in a speech to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia the other night, raise what I thought was a remarkable contradiction. I would be delighted if he explains it in his reply tonight. He pointed out to the Pharmacy Guild that the Government would reduce wholesale margins by 5 per cent to 10 per cent because the rebates given to pharmacists for cash represented practically 5 per cent of the margin anyway. Of course, the Minister recognised that the amount of discount was taken into account by the Pharmacy Remuneration Tribunal in assessing the remuneration of pharmacists. The Minister now expects that there will be a drop in pharmacy income, but that the tribunal will take into account and increase pharmacists' remunerations. That seems to be a very lengthy road to travel if the Government genuinely intends to save some of the taxpayers' funds and if it genuinely believes that the pharmacy profession can accept the cutbacks that that will create. Pharmacists tell me that they are not able to stand a lot more cutbacks of that kind. They are deeply concerned that there will be a reduction in services from the wholesaling industry. If that occurs, they will have fewer deliveries and so on, requiring them to handle more stock on their shelves. As the Minister has just explained, the changes are quite simple. The alterations which the Government has proposed in its amending Bill are to ensure that by instrument in writing the Minister could withdraw, unilaterally, a particular drug that had been listed from the pharmaceutical benefits list, but he did not have to do anymore than take into account the original decision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in listing the drug in the first place. Quite clearly, times can change. The decision might have been taken years ago. Although there may be very good reason for the Minister taking the action he proposes, it will be done, particularly under this Government, to cut costs. The Opposition, recognising the responsibility of Parliament, believes that that is not appropriate-that the Minister still has a responsibility to Parliament. Consequently, amendments to the legislation which were moved in the Senate principally seek to remove from the original amending Bill proposed sub-section (2ab), which stated: Before making a declaration under subsection (2aa), the Minister shall have regard to any view previously expressed to the Minister . . . And that was all. The amendment to clause 4 seeks to insert the following proposed new sub-section (2ab): Before making a declaration under subsection (2aa), the Minister shall obtain the advice in writing of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee . . . The amendment also seeks to insert proposed new sub-section (2ac), which states: An advice under subsection (2ab) shall be laid before each House of the Parliament with the declaration under subsection (2aa) to which the advice relates. That substantially changes the circumstances, whichever party is in power. The reality is that a Minister will not be able unilaterally to remove an item listed by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as a drug which is available, if you like, free of charge but which is certainly subsidised under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It will not be just the decision of the Minister based, as I have said, probably more on the cost to government than on the benefit to the community. The Opposition is to be congratulated for convincing the Minister that this is his responsibility and for placing the responsibility on future Ministers, whatever their political party may be. The community has this scheme, in place. It has been carried forward by successive governments. Certain drugs may be of huge assistance to certain people, and under this amendment as it will now go through in this legislation, Parliament can have a final say on whether or not a drug is removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. It will take note of the welfare of the people, not of the problems of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) or some future Minister for Finance. I must say something about why the Opposition is so concerned about cost cutting and what this amendment was all about in the first place. Yesterday I brought to the attention of Parliament, and I bring it now to the attention of the Committee, the point that practically every piece of legislation concerning health that has been brought to Parliament since I have been shadow Minister has had the aim of reducing the services available to people. The only other point of note about health legislation is that it has been designed to put the costs up. The levy went up from one per cent to 1.25 per cent, and this is the sort of thing about which we are complaining. Everywhere we look we see higher charges and lower benefits and rebates. We have seen things struck down because the computer said so. The computer identifies medical conditions on which there was a sudden increase in expenditure but it is unable to identify that they might be diseases of which the public is only just becoming aware. The treatment of skin cancers, warts and keratoses is a clear example of that. Now people are finding, as they do in my electorate, that when they go for surveys for skin cancer, they are often told that their condition might or might not be skin cancer. They are told that they had better see a specialist. But if it is not a skin cancer and they choose to have it treated so that it does not become a skin cancer, they have to pay the $50 fee themselves. Another example of a cutback of which we are highly critical relates to visits to physicians. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that a large number of people need to visit a physician more than three times, particularly cancer sufferers and others with serious diseases. Such people now find that they cannot be sent back to general practitioners, but must stay with their physician. The physicians are not prepared to take the cuts that the Government felt that they would. The Government thought that physicians would accept $18 or $20 for a visit for which the physicians would otherwise get up to $80. The physicians are saying that they want $50 and, irrespective of the Government's attack on doctors and certain physicians, the reality is that the patient is now having to pay the $50 and seek a rebate of $18 on their own behalf. These are the sorts of circumstances that have brought this amendment Bill before us, because it is a cost cutting measure. All the Government's activities on health are cost cutting measures. It is not doing much because it is increasing the hospital waiting lists-26,800 people waiting in Victoria and 30,000-plus in New South Wales, although the Government does not tell us such things. My office had a phone call this morning from a Victorian woman who is going to place an advertisement in a newspaper to find a bed so that she can be treated for her illness, pain and suffering. That is what cost cutting means with a government that tried to give universal service but is now giving precious little. We know what it means when people are struggling in this way: the system has not worked and all this legislation is about is attempting to reduce the cost to the Government even further. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(8.34) —The Opposition welcomes amendment No. 1, which relates to paragraph 4 (a). It requires the Minister to take the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in writing and for the advice to be tabled. It was said in another place that there was no need to obtain the advice of the PBAC in writing or otherwise since expert advice was available and would be given to the appropriate Minister by his department. I would just like to point out that it was the same departmental advisers who were responsible for the generic drugs debacle. A number of so-called generic drugs were found to be dangerously substandard, causing great risk to the people of Australia. The problem was one of cost cutting-a problem that keeps on rearing its ugly head. In that situation, the so-called testing of the generic drug was carried out-or, more appropriately, not carried out-in South Africa, but later it was found out that those drugs were in some cases ineffective, in many cases putting at risk those who had been given these drugs as a substitute for the original drug. They were therefore at risk of getting substandard therapy. The only justification for this was that the generic drugs that were, or were not, tested in South Africa were much cheaper than the original branded drugs. Now we are expected to rely on advice from the same department. This amendment will get rid of the problem of the incompetence or laziness of the people who offered that advice about the generic drugs. It was a question, again, of the Government putting cost savings above quality. The legislation as it stands may still perpetuate cheapness by its regard for cost effectiveness. That is something new in the annals of medicine in Australia. I fear that while it may be okay, if two drugs are equal in all regards, to choose the cheaper drug, this legislation indicates that it may be more appropriate to choose the cheaper drug even though the more expensive drug may be more effective. This principle is abhorrent to any medical practitioner or patient in Australia. The important and prime consideration must be the quality of the drugs. There must be no sacrificing of quality for the sake of cheapness. Equally, I support the statement that now the PBAC advice must be not only given but also tabled, and therefore it should be evaluated and subject to review by this Parliament. Only in this way can the people of Australia truly have a say about whether the advice is relevant. As the original legislation stood, it was possible for the advice to be tendered and considered by the Minister when it was several years old and irrelevant to the drugs as they stood at the time. Amendment No. 3 affects the composition of the PBAC. I cannot understand how it is possible to support the appointment of a representative of a political group to the PBAC. This is the case in terms of appointing a representative of the Doctors Reform Society. I am not sure why we do not, for example, choose a representative of the Communist Party of Australia. Indeed, we may get the same representative from that group as we do from the Doctors Reform Society. It is clearly a political association. It is somewhat to the left of Stalin, but that is irrelevant. It represents a minority of the medical profession and I understand that it has fewer than 1,000 members. It is clear to anybody that such appointments must be made purely on the basis of ability and experience and must be free of political considerations. They should not be made to assuage the feelings of minority self-interest groups. If we are to appoint such minority self-interest groups, why not appoint representatives from a tai chi group, which is pseudo-medical? Why do we not appoint an iridologist or the marketers of carrot juice or the groups espousing coffee enemas? Where do we stop? The PBAC is far too important to be dealt with in such a trivial way. Appointments to it must be made purely on merit and on responsible scientific grounds. I strongly oppose this proposed amendment to the structure of the PBAC. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.38) —These amendments represent victory. I recall that when the legislation originally went through the House of Representatives four or five weeks ago, I expressed considerable concern that the Government was giving the Minister for Community Services and Health of the day a right to determine whether or not drugs would be allowed to remain on the pharmaceutical benefits list. I pointed out that in my view it was absolutely wrong that the Minister of the day should be given the power to take a drug off the list on the ground simply that it was his or her opinion that that drug was no longer required to be on the list. I remember that some of my comments at that time were-I will not use the word `misconstrued'; I will say `misunderstood'-misunderstood. In that speech, in a rather affectionate way, I referred to the background of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). I will not repeat that reference this evening. I declared that that background made him an unsuitable person to make a determination such as that. It was not a reflection on his background. I would not have cared whether he was an engineer, a physicist, or even a doctor of philosophy, as is the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). It would not have worried me. The point I was making at that time was that the suitability of drugs was determined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I did not believe that it was up to politicians, regardless of an individual politician's background, to make decisions on matters which really could be matters of life and death. They were decisions-this is the reason for the Government's change-that were motivated by the Government's desire just to save money. We already had the example, last year, of the then Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, removing analgesics and a whole lot of other drugs from the reach of elderly people. The Government was warned at that time that it would not work. What the Government established was that doctors started prescribing more expensive drugs to take the place of those drugs that had been removed from the list. This is what happens when politicians play. I say to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is in the chamber this evening, that I am very happy that once again the Senate has established its proper role and has knocked the Government back in relation to this issue. The Australian Democrats, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in the Senate all said no to the matter to which I drew attention in this chamber. I remember at the time the Minister for Veterans' Affairs made his speech concluding debate on the Bill that he really did not make much more than passing reference to the points that I had raised. However, we now have an amendment which proposes that if the Government is of a mind to remove drugs from the list, it will not be able to do so in an arbitrary way. I refer to a decision made not necessarily by the Minister but by some departmental person whose attention has been drawn, for instance, to a computer printout of the overall cost of a drug and its usage. That person decides, `We are not going to go along with that because it is getting too costly'. I inform the Minister that it is my view that most of the problems being confronted in terms of the costs of medicine relate directly to Medicare. Initially, the Government promised the people of Australia that a one per cent levy would pay for the lot. Suddenly the Government found that it needed to top up the cost of Medicare to a tune in excess of $2 billion. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to the 1984 election, I think it was, promising that the Medicare levy would stay at exactly the same rate. A couple of years later up that levy went to 1.25 per cent. It is proper to say that that was not sufficient to meet the costs of the so-called free health care. What the Government has had to do now is to attack all the ancillary benefits and services, such as the quality of the medicines prescribed. The honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) said only yesterday in a most remarkable speech that people are dying in Sydney because they cannot get hospital beds. I say to the Minister, in his very important position-one of the most important ministries in the Government-that in his hands lie people's lives. Lives are being lost in this country as a result of Medicare. The system just is not able to attend to people's requirements and needs. There is no point just picking around the edges trying to knock off a drug here and a drug there to save a few million dollars because it is the whole ship that has holes in it. It is not a bottle of tablets that is the problem; it is the whole system that the Minister steadfastly and blindly supports. I conclude simply by saying to the Minister that I do not expect anyone to be eating crow in this place because the matter which I raised as one requiring attention has been changed. What I do say to the Minister is: Be a man of substance; go into that Cabinet room in the far corner of the building, stand up and say that Medicare is not working; stand up and say that it is no use picking off the edges because the problem is bigger than that. It is a philosophical problem. Fortunately, our present Minister does not have the Goebbels like approach of the Minister for Community Services and Health when it comes to defending Medicare. He is a man who has churned out propaganda like that other person who lived 40-odd years ago. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs is more realistic. He has his feet on the ground. He recognises the shortcomings of Medicare. He will stand up the next time they say to him, `Benny, you have to save a few million dollars on the pharmaceuticals again to help finance and keep the deficit down'. I am very happy to see that this amendment is supported and that the Government has come to its senses at last on this matter. I feel a certain amount of pride for having campaigned as strongly as I did when the legislation was originally introduced into this place. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(8.47) —I wish to address the second proposed amendment to the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) concerning the nomination of the Doctors Reform Society for a position on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I find it particularly puzzling that this group should be specifically singled out for representation on the Committee. It would seem, if one is to provide a balanced view on the Committee, that it would be necessary for whoever is representing a group to have back-up advice and also to reflect the views of the wider group being represented. Therefore, how does the Doctors Reform Society measure up to this? The Doctors Reform Society was formed in 1974, ostensibly to help push through Medibank. What has it done since then? This year it has had three Press releases-curiously they were released in the four weeks before the Federal election. They were all particularly critical of the Opposition and lauding the Government. Even more curiously, it placed a $7,000 advertisement in the Australian newspaper. Its membership base is very hard to determine. The secretary of the Society puts forward different figures on many occasions, but he has been quoted as saying that there are 500 members, many of whom are doctors. I remember that during my days at medical school there was quite a push to have students join this organisation. In fact, the majority of the Society's members would be people who have never practised clinical medicine in any way whatsoever. The Society's subscription rates are $85 for a doctor and $10 for students. Therefore, being generous one imagines that with 500 members, many of whom are doctors, the Society might have a total subscription revenue of $20,000 per year. With $20,000 per year the Society manages to run an organisation in each State, it manages to underwrite the cost of a journal, and it still has enough money around election time to put a $7,000 advertisement in the Australian newspaper. Perhaps we should ask where the money is really coming from. Certainly it is not coming from subscription revenue. Mr Reith —Where is it coming from? Dr WOOLDRIDGE —There would be some revenue coming from advertisements such as full page advertisements in its journal from great groups such as Medicare. This group is now to be specifically nominated to sit on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. What interest has the Society taken in this area? To its credit it did have one article in its journal written by two psychiatrists reporting on a conference on how dependency on a doctor could affect prescribing patterns. That was in 1981. This is the group that is being singled out for special treatment on this body. There is no evidence to suggest that the community has not been well served by the body that advises the Government at present. There are more than 50 medical organisations in this country. The Doctors Reform Society is one of the very smallest in membership. In Victoria it is virtually moribund. It is estimated that 30 doctors may be members of that Society. To single out the Doctors Reform Society as a specific group from more than 50 organisations in this country is simple to pander to a narrow, ideological pressure group, and such a move should be opposed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.51) —The original amendment proposed to section 101 of the National Health Act was designed purely to increase somewhat the size of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The Government believes that that increase in membership is necessary because it expects the Committee to have a a substantially bigger workload. The Minister's second reading speech identified the fact that additional staff would also be made available to the Committee. The original amendment introduced into this chamber sought to give the Minister authority to appoint as members of the Committee a pharmacologist and not more than three medical practitioners, in addition to the medical practitioners referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of section 101 of the principal Act. The amendment sought to add three medical practitioners to the 10 already provided for. During the debate on this legislation in the Senate, out of the blue the Australian Democrats put forward the amendment with which we are now dealing. That amendment proposes that one of those three medical practitioners shall be a member of the Doctors Reform Society. My colleagues who have taken part in this debate have great experience in this area, both of them being doctors. They have already said how ridiculous this proposal is. The honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge) pointed out that there are probably in excess of 50 doctors organisations in Australia. Before I entered this debate I looked up the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association guide, which lists 37 large organisations as representing the medical fraternity. I presume that it lists the Doctors Reform Society in that guide, but that organisation is not by any means large. The Society claims a membership of 1,000. That is not one member more than the Private Doctors Association of Australia claims as its membership. However, the difference, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Chisholm, is that the Private Doctors Association of Australia has a membership of 1,000 doctors; the Doctors Reform Society has all sorts of people making up its membership, including medical students. In the Senate, the Australian Labor Party voted with the Australian Democrats. The record of the Senate debate is clear. Senator Puplick, Senator Peter Baume and Senator Walters spoke in opposition to this proposal. The Government had a clear indication that there was no need to accept this amendment to its legislation. Clearly, the Government cannot say that it concurred with this amendment; it wanted it. I do not know what deals were arranged in back rooms, but it is a disgrace that the Government and the Australian Democrats carried this amendment in the Senate; and honourable members have heard why they did so. It is established that the greatest percentage of doctors in the Doctors Reform Society are card carrying members of the Australian Labor Party; their political leanings are well known from their remarks; they are primarily salaried doctors. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but the reality is that they do not represent a cross-section of the medical fraternity. If the Government intends to allocate one position on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to one group of doctors, it should be prepared to have about 50 members on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee so that it is able to treat all the other doctors' organisations in exactly the same way as it proposes to treat the Doctors Reform Society. Under section 101 (1) (b) of the original legislation all members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee were to be nominated by the Australian Medical Association (AMA). In view of the fact that the AMA has 18,000 members and that it claims that its members are drawn from the whole spectrum of those 37 or perhaps 50 organisations to which reference has been made, it is clear that it is the logical body to nominate persons to be members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. That is what the original legislation provided for. The Opposition believes that that provision should remain. The Opposition will certainly divide the House on this amendment. The Government must be reminded that it voted to amend its own legislation in a way that is most undesirable, unnecessary and unfair. It is proposed that one of the smallest groups of practising doctors in Australia be the only group, apart from the Australian Medical Association, that is entitled to nominate persons to be members of this Advisory Committee. That is absolutely wrong and it cannot be sustained in any way. As I said, unless the Government is willing to accept nominations from 37 or 50 organisations, it must retain the provision that the Australian Medical Association should make such nominations. No other organisations are asking for the right to nominate members to the Advisory Committee. Although there is considerable political disagreement among medical practitioners about some of the activities of the AMA, not one of these other groups has sought to nominate persons to be members of the Advisory Committee. Some of those groups are quite large, such as the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Its members are the ones who will be prescribing the drugs dealt with by the Committee and they do not give lectures in universities. If some other body is to be allowed to nominate persons to be members of the Committee, obviously the Royal Australasian College of Physicians would be a much more sensible choice. The Doctors Reform Society has nothing to recommend it to carry out the role that the Government wants it to perform. I cannot understand why the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is copping this situation from the Government. The Opposition in the Senate made it clear to the Minister that it would stand with him on this issue if he decided to retain the legislation in the form in which it was presented to this House. The Opposition was opposed to the other measure contained in the amending Bill. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) has left the chamber, but I congratulate him on the initiatives he took in that area. I cannot take credit for them. He as much as anybody else ensured that the first matter that we discussed tonight was raised in the Senate. I cannot say enough against the Doctors Reform Society. It is well known that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) was Treasurer in the Whitlam Government he organised the Doctors Reform Society to counter the general criticisms of the medical profession of Medibank. Medibank, like Medicare, was cracking at the seams and was falling apart. Tonight I have taken the opportunity, as has the honourable member for Moreton, to explain again that the system is not working. The Government criticises the system put in place by the Opposition when in government by saying that two million Australians did not have medical insurance and by implying that all of those people could not afford medical insurance. That was a totally ridiculous assertion. No doubt some of them had financial difficulties but most of them opted not to take out medical insurance because they did not expect to become seriously ill. At present probably eight million Australians do not have medical insurance because they believe that Medicare will meet their needs. It probably will meet the needs of a person who has a car accident or a heart attack. However, a person who happens to develop osteoarthritis or who needs certain treatments or procedures for some other illness that has developed slowly will have to wait his or her turn to receive such treatment. As honourable members know, that can take up to three or four years, and during that time a person can be suffering from considerable pain. Because that condition will not cause that person to die the next day, the treatment required is called elective surgery. Much pain is associated with conditions that require elective surgery. The system is falling down; the queues are getting longer. The cost of the alternative, which is private hospital treatment, is getting beyond people's resources and beyond the resources of many private health funds which no longer have the courage to increase their premiums in order to pay the sorts of rebates that are necessary to cover private hospital charges. As I have pointed out in this House before, ordinary Australians who think they are covered for private hospital treatment are being presented with accounts, upon departing the hospital for $100 to $150 a day. As I read in a letter yesterday, it cost an ordinary woman living in Melbourne $1,500 to get out of hospital. I do not know why the Minister and the Australian Democrats got together to amend the legislation in this fashion, but it is quite wrong to select for special treatment under this legislation a group such as the Doctors Reform Society and to take away from the Australian Medical Association the opportunity to nominate a member or to give it to a physician or someone of that nature who would have the right qualifications for the job. It is a disgrace. The Minister might choose to explain to us why he got into bed with the Democrats on this issue. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.01) —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) well knows the Government's position in relation to the first amendment. It has already been stated in this House not only by me but by many honourable members on this side of the chamber. The honourable member for O'Connor was concerned also about my speech to the annual dinner of the Pharmacy Guild about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. If any pharmacist has a legitimate case to put to the remuneration tribunal and he can show to the tribunal a loss of income or earnings because of the Government's legislation, I believe the case will be dealt with in a fair and just manner by the tribunal. I do not think the honourable member or the pharmacists need worry about that. I know that some pharmacists land on hard times but I do not recall many doing it the hard way. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) is very proud of having his amendment accepted and being able to point out the problems with the Government's legislation. The amendment will not achieve the procedural streamlining that was intended but the Bill with the amendment will still give greater flexibility. The amendment is relatively minor and the Government reluctantly accepts it. Although the honourable member for Moreton says to me in a jovial manner that my background as a motor mechanic would not suffice so far as knowing about pharmacists or drugs, I remember a little about his background too. He is lecturing the Government like a professional person about what it should or should not be doing. I remind the honourable member that for many years he occupied the Government benches and aspired to be Deputy Whip. I remember the day when he was sacked for interjecting on Malcolm Fraser about the rights of the rank and file members in the grievance debate. Mr Smith —Don't forget he is still here. Mr HUMPHREYS —He is a survivor; I am not denying that, but he is not a genius on all aspects of pharmaceutical benefits. I do not believe he should be lecturing the Government about saving money. He is lecturing me, saying that we should not be trying to save money. Surely it is the duty of all honourable members to save the taxpayers' money. When we try to do that he speaks about a few lousy million dollars. I ask all honourable members on the other side of the chamber where they are going to get the $8 billion that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was speaking about? Who were they going to take it from? Why do they not tell us about that $8 billion? I should like to refer also to the comments of the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods) and the honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge) about the Doctors Reform Group. It is quite unnecessary to declare anyone to be a communist unless one knows he really is. I would be happy to receive any evidence those honourable members can provide to the Parliament and I should be happy to table any of the names of people in the Doctors Reform Group the honourable members profess are communists. I should be interested to know their names. They would not be on the committee, I can assure honourable members of that. Mr Tuckey —They don't have to be ashamed of it these days. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, but I just remind the honourable member for Lowe and the honourable member for Chisholm that the Australian Medical Association (AMA)- Mr Smith —Look out, the honourable member for Moreton is here now. Mr HUMPHREYS —I am very happy to have the honourable member for Moreton here. Let me remind honourable members that the AMA does not represent 50 per cent of doctors in Australia yet we accept its nominations. One could not say that the AMA favours the Government in any way. It does its best to undermine the Government at every opportunity. Nevertheless, it recognises and nominates very eminent persons to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, and they are accepted. It is the Minister who has to decide on the nomination. If the AMA nominates any person we will consider that person's background and expertise before he is appointed. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.06) —I shall not delay the Committee for more than a moment, but the Minister for Veterans' Affair (Mr Humphreys) seems to have great difficulty understanding the point that motivated me. I was not just referring to his background or my background; the background of all honourable members in this chamber makes them unsuitable to determine whether drugs should be on the free list or off the free list. The point I was arguing, which has been accepted by the Senate and, to use the Minister's words, reluctantly accepted by the Government now, is that it is totally wrong for a government to establish a pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee-made up previously of eight doctors and now to be increased to 12, with one pharmacist-to play the role of an adviser and ignore its advice. The Government now endeavours to seek the power simply to override that body and determine, itself, whether drugs should be on the list or off the list. In all fairness, I spoke about a few million dollars, but when one speaks about the cost of health care one is speaking about billions of dollars. It was of concern to me that the Government had reached the point that it was prepared to take drugs from the free list simply on the basis of cost. What the Minister seems to find difficult to comprehend is that many expensive drugs have no substitute, and to make decisions on the basis of cost would be wrong. Mr Snow —When did that happen? Mr DONALD CAMERON —It happened a year ago. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro sits there, in his light coloured suit, like a white cockatoo asking when did that happen. Last year his Party took off the list a whole range of drugs that were available, particularly to the elderly. Suddenly it discovered that doctors were prescribing more expensive drugs so it had to do an about-face on that issue. I was hoping to make only one or two comments, so do not excite me at this time of night. The honourable member should go back to his tree and stay there. The Minister should understand that the move he is responsible for was a wrong move. Members on this side of the chamber said it at the time, the Senate has said it and has blocked him and, to use his own words, he has reluctantly accepted the amendment. I wish he was not reluctant about it because what the Opposition has been trying to do is steer him in the direction of common sense and what is best for the people of Australia. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(9.08) —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) in his reply suggested I had made reference to the Australian Medical Association and why that may or may not have been appropriate. In my speech I mentioned merely the Doctors Reform Society and its appropriateness. At no stage did I mention any other medical organisation by name. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. Mr Tuckey —We are not going to agree to the amendments together; we want them dealt with separately. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —They were moved as one. Mr Tuckey —We will divide on the lot then. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. I have not heard a vote in favour yet. Mr Humphreys —Aye. Mr Tuckey —We will have to vote against the amendments if the Minister wants to be smart about it. Mr Humphreys —No, I do not want to be smart about it. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The question is being put and it is not an appropriate time to take a point of order. We can deal with it when I have put the question. The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion say `aye', to the contrary `no', I think the ayes have it. Mr Tuckey —The noes have it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —A division is required. Ring the bells. Mr Tuckey —We are dividing on it because the Government got smart. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! A division was called for-- Government members-No division! Mr Tuckey —We are going to have a division. I asked a question at the beginning and I was told-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I have called for a division. Mr Tuckey —And there has been a vote requested by two members. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Yes, two members called for a division. Mr Tuckey —And it does not make any difference, because we will lose it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Committee will divide. Ring the bells. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Prosser, G. D.Downer, A. J. G. Reith, P. K.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hayden, W. G. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Before honourable members resume their seats, can I just say in relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for O'Connor about the conduct of this matter that, whilst in the committee stage it is normal for the question to be posed as to whether or not amendments will be considered separately, when the matter is the subject of a report from the Senate it is dealt with by arrangement of which the Chair has no knowledge. A motion was moved specifically by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the amendments be agreed to. That was the question before the Chair and the question to be dealt with. The question now is: That the Deputy Chairman report a resolution to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.20) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I will not take long. In response to your remarks, there is a simple solution to these matters. We had a unique situation in the Senate where the Opposition put forward one amendment which was carried with the support of the Australian Democrats. The Democrats put forward another amendment which was carried with the support of the Government. I think the lesson to be learnt by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) and others is that, in those circumstances, there will be a responsibility on them in the future to put amendments separately to avoid the words that were said a while ago. The Opposition has few things that it can resort to when it is treated in this fashion but one of them is to call quorums and, were it to happen again, I would be calling them every five minutes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.22) —I 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, New South Wales. This proposal has been considered by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. It involves the fitout of some 23,000 square metres of accommodation in adjacent office buildings at Chatswood, New South Wales. These buildings will provide modern accommodation for some 1,200 staff of my own Department's New South Wales administration, together with a regional office for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $8.9m at October 1987 prices. The work essentially involves the fitting out of general purpose office accommodation of a type consistent with normal public sector standards. Staff of my own Department affected by the relocation are currently located in a number of buildings within the central business district of Sydney. Honourable members may be aware that these staff had been scheduled to relocate to the new Parramatta Commonwealth Centre following a decision taken by Government in December 1986. However, this decision was recently reviewed by the Government for the reasons which I will now briefly set out. Firstly, there was a demand from the lessor of my Department's accommodation in Australia Square that we vacate some 12 floors of that building on a staged basis commencing at the end of this month and completing by no later than July 1988. Secondly, the Government decided in the Budget context to sell the lease on the Sydney Commonwealth Centre at Chifley Square where many of the staff of the Department of Administrative Services are also located. In order to maximise the sale price it will be necessary to offer vacant possession by August 1988. Thirdly, the new Parramatta Commonwealth Offices are unlikely to be available for occupation until 1989. In short, the Department would have been required to move into expensive staging accommodation if the Government had adhered to the previous accommodation strategy. The Australian Taxation Office will now occupy the vast bulk of the space in the Parramatta Commonwealth Centre instead of remaining in rented accommodation in and around Parramatta. Honourable members may also be aware that, following my announcement of the decision to relocate to Chatswood on 29 October 1987, there has been a strong protest from unions representing the staff of my Department. In fact, the relevant unions attempted to convince the Parliamentary Public Works Committee, and anyone else who would listen, that the decision to relocate to Chatswood was more costly than relocating to a new building within the central business district. I believe that the union claims in that area were misleading. The fact of the matter is that Chatswood will cost $300 per square metre, whereas the Carringbush Tower, which the relevant unions preferred, costs $365 per square metre, which is a central business district cost. Whilst there are many other costs and benefits that need to be taken into account, including short term rental incentives at both locations and higher operating cost at Chatswood, the facts are that, at the end of the day, Chatswood is substantially cheaper over the 10-year period of the lease compared with the site in the central business district that was preferred by the unions. The figures presented to the Public Works Committee and the media by the unions had a number of basic flaws which resulted in their misleading conclusions. The most significant of these were that they were comparing the relative costs of 23,000 square metres in one location and only 19,000 in another and that their comparison was limited to only two years and was, therefore, distorted by short term differences in the leasing arrangements; that is, the offering of a rental holiday by the Carringbush people for six months in the central business district area. The union figures were also deficient because they did not include the cost of staging accommodation which would have been necessary because the Carringbush Tower would not be available in sufficient time to meet the relevant required deadlines that I explained to the House earlier. Chatswood is located some 20 to 25 minutes north of the central business district by train. This means that a substantial number of existing staff will have 40 to 50 minutes added to their daily travelling times. I am well aware that this will represent an additional burden on staff who already spend a significant amount of time travelling to and from work. My Department, on my instructions, will introduce a job-swap scheme to enable some disadvantaged staff to transfer to other departments more conveniently located. I have also written to my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) seeking his consideration of a package of measures designed to overcome short term disadvantage and hardship. These problems will be carefully and sensitively handled by me and my Department in full consultation with the relevant unions. I am convinced that my Department will achieve substantial benefits from being colocated in an efficient and pleasant working environment. I am also convinced that removal of excessive overheads, such as high-priced city rental charges, will help to enable the Department to prosper in the emerging competitive environment. As is normal with the fitting-out of leased accommodation, it is essential to progress this proposal as quickly as possible in order to minimise the Commonwealth's liability for dead rent. In this case, there has been additional pressure because of the need to relocate some 280 staff from Australia Square to the buildings in Chatswood before the end of this month. To this end I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation of the efforts of all members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works who have gone to great lengths to ensure that their report has been available to the Parliament during this current session. They have supported my motion and I therefore commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(9.29) —The proposed move of the Sydney office of the Department of Administrative Services has a long and troubled history. Originally, in December 1986, it was proposed that the office would move to the new Commonwealth Centre being built at Parramatta, but the completion date of those offices has fallen about six months behind schedule and they now will not be ready for occupation until early to mid-1989 instead of late 1988. This created a dilemma for the Government, because it found it had other problems on its hands. Having generated the biggest deficit and the largest debt this country has ever seen, it suddenly found itself strapped for cash. In order to find some money in a hurry, it decided on the sale of assets and determined that the Chifley Square Commonwealth Offices was a choice pick for a fire sale. This meant that those in that building had to get out pronto, including the Department of Administrative Services staff. Accommodation had to be found because their planned move into the new Parramatta Commonwealth Centre could not occur for a year or so. The Government needs the money from the sale now; not in a year or so. It could not wait for the Parramatta Centre to be completed. It had to find alternative accommodation in a hurry. Therefore, it started looking around. According to the Joint Committee on Public Works, one option was the offices available at 117 Clarence Street and 234 Sussex Street, Sydney. This work involved an existing Commonwealth leased building in Clarence Street and a new building in Sussex Street. That new building was due for completion in February next year. It would provide a combined total area of 23,000 square metres-exactly what the Government wants-but the option of that was dependent upon the Australian Customs Service relocating from the Clarence Street office to the Ultimo office. The proposition was that this office space was available, that it would suit the purpose and that it was in a relatively near area, but it all depended on whether the Australian Customs Service would move out of the building to Ultimo. Apparently, that was put to the Australian Customs Service staff and it was overwhelmingly rejected by them. So the Government did not proceed with that option. I do not know what the Australian Customs Service unions have over the Government but, apparently, they have a fairly firm hold over the Government because the Government dropped that as an option. This Government prides itself on its industrial relations record and if this sorry saga of the move of the Department of Administrative Services offices in Sydney is any indication of its record, the record is a disaster. It has been totally inconsistent. On the one hand, it drops the Clarence Street-Sussex Street option because the union involved does not want to move. On the other hand, it almost completely ignores the Department of Administrative Services unions in its final selection of new premises. The Public Works Committee records the total dissatisfaction of the unions with the lack of meaningful government consultation. Why does the Government listen to the unions representing the Australian Customs Service and ignore the unions representing the members working in the Department of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West)? It is an interesting question. The inconsistency is stark. Instead of lecturing the private sector about industrial relations, this Government should get its own house in order. As a result of this Minister's failure to consult, he has been subject to long-running union bans on the provision of information to himself from his own Department. That may explain the lack of public statements from the Minister over the last month or so. With the operator on strike, the puppet has collapsed from sight. It is interesting that the Minister spent a great deal of his time, when introducing this motion to the House, explaining the difficulties he has had with his own work force. He says in his second reading speech that as part of the apparent effort to get back on side with his work force he has written to his colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) seeking his consideration of a package of measures designed to overcome short term hardship. What are the terms of that package? What precedent will they set? It is time that the Minister came clean with the House and gave us the details of that proposed package so that we all might be let in on the secret of what deal is being done. Given the chaotic state of decision-making, the lack of appropriate planning and the urgent need to suddenly find accommodation, the Public Works Committee has agreed with the proposed fitout of the accommodation at Chatswood. All this is going to cost the poor taxpayer a minimum of $8.9m and probably a good deal more. The Government knew years ago that the lease on the Department's accommodation in Australia Square concluded in December 1987, and it knew at least a year ago that the new Parramatta building would not be ready by the end of this year. Yet here we are considering as a matter of urgency a motion regarding the provision of alternative accommodation which has to be provided by the end of the year because appropriate arrangements have not been made. It has been running around since September like a headless chook trying to find accommodation because there is no long term planning undertaken by this Minister. This is yet another example of the grossly inefficient and incompetent administration under this so-called talented Ministry. It is a scandal and the taxpayer is being forced to carry the $9m plus burden. This is not the first such example either. For example, take the relocation of the Australian Tourist Commission from Melbourne to Sydney earlier this year. That cost the taxpayer $3.2m and only four employees moved from Melbourne to Sydney. There is also the saga of the premises rented at 80 Williams Street in Sydney. At that address there were 10 vacant floors for which the Commonwealth has been paying $220,000 a month in rent. So for the last 18 months the taxpayer has had to pay $4m in rent for a space that has remained empty. This motion is yet another example of this Government's extraordinarily incompetent administration. Given the state of chaos which it has allowed to develop, we are now left with no choice but to let this motion go through. But the taxpayer is sick and tired of having to pay for the Minister's incompetence. It is high time his Government did some long term planning and instead of attempting to mislead the public about its industrial relations record, the Minister would be well advised to forget the public relations that he undertakes incessantly and get on with the job of consulting his own employees and implementing some long term strategic planning for the provision of offices for the Public Service. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.39) —I would like to make a couple of comments on this matter. The Joint Committee on Public Works fully investigated the matter. We looked at five options, and it was the view of the Committee that the Chatswood proposal was the best proposal and, in the long term, would be the cheapest option. It was obvious that the staff would not move to Parramatta. It was also obvious that the staff had to move out of the present premises. There is always a difficulty with Commonwealth staff being located in central business district locations. The rents are very high, especially in Sydney. The Committee had before it a submission from the unions concerning what is known as the Carringbush site. We spent a lot of time looking at that proposal. The Committee was convinced that the Chatswood option was the best. Of the five options that were put before us, there was no doubt in our minds that the Chatswood option was the best. As I say, it was a difficult decision. We were aware, as the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) said, that the move to Chatswood would involve extra travelling time for the staff. We were concerned about that. But I make the point-and I make it without trying to score points; I do not want to do that in discussing this matter-that if the staff had had to move to Parramatta, this would have involved some of them in extra travelling time and relocation. Of course, for those members of the staff who live on the northern side of the harbour, the move to Chatswood will be a bonus. The Public Works Committee inspected the site at Chatswood. I believe it will provide a very pleasant working environment and a lot of amenities for the staff. The point is that the rent there is much cheaper than it is in the central business district. It was put to us that, because of some of the work undertaken by some members of the staff, they should be located in the central business district. I do not necessarily agree with that. There is the telephone and other means of communication. Staff members do not have to see the people with whom they conduct business on every occasion; they can actually use the telephone. The Committee, as we reported yesterday, having taken all things into consideration, fully supports the move by this office to Chatswood. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.42) —As one who has not been a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works, who has had no involvement in this inquiry, but who has picked up the report on the day on which it has been tabled, and who has heard the speeches tonight from members of the Australian Labor Party about Sydney, the Public Service and the service of the people of Sydney, I am absolutely astounded. I have sat through lectures in this House time and time again I have been told that the Liberal Party of Australia represents the North Shore of Sydney, that we are the blue rinse set. Government members want to try to keep up the ludicrous facade that in some way the Labor Party is relevant to the people of western Sydney and to the working class people of the metropolitan cities of Australia. What we have before us at the moment is a proposal that abandons all that the Labor Party has said about urban development, all that it has said about urban renewal and all that it has said about decentralisation in our major cities. What we have is a proposal that, in essence, satisfies the senior management of the Public Service, who would rather have their offices close to their homes on the North Shore of Sydney. That is what it is all about. We were told that Parramatta would be the centre of major urban renewal, a movement which would be personified by the Government taking the Public Service to the people whom it has to service, and closer to where its more junior officials live, so that they would be able to access their place of employment more easily. The situation is that about 6,000 public servants who were likely to go to Parramatta will now be abandoned. Those people who would otherwise have gone to Parramatta will now move to Chatswood. Rented buildings in Parramatta, such as the one in which a branch of the Australian Taxation Office is located at this time, will be left vacant, while the Government moves the Tax Office from rented accommodation in Parramatta to its new government office block, the Commonwealth Centre, in Parramatta. Having regard to all of the Labor Party's rhetoric, I find that the most amazing proposal of which I have ever heard. Maybe it is of some relevance that the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) is not involved, that he is not here, and that we do not hear from him on these questions. I would like to know what he, as a member of Cabinet, has to say about the decisions that are being taken in relation to his electorate. He and his colleagues are clearly walking away from any responsibility for those decisions. What first astounded me in relation to this report relating to fitout of accommodation for the Department of Administrative Services, Chatswood was that the bureaucracy brought forward no proposals in relation to renting alternative accommodation for the interregnum in Parramatta. An enormous amount of development has taken place in the city of Parramatta. There are empty buildings in that city at the moment that were built on the premise that there was to be a major decentralisation of the Public Service to Parramatta. Why is it that no options involving Parramatta were put to the Public Works Committee? I suspect that it has more to do with decisions that were being taken by the Public Service. I was told years ago that the Public Service, particularly the senior public servants, the regional directors living at Northbridge-in relation to the man at the fence-would not be happy to move to Parramatta. I was told about all the arguments that were going on; the way in which they would have to change their lifestyle if they had to travel to Parramatta instead of to the Remington Building, with its views over Hyde Park in Sydney and its water views. In relation to announcements that were made in Parramatta, we see that the local newspapers got wind of what was happening in the electorate of Parramatta, that of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). An article in the Parramatta Advertiser of 2 December, headed `Federal Government slashes PS exodus to the west', reads: The flood of public servants due to move to Parramatta has turned into a dribble. The article includes some comments from the union in relation to this matter. This is where we start to see it in perspective. The article in the Parramatta Advertiser continues: A spokesperson for Administrative and Clerical Officers Association describes the opposition several years ago to transfer the nucleus of seven departments to the west. `It's not that we had anything against Parramatta, it was just that some of the departments were the least logical to be sited there.' However one Commonwealth public servant comments: `There was a general reluctance by public servants to move to Parramatta; people had to be found for the new Commonwealth Centre and this is the reason why departments already located in Parramatta will be consolidated into the centre when it is completed. `What is happening now is the soft option; it's a compromise.' The compromise is apparently being compromised still further: a recent memo from the Department of Administrative Services to a list of questions stated 400 people from that department would be relocated to Parramatta. However Arthur Gallery, chief property officer, NSW, for the department, later said all workers would go to Chatswood. Gallery's breakdown of occupants for Parramatta's Commonwealth Centre follows: Australian Taxation Office, 1700; Veterans Affairs, 400; Immigration, 110- that figure would be for the present office- Social Security, 250- again, a figure for the present office- Commonwealth Services and Health, 160; Employment, Education and Training, 150; Aboriginal Affairs, 15- those officers would be located there already- Foreign Affairs, 50; Australian Electoral Commission, 15- that figure would be for the office of the local Divisional Returning Officer- Official Receiver, 15; Australian Archives, 3; Federal member, 4- I assume that that refers to the honourable member for Parramatta and three of his staff- Customs, 30; cafeteria, 10; security, 2; Department of Administrative Services, 46- the Minister's own Department- telephonists, 10; building manager. That is what is happening in Parramatta. It is significant that this is occurring at the same time as the State Labor Government has been deserting the west as well. We have seen enormous amounts of money channelled into the Darling Harbour development, while all the road developments that were planned for the west have been largely disbanded. We have seen developments in relation to the promised theatre for Parramatta-a proposal for $6m to be allocated to build a community theatre as a bicentennial project. Because there is a bit of inflation in relation to that-it did not have to be on a fast track involving millions of dollars-the Parramatta local community is told that only the building can be built now and it will have to find the seats. That is the sort of decision that is being taken by the New South Wales Labor Government regarding developments in the City of Parramatta and in the west generally-important developments that ought to occur in the provision of cultural amenities such as museums andtheatres. All the things that we were told by the Labor Party-that the west needs to be able to live reasonably and to have the same amenities and services as the rest of Sydney-have been put to one side while we have seen millions, possibly billions, of dollars squandered on Darling Harbour, new power house museums, proposals to build lyric theatres, the landscaping of Macquarie Street and Circular Quay and redoing the Opera House forecourt. Billions of dollars are being spent on the centre of Sydney while the west of Sydney languishes. The Federal Government has joined those who have abandoned western Sydney. If the Labor Party wants to know anything about the way in which people in Sydney will treat it in future, I will tell it that the seats of the west will be won by the Liberal Party. The Labor Party will not be able to take them for granted, as it has in the past. The seats of Parramatta and Greenway and State Parliament seats such as Parramatta, Ryde and Wentworthville will fall like nine-pins when people realise the way in which they have been sold out by the Labor Party. The proposal before us is the sell-out by the Labor Party because Parramatta and the west have been abandoned. The Labor Party now wants to locate people in Chatswood, the centre of the North Shore, and it comes in here and tries to justify that decision. I must say that it is the most extraordinary turnaround that I have ever seen in the 14 years that I have spent in public life. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.52) —in reply-I do not often rise to reply to the allegations and remarks that are made during expediency motion debates for public works, but on this occasion I have to do so. We have just listened to a farrago of misrepresentation and downright untruths from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Quite frankly, they know that they have misled the House and I must take them to task over it. The allegation has been made that, for some reason, this Government has neglected the Parramatta district and that we are not proceeding with the Parramatta project. The Parramatta Commonwealth building, with a construction cost of $120m-plus, providing something like 55,000 square metres of floor space, has been constructed by this Government right from the initial planning and design stage. If there has been any delay it has been caused by the delivery system used, which was the instalment purchase system; and the private sector, which honourable members opposite support so often in contrast to the civil program, was contracted to do it. That was the mechanism we used. The point I am making is that the misrepresentation by those people opposite who have scant regard for the truth is that we are somehow neglecting Parramatta. Except for a period in the early 1970s, they have been in government most of the time since the Second World War and they never at any stage built any meaningful Commonwealth office space in the western suburbs. We were the people who built the Parramatta Commonwealth building-not them. Parramatta has not been abandoned. It will come on stream in 1989 and all the space will be taken up. Those are the answers. The Parramatta project will be completed. It will be finished by the middle of 1989. I can assure the people of the western suburbs of Sydney and Parramatta that there is certainly no attempt to abandon the Parramatta project. I was extremely puzzled by the ambivalent and outright dishonest approach which the Opposition has taken in this debate. On one hand, the Opposition is trying to say that the fitout costs of $8.9m, which have been approved by the Joint Committee on Public Works, were an outright waste simply because they were for a fitout at Chatswood. If Opposition members had any understanding of public works programs, they would realise that regardless of where the Department of Administrative Services were located, there would have to be a fitout program, whether it was a Parramatta, Chatswood or Carringbush. There is no wastage of money, as is alleged by the Opposition, in this fitout proposal. It is a fitout cost of $8.9m for a leased private sector building at Chatswood. Another point of misrepresentation is that the Opposition seems to be saying that because I, the Government or the Department would not give in to unrealistic union demands to cut across our policy of moving out of expensive accommodation in the central business district (CBD) of Sydney, somehow or other that is a failure of industrial relations policy. Of course it is not. Mr Porter —What about the Customs Service? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member for Barker has spoken in this debate. Mr WEST —He sounds rather like a parrot. If he could not get it straight when he had the chance to make a contribution, surely he could listen to me when I am attempting, for his benefit, to set the record straight. Is the Opposition saying that I should have given in to the unions which wanted to stay in accommodation which cost $70 a square metre more than the accommodation that they will fill at Chatswood? Was that a failure of industrial relations policy simply because we could not accede to the union demands? On the one hand, the Opposition accuses us of wasting money by going to Chatswood, when that is clearly not the case, and, on the other, it attempts to argue that I should have given in to union demands to stay in the CBD, against our policy of getting out of that area to save the taxpayer money. If the Opposition disbelieves what I say, I will repeat in more detail the costs that I have provided in my speech to the House tonight. The gross charge for Chatswood was $300 per square metre. The CBD accommodation was $365. The total annual cost was $5.8m for Chatswood and $7.3m for Carringbush-that is, the CBD property favoured by the unions. If one extrapolates that over 10 years, one gets a comparison in today's prices of $57m as against $72.5m. The Opposition is saying that we are deserting the Sydney central business district because we want to get out of the area, although, according to the figures I have identified here, it will save the taxpayers' money. When we do not give in to union demands, the Opposition says that it represents a failure of industrial relations policy. I conclude by saying that there is a strategy for Sydney and the fringe areas. We have decided to sell the Chifley Square building for, I hope, a substantial amount. We will build a new and major project at the old Australian Gas Light Co. site at the Haymarket. I will refer this project to the Public Works Committee tomorrow. So we will sell an old building and build a new Commonwealth building. We are not deserting the CBD at all. We will have a brand new building in two or three years time at the Haymarket site. I will refer that to the Public Works Committee. We will conclude Parramatta. So there will be two large new Commonwealth-owned buildings-one in the west at Parramatta and one at the Haymarket in Sydney. That will still be in accord with our policy of transferring people, where necessary, out of expensive leased accommodation in the CBD to a Commonwealth owned building in areas such as Parramatta, and to leased private sector accommodation in areas such as Chatswood. The Opposition attacked me over Chatswood. What does it have against those people whom it so often supports? If we wish to lease reasonably priced accommodation on the North Shore of Sydney because that suits our policy of moving non-essential workers out of the CBD at a lower costs, what does the Opposition have against that? The Opposition stance is exposed as putting a dishonest argument in this Parliament and to the people of the west and North Shore. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.00) —I seek leave to make a statement regarding the report tabled earlier on the parliamentary visit to Europe. Leave granted. Mr MACPHEE —I support the report delivered earlier by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and add that my experience as a member of that parliamentary delegation leads me to suggest that, far from Europe resiling from its present protectionist course-although limited reductions in agricultural subsidies may be a possibility-indications are that most national parliaments are ignorant of the adverse consequences which the European policies are having on other countries. European insularity is increasing. This does not just have consequences for Australia's current account but this very insularity poses a threat to world peace. This is most ironic since the insularity stems from the most statesman-like desires to prevent European disunity causing another world war. The establishment of the many political, economic, trade and defence co-ordinating institutions following World War II, which were aimed at ultimately incorporating the Eastern bloc and extending to the Urals, were positive steps to avoid future conflict. The tendency towards protectionism is destabilising enough, but I discerned structural and attitudinal problems which could aggravate the situation. These may be listed briefly. At every turn, there are signs of the existing supra-national bodies continuing to exert centrifugal force in a way which enables citizens of the countries concerned generally to perceive benefits to flow from a sense of being European, while preserving aspects of their culture which they cherish. `Pluralism' or `multiculturalism' are terms one hears frequently in the forums and backrooms shaping the united Europe. `Pluralism' is seen as vital to the functioning of democracy, both national and supranational, or European. Whilst the arrival in Europe of people fleeing Iran, Lebanon and North Africa is causing increased racism and friction within nations, there is the paradoxical situation at the transnational level of a Europe which is renowned for its ethnic and cultural diversity, embracing the notion of a multicultural Europe based on those already there, including European nationals who were formerly from colonies, regardless of colour. There is a prejudice against people who are now arriving from other countries that were not formerly colonies. There is already an awareness of the need to transfer some sovereignty from national parliaments not merely to supra-national bodies but to local governments to cope more appropriately with matters of special concern, including services to minority groups. Therefore, there is an awareness of the need to transfer from national parliaments to the supra-national bodies and from national parliaments down to local bodies. There is a sense of being European, which is reflected in the range of institutions with which our delegation exchanged ideas. We spoke to the European Communities-generally thought of here as the Common Market-the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the North Atlantic Assembly and the European Parliament. In particular, the members of the directly elected European Parliament are increasingly of high calibre, committed to a united Europe and fundamentally aware of the need to ensure that the transfer of national sovereignty is ultimately to the European Parliament, and not the `Eurocrats'-the thousands of non-elected, permanently employed international bureaucrats. The European Court is discharging its responsibilities in a most exciting way. It is filling gaps in the law, bridging civil and common law traditions and seemingly `making' European law in the absence of real legislative power in the European Parliament. Similarly, the Eurocrats are doing their job diligently and placing Europe ahead of their country of origin and trying desperately to galvanise national governments into seeing that the long term interest of each country is best served by adopting policies with application throughout Europe. Why, then, should we view these developments with concern? There are several reasons for this. Understandably, parochial interests still dominate national parliaments and the Eurocrats become preoccupied with detail and with so manipulating the outcomes of the innumerable standing and ad hoc committees of the European institutions that they lose sight of the picture beyond Europe. The second and third generation `Eurocrats' might possess the idealism of their predecessors but the complex structure which has been created in order for them both to expedite and harmonise the unification ofEurope makes them sound more clinical and ensures that they are very Eurocentric. Despite dedication and determination, members of the European Parliament have not achieved the transfer of legislative powers they need to ensure the supremacy of the European Parliament over the executive bodies. It can delay, amend or reject the European Commission's budget and sack the commissioners. Moreover, its resolutions on the entire range of European and international issues do get reported, and some pressure is then applied to national governments to conform. But this is not enough. The European parliamentarians who work most effectively are conscious of the many needs of their fledgling Parliament: to share legislative power with national and local governments; to complement and extend the work of the European Court and the European Court of Human Rights; to work with, yet render accountable to the European Parliament, the complex set of executive bodies, and thereby the national administrations as well as the Eurocrats; and to relate to the rest of the world. It is this latter point that is the most significant. The European parliamentarians and their committees are genuinely active in seeking to understand Europe's place in the world and the impact of European policies on countries outside Europe. A month of intensive exposure to a range of national parliamentarians, their national bureaucrats and many Eurocrats revealed a general indifference to the rest of the world-a contrast with the directly elected European parliamentarians. When momentarily distracted from their intra-Europe preoccupations, national parliamentarians representing their countries at the Council of Europe and North Atlantic Assembly showed themselves to be ignorant of the world beyond the Atlantic-though they were far from conscious of their ignorance even when efforts were made to alert them to it. European insularity might be an improvement on militant nationalism within Europe, but it carries great dangers. The Council of Europe extended great courtesy to our delegation and to other delegations from the non-European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. We listened to the debate on the OECD annual report, but there was no real understanding or desire to understand the impact of the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Community upon countries like our own. Similarly, the North Atlantic Assembly-comprising national parliamentarians from the NATO countries-was dominated by Eurocentric backbenchers who assured us that they had taken the Pacific fully into account in planning all their strategies while admitting that few had visited the Pacific, especially the South Pacific. Time and again in meetings with representatives of all political forums except the European Parliament, one found the politicians and bureaucrats alike impervious not merely to the impact of the CAP but also to the united opposition of the South Pacific Forum regarding French nuclear testing and self-determination for New Caledonia. They were not interested in hearing of the strength of Melanesian feeling in the region, and Polynesian and other support. Nor were they concerned at the prospects of political instability in the South Pacific as a consequence and the impact which that could have on the Western alliance. This attitude mirrored their indifference to Australia's similar legitimate concern in the Indian Ocean regarding general European policy towards South Africa. There seemed to be little awareness of the possible openings for the Soviet Union in both Southern Africa and the South Pacific if there is not a change in European policies in both respects. Given this fundamental Eurocentricity, it is not hard to understand the predicament now facing Australian agricultural producers and part of the reason for a dramatic decline in our balance of payments. Great thought has been given to the progress of European unity and great progress has been made. However, unless there is an outward looking Europe and unless there are outward looking policies in trade and foreign affairs, Europe may at least be a major contributor to the very world instability which it seeks to avoid. The two world wars began in Europe. If there is a third world war it may not begin in Europe but it may be caused by European insularity. I fear that the only safeguard to the danger that European insularity presents is the supremacy of the European Parliament, probably bicameral, under a constitution for the united states of Europe. However, that will not come into being under the present generation of national politicians. We must hope that a bicameral European Parliament will be genuinely elected with real legislative power to match the bureaucrats and to match the Court of Justice. As a footnote, I should add that in today's Age there is a summary of what is called a future history. It is a book entitled Apocalypse 2,000 which raises the spectre of the European community becoming a third super-power and being ruled by an Hitlerian figure. I am afraid that that is not an outlandish forecast, even though the prospect of it is horrible to contemplate. The book concludes that indifference to unemployment amounts to moral failure. With nearly 20 million people unemployed in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in Europe and with a continued pandering to inefficient power bases, the governments of Europe deserve this condemnation. In my quite final remark, I must say that I was struck by the fact that the people who pleaded most effectively for democracy in Europe and for basic human rights in Europe were the people who have been deprived of them. I refer to the Spanish, the Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, the Italians and Germans. The Europeans who have had democracy longest such as the French, the British, and those people in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation sphere-the Americans and the Canadians-were less aware of the freedoms that should be cherished. I am bound to say that the same applies to Australia. I fear very much that we are taking democracy for granted and that we are losing our rights in the process. I think the process towards European unification is a good one in terms of minimising the political struggles within Europe itself. However, the insularity accompanying it represents a major threat to the world-a major indifference to the part of the world in which we live and the interests which we must seek to foster in regard to our own well-being. I think that this was a most important delegation. While I was not new to the subject matter I found that the conclusions I reached, which I have briefly set out here, were quite alarming. I hope that the House takes some notice of them. Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be held covering the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.13) —Despite the lateness of the hour and, indeed, the lateness of the parliamentary session, the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 are probably two of the most important Bills to come into this Parliament during the first session of the new Parliament. The Bills are very important economically and socially. They are important economically because tourism is one of the few growth industries in Australia today. It is one of the few industries that has the capacity to raise foreign exchange for us. It is one of the few industries that has the capacity really to reduce that foreign debt. I say that the Bills are important socially because tourism is about the only industry in Australia at the moment that has the capacity to provide jobs. It has the capacity to provide jobs for our young people and jobs for generations to come if, as a result of this legislation tonight, we see the proper re-establishment of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). Basically that is what these Bills are about. These Bills have been introduced into the House as a result of the report of the Kennedy Inquiry into Australian Tourism. It was commissioned by the Government and headed by Mr Jim Kennedy, a well-known Queensland entrepreneur, the Deputy Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation and a man who has served on a number of government boards. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hand-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr JULL —I was saying just a moment ago that the Kennedy inquiry has now resulted in the Bills which propose to re-establish the Australian Tourist Commission as a much leaner organisation and one that will be particularly dedicated to promoting Australia overseas as a prime tourist destination. Hopefully as a result of that, it will build on the tremendous growth in tourism that has happened over the last 10 years. It is true to say that the growth has been spectacular. It is true to say that 6 per cent of our gross national product now comes from tourism and that the industry presently employs some 400,000 people. Generally, the decision by the Government to proceed with most of the recommendations of the Kennedy report can be applauded. However, there are some aspects of the Bills that are of some concern to me. While not trying to be completely negative, I think that one of the saddest things is that the new structure of the Australian Tourist Commission in fact differs very little in a most essential way from the previous structure. One of the recommendations of the Kennedy report was that the Australian Tourist Commission should be got out of the grip of the Australian Public Service. Unfortunately, those ties to the Australian Public Service are still contained in this legislation. That is not necessarily decrying the Public Service, but the one thing about Australian tourism and the industry generally is that it is very dynamic. It is an industry that is full of entrepreneurs. One of the great criticisms of the Australian Tourist Commission in previous years was purely that, in a sense, it had that Public Service mentality. The other great difficulty that the Australian Tourist Commission suffered was that it simply could not get top staff for the money being provided under the terms of the Australian Tourist Commission. I am concerned that this legislation will be a little restrictive on the new outlook, the new expansion and the new mode of operation of the ATC. However, I think that the general principles and thrust of the legislation are very good indeed. During the next 20 years the Australian Tourist Commission will have a tremendous job to do. Just a moment ago I mentioned the tremendous growth in Australian tourism in the last decade. We must build on that growth. Tourism is one of the world's most fickle industries. If we do not get things right, if we do not have the right type of promotion overseas, if we have not got the right infrastructure here in Australia, the word will soon get around and maybe we will see not only a slow-down in growth but also a physical decline in the number of tourists coming to this country. I only hope that as part of this more commercial operation, if I can put it that way, of the ATC one of the first things it will do is more market research on where the future tourists to Australia will come from. I suggest that over these next few years the ATC should be concentrating more and more on Asia. It is true that during the last few years our concentration has tended to be on the North American market. We have done extremely well from that market. We also have managed to pour a lot of money and a lot of promotional effort into the Japanese market. We are reaping those benefits too. However, the tremendous growth in the incomes of people in South East Asia and the capacity now of people such as South Koreans and Taiwanese to get exit visas to leave their country to go overseas mean that this is the sort of market that Australia must be concentrating on. That really will be our high growth market. That is not to say that we should be ignoring the North American market. Indeed, we should continue to encourage that market. Of course, we want to make sure that we continue to get more than our fair share of that Japanese market that is pouring so much money into the Australian economy at the moment. It is fascinating to note that each Japanese tourist on the Gold Coast, excluding the cost of accommodation, is now spending directly into the Gold Coast economy $91.92 a day. When one considers that this year up to 80,000 Japanese people will visit the Gold Coast, one realises the tremendous rake-off and the tremendous benefit afforded local businesses and the economies of Queensland and Australia generally. That sort of money and that sort of spending pattern is now starting to emerge from the Singaporeans. It is being demonstrated also by the Chinese of Hong Kong. There is an explosion in the number of Thais travelling overseas. The South Korean Government now proposes to grant exit visas to its citizens, and in fact South Koreans over the age of 45 can travel overseas at will. The present restriction on exit visas will be lifted in about five years time, and that will give South Koreans unlimited access to our tourist infrastructure. We must ensure that we promote Australia as a safe, desirable destination for those people. Last night during the debate on this legislation the shadow Minister for tourism and sport, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), made some comments about the Government's decision to discontinue the tourism overseas promotion scheme (TOPS) as a part of its budgetary measures this year. I do not propose to expand on the comments of the honourable member for Gilmore, as he spoke very well about what has happened to the industry and the disappointment felt by the industry following the Government's decision to discontinue TOPS. Despite the fact that the Government has increased expenditure on tourist promotion, we must never forget that the entrepreneurs of that industry have been very much responsible for establishing the foundations for the growth of tourism into Australia. For many years, with very little government help, entrepreneurs went into the foreign markets. Of their own accord, they managed to get Australia established as a tourist destination, and they managed to get the tourist operators interested in Australia. We should give every bit of encouragement that we possibly can to the great number of entrepreneurs in the tourist industry. The industry is basically made up of two parts: the big operators, such as the domestic airlines and the hotel owners, and the small entrepreneurs. It worries me that some of those entrepreneurs possibly cannot now get into those international markets and gain the greatest possible benefit from the promotion of Australia. I hope that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) will continue to press the Government to review its decision to discontinue TOPS. In the debate last night the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) expressed very real concern at what was happening in Sydney and especially at the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. As I said a little earlier, apart from ensuring that the Australian Tourist Commission promotes Australia properly in the overseas markets, we must ensure that we have the infrastructure to handle the tens of thousands of international visitors who come to our shores. I do not think any member of this House would deny that at present the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is an absolute disaster. More often than not that is the first aspect of Australia that international visitors see, and I do not think that that fact brings us terribly much joy. Last night I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Grayndler make a most profound comment and a very deep and meaningful suggestion. He said that perhaps one of the ways of easing the pressure on the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was to have more international flights directed to Brisbane Airport. A couple of weeks ago there was a debate in this House about the whole area of inbound air services. I spoke in that debate. Despite what the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) said in the other place last Thursday, I think it was, in response to some of my comments, the figures show-I have confirmed them-that we are still in desperate straits in terms of the availability of inbound airline seats. Despite the fact that it was reported this morning in a newspaper that Qantas Airways Ltd sent one of its Jumbo aircraft to London with only eight passengers on one of its supplementary flights, that has nothing to do with the case I am putting. There is a drastic need to increase the number of inbound services to Australia. We must have a greater diversity of flights into our many airports scattered around the nation. I say that not only because we need to ease the pressure at present being placed on Sydney Airport, but, most importantly, international visitors who want to go to a particular destination should not be forced to pass through Sydney. The plain fact is that at present the flavour of the month happens to be the Great Barrier Reef and north Queensland. If international visitors want to enter Australia through the front door-through the airports of Cairns and Townsville-rather than through the tradesmen's entrance of Sydney, they should be able to do so. Some really farcical situations are developing. For example, at present north Queensland gets 48 per cent of North American visitors to Australia; 48 per cent of those visitors want to go to Queensland. A total of 5 per cent of the direct flights from the United States land in Queensland. Though 44 per cent of Japanese visitors go to Queensland, only 14 per cent of flights from Japan land in Queensland. Though 37 per cent of European visitors go to Queensland, only 9 per cent of flights from Europe land in Queensland. Though 21 per cent of Asian visitors to Queensland, only 9 per cent of flights from Asia land in Queensland. Though 35 per cent of New Zealanders go to Queensland, only 16 per cent of flights from New Zealand land in Queensland. That is a really most telling set of figures, which I admit has been issued by the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. However, it places great emphasis on the difficulties faced by overseas visitors. The Sydney figures are a little sad, because 81 per cent of the total number of visitors occupying seats on airlines arriving in Australia land first in Sydney. That is part of the problem to which the honourable member for Grayndler referred. Yet, out of that 81 per cent of seats, New South Wales gets only 32 per cent of the visitor nights. That is not to say that people should not visit Sydney and have a look around; but the point is that the principal destination of those visitors is not necessarily Sydney. There is the continual difficulty of the bottleneck created at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Grayndler when he said that some flights should be allowed to go to other gateways of Australia, namely, Cairns, Townsville and Brisbane; and places such as Perth, Adelaide and even Melbourne could take more flights. I hope that the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) and his friend in the other place, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Evans), will consider making some adjustments and encouraging more and more airlines to diversify their entry points into Australia. It is important that we allow our international visitors to enter Australia at the point they want to visit. I wish to make another suggestion with regard to the whole area of Australian tourism and the operation of international airlines into this country. I hope in my lifetime I see in this Parliament the advent of a government that is willing to bring together the aviation portfolio and the tourism portfolio. That need happen for only three years. One of my great criticisms of this Administration and previous administrations is the fact that the opportunity has not been provided to see what would result from a close marriage between the aviation portfolio and the tourism portfolio. We are told that consultations are carried out between those areas all the time. When I was working in the tourist industry I served on a couple of advisory bodies. I can tell honourable members that the Department of Transport took absolutely no notice of the advice offered by the Australian Tourist Commission. We used to discuss in Melbourne for hours on end issues of great moment, and indeed the whole area of international aviation. I do not think we achieved anything because the Department just did its own thing. I hope that as a result of the establishment by this legislation of a new slimline, up-and-at-them Australian Tourist Commission, the Commission will make a much greater effort to investigate the whole area of aviation and the whole tourist industry. I believe that some of the difficulties facing the Australian tourist industry today could be overcome if we had one Minister responsible for the areas of aviation and tourism so that all the relevant bodies in the industry could be brought together to achieve an understanding. With the exception that the Australian Tourist Commission will still have those close links and ties with the Australian Public Service, I think this legislation is pointed in the right direction. The Australian Tourist Commission in its new form has a very real responsibility to all Australians. The work that it does will determine just how well the Australian tourist industry will proceed to grow. It will determine just how much of that foreign exchange, those export earnings, will come into this country through tourism, but most importantly it will make sure, we trust, that we will see a continued growth of international visitors into this country for this reason: the Bureau of Industry Economics tells us that for every net increase of 25,000 international visitors to Australia we create another 1,400 jobs for the young people of Australia. It is tourism and only tourism that has the capacity to be able to provide that long term job growth for the young people, not only of this generation but also of many generations to come. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(10.31) —The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and I have been waiting for a long time for the resumption of this debate. I must say that the speech by the honourable member for Fadden was well worth waiting for. There is no doubt in whom the Opposition tourism expertise reposes. It certainly does not repose in the official shadow spokesman on tourism, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). I was rather surprised last night to find that the honourable member for Gilmore is still the Opposition spokesman on tourism. If, as we are led to believe, the Opposition front bench is rotated according to performance I would have expected that by now that Opposition spokesman would have been rotated right off. However, there was a significant breakthrough in the speech of the honourable member for Gilmore last night because he actually paid some glimmer of credit to the Government for its outstanding achievements in tourism over the past four years. The honourable member for Gilmore said: 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 No. 1 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 probably could have put it somewhat better than that but I pay credit to the honourable member for Gilmore that finally the message is starting to sink in. I should like to concentrate my comments on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill on these main areas: firstly, the recognition of States' interests in the restructured Commission and, secondly, two areas that are not directly connected with these Bills but which certainly come within the ambit of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) and deserve an airing. The first of these is the concept of cultural tourism and the second is the importance of training for tourism, particularly in languages. The legislation provides for a nine-member board of directors of the Commission as opposed to the present 13-member board. As the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) pointed out in his second reading speech, this is in line with government and statutory authority reforms requiring that boards be streamlined to workable sizes. In its present form the board has representatives from the States and Territories sitting on a rotational basis-rather like the Opposition front bench-and, as the Minister also pointed out, the States themselves criticised that system, particularly on the basis that they were disadvantaged when they were not actually sitting on the board and did not have ready access to information. The legislation removes the formalised nature of State and Territory representation on the board and allows for a far more flexible consultative process. However, we must ensure that amongst the permanent members of the new board there is a balanced knowledge of the interests and tourist operations of all Australian States. As a South Australian, I am aware of criticism emanating from government and industry sources in my State that the ATC has in the past concentrated its attention around the hitherto major entry points into Australia-Sydney and Melbourne-and neglected to some extent the other States. Not only is the Commission seen to be at fault in this regard but also airlines, travel agents and others who provide tourist services. There has arisen a kind of eastern States chauvinism-a notion that there is little worth seeing or doing west of Ballarat or, if there is something worth seeing or doing it is an awfully long way from Sydney and just too hard to get there. Why must everything revolve around Sydney or Melbourne? Why not fly people directly to Adelaide or Perth and work from there? At the moment the South Australian Government, through its dynamic and farsighted Minister for Tourism, the honourable Barbara Wiese, is negotiating with Qantas Airways Ltd and foreign airlines with the aim of increasing the present limited number of overseas flights into Adelaide. If these negotiations are successful, and I am confident they will be, the historical, recreational and cultural delights of South Australia will be available to a greater number of people and the reputation of Australia as a tourist destination will be greatly enhanced. Not to foster tourism beyond the eastern States is to fail to take advantage of one of the great virtues of tourism as an industry and that is its decentralised and diverse nature. Tourism presents an enormous potential for developments and enterprises throughout urban and regional Australia and provides employment opportunities in a great range of occupations. At a time when many parts of Australia are dying because of the demise of traditional local industries or activities, tourism can be the means of regenerating and revitalising communities. I am thinking for example of towns in South Australia's mid-north such as Burra and Kapunda-old mining towns where the nineteenth century infrastructure, public buildings, cottages, gaols, mines and machinery remain almost intact. These are not, as in some other areas, stylised replicas of the original; they are the original. With sensitive handling and promotion and imaginative presentation within their historical context they would be of enormous interest to local and foreign tourists. In many of these places local individuals, historical societies and branches of the National Trust of Australia have done wonders with limited resources to preserve sites of interest and to make them accessible. Tribute must be paid to these groups. Large scale efforts by government and statutory bodies to assist financially to provide support systems and to promote and co-ordinate these activities are essential. That leads me to the next aspect of tourism I wish to discuss, and that is cultural tourism, the kind of tourism that Australia lends itself to and which the ATC should seriously address as other bodies, such as the Victorian Tourist Commission, are already doing. Cultural tourism is not, as some may think, high brow tourism. It is the current internationally accepted term for study and special interest tourism, and educational travel. In the past it has been used in the narrow sense as tourism to so-called cultural destinations such as galleries, monuments, performances and festivals. This meaning is inadequate because it fails to distinguish cultural tourism from other forms of travel. Cultural tourism is the kind of travel that enriches the tourists' experience by providing contextual information. Using this broad anthropological approach to culture, cultural tourism offers a broad understanding of the human and natural environment rather than presenting isolated and, therefore, meaningless facts to the traveller. It attempts to bring about a change in the tourist perception of reality, to create cross-cultural understanding and to broaden and enrich the tourists' sense of self and others. A tourist taking part in a cultural tour of Sydney, for example, would come away with a broad understanding of the ethos of that city instead of simply knowing how many rivets there are in the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I believe Australians tend to underestimate the intelligence and inquisitiveness of our tourists. Many people coming from Europe and North America are sophisticated, educated, discriminating travellers who have been everywhere else and come to Australia because they want something different; they want to know and experience Australia. Not all of them are seduced by the charms of Paul Hogan or want to go on crocodile spotting expeditions or have commercialised ockerism crammed down their throats at every turn. Not that I am, in any way, denigrating Mr Hogan, his charms or his service to Australian tourism, all of which are legend; I am simply saying that he is not everyone's cup of tea. The cultural tour differs from the conventional package tour, not so much in its location, but in its approach and content. A cultural tour of northern Queensland, for example, would, through exposure to a selected variety of sights, provide the customer with an understanding of the fascinating racial and political background of that area. A package tour of the same place would involve an awful lot of lying around in the sun eating prawns and drinking beer. Not that I cannot see the attractions of lying around in the sun eating prawns and drinking beer. In fact, at this moment I personally find that scenario most inviting. However, American tourists do not have to come to Australia for sun and beer. If they do come here, they want something more. I commend the Victorian Department of Tourism and the Victorian Tourist Commission for the initiatives and progress they are making in this area, particularly their holding of a cultural tourism conference earlier this year. I hope that the other States and the ATC will follow suit in encouraging this promising aspect of tourism. I wish now to move on to the question of training for tourism. At a recent conference on this subject, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) set out the reasons behind and the plans for training for tourism. Not only is this training essential for the efficient and appropriate delivery of services to travellers, but also it is geared to one of the few expanding job markets in the country. Training in tourist activities will form a large and significant slice of this Government's skills for Australia program. I wish to dwell for a moment on language training and language facilities for tourists. Australians, like most English speakers, are guilty of linguistic chauvinism. When we go as tourists to other countries we expect everyone we come in contact with to oblige us by speaking English. When people come here from other countries we expect them to speak English, or at least we take little pain to provide them with information in their own language or to hire service providers who speak their language. I am aware of action which has been taken recently to remedy this, such as the setting up of Japanese language services in some eastern States resorts. This is certainly a step in the right direction. However, one hears reports almost daily of airlines, hotels, restaurants, tour operators and so on recruiting staff from overseas because of the lack of foreign language speaking candidates here. This is a great shame when one considers the still unacceptably high level of unemployment in this country. The planned expansion of the teaching of languages other than English in our schools, as recommended in the national policy on languages tabled in this House earlier this year, will go some way to remedying this situation. A growing shift of emphasis to languages of commercial importance to Australia, such as Japanese and Chinese, is also a response to this need. However, it will be many years before sufficient numbers of foreign language speaking Australians are coming on to the tourism job market. In order that tourists feel comfortable and welcome in our country they must not, at any time, feel frustrated, intimidated or restricted by any language barrier. Australians who travel abroad would appreciate what a difference language facilities can make. For example, in a country such as Spain where tourism is its life blood, and recognised as such, virtually everyone involved in the tourist industry, right down to the last waitress or bellhop is, if not a fluent speaker of English, at least capable of communicating at an appropriate level. In other countries such as Turkey, English is little understood and travelling in that country is, despite its natural and cultural attractions, difficult. I personally had this language dilemma brought home to me very starkly when, during a patriotic pilgrimage with my family to Gallipoli, I was struck down with a grave case of Ataturk's revenge. For honourable members who may not know, Ataturk's revenge is a particularly virulent gastric infection commonly contracted by unsuspecting Anzacs in north-western Turkey. My predicament was compounded by my inability to communicate my need to anyone for urgent medical attention. I mean no reflection on the Turkish people who were friendly and co-operative to a fault, nor to Turkish medical practices which, I am pleased to report, were ultimately very effective. And perhaps I am somewhat at fault myself for not having undertaken a course in survival Turkish before I went. I commend this Bill to the House for the way in which it will streamline and make more effective the Australian Tourist Commission. Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Cameron) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Hand) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are a resident of Sydney you would know, and it is common knowledge, that the topography of the Sydney metropolitan area has given an estimated 130,000 Sydney residents very poor television reception. As far back as 1979, it was established that the most practical and cost effective means of overcoming this inadequacy was for VHF translator stations to be built in the vicinity of Kings Cross and on North Head. Because the latter location is within the Federal electorate of Warringah, and it would improve the television reception for an estimated 30,000 constituents, honourable members can imagine that I was very pleased when the 1980-81 Federal Budget made provision for $97,000 for the erection of a mast on North Head to carry a number of translator antennae. It was apparent that the North Head site involved important environmental considerations and, with this in mind, in August 1980 the Federal Government commissioned the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Much of the resulting comment expressed concern at a translator mast being located on any site which would be either visible on the North Head skyline or might eventually be included in the Sydney Harbour National Park. Some who opposed the North Head location offered alternative suggestions and these were thoroughly examined and rejected, because the sites were either technically unsuitable or had environmental implications even greater than those of North Head. In October 1982 I was advised that the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment had expressed strong opposition to any mast system being located anywhere on North Head. It also became apparent that, even if the mast were to be located on Commonwealth land on North Head, it would be necessary for there to be complete agreement on the project between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. The New South Wales Labor Government's continuing strong opposition to the use of North Head has prevented such agreement being reached and that explains why the television reception difficulties for the people of northern Sydney remain unresolved almost 10 years after the Commonwealth Government approved the project and its funding. Immediately before the last general election, on 11 July this year, the then Minister for Communications, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), was arranging for a meeting of all involved parties at which it was hoped that agreement might be reached on siting which would be acceptable to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment. That meeting was deferred because of the election, and subsequent ministerial changes mean that this subject is now in the hands of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan). Tonight, I seek once again to highlight the role of the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment in stubbornly refusing any solution to the siting of an unobtrusive $100,000 mast to improve television reception for 30,000 or more Sydney residents. Commonwealth governments, both of my political persuasion and of the current Government's political persuasion, have desperately sought a solution to this question which would enable a great number of people, including many who are elderly pensioners who are not very mobile and who rely upon their television sets for keeping informed on current affairs, to receive a better reception. These people get a tremendous amount of pleasure from their television sets or, rather, they would if they could see an adequate picture. The reason why they cannot see an adequate picture is simply that the Australian Labor Party's New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, stubbornly and consistently refuses to allow this work to go ahead. Bearing in mind that a great number of these people who receive inadequate reception have to build expensive, unsightly and dangerous television antennae which often reach hundreds of feet into the air, it is crass and stupid opposition. A State election will be held very soon in New South Wales. I am confident that if a decision is not made before that election it will be made very soon afterwards, because after the election the Minister for Planning and Environment will not be Mr Carr. But it would be a very nice gesture on the part of Mr Carr and the New South Wales Labor Government if they put the stupid envy of the so-called silvertail suburbs out of their minds and made a simple, rational decision to allow the erection of an unobstrusive, cheap translator mast which would increase the quality of television reception of a great number of Sydney residents and, at the same time, improve the environment enormously by allowing the dismantling of the unsightly and dangerous television antennae which at present have to be used. It really is a disgraceful situation and the Labor Minister and the Labor Government in New South Wales have a great deal to answer for. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.50) —With Christmas approaching and the thought that some honourable members may be heading off on holidays, I wish to take this opportunity to promote my electorate. The Federal division of Hinkler has some quite outstanding holiday spots to offer members of this House. For the budget conscious, I suggest Woodgate, Innes Park, Bargara, Moore Park or the Town of 1770. Resort conscious members might like to travel to Lady Elliott Island or Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef, which offer two of the finest examples of coral to be found anywhere along the Queensland coast. Mr Martin —The Deputy Speaker has been to Heron Island. Mr COURTICE —And he is welcome to come back again. If honourable members want the pleasurable pursuit of taking in nature at its very best, I suggest a visit to the Cania Gorge. In fact, the Queensland Government and I have worked very closely together to protect this wonderland against mining interests which want to mine it and destroy it. If honourable members wish to visit an oasis in central Queensland and enjoy a very special place in Queensland history, I suggest that they visit the Theodore Co-operative Hotel in Theodore on the Dawson River. It is a perfect spot for Christmas celebrations and for seeing in the New Year. The hotel is the only co-operative hotel in Queensland and had its beginnings in 1924. In those days the site was occupied by a building known as Accommodation House which did not have a liquor licence. This is a very important part of Queensland's history. As an historical site there is none better for examining the goings on in modern day Queensland. Because the locals had no licences, a trade in sly grog took place. Some of the boys mentioned in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct might have got their ideas from examining the early history of this hotel. However, like all things in Queensland, conditions improved and a liquor licence was finally obtained. In 1949, the then Commissioner of Police, a Mr John Lang, suggested that a public meeting be held with a view to establishing a community hotel. At the meeting seven men were selected to oversee the venture. Two of the original men who were elected are still alive-Mr Fred Leader of Yeppoon and Mr Gerald Connolly of Theodore. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr and Mrs Connolly at their home in Theodore. All honourable members would be aware of Mr Connolly's wayward son, Gerry, who impersonated the former Queensland Premier. Mr Braithwaite —He is out of a job now, is he? Mr COURTICE —The honourable member for Dawson is correct; he is certainly out of a job at the moment. Having seen the impersonations of Mr Connolly senior, I believe that a star went begging because he certainly would have been just as famous. However, as well as being the father of young Gerry, Mr Connolly became the first shareholder in the Co-operative Association Hotel. Each shareholder contributed the princely sum of 2s 6d for one share and, with seven shareholders, the Theodore Hotel had a paid up capital of roughly #1. To enable the Association to function, a special Act of Parliament was passed known as the Theodore Co-operative Hotel Association Enabling Act. From these special beginnings has emerged a wonderful hotel. It now has 26 rooms, 11 motel units, a bar, a lounge, a convention room and a delightful dining room and I welcome all honourable members from both sides of the House to come and visit. I wish to pay tribute to the people of Theodore for maintaining this fine tradition. The publican kindly allows me to hold constituency interviews when I am there. If any honourable member fancies a journey to central Queensland, he should call in at the Theodore Hotel. I would be more than happy to help to blow the froth off a cold beer. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.54) —In 1884, Alfred Deakin, a Victorian Minister for Water Supply and subsequently Prime Minister of Australia, visited California to study irrigation. Deakin stimulated the enterprise of two Chaffey brothers into coming to Australia. George Chaffey began his exploration of the Murray River in 1886. So began the important beginning and development of our water resources into such abundant harvests and a fine example of successful decentralisation. Chaffey purchased the lease of the Mildura sheep station, a failing business of dead and dying stock, rabbit plagues, crows and dust storms, but with a protected homestead garden of black prince, lady finger and muscatel grapes. Chaffey's attention had fallen upon the Murray-Darling system that drained one-fifth of the Australian continent. The snow of the Australian Alps, the sub-tropical rains of Queensland, rain from the rivers and creeks from the Sydney and Brisbane areas came together at Wentworth on the Murray and soon irrigated the vineyards and the rich diversity of the Sunraysia and the Riverland. The Murray-Darling system was first valued for transportation and not for irrigation. In 1886, the river boat trade was thriving. This was replaced by the railways as State governments attempted to get their share of the thriving Murray River trade. Because of the encouragement of Deakin, Chaffey expected to get every co-operation from the Victorian Government, but the agreement between Chaffey and Deakin ran into unexpected troubles in the Parliament. When Deakin introduced the Waterworks Construction Encouragement Bill, the Opposition of the day accused him or giving away the people's heritage to two cute yankee land grabbers. George Chaffey decided to forget about Victoria and went to South Australia, where he started an irrigation colony at Renmark. However, Deakin finally persuaded him to come back to Victoria and go ahead with his plans at Mildura and the indenture between the Government of Victoria and the Chaffey brothers was signed on 31 May 1887. This year, of course, 1987, has seen Mildura, this thriving oasis in northern Victoria, celebrate its centenary year of irrigation. The area was first cultivated for growing grapes, stone fruits and citrus, but the harsh conditions, particularly the changing circumstances in relation to the quantity of water flowing down the Murray River, made the transportation of these highly perishable produces to market impractical and uncertain, and so it was the dried fruit industry was born. Vine and fruit growing is a year round job, a never ending cycle in which the skills of people maximise the bounties of nature. Australia's dried fruit growers have always been able to apply modern techniques to an industry with origins lost in antiquity. Innovation and diversity have ensured that this industry, which has not advanced in many countries throughout the world because of the high costs of production and its high labour content, in Australia is still able today to compete successfully on highly protected world markets. Viticulture has attracted many European settlers from Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia and in recent times people from almost every country in the world, and the successful integration of the races in the Sunraysia is an excellent example and a lesson to this Parliament. One of the biggest advances in the quality of Australian dried fruit occurred when a party of immigrants arrived at Mildura from Greece, bringing with them the secret of drying, which made our sultanas equal to the world's best. The diversity of production in the Sunraysia is as great as that of the origins of our people. Innovation, the capacity to change and new farming techniques make this Australia's most valuable horticultural region. The many races of people who live and work in Mildura and the Sunraysia regions have contributed a great deal to their culture and productivity. The progress and prosperity of the area is in no small measure due to them. Mildura, with its majestic Murray River and one of the best climates in Australia, has become a premier holiday resort. Its potential for tourism is unlimited. It is a region of great progress and community co-operation. The new Chaffey Bridge across the Murray, the range and excellence of its services and its appreciation of its history in and though its expansion of the arts are a fitting tribute to Chaffey, to Deakin and to 100 years of progress in a vibrant, modern society. The involvement of the population in the celebration of the centenary, stimulated by the work of an excellent committee headed by Mr Lloyd Beasy has duly recognised the major event in Australian history and honoured those who have shown the way. Alfred Deakin's vision is further immortalised in a fine bronze sculpture situation at the river end of Mildura's magnificent Deakin Avenue. It was generously donated to the people of the district by the Lanyon family. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That of much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent at this sitting- (1) the interruption of business required by sessional order 101s occurring at approximately 12.30 p.m., and (2) questions without notice being called on at 2.15 p.m. Mr Young to move- (1) That paragraph (9) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material be omitted and the following paragraph be substituted: ``(9) That the committee report by 28 April 1988.''. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. 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 work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of new utility helicopter facilities at RAAF Base Townsville-Provision of 15 new married quarters. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the Provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report. Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Haymarket, Sydney. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Melbourne. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrade of army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of radio and expand facilities for the ABC and SBS at Ultimo, New South Wales. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to make provision for the collection of certain periodic maintenance payments, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 December 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Affirmative Action Agency-Report for year ended 31 May 1987. Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act-Order pursuant to subsection 9 (1), dated 18 November 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Barry Jones —On 2 November 1987 (Hansard, page 1779), Mr Sinclair asked Mr Willis, as the then Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, the following question without notice: Has only one Australian company out of 65 approached by Austrade tendered for $1 billion for Government procurement in Japan? Is this because of Austrade's failure to satisfactorily involve Australian industry in the tender process or is it because Austrade failed to involve Australia's manufacturers in the identification of suitable contracts? Will the Minister set up a liaison with Australian manufacturing industry to ensure that this failure of communication between Austrade and industry does not again lead to such a significant loss of export opportunity? The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has supplied the following answer to the right honourable member's question: (1) Yes. However, one other company tendered for a contract with the recently privatized NTT Corporation. The tender was published in the Japanese Government Gazette and the company was alerted to the opportunity by AUSTRADE. It was not, however, a tender under the US$1 billion programme. (2) No. Austrade acted promptly and thoroughly, scanning 1500 items notified in the Japanese Government Gazette and looking for matches with the capabilities of Australian firms. Where matches were found, but with the exception of three cases at the outset of the exercise, Australian companies were notified within four days of the publication in Japan of the items. English language descriptions of the items were sent to the Australian firms, as well as the full Japanese language specifications when firms requested that. In general, Australian companies had between 4 and 6 weeks in which to respond. (3) I am satisfied that Austrade's Tokyo Office provided a prompt response appropriate to the opportunities it perceived, to the resources available to it and to the other demands on its time and resources. As Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce I am interested in why Australian firms did not respond more positively. Some would have made sound commercial or technical decisions not to participate. But the lack of interest on the part of some firms might be indicative of a low export orientation or a lack of experience in overseas markets. There already exists ample scope for liaison between Australian firms, their industry associations and Austrade to make the most of such opportunities. It is up to Australian firms and their associations to seek Austrade's services. (Question No. 8) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Has his Department conducted any research into how disabled persons cope in the workforce and the level of assistance needed for their employment. (2) Has his Department commissioned any organisation or person to undertake such research; if so, (a) what has been done and by whom, (b) what sum has it cost and (c) what recommendations have been made. (3) Have any recommendations been taken up by his Department; if not, why not. (4) If his Department has not commissioned any organisation or person to undertake this research, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While the Department of Community Services and Health has not conducted any pure research into how disabled persons cope in the workforce and the level of assistance needed for their employment, the Department has funded a number of demonstration projects whose objectives were to trial employment options in the area of supported employment and competitive employment training and placement, for people with disabilities. These demonstration projects were funded to trial new and innovative forms of service delivery, consistent with the objectives of the new Disability Services Act. They were an attempt by the Government to learn what could be achieved for people with varying severity of disability, and the costs associated with providing varying levels of support. It was expected that based on the performance of the demonstration projects, the program would be able to develop models of service delivery that could be adapted by main stream services. An individual's work is frequently viewed as the measure of his/her worth to society. For those who have the opportunity to participate, paid work can be an important source of self esteem and economic independence. For these reasons the Government would like to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to undertake satisfying work for which a fair wage is paid. The service types of competitive employment training and placement, and supported employment, are designed to focus on the provision of employment for people with disabilities. The two service types are designed to take into account the different levels of support people with disabilities may need to enable them to maintain and retain employment. Competitive employment, training and placement is for consumers who can work in open employment on their own or with infrequent support after an initial period of training and support. For those consumers who require more intensive and ongoing training and support, supported employment is the most suitable option. There are currently 14 supported employment demonstration projects, providing supported employment for approximately 200 people with disabilities, 74% of whom have an intellectual disability and 16% of whom have multiple disabilities. 60% of these clients are assessed as requiring one-to-one or high levels of support. There are currently 21 competitive employment, training and placement demonstration projects, which have placed over 1000 people with disabilities in open employment. 81% of these clients are assessed as requiring little or no on-going support. For the Government to realise any results from the demonstration projects, they had to be carefully monitored and evaluated. It was important, therefore, to develop adequate monitoring and evaluation procedures at the set up stage of the demonstration program. An evaluation system consisting of four components was implemented. The four components being: the collection of monthly client outcome statistical data from services; the requirement for services to provide six monthly descriptive reports; the appointment of a national evaluator; and the requirement for services to provide audited financial statements. A number of projects also commissioned external evaluations of their service. Each of these components will feed into an evaluation of each project to determine how successful the service has been in assisting people with disabilities to cope in the workforce, and the level of assistance needed for their employment. (2) (a) The Department commissioned a consultant, Mr David Kinnear, to undertake the evaluation of the demonstration projects. He conducted a survey of all supported and competitive employment demonstration projects, including a survey of a sample of clients, to ascertain how each service operated, how successful it had been in providing stimulating and well paid work to people with disabilities, and what the job retention rates were. A part of his analysis will be to look at the level of support required to successfully retain the people with disabilities in both open and supported employment environments. (b) The costs of operating the 35 employment demonstration projects in 1987-88 will be $4.16 m. The cost of the national evaluator to evaluate all demonstration projects (including supported and competitive employment projects) is $50,234. (c) The national evaluator is due to finalise his report in February 1988. No recommendations are available to date. It is expected that recommendations will be made in relation to: appropriate models of service for supported and competitive employment services for people with disabilities, including appropriate levels of support for clients in each service type; appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure that funded services are obtaining employment outcomes for the clients, such as higher wages and good job retention rates; and the appropriate level of Government financial support required to sustain the operation of these services. (3) The Department will take up these recommendations once they are available. (4) N/A (Question No. 11) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Were groups representing disabled groups consulted in deciding to charge for 013 calls; if so, which groups were consulted and when were they consulted. (2) If groups representing disabled groups were not consulted, why not. (3) Was the Department of Community Services and Health consulted; if so, what was the Department's response. (4) If the Department of Community Services and Health was not consulted, why not. (5) Will any arrangements be made to overcome the additional costs faced by disabled persons with this new charge; if so, (a) what will be done, (b) when will it be implemented, and (c) what sum will it cost for the next 5 years. (6) If arrangements will not be made, why not. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes. Telecom consulted the Department of Social Security and the then Department of Community Services, the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled (ACROD), the Disability Advisory Council of Australia (DACA) and other key organisations representing the disabled throughout Australia. These consultations commenced in December 1986. (2) See answer to (1). (3) The then Department of Community Services was consulted. The Department's response was that consultation would best be handled by key organisations representing the disabled throughout Australia. (4) See answer to (3). (5) Yes. (a) Customers identified as being entitled to a concession will either be given free access to the 013 service or will be given rebates to their accounts to offset the cost of calls to 013. The method to be used is dependent on the particular technology of the exchange equipment. (b) These arrangements will be implemented at the time of the proposed introduction of the charge, that is, July 1988. (c) Based on current estimates of disabled people eligible for the concession, these arrangements will cost Telecom approximately $20M (based on the proposed charge of 60c per call) in foregone earnings over the next five years. (6) See answer to (5). (Question No. 31) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) On how many occasions since 1 July 1986 have ABC current affairs programs used spokespersons from the Nautilus Institute organisation. (2) Were the spokespersons used to give the anti-US point of view. (3) What payments have been made to the Nautilus organisation or to individuals from that organisation. Mr Duncan —Based on information provided by the ABC, the Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) National Current Affairs (Radio) programs have used Mr Peter Hayes, spokesman for the Nautilus Institute, on three occasions since July 1986: 29 December 1986 on ``AM'' Andrew Kruger in New York interviewed Mr Hayes on the allegation that Fremantle was planned to be used as a supply link in a ``mock US invasion of Iran'' without the Australian Government's knowledge. 19 May 1987 on ``PM'' Michael Carey in Sydney interviewed Mr Hayes on alleged CIA involvement in the Fiji coup. Mr Hayes took the view that such involvement was ``highly unlikely''. 21 August 1987 on ``The World Today'' Peter Cotton in Sydney interviewed Mr Hayes on claims that the US had agreements with Canada, New Zealand and other allies to accept liability should an accident occur involving US weapons on allied territory, (eg nuclear warships). (2) The ABC as part of its news and current events gathering role seeks the opinions of many diverse organisations and individuals. The Nautilus Research Institute exists to question and monitor US global strategy and its extension of international power. Accordingly, the Institute was contacted for comment on the above topics. (3) On none of the occasions was Mr Hayes or the Nautilus Institute paid for the interviews. (Question No. 38) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What has been the cost of providing removals for- (a) Australian Defence Force personnel; and (b) civilians in his Department for each year since 1982-83. (2) Are removals carried out by the Government, by private contractors or both. (3) If removals are carried out by both Government and private contractors, what proportion of the cost in each year since 1982 is attributable to- (a) Government; and (b) private contractors. (4) How many removals were carried out by- (a) Government; and (b) private contractors for each year since 1982-83. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost of providing removals since 1982-83 has been: Fiscal year Cost of removals Service $m % Civilian $m % Total $ millions 1982-83 27.213 98.0 0.561 2.0 27.774 1983-84 30.265 97.9 0.652 2.1 30.914 1984-85 38.847 97.8 0.874 2.2 39.721 1985-86 47.937 97.4 1.280 2.6 49.217 1986-87 48.792 97.7 1.154 2.3 49.946 (2) Yes, by Government and private contractors. (3) The proportion of cost between Government and private contractors is: Fiscal year Cost of Government and private contractors Government $m % Private $m % Total $ millions 1982-83 3.117 11.2 24.657 88.8 27.774 1983-84 2.412 7.8 28.505 92.2 30.917 1984-85 3.098 7.8 26.623 92.2 39.721 1985-86 3.445 7.0 45.772 93.0 49.217 1986-87 4.245 8.5 45.701 91.5 49.946 (4) The numbers of removals carried out by the Government and private contractors are: Fiscal year Removal numbers Government (1) Removals % Private (2) Removals % Total 1982-83 2086 11.0 16854 89.0 18940 1983-84 2321 12.1 16792 87.9 19113 1984-85 2310 11.3 18102 88.7 20412 1985-86 2171 10.0 19553 90.0 21724 1986-87 1951 9.1 19450 90.9 21401 NOTE: (1) Mostly overseas removals. (2) Mostly domestic removals. (Question No. 40) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Has his Department embarked on a new undertaking of commercial removal work in direct competition with private sector companies. (2) As his Department has recently won the contract for the new Parliament House removals and storage project in direct competition with private industry, (a) did its tender reflect the same payroll, sales and income taxes, import duties and full superannuation costs borne by private sector bidders,. (b) is it required to pay the same rates of pay required of private enterprise by unions and (c) will it complete the work without the assistance of government subsidies. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) Yes. As announced on 3 September 1987 in a press release by the Minister for Finance and myself, the Government has decided that the Transport and Storage Group (TSG) of my Department should be placed on a commercial basis from 1 October 1987. However, my Department has used commercial removalists to do the vast majority of household removals in Australia and will continue to do so at current cost levels. (2) (a) and (b) No. The Government has required TSG to bear costs which in aggregate will be compar-able with those borne by private sector operators. In placing TSG on a commercial basis it was not immediately feasible to make the costs and constraints it incurs equivalent in all ways to those met by the private sector. TSG's costs will be higher in some areas and lower in others. The operating constraints it bears will generally be greater. As fine a balance as is appropriate in current circumstances has been determined by the Government. (c) Yes (Question No. 203) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: Have any funds, including CEP grants, been granted by his Department to wilderness groups in Australia since March 1983; if so, (a) who was the recipient, (b) on what date was approval to the grant of funds given, (c) what sum was granted and (d) what was the purpose of each grant. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) to (d). Data on the CEP Management Information System on Wilderness groups is as follows: Recipient Date Approved CEP Grant $ Purpose of each grant Tasmanian Wilderness Society 1.11.83 38,767 Promote wilderness recreation Tasmanian Wilderness Society, A.C.T. 5.12.83 17,443 Wilderness Shop Co-ordinator Tasmanian Wilderness Society 16.3.84 12,908 Environment Information Centre project Wilderness Society, N.S.W. 16.3.84 57,878 Educate community about the wilderness Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Victoria 30.3.84 70,168 Develop self-sufficient commercial services to expand present Wilderness Centre Wilderness Society, N.S.W. 11.2.86 39,239 Educate community about the wilderness Wilderness Society, N.S.W. 24.3.87 29,875 Develop data base of wilderness information Wilderness Society, S.A. 30.6.87 7,180 Wilderness education officer The purpose of CEP grants is to provide funding for relevant work experience opportunities for those most disadvantaged in the labour market, particularly the long term unemployed, on additional temporary jobs funded through projects of community benefit, in order to enhance the participants' subsequent employment prospects. (Question No. 207) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) Why has the Government appointed 3 major agencies for the placement of advertising in all media. (2) When was the decision made. (3) How and why were the agencies selected. (4) How will advertising be placed with the agencies. (5) Will each agency receive an equivalent level of advertising; if not, how will the advertising be distributed. (6) Why was it decided to award 3-year contracts. (7) What is the Government's estimate of the cost of advertising in 1987-88 and what is the breakdown for each Department. (8) Will other agencies receive any Government contracts to place advertisements; if so, (a) which agencies will receive contracts, (b) when will agencies receive contracts, (c) what advertising contracts will be awarded and (d) what advertising will be placed with other agencies. (9) If other agencies will not receive advertising contracts, why not. (10) Will having 3 major agencies achieve cost savings; if so, how. (11) If having 3 agencies will not achieve cost savings, why not. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Commonwealth Governments have long used specialist master advertising agencies to place advertising arranged through the central advertising system in the various media. The June 1983 ``Report on Commonwealth Government Advertising Practices and Procedures'' by independent consultants Coopers & Lybrand Services endorsed this practice in principle and recommended that the Commonwealth Government should use master advertising agencies to place advertising in the following categories: Radio/TV/Cinema advertising; Press Campaign Display and Miscellaneous advertising; Press Non-Campaign (including classified) advertising. The functions of the master agencies are to: negotiate special Commonwealth Government rates; book the advertising with the media; order and dispatch material to the media; monitor and report on the appearance of the advertising; bill Commonwealth Government departments for the cost of the media time and space; pay the media; remit media commissions to a trust fund administered by the central advertising system from which creative advertising agencies handling Commonwealth Government assignments are paid for their time. The master agencies do not plan and create advertising campaigns for the Commonwealth Government departments. This is done by creative advertising agencies which are selected for particular campaigns by a process of competitive selection. (3) The master agencies were selected following an open tender process on the basis of demonstrated expertise and price. (4) As mentioned above, the tasks of planning and creating campaigns are executed by creative advertising agencies. The advertising materials they create are placed with the media by one or more of the master agencies. This is common industry practice. (5) No. The advertising space/time to be used depends in each case on the media strategy determined for each campaign. (6) Three year contract periods for master agencies were entered into because the master agencies operate the logistics of the advertising process and it would not be economical nor practical to change the logistics system at more frequent intervals. (7) No overall estimate is available since the majority of advertising expenditure is funded through departmental administrative votes which are discretionary and used as needs arise. (8) From 1 November 1987, for three years, no master agencies other than Mojo MDA, Merchant & Partners (Sydney) Pty Ltd and Neville Jeffress will be contracted to place Commonwealth Government advertising arranged through the central advertising system (except in the unlikely event that it became necessary to replace one of those master agencies). (9) Other agencies participate in Commonwealth Government assignments, but as planning/creative agencies, not master agencies. (10) and (11) Having master agencies handling Commonwealth Government advertising arranged through the central advertising system produces savings since the aggregation of purchasing power inherent in the master agency system enables bulk media rates to be negotiated. (Question No. 208) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian of 24 September 1987 concerning the sheep industry in the USSR; if so, is it a fact that 95% of lambs born in the 142 million head Soviet sheep flock are produced from artificial insemination (AI). (2) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union achieves a national rate of more than 74% pregnancies from the first insemination in their sheep flock when using AI. (3) What is the comparative rate in Australia. (4) Is he able to say what percentage of lambs born in the USSR are sired by (a) Australian Merino rams and (b) rams with at least 25% Australian Merino bloodlines. (5) Is he able to estimate how long it would take for every woolgrowing sheep in the USSR to have at least 25% Australian Merino blood, given the scope of the Soviet Unions's AI sheep breeding program. (6) What is the current average clean wool cut per sheep in (a) Australia and (b) the USSR. (7) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union plans to be self-sufficient in fine wool production by the year 2005; if so is the aim realistic. (8) How many Merino rams valued above $1000 were exported to the USSR each year since 1977 and what is the estimate for 1987. (9) What is the quantity and value of wool sold to the Soviet Union by Australian woolgrowers each year since 1977. (10) What was the value of assistance given by the Australian Wool Corporation and the International Wool Secretariat to the Soviet Union for processing and promoting woollen products in each year since 1977. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have read the article in the Australian of 24 September 1987 concerning the sheep industry in the USSR. The latest estimate (1986) for the sheep population of the Soviet Union is 140 million. We do not have statistics on the number of ewes which are artificially inseminated (AI). AI is widely practiced in Merino flocks but not with the non-Merino breeds. Merinos number some 90 million. Accordingly, AI would account for no more than 64% of lambs born. (2) Statistics are not available on conception rates of the Soviet flock when using AI. I am advised that Soviet sheep breeds, including Merinos, are generally more fertile than Australian breeds. (3) Comparative conception rates for Australia are estimated at 55-65% using cervical AI with fresh semen and 60-65% using intra-uterine insemination of hormonally synchronised ewes with deep frozen semen. (4) Statistics are not available. The Russian Merino is based on crossing, evaluation and intensive selection of Merino strains originally imported from France, Germany, USA, South America and Australia. The Russian Merino is generally higher in liveweight and more fertile than its Australian counterpart. However, its clean scoured yield is relatively low and fleece weight some 10% below Australian Merinos. Russian purchases of Australian rams in recent years are aimed primarily at improved colour, yield and style with marginal gains in wool cut. The final proportion of Australian blood will be limited by the need to avoid reductions in liveweight and fertility and maintain vigour under comparatively harsh environmental conditions. (5) Theoretically the proportion of Australian Merino blood could reach 25% within 10 to 15 years. However, the rate actually achieved will vary considerably depending on the selection objectives of Australian versus Soviet bred rams used, the type of insemination employed and the extent of the relevant AI programmes. (6) In 1986 (a) 3.45 kg (estimate) (b) 2.13 kg (estimate) (7) While I have no doubt that the Soviet Union would wish to become self-sufficient in fine wool production, further expansion in flock numbers is limited by environmental, land use and economic factors. Soviet sheep numbers have plateaued around 140 million since the early 1970s. For the 20 year period, 1965 to 1985, wool consumption in the USSR far exceeded production. There does not appear to be any prospect of the USSR reaching self-sufficiency in the foreseeable future. The USSR has long been a major customer for Australia's wool. In 1986-87 it purchased 96 million kilograms worth $464 million. If living standards continue to rise and the current growing interest in fashion develops further, there is great potential for an increase in wool sales to the USSR. (8) Merino rams exported to the Soviet Union and valued over $1,000 since 1977 1980 (year ended 30 June) ... 20 1981 ... 101 1985 ... 76 1986 ... 98 1988 (to date) ... (estimate) 164 No Merino rams were exported in the years ended 30 June 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987. (9) Quantity and value of wool sold to the Soviet Union since 1977 Quantity (mkg) Value ($A million) 1977 (year ended 30 June) ... 89 190.8 1978 ... 80 170.3 1979 ... 86 190.0 1980 ... 79 205.0 1981 ... 80 221.7 1982 ... 74 228.3 1983 ... 78 244.6 1984 ... 76 248.7 1985 ... 73 289.2 1986 ... 73 307.0 1987 ... 96 463.8 (10) The Australian Wool Corporation does not give any direct assistance to the Soviet Union. The International Wool Secretariat does allocate funds for promoting woollen products in the Soviet Union, however, this information is not available because of the commercial nature of their business. (Question No. 321) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: What is being done at the major international airports around Australia to accommodate the longer wing span of the Boeing 747-400 series soon to be flying to and from Australia. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Boeing 747-400 aircraft are not expected to be introduced into services to and from Australia until 1989. At the present time such aircraft can be accommodated at international terminals around Australia but as increasing numbers of aircraft of this type are introduced, some permanent works will be necessary. For example, $1.5m has been allocated in this year's Civil Works Program for some apron widening at the Sydney international terminal to expand the number of positions which can accept b747-400 aircraft. As you will be aware, the Federal Airports Corporation will shortly take over control of the major international airports and the Corporation will be keeping under review the works necessary to cater for the increase in international aircraft parking requirements. (Question No. 322) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987. (1) Were the windows of the new Canberra Airport terminal blown in by a Boeing 727 or similar aircraft. (2) Was this accident due to a design error which provided for blast shields of inadequate height, if not, what was the reason. (3) Is this accident the reason why aircraft, or at least aircraft of this type, are not allowed to park in front of the new terminal. (4) What is being done to ensure that such an accident does not happen again. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 11 February 1987 at approximately 12.35 pm, a window on the first floor extensions of the Canberra terminal was blown in by the exhaust of a Boeing 727 aircraft departing from Holding Point No. 2. Fortunately, the area concerned was a construction site and no personnel were present at the time. Consequently, no one was injured. (2) This accident was not related to design error or to blast shields. A thorough investigation of the accident could not totally eliminate a blast-driven projectile as the cause for the glass breakage. The Department of Transport and Communications has initiated action to prevent further glass breakage due to projectile damage. It seems more likely that the accident was caused by a combination of the windows being in the process of installation, and the pilot of the aircraft re-applying full breakout-thrust while the exhaust was pointing at the terminal. (3) The restrictions on the use of Apron Holding Point No. 2 were placed by the Transport Workers Union and relate to alleged unsafe jet blast clearance. (4) The airlines have been directed to conform with prescribed taxiing procedures for the Canberra Airport apron which preclude full breakout thrust being applied toward the terminal building. All windows have been inspected to ensure that they have been properly installed. (Question No. 332) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) When was the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) disbanded? (2) Who were the NAC members at that time. (3) What assets and equipment of the NAC were held by each of those members at that time. (4) What assets, equipment and funds (a) have been and (b) have not been recovered from each of those members. (5) What assets, equipment and funds were held in each of the regional and national offices of the NAC at that time. (6) What assets, equipment and funds in the offices (a) have been and (b) have not been recovered. (7) What action was taken or is proposed to recover those assets, equipment and funds which remain unrecovered. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following a decision by the Government that the operations of the NAC should cease as from 30 June 1985, Hamilton Taylor and Brien were appointed as provisional liquidators to the NAC by the Federal Court on 5 July 1985. This appointment was confirmed on 26 July 1985. (2) The members of NAC at that time were: New South Wales Member for NSA, Mr Bill Smith Member for NSB, Mr Ossie Cruse Member for NSC, Mrs Val Mackay Member for NSD, Mr Ted Simpson Member for NSE, Mr Jim Stanley Member for NSF, Mr Lyal Munro (Snr) Member for NSG, Mr Frank Roberts Victoria/Tasmania Member for VCA, Mrs Merle Jackomos Member for VCB, Mrs Nessie Skuta Member for VCC, Mr Ted Stevenson Queensland Member for QEA, Mr Steve Man Member for QEB, Mr Ray Robinson Member for QEC, Mr Patrick Malone Member for QED, Mrs Eva Geia Member for QEE, Mr Phillip Yanner Member for QEF, Mr Bill Hollingsworth Member for QEG, Mr Harry Daphney Member for QEH, Deceased since 30 June 1985 Member for QEI, Mr George Mye Western Australia Member for WAA, Mr Rob Riley Member for WAB, Mr Glen Colbung Member for WAC, Mr Aubrey Lynch Member for WAD, Mrs Margaret Mallard Member for WAE, Deceased since 30 June 1985 Member for WAF, Mr Peter Yu Member for WAG, Mr Frank Chulung South Australia Member for SAA, Mr Mr Garnet Wilson Member for SAB, Mr Danny Coulson Member for SAC, Mr Punch Thompson Northern Territory Member for NTA, Vacant Member for NTB, Deceased since 30 June 1985 Member for NTC, Mr Minyipirriwuy Dhanarranji Member for NTD, Mr Willy Martin Member for NTE, Mr Ross Williams Member for NTF, Deceased since 30 June 1985 Member for NTG, Mr Vince Forrester (3) to (7) My Department has referred these questions to the Official Liquidator, Messrs Hamilton Taylor & Brien. If the Liquidator is able to answer the honourable member's questions, the information required will be provided to him when it becomes available to my Department. (Question No. 336) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 27 October 1987: (1) Is it a fact that the Flight Service Building at Adelaide Airport has been completed since early 1987 but remains unoccupied due to a demarcation dispute. (2) Has the lack of utilisation of the facility adversely affected the performance or morale of flight service officers at Adelaide Airport. (3) Does the enforced occupancy and use of inadequate facilities have implications for air traffic safety. (4) What action has he taken to have the new building occupied. (5) When does he envisage the facility will be fully functional. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Flight Service Centre accommodated in the Air Traffic Services building was commissioned in November 1982 and is functioning normally. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 377) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 November 1987: What is the (a) amount and (b) number of recipients of (i) handicapped, (ii) aged and (iii) supporting mothers benefit pensions paid to Australian citizens residing overseas, and what is the breakdown of these categories by country. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statistics of the amounts paid in each country are not collected. Each annual report of the Department of Social Security provides details of the numbers of pensioners paid overseas by country of residence. (Question No. 26) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Does Telecom have a subscriber charging system known as Community Call Rate; if so, (a) when was the system introduced, (b) what factors determine the designation of an area, and (c) what charges are applied to local calls within an area. (2) How many subscribers were connected to the Community Call Rate system in each State and Territory on 31 December in each year since 1983. (3) Are there cost benefit advantages in replacing a standard local call system with a community call rate system in selected rural locations. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) The system has been introduced in two stages, the first stage being Community Access 80 on 4 May 1980, and the second stage being Countrywide Calling on 1 October 1983. (b) Under Community Access 80, Community Calling was introduced to provide a low rate call (`C' rate-currently 20 cents for 3 minutes) for rural customers to their service town, if it was not at that time a local call. Countrywide Calling was developed to enable the extension of fully automatic service to all customers in Australia, no matter how remote their locality, at a reasonable cost. It saw the creation of ``extended zones'' in rural and remote localities with a maximum call charge of `C' rate to all other customers in the same extended zone. In addition, the maximum rate from an extended zone to an adjoining zone, whether extended or standard, has been set at `F' rate (currently 22.2 cents per minute, day rate). This is a significant reduction on the trunk rates that would otherwise apply under standard zoning. (c) 20 cents. (2) Statistics of this nature are not maintained by Telecom. (3) Countrywide Calling was introduced to economically provide automatic service in remote localities and resulted in overall call charge benefits to customers (see question 1(b)) as well as benefits to Telecom in not having to provide costly charging equipment in exchanges to handle calls from a large number of standard zones containing very few customers. (Question No. 123) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) What is the source of the maps used on pages 110-111 of the September/October 1987 edition of the Qantas house magazine Airways. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to misleading geographical information shown on the maps. (3) Will the Minister ensure that the misleading information is corrected in future editions. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The source of the maps used on pages 110 and 111 of the September/October 1987 edition of the Qantas magazine ``Airways'' is David Syme & Co. (2) Yes. My attention has been drawn to incorrect positioning of several Australian cities on the maps. (3) Qantas has advised that the information was corrected prior to publication of the subsequent ``Airways Inflight'' for November/December 1987. (Question No. 195) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the (a) Australian Wool Corporation, (b) Australian Wheat Board, (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation, (e) Australian Dairy Corporation, (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, (i) Pipeline Authority and (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (i) total number of employees, (ii) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (iii) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (iv) value of the average compensation claim and (v) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Total Number of Employees 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (a) Australian Wool Corporation ... 509 522 527 (b) Australian Wheat Board ... 392 393 386 (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation ... 8 9 9 (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation ... 8 8 8 (e) Australian Dairy Corporation ... 111 113 113 (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation ... 5 5 5 (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ... n.a. 150 184 (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 12 10 12 (i) Pipeline Authority ... 123 130 133 (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority ... 726 760 800 (ii) Total Number of Employees Receiving Workers' Compensation Payments 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (a) Australian Wool Corporation ... 86 70 56 (b) Australian Wheat Board ... 17 14 11 (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation ... 0 1 0 (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation ... 1 1 1 (e) Australian Dairy Corporation ... 0 5 6 (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation ... 0 0 0 (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ... n.a. 21 13 (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 0 0 0 (i) Pipeline Authority ... 22 24 33 (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority ... 135 123 92 (iii) Gross Expenditure on Workers' Compensation Claims 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (a) Australian Wool Corporation ... 226 142 227 568 198 145 (b) Australian Wheat Board ... *12 000 *33 000 *31 000 (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation ... 0 0 95 (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation ... 0 16 112 9 351 (e) Australian Dairy Corporation ... 0 14 450 15 150 (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation ... 0 0 0 (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ... n.a. 108 764 44 564 (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 0 0 0 (i) Pipeline Authority ... 39 120 92 993 55 287 (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority ... 446 500 512 803 468 099 * Estimated only (iv) Value of the Average Compensation Claim 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 (a) Australian Wool Corporation ... 2 629 3 251 3 238 (b) Australian Wheat Board ... 706 2 357 2 818 (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation ... 0 1 90 (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation ... 0 16 112 9 351 (e) Australian Dairy Corporation ... 0 2 890 2 520 (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation ... 0 0 0 (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ... n.a. 5 724 4 051 (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 0 0 0 (i) Pipeline Authority ... 1 778 3 875 1 675 (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority ... 2 843 3 536 4 070 (v) Number of Compensation Cases as a percentage of Total Employees 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 % % % (a) Australian Wool Corporation ... 16.9 13.4 10.6 (b) Australian Wheat Board ... 4.3 3.56 2.85 (c) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation ... 0 0 11 (d) Australian Canned Fruits Corporation ... 12.5 12.5 12.5 (e) Australian Dairy Corporation ... 0 4.5 5.3 (f) Australian Dried Fruits Corporation ... 0 0 0 (g) Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ... n.a. .13 .06 (h) Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation ... 0 0 0 (i) Pipeline Authority ... 18 18 25 (j) Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority ... 14.6 12.4 8.5 (Question No. 218) Mr Cowan asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Bulletin, dated 2 June 1987, which estimates the financial holdings of Australia's 10 largest unions. (2) What is his Department's estimates of revenue forgone by the Commonwealth due to the tax exemption given to (a) trade unions and (b) employer organisations with respect to income arising other than from dealings with their members. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the article referred to. (2) Trade unions and employer organisations that are exempt from income tax are not required to lodge income tax returns. Accordingly, there are no income tax statistics available that would enable a reliable estimate to be made of the revenue forgone attributable to this exemption. (Question No. 242) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) What cost recovery measures were taken by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories (AGAL) in 1986-87. (2) What services have been offered to date. (3) What further steps for cost recovery are envi-saged for the period 1987-99. (4) What role does AGAL have in the assessment and analysis of contaminates in Australian food exports and imports. (5) Have additional staff been appointed to AGAL; if so, how many have been appointed and what are their qualifications. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) AGAL commenced its cost recovery program on 1 January 1986. During 1986-87, charges were levied on services at a rate appropriate to a set revenue target. (2) Notwithstanding the introduction of cost reco-very measures, AGAL has continued to provide an extensive range of analytical chemical and microbiolo-gical services covering: Trace elements Pesticide residues Microbiological quality Food composition Water contamination Species identification Cigarette tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields Alcoholic content General chemicals-physical properties and composition Textile composition Paper composition Agricultural chemicals composition Environmental samples Research and method development Supply of certified reference samples. (3) AGAL is moving towards full cost recovery in compliance with the Government's decisions on implementation of the Report of the Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories (Ross Report). (4) AGAL undertakes the analysis of export foods and commodities in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau. Selected imported foods are tested in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Community Services and Health and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. (5) Yes. 37 employed, mainly temporaries, throughout Australia since 1.7.87 on extended beef testing work. 15 have either a degree or diploma in chemistry. 2 have either an approved certificate from a technical college or institute of technology or other acceptable qualifications. 16 have appropriate laboratory experience coupled with intermediate or HSC level of education. 4 have intermediate or HSC level of education. (Question No. 245) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) How was the $6m, which IDAPS Australia Ltd paid for its stake in CSIRONET, determined. (2) Did the amount paid by IDAPS for its share in CSIRONET reflect its real market value. (3) Will IDAPS People Business in no way conflict with the Professional Services Agency which was formed by CSIRONET 3 days before the deal with IDAPS. (4) What opportunities will there be for CSIRONET staff to purchase equity in the new CSIRONET-IDAPS body. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following a study undertaken by AIDC throughout the latter half of 1985 on the prospects for commercialisation of CSIRONET, in July 1986 CSIRO circulated a detailed Information Memorandum seeking possible merger/joint venture partners to 16 companies and organisations, selected with the assistance of AIDC, which were considered to have the greatest potential to contribute to the objectives of a commercialised CSIRONET operating independently from CSIRO. A number of companies and organisations responded formally confirming their interests and discussions were held with these to canvass possible partnerships. Of these companies IDAPS Australia Ltd made the highest offer and proposed arrangements which were most acceptable to CSIRO. Following the initial bid by IDAPS, further negotiations took place increasing to $6m the sum to be paid by IDAPS for a 60% equity in CSIRONET. (2) The CSIRONET valuation was determined upon the basis of estimated maintainable future profits multiplied by a price/earning ratio, in line with the general approach applied when valuing a business for the purpose of equity participation. The valuation of CSIRONET on this basis at $10m was substantially in excess of its net asset valuation of $5.55m. Because CSIRONET's performance was hampered by the problems of operating under public service constraints, it was necessary to base the estimates of future profits upon future plans predicting likely returns rather than upon an analysis of past results. In this valuation CSIRO had the assistance of reports from two management consultants as well as advice from CSIROTECH. (3) The CSIRONET Professional Services Agency has been in operation for some time. It caters for the specialised technical requirements of the CSIRONET customer basis. It is part of CSIRONET's aim to provide a complete range of services to its customers. This is not an area in which IDAPS People is active. It is not anticipated that Idaps People Business will conflict with the operations of CSIRONET in the Professional Services Agency. (4) Under the terms of the Shareholders Agreement between CSIRO and IDAPS, IDAPS has undertaken and agreed to use its best endeavours to make the necessary amendments to its employee share incentive scheme to enable access to that scheme by the staff of the new CSIRONET. As IDAPS shares are listed on the Stock market, whereas those of CSIRONET are not, it was considered to be in the interest of the staff to participate in the overall IDAPS share incentive scheme. IDAPS are understood to be in the process of making amendments to their share incentive scheme which will enable the staff of the new CSIRONET to participate in this scheme. (Question No. 294) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) How many children are there in each category of child care. (2) How long are the waiting lists for each category of child care. (3) What sum does each category of child care cost each day each week. (4) What is the Government subsidy paid for each category of child care. (5) What sum would universal Government-funded child care cost. (6) What sum does it cost the Government to administer child care. (7) Where are the locations of child care centres which receive Government funding. (8) What action has the Government initiated in the area of child care. (9) What was the cost of each of the 20,000 child care places which were promised during the 1983 election campaign. (10) What sum has been spent on capital funding for child care each year since 1982-83, and what sum will be spent in 1987-88. (11) What is the detailed expenditure breakdown of the family services budget allocation. (12) How many applications were received in each year since 1982 to provide (a) public and (b) private child care centres. (13) In respect of the applications referred to in part (12), (a) how many were successful, (b) in which State or Territory were the centres proposed to be established and (c) how many places would be catered for in each centre. Mr Hand —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The number of children in each category of child care is as follows: At 30 June 1987, the number of places approved for funding was 37,936 Long Day Care 38,361 Family Day Care 2,876 Occasional Care These places are estimated to cater for the following number of children: 49,317 in Long Day Care 49,869 in Family Day Care 28,760 in Occasional Care (2) Waiting lists are not monitored as they are of limited use in predicting demand for child care. They are not indicative as: One child can be (and usually is) registered on more than one waiting list-resulting in double counting; and They are not regularly updated as children find places elsewhere-again resulting in inflated demand estimates. (3) Figures on total cost of child care are not kept by the Department because the Government is not the sole supplier of funding. The Operational Subsidy paid to Commonwealth funded services is only a contribution towards their total cost. The costs of privately funded centres are not known by the Department. (4) The average Government subsidy (based on 1986/87 costs) paid for each category of child care is as follows: Operational subsidy Fee relief $p.w. $p.w. Long Day Care ... 14.31 34.61 Family Day Care ... 12.25 16.10 Occasional Care ... 16.00 10.12 Outside School Hours Care6.00 . . (5) The major client group for Children's Services Program child care is children in the pre-school age group (0-4 years in most States) whose parents (or sole parent) are in the labour force or training to enter the labour force. It has never been assumed that this target group would all require formal care (The ABS Survey 1984 Child Care Arrangements indicated that some 50% of working parents with pre-school aged children use informal care and are satisfied with these arrangements). Because of this fact the cost of universal care has not been calculated. (6) The cost of departmental salaries and adminis- tration for the program for families with children (children's services program and family support program) is estimated to be $7.65 million in 1987-88. (7) Data detailing the locations of child care centres which receive Government funding is at Attachment A. (8) Since coming to office in 1983 this Government has done more for child care than any previous government, doubling the number of child care places available to Australian children, increasing the number of child care centres funded by the Commonwealth from 548 in 1983 to 970 at the end of 1986. (9) The average capital cost of each of the 20,000 places will not be known until all services are operational. The cost of individual services varies markedly as a result of varying contributions towards land and construction costs by State and Local Governments. (10) The sum spent on capital funding for child care each year since 1982-83 and the estimated sum to be spent in 1987-88 is as follows: $m 1982-83 ... 4.145 1983-84 ... 4.897 1984-85 ... 16.246 1985-86 ... 6.149 1986-87 ... 16.620 1987-88 (Est) ... 43.548 (11) The detailed expenditure breakdown of the family services budget allocation is at Attachment B. (12) and (13) Data about numbers of applications is not maintained for the CSP as it is not relevant for needs based planning. ATTACHMENT A CHILDREN'S SERVICES PROGRAM CENTRES BY LGA APPROVED AND OPERATIONAL OR PLANNED TO BE OPERATIONAL State LGA Servname Australian Capital TerritoryActon ... University Pre-School and Chil Australian Capital TerritoryActon ... Parents on Campus Child Care C Australian Capital TerritoryBelconnen ... Rainbow Cottage Australian Capital TerritoryBelconnen ... Belconnen Community Service Australian Capital TerritoryBruce ... Canberra CAE Child Development Australian Capital TerritoryBruce ... Bruce Childrens Centre Australian Capital TerritoryChifley ... Chifley Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryChisholm ... Bunyarra Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryCity ... Civic Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryCook ... Guardian Angel Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryDuffy ... Duffy Childrens Centre Australian Capital TerritoryFyshwick ... Fyshwick Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryKaleen ... Totom House Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryKambah ... Salem Childrens Centre Australian Capital TerritoryMelba ... Baringa Child Care Centre Australian Capital TerritoryNarrabundah ... Narrabundah Childrens Cottage- Australian Capital TerritoryNarrabundah ... Southside Child Care Co-ordina Australian Capital TerritoryO'Connor ... St Phillips Kindergarten Australian Capital TerritoryPhillip ... Woden Community Service Co-Ord Australian Capital TerritoryReid ... Canberra College of TAFE Child Australian Capital TerritorySpence ... Spence Childrens Cottage Australian Capital TerritoryStirling ... Bunbury Street Creche Australian Capital TerritoryTurner ... Black Mountain Community Child Australian Capital TerritoryWanniassa ... Tuggeranong Community Service Australian Capital TerritoryWanniassa ... Wanniassa Full Day Care New South Wales ... Albury ... Banjora Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Albury ... Yarrunga Neighbourhood Childre New South Wales ... Armidale ... Hobbit House Pre-School and Ch New South Wales ... Armidale ... Galloway Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Ashfield ... Summer Hill Childrens and Commun New South Wales ... Ashfield ... Infants Home Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ashfield ... Ella Community Child Care Cent New South Wales ... Ashfield ... Ashfield Long Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Auburn ... Ana Kindergarten New South Wales ... Auburn ... Roy McCaughey Barnardo Day Car New South Wales ... Auburn ... Lidcombe Long Day Child Care C New South Wales ... Auburn ... Auburn Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ballina ... Ballina Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Revesby Uniting Child Care Cen New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Chester Hill Community Child C New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Padstow Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Milperra Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Caterpillar Cottage CCC New South Wales ... Bankstown ... Condell Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Bathurst ... Bathurst Nursery School New South Wales ... Bathurst ... Mitchell Community Child Care New South Wales ... Bathurst ... Bathurst Neighbourhood Childre New South Wales ... Bathurst ... Bathurst Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... St Michaels Long Day Child Car New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... Balcombe Heights Child Care Ce New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... North Rocks Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... Castle Glen Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... Excelsior Avenue Child Care Ce New South Wales ... Baulkham Hills ... View Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Bega Valley ... Eden Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Mt Druitt Church of Christ Chi New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Grantham Heights Uniting Churc New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Lalor Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Margaret Druitt Day Care Centr New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Murawina Mt Druitt Neighbourho New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Child Care at Blacktown Commu New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Quakers Hill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... John Armitage Child Care Centr New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Nan Moran Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Rooty Hill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... William Lawson Child Care Cent New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Yawarra Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Kings Langley Childrens Neighb New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Astral Drive Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Kurung Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Hillend Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Riverstone Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Mt Druitt Hospital Child Care New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Hawke Lane Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Coolamon Cottage New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Leabons Community Child Care C New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Blackett Community Child Care New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Cannon Street, Prospect Child New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Marayong (Cobham Street) Child New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Seven Hills Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Dean Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blacktown ... Murawina Mount Druitt CCC New South Wales ... Blue Mountains ... Raymond Road Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Blue Mountains ... Station St Childrens House New South Wales ... Blue Mountains ... Blaxland Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blue Mountains ... Bunya Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Blue Mountains ... Hazelbrook/Woodford Neighbourhood New South Wales ... Botany ... Hillsdale Nursery School New South Wales ... Botany ... Cinderella Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Botany ... Mascot Nursery School New South Wales ... Bourke ... Kangaroo Kids Connection New South Wales ... Brewarrina ... Brewarrina Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Burwood ... St Anthonys Pre-School New South Wales ... Burwood ... St Gerards Nursery New South Wales ... Burwood ... Burwood Neighbourhood Children New South Wales ... Burwood ... Elm Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Campbelltown Presbyterian Comm New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Ingleburn Pre-School Kindergar New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Macquarie Fields Child Care Ce New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Claymore Childrens Resource Ce New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Kabbarli Early Learning Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Eagle's Nest Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Waratah Cottage, Claymore New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Parklands Childrens Resource C New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Amber Cottage Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Amarina Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Mingaletta Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Ambarvale Jolly Jungle Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... St Andrews Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Hobbit House Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Macquarie Fields CCC New South Wales ... Campbelltown ... Tharawal Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Maronite Sisters Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Riverwood Nursery School New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Wiley Park Special Pre-School New South Wales ... Canterbury ... McCallums Hill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Arabic-Australian Child Care C New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Campsie Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Lakemba Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Canterbury Childrens Cottage New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Earlwood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Punchbowl Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Canterbury ... Hurlstone Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Cessnock, Greater ... Cessnock Long Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Cessnock, Greater ... Kurri Kurri Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Coffs Harbour ... Gamumbi Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Coffs Harbour ... Woolgoolga Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Coffs Harbour ... Coffs Harbour Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Concord ... Concord Neighbourhood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Concord ... Ardill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Coonamble ... Coonamble Multipurpose Centre New South Wales ... Cowra ... Carinya Neighbourhood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Cowra ... Yalbillinga Boori Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Drummoyne ... Abbotsford Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Dubbo ... Dubbo Childrens Long Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Dubbo ... Allira Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Sorella Radio Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Fisher Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Fairfield Nursery School New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Smithfield Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Tasman Parade Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Wakeley Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Filipino Neighbourhood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Wetherill Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... St Johns Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Bonnyrigg Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Vattana Neighbourhood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Janice Crossio Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Greenfield Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Canley Vale Multicultural Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Fairfield ... Villawood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Glen Innes ... Gum Tree Glen Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Woy Woy Peninsula Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Michael Burns Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... James Mitchell Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Niagara Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Umina Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Gosford Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Terrigal Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Gosford ... Gosford Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Goulburn ... Lady McKell Nursery School New South Wales ... Goulburn ... St Saviours Neighbourhood Centre New South Wales ... Grafton ... South Grafton Occasional Multipurpose Centre New South Wales ... Great Lakes ... Tuncurry Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Griffith ... Griffith Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hastings ... Port Macquarie Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... North Richmond Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... Hobartville Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... Glossodia Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... Greenhills Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... Wilberforce Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hawkesbury ... McGraths Hill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Holroyd ... Merrylands Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Holroyd ... Greystanes Uniting Church Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Holroyd ... Merry Days Kindergarten New South Wales ... Holroyd ... Holroyd Neighbourhood Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Holroyd ... South Wentworthville CCC New South Wales ... Holroyd ... Guildford West Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hornsby ... Waitara Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hornsby ... Playgroup for Children With Special Needs New South Wales ... Hornsby ... Westleigh Long Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Hornsby ... Asquith Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hornsby ... Cherrybrook Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Hurstville ... St George Anglican Church of Australia New South Wales ... Hurstville ... Penshurst Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Inverell ... Inverell Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Kempsey ... Ngaku Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Kiama ... North Kiama Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Ku-Ring-Gai ... West Lindfield Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Caves Beach Pre-School Kindergarten New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Cardiff Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Charlestown Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Bolton Point Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Toronto Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Morisset District Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Mount Hutton Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Belmont Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Lake Maquarie Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lake Macquarie ... Edgeworth Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lane Cove ... Lane Cove Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lane Cove ... Mowbray Road CCC New South Wales ... Leeton ... Leeton Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Amigoss Pre-School New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... John McMahon Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Forrest Lodge Day Nursing and Nursery New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Styles Street Children Community Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Toxteth Day Nursery New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... St Thomas Pre-School Kindergarten New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Laurel Tree House Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Balmain Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Rozelle Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Leichhardt Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Leichhardt ... Wentworth Park Kindergarten New South Wales ... Lismore ... Koala Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Lithgow, Greater ... Gumnut House Lithgow New South Wales ... Liverpool ... C. T. Lewis Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Buzz Bee Pre School Busby New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Liverpool Hospital Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Warwick Farm Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Prestons Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Merlins Magic Cottage Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Woodward Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Liverpool ... Liverpool Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Maitland ... Metford Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Maitland ... Thornton Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Maitland ... Maitland Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Maitland ... Rutherford Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Cavendish Street Multifunction New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Tillman Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Deborah Little Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Greek Orthodox Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Greek Community Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Newtown Day Nursery New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Marrickville Nursery School New South Wales ... Marrickville ... May Murray Memorial Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Betty Spears Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Extensions-Deborah Little Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Enmore Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Marrickville ... Addison Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Moree Plains ... Gayngil Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Mudgee ... Mudgee Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Muswellbrook ... Muswellbrook Multipurpose Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Narrabri ... Nurruby Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Beresfield Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Kintaiba Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Working Womens Centre Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Newcastle Multipurpose Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Jesmond Multi-purpose Children Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Hamilton Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Maryland Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Elermore Vale Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Awabakal Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Newcastle ... Adamstown Child Care Centre New South Wales ... North Sydney ... Guthrie Child Care Centre New South Wales ... North Sydney ... Mosman Nursery School New South Wales ... North Sydney ... Northern Suburbs Day Nursery A New South Wales ... North Sydney ... Crows Nest Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Orange ... Spring Street Children's Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Ardill Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Telopea Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... North Parramatta Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Northmead Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Frances Fisk Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Parramatta Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Parramatta ... Westmeadow Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Janis Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... St Pauls Lutheran Kindergarten New South Wales ... Penrith ... Yoorami Child Care Centre Werr New South Wales ... Penrith ... Keymer Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Susanna Childrens Centre Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... The Kids Place New South Wales ... Penrith ... Werrianda Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Werrington County Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Strauss Road, Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Jamisontown Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Tamara Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Platypus Playground Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Koala Corner Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Stepping Stones Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Kindana Neighbourhood Children New South Wales ... Penrith ... Rainbow Cottage Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Cook Parade Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Carita Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Emu Heights Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Penrith ... Cambridge Gardens Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Port Stephens ... Raymond Terrace Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Queanbeyan ... Campbell Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Kangas House Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Kensington Neighbourhood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... House at Pooh Corner New South Wales ... Randwick ... Malabar/Chifley Neighbourhood New South Wales ... Randwick ... Rock Neighbourhood Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Clovelly Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Rainbow Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Maroubra Neighbourhood Children New South Wales ... Randwick ... Gujaga Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Pow Place Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Randwick ... Gujaga Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Rockdale ... Macedonian Orthodox Community Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Rockdale ... Roslyn Hall Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Rockdale ... Station Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ryde ... Eden Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ryde ... West Ryde Neighbourhood Children New South Wales ... Ryde ... University Avenue Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ryde ... Culloden Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Ryde ... Macquarie Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Shellharbour ... Warilla Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Shellharbour ... Barrack Heights Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Shellharbour ... Albion Park Rail Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Shoalhaven ... Nowra East Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Shoalhaven ... Jumbunna Childrens Centre New South Wales ... Shoalhaven ... Sanctuary Point Children's Centre New South Wales ... Shoalhaven ... Ulladulla Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Shoalhaven ... Nowra Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Singleton ... Singleton Child Care Centre New South Wales ... South Sydney ... Redfern Day Nursery and Nursery Centre New South Wales ... South Sydney ... Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre New South Wales ... South Sydney ... Erskineville Nursery School New South Wales ... South Sydney ... Melanie Alexander Nursery School New South Wales ... South Sydney ... Waterloo Pre-school New South Wales ... South Sydney ... St Andrews Greek Orthodox Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Strathfield ... Kurralee Children's Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Engadine Multi Purpose Child Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Moore Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Waratah Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Bradman Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Canberra Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Dianella Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Kirrawee Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Sutherland Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sutherland ... Illawong Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Lois Barker Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Camperdown Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Surry Hills Nursery School New South Wales ... Sydney ... Sydney Day Nursery and NSA-Equipment New South Wales ... Sydney ... Union Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Wooloomooloo Day Nursery and N New South Wales ... Sydney ... Vincentian Village Child Care New South Wales ... Sydney ... Murawina Community Child Care New South Wales ... Sydney ... Inner City Care Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Jack and Jill Kindergarten New South Wales ... Sydney ... Village Kindergarten Paddington New South Wales ... Sydney ... Frank Saywell Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... McKee Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Boundary Lane Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Institute Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Gardners Road Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Hyde Park Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... The Children's Hospital Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... Lucas Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Sydney ... St Vincent's Hospital Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Tamworth ... West Tamworth Children's Centre New South Wales ... Tamworth ... Birrelee Multifunctional Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Tamworth ... Rumpus Room Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Taree, Greater ... Taree Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Taree, Greater ... Wingham Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Tweed ... Tweed Heads Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Tweed ... Rous Street Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wagga Wagga ... Wiradjuri Neighbourhood Centre New South Wales ... Wagga Wagga ... Hampden Bridge Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wagga Wagga ... Kooringal Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Warringah ... Dee Why Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Warringah ... Warriewood Valley Children's Centre New South Wales ... Warringah ... Narrabeen Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Warringah ... Brookvale Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... Bronte Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... Waverley Gardiner Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... Wattle House Pre-school Kindergarten New South Wales ... Waverley ... Waratah House Pre-School Kindegarten New South Wales ... Waverley ... Waverley Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... Maurice O'Sullivan Day Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... McNeil Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... McNeil Child Care Centre Nursery Extensions New South Wales ... Waverley ... Kindamindi Neighbourhood Centre New South Wales ... Waverley ... St Mary's Church of England Kindergarten New South Wales ... Willoughby ... Artarmon Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Willoughby ... Chatswood Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollondilly ... Presbyterian Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Kemblawarra Child and Family Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Western Suburbs Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Kenny Street Neighbourhood House New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Cringila Neighbourhood Children's Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Dapto Children's Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Warrawong Children's House New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Corrimal Children's Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Cobblers Hill Children's Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Stewart Street Children's House New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Keira View Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Bulli Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Wollongong Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wollongong ... Illawarra Berkeley Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Woollahra ... Sir Phillip Baxter Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Woollahra ... Sir Phillip Baxter Extensions New South Wales ... Woollahra ... Paddington Church of Christ Kindergarten New South Wales ... Woollahra ... Jersey Road Pre-school New South Wales ... Woollahra ... Paddington Day Nursery and Nur New South Wales ... Wyong ... Tom Stone Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... Bay Village Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... San Remo Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... Gorokan Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... Wattanobbi Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... Killarney Vale Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Wyong ... Toukley Child Care Centre New South Wales ... Yarrowlumla ... West Queanbeyan Neighbourhood New South Wales ... Young ... Young Child Care Centre Victoria ... Altona ... Altona Child Care Centre Victoria ... Ballarat (C) ... Eureka Ward Neighbourhood Centre Victoria ... Ballarat (S) ... Ballarat Child Care Centre Victoria ... Ballarat (S) ... Wendouree Child Care Centre Victoria ... Barrabool ... Deakin Children's Centre Victoria ... Beechworth ... Terminus Child Care Centre Victoria ... Bellarine ... Whittington Child Care Centre Victoria ... Benalla (C) ... Birrali House Neighbourhood Ch Victoria ... Bendigo ... Anne Galvin Child Care Centre Victoria ... Berwick ... Endeavour Hills Child Care Centre Victoria ... Berwick ... Doveton and District Children's Victoria ... Berwick ... Tarlina Child Care Centre Victoria ... Berwick ... Berwick Child Care Centre Victoria ... Berwick ... Narre Warren Child Care Centre Victoria ... Box Hill ... Box Hill Child Care Centre Victoria ... Box Hill ... Wattle Park Child Care Centre Victoria ... Bright ... Bright Multifunctional Centre Victoria ... Brighton ... New Street Uniting Church Day Victoria ... Brighton ... Pennell Day Care Centre Victoria ... Brighton ... Hunt Memorial Uniting Church P Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... Playhouse Dallas Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... St Michael and All Angels Church Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... Coolaroo West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... Meadowfair Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... Coolaroo Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Broadmeadows ... Ford Co. Child Care Centre Victoria ... Brunswick ... Brunswick Turkish Community Victoria ... Brunswick ... Park Street Child Care Cooperative Victoria ... Brunswick ... Co-As-It Child Care Centre Brunswick Victoria ... Brunswick ... Brunswick Creche and Day Nurse Victoria ... Brunswick ... Brunswick Community Child Care Victoria ... Brunswick ... Brunswick East High School Creche Victoria ... Brunswick ... Dawson Street Child Care Co-op Victoria ... Brunswick ... McColl St Brunswick Child Care Victoria ... Brunswick ... Hartnett House Child Care Centre Victoria ... Bulla ... Craigieburn Child Care Centre Victoria ... Camberwell ... Camberwell Child Care Centre Victoria ... Camberwell ... Ashburton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Camberwell ... Through Road Child Care Centre Victoria ... Camberwell ... Minifie Park Child Care Centre Victoria ... Castlemaine ... Carinya Child Care Centre Victoria ... Caulfield ... Murrumbeena Childrens Centre Victoria ... Caulfield ... Ormond Childrens Centre Victoria ... Caulfield ... Caulfield Childrens Neighbourhood Victoria ... Caulfield ... Carnegie Child Care Centre Victoria ... Caulfield ... Caulfield Child Care Centre Victoria ... Chelsea ... Lochiel Avenue Child Care Centre Victoria ... Chelsea ... Carrum Child Care Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Coburg Childrens Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Ann Sgro Childrens Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Moreland Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Coburg ... Shirley Robertson Childrens Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Antonine Sisters Child Care Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Barry Beckett Childrens Centre Victoria ... Coburg ... Coburg Child Care Centre Victoria ... Collingwood ... Abbotsford Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Collingwood ... Rupert Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Collingwood ... Keele Street Day Nursery Victoria ... Collingwood ... Gold Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Corio ... Bell Park Small Group Day Care Victoria ... Corio ... Bell Post Hill Small Group Child Care Centre Victoria ... Corio ... Purnell Road Child Day Care Centre Victoria ... Corio ... Rosewall Small Group Day Care Victoria ... Corio ... Trudi Moritz Child Care Centre Victoria ... Cranbourne ... Cranbourne Child Care Centre Victoria ... Cranbourne ... Uniting Church Child Care Centre Victoria ... Croydon ... Croydon Community Centre Victoria ... Croydon ... Croydon Child Care Centre Victoria ... Dandenong ... Dandenong Day Nursery Victoria ... Dandenong ... Dandenong and District Aborigines Victoria ... Dandenong ... Dandenong Child Care Centre Victoria ... Daylesford/Glenlyon ... Daylesford Multifunctional Centre Victoria ... Diamond Valley ... Latrobe University Childrens Centre Victoria ... Diamond Valley ... Greensborough Child Care Centre Victoria ... Doncaster/Templestowe ... Doncaster/Templestowe Child Care Centre Victoria ... Doncaster/Templestowe ... Warrandyte Community Child Care Victoria ... Doncaster/Templestowe ... Bulleen Child Care Centre Victoria ... Eaglehawk ... Eaglehawk and Long Gully Playhouse Victoria ... Eltham ... Eltham Child Care Centre Victoria ... Eltham ... Eltham Child Care Centre Victoria ... Essendon ... Ascot Day Nursery Victoria ... Essendon ... Wingate Avenue Childrens Co-op Victoria ... Essendon ... Cohaf Child Care Centre Victoria ... Essendon ... Strathmore Child Care Centre Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Yappera Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Fitzroy Creche and Day Nursery Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Fitzroy Community Child Care Centre Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Limurru Cottage Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Sylvia Earl Child Care Centre Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Fitzroy North Child Care Co-op Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Fitzroy East-West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Fitzroy Central Care Centre Co-op Victoria ... Fitzroy ... Clifton Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Footscray ... Norfolk Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Footscray ... Footscray Day Nursery Victoria ... Footscray ... Greek Orthodox Child Care and Victoria ... Footscray ... Footscray Child Care Centre Victoria ... Footscray ... Yarraville Child Care Centre Victoria ... Footscray ... Footscray Child Care Centre Victoria ... Frankston ... Frankston Child Care Centre Victoria ... Frankston ... Lakewood Child Care Centre Victoria ... Frankston ... Chisholm Institute (Frankston) Victoria ... Frankston ... Frankston Child Care Centre Victoria ... Hastings ... Somerville Child Care Centre Victoria ... Hawthorn ... Hawthorn Child Care Centre Victoria ... Hawthorn ... Swinburne Community Co-operative Victoria ... Hawthorn ... Auburn Pre-School and Day Care Victoria ... Hawthorn ... Hawthorn West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Healesville ... Healesville Child Care Centre Victoria ... Heidelberg ... Heidelberg Child Care Centre Victoria ... Heidelberg ... Heidelberg Childrens Centre Victoria ... Heidelberg ... Heidelberg Child Day Care Centre Victoria ... Heidelberg ... MacLeod Child Care Centre Victoria ... Horsham ... Horsham Child Care Centre Victoria ... Keilor ... St Albans Turkish Community Victoria ... Keilor ... Milleara Gardens Child Care Co-op Victoria ... Keilor ... St Albans Community Health and Victoria ... Keilor ... Keilor Downs Child Care Centre Victoria ... Keilor ... Keilor Child Care Centre Victoria ... Keilor ... Taylors Lake Child Care Centre Victoria ... Kew ... Belford Road Kew Child Care Centre Victoria ... Kilmore ... Kilmore Child Care Centre Victoria ... Knox ... Coromandel Crescent Child Care Victoria ... Knox ... Orchid Avenue Child Care Centre Victoria ... Knox ... Wantirna South Child Care Centre Victoria ... Knox ... Rowville Child Care Centre Victoria ... Knox ... Ferntree Gully Child Care Centre Victoria ... Knox ... Bayswater Child Care Centre Victoria ... Korumburra ... Birralee Victoria ... Lillydale ... Lillydale Child Care Centre Victoria ... Lillydale ... Wonga Park Child Care Centre Victoria ... Malvern ... Malvern Community Child Care Victoria ... Malvern ... Chisholm Child Care Centre Victoria ... Malvern ... May Armstrong Child Care Centre Victoria ... Marong ... Marong Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... Tommaso Fiaschi Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... Kensington Turkish Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... Wimble Street Child Care Co-op Victoria ... Melbourne ... Lady Gowrie Child Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... Turkish Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Melbourne ... Flemington Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Melbourne ... Kensington Womens Group Child Victoria ... Melbourne ... Kensington Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Melbourne ... Curzon Street Childrens Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... Henry Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melbourne ... South Yarra Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melton ... Melton and Bacchus Marsh Baptist Victoria ... Melton ... Melton and Bacchus March Baptist Victoria ... Melton ... Elizabeth Drive Child Care Centre Victoria ... Melton ... Blackdog Dve Melton Child Care Victoria ... Melton ... Melton West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Mildura (c) ... Sunraysia College of TAFE C.C. Victoria ... Moe ... Moe Child Care and Community Centre Victoria ... Moorabbin ... ACTU/ACSPA Child Care Centre L Victoria ... Moorabbin ... ACTU/ACSPA Child Care Centre L Victoria ... Moorabbin ... Bentleigh Neighbourhood Child Victoria ... Moorabbin ... East Bentleigh Child Care Centre Victoria ... Moorabbin ... East Bentleigh Child Care Service Victoria ... Mordialloc ... Mordialloc (Stawell St) Child Victoria ... Mordialloc ... Mordialloc (Mountview Ave) Child Victoria ... Mordialloc ... Mordialloc (Ashmore Ave) Child Victoria ... Mordialloc ... Australian Turkish Association Victoria ... Morwell ... Morwell Childrens Centre Victoria ... Myrtleford ... Myrtleford and District Child Victoria ... Northcote ... Perry Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Northcote ... Northcote Day Nursery Victoria ... Northcote ... Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Victoria ... Northcote ... Raleigh Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Northcote ... Merri Community Child Care Centre Victoria ... Northcote ... Northcote Child Care Centre Victoria ... Nunawading ... Nunawading North Neighbourhood Victoria ... Nunawading ... Nunawading Child Care Centre Victoria ... Nunawading ... Mitcham Child Care Centre Victoria ... Nunawading ... Blackburn Child Care Centre Victoria ... Oakleigh ... St Dominic Savio Child Care Centre Victoria ... Oakleigh ... Westall Day Care Centre Victoria ... Oakleigh ... Monash Community Creche (2 of Victoria ... Oakleigh ... Oakleigh Child Care Centre Victoria ... Oakleigh ... Oakes Avenue Child Care Centre Victoria ... Oakleigh ... Clayton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Omeo ... Wallamurra Community Centre Child Victoria ... Pakenham ... Cockatoo Community Church and Victoria ... Port Melbourne ... Port Melbourne Child Minding Centre Victoria ... Portland (s) ... Henry House Day Care Centre Victoria ... Portland (s) ... Portland Child Care Centre Victoria ... Prahran ... Lancaster and Hartley House Child Victoria ... Prahran ... Prahran Campus Community Child Victoria ... Prahran ... Princes Street Day Nursery Victoria ... Prahran ... Izette Street Day Nursery Victoria ... Prahran ... Prahran Child Care Centre Victoria ... Preston ... Reservoir Child Care Centre Victoria ... Preston ... Namaste House Child Care Centre Victoria ... Preston ... Merrilands Children Centre Victoria ... Preston ... Preston Child Care Centre Victoria ... Richmond ... Cooke Court Child Care Centre Victoria ... Richmond ... Lord Street Childrens Centre Victoria ... Richmond ... Victoria Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Richmond ... Australian Greek Welfare Society Victoria ... Richmond ... Acacia Indo Chinese Child Care Victoria ... Richmond ... Belgium Avenue Neighbourhood H Victoria ... Richmond ... Richmond Creche Society Victoria ... Richmond ... Richmond Child Care Centre Victoria ... Ringwood ... Warrawong Day Care Kindergarten Victoria ... Ringwood ... Ringwood Child Care Centre Victoria ... Rochester ... Rochester Child Care Centre Victoria ... Rodney ... Lidje Child Care Centre Victoria ... Rodney ... Varaville Childrens Centre Victoria ... Rodney ... Frank R. Pullar Children's Centre Victoria ... Sale ... Councillor Kath Foley Memorial Victoria ... Sandringham ... Sandringham Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sandringham ... Hampton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sebastopol ... Sebastopol Child Care Centre Victoria ... Shepparton (c) ... Florina Pre-School and Day Care Victoria ... Shepparton (c) ... Arthur Dickmann Child Care Centre Victoria ... Shepparton (c) ... Shepparton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sherbrooke ... Kallista Community House Victoria ... Sherbrooke ... Sherbrooke Community Child Care Victoria ... Sherbrooke ... Talaskia Child Care Centre (She Victoria ... South Barwon ... Greenville Day Care Centre Victoria ... South Barwon ... Belmont Child Care Centre Victoria ... South Melbourne ... South Melbourne Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... South Melbourne ... South Melbourne Child Care Centre Victoria ... Springvale ... Springvale Child Care Centre Victoria ... Springvale ... Noble Park Day Care Centre Victoria ... Springvale ... Keysborough Child Care Centre Victoria ... Springvale ... Springvale Child Care Centre Victoria ... St Kilda ... Chapel Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... St Kilda ... The Avenue Children's Centre Victoria ... St Kilda ... North St Kilda Day Nursery Victoria ... St Kilda ... Elwood Children's Centre Victoria ... St Kilda ... Scott Street Children's Centre Victoria ... St Kilda ... St Kilda West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Strathfieldsaye ... Strathfieldsaye Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Orama Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Maidstone Hall Small Group Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Rosslare Pde Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Northumberland Road Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Deer Park Children's Community Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Killeen Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Rhodes Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Tallintyre Road Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Waminda Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Watt Street Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... West Sunshine Ethnic Community Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... Highpoint West Child Care Centre Victoria ... Sunshine ... North St Albans Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Sunshine ... Rosslare Pde Child Care Centre Victoria ... Swan Hill (C)... Swan Hill Child Care Centre Victoria ... Swan Hill (S) ... Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-operative Child Care Centre Victoria ... Tambo ... Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust Child Care Centre Victoria ... Wangaratta (C) ... Tatham House Child Care Centre Victoria ... Wangaratta (C) ... Yarrunga Child Care Centre Victoria ... Warragul ... Warragul Neighbourhood Children's Centre Victoria ... Warrnambool (C) ... Florence Collins Child Care Centre Victoria ... Warrnambool (C) ... Matron Swinton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Waverley ... Monash Community Family Co-operative Child Care Centre Victoria ... Waverley ... Ashwood Child Care Centre Victoria ... Waverley ... Brandon Park Child Care Centre Victoria ... Waverley ... Rusden Child Care Centre Victoria ... Waverley ... Waverley Child Care Centre Victoria ... Werribee ... Werribee Child Care Centre Victoria ... Werribee ... Laverton Child Care Centre Victoria ... Werribee ... Heathdale Child Care Centre Victoria ... Werribee ... Hoppers Crossing Child Care Centre Victoria ... Whittlesea ... Co-As-It Child Care Centre Victoria ... Whittlesea ... Phillip Institute of Technology Victoria ... Whittlesea ... Australian Yugoslav Welfare Society Victoria ... Whittlesea Thomastown Child Care Centre Victoria ... Whittlesea ... Epping Child Care Centre Victoria ... Williamstown ... Williamstown Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Williamstown ... West Newport Neighbourhood Centre Victoria ... Wodonga ... Wodonga Child Care Co-operative Victoria ... Woorayl ... Leongatha Children's Centre Victoria ... Yea ... Kinglake Child Care Centre Queensland ... Acacia Ridge ... YMCA Acacia Ridge Child Care Centre Queensland ... Albert ... Eagleby Child Care Centre Queensland ... Albert ... Nerang Child Care Centre Queensland ... Atherton ... Atherton Shire Council Children's Centre Queensland ... Banana ... Biloela Child Care Centre Queensland ... Belyando ... Moranbah Multi-Functional Centre Queensland ... Belyando ... Clermont Kindergarten Day Care Centre Queensland ... Bowen ... Bowen and District Child Care Centre Queensland ... Broadsound ... Dysart Neighbourhood Centre Queensland ... Broadsound ... Middlemount Day Care Centre Queensland ... Bulimba ... Bulimba Child Care Centre Queensland ... Bundaberg ... Bundaberg Country Women's Association Queensland ... Burdekin ... Big Birds Nest Child Care Centre Queensland ... Caboolture ... Caboolture Child Care Centre Queensland ... Caboolture ... Morayfield Child Care Centre Queensland ... Cairns ... Cairns Children's Centre Queensland ... Cairns ... Happy Twins Child Care Centre Queensland ... Cairns ... Waratah Drive Child Care Centre Queensland ... Carina ... Carina Child Care Centre and Kindergarten Queensland ... Carpentaria ... Karumba Children's Centre Queensland ... City ... Kindercraft Civic Day Nursery Queensland ... City ... YMCA Windsor Child Care Centre Queensland ... City ... Queensland Institute of Technology Queensland ... City ... Woolloongabba Child Care Centre Queensland ... City ... Spring Hill Child Care Centre Queensland ... City ... Highgate Hill Child Care Centre Queensland ... City ... YMCA Jamboree Heights Child Care Centre Queensland ... City ... Toowong West Child Care Centre Queensland ... Cloncurry ... Cloncurry Day Care Centre Queensland ... Coopers Plains ... St David's Child Care Centre Queensland ... Dalby ... Dalby Child Care Centre Queensland ... Darra ... Darra Child Care Centre Queensland ... Duaringa ... Blackwater Family Centre Queensland ... East Brisbane ... East Brisbane Neighbourhood Child Care Centre Queensland ... Fairfield ... Fairfield Child Care Centre Queensland ... Fortitude Valley ... Lady Forster Creche Queensland ... Fortitude Valley ... Valley-New Farm Uniting Church Queensland ... Fortitude Valley ... Valley Creche and Kindergarten Queensland ... Fortitude Valley ... Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Queensland) Queensland ... Fortitude Valley ... Holy Trinity Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gladstone ... Gladstone City Council Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Bauer St Community Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Trinity Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Albert Waterways Children's Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Railway Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Ashmore Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Olsen Avenue Labrador Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Miami Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gold Coast ... Musgrave Hill Child Care Centre Queensland ... Goondiwindi ... Goondiwindi and District Child Care Centre Queensland ... Graceville ... Christ the King Child Care Centre Queensland ... Gympie ... Gympie Uniting Church Child Care Centre Queensland ... Highgate Hill ... Greek Orthodox Community of SA Queensland ... Hinchinbrook ... Ingham Child Care Centre Queensland ... Inala ... Aspen Child Care Kindergarten Queensland ... Inala ... Swallow St Child Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Bindarra Children's Day Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Brassall Day Care Service Queensland ... Ipswich ... Bundamba Child Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Churchill Day Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Cribb Street Child Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... North Ipswich Child Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Raceview Child Care Centre Queensland ... Ipswich ... Riverview Child Care Centre Queensland ... Kingaroy ... South Burnett Child Care Association Queensland ... Landsborough ... Caloundra Child Care Centre Queensland ... Logan ... Woodridge Community Child Care Queensland ... Logan ... Woodridge Uniting Church Kindergarten Queensland ... Logan ... New Life Child Care Centre Queensland ... Logan ... Kingston Community Day Care Centre Queensland ... Longreach ... Longreach Multi-Functional Day Care Centre Queensland ... Mackay ... Mackay Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mackay ... Mackay South Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mackay ... Koolyangarra Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mansfield ... Christian Outreach Centre Queensland ... Mareeba ... Mareeba Child Care Centre Queensland ... Maroochydore ... Maroochydore Child Care Centre Queensland ... Maroochydore ... Mooloolaba Child Care Centre Queensland ... Maroochy ... Nambour Child Care Centre Queensland ... Maryborough ... Maryborough Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mitchelton ... Mitchelton Day Care Centre Queensland ... Mitchelton ... Mitchelton Neighbourhood Centre Queensland ... Mt Gravatt ... St Marks Lutheran Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mt Gravatt ... Klumpp Road Child Care Queensland ... Mt Isa ... St Pauls Lutheran Child Care Centre Queensland ... Mt Isa ... Mount Isa Day Nursery Queensland ... Mulgrave ... Mulgrave Child Care Centre Queensland ... Murweh ... Charleville Multi-functional Centre Queensland ... Nathan ... Griffith University Child Care Queensland ... Nebo ... Glenden Child Care Centre Queensland ... Newmarket ... Newmarket Community Child Care Queensland ... Nundah ... Nundah Child Care Centre Queensland ... Pine Rivers ... Birralee Child Care Centre Queensland ... Pine Rivers ... St Peters Lutheran Kindergarten Queensland ... Pine Rivers ... Kallangur Child Care Centre Queensland ... Pine Rivers ... YMCA Strathpine Child Care Service Queensland ... Pioneer ... Kookaburra Child Care Centre Queensland ... Proserpine ... Proserpine Shire Council Child Queensland ... Red Hill ... Red Hill Child Care Centre Queensland ... Redcliffe ... Grace Creche and Kindergarten Queensland ... Redland ... Oaklands Street Child and Day Queensland ... Redland ... St James Lutheran Kindergarten Queensland ... Redland ... Alexandra Hills Child Care Centre Queensland ... Rochedale ... Rochedale Community Centre Queensland ... Rockhampton ... Elfin House Child Care Centre Queensland ... Rockhampton ... Illoura Child Care Centre Queensland ... Rockhampton ... Rockhampton Child Care Centre Queensland ... Sandgate ... Brighton Road Child Care Centre Queensland ... Sandgate ... Nash Street Child Care Centre Queensland ... Spring Hill ... Holy Family Child Care Centre Queensland ... St Lucia ... Campus Kindergarten-Day Care Queensland ... St Lucia ... Playhouse Parent and Child Care Queensland ... St Lucia ... Munro Centre Queensland ... Sunnybank ... Sunnybank Child Care Centre Queensland ... Toowong ... Toowong Child Care Centre Queensland ... Toowoomba ... Toowoomba Mothercraft Child Care Queensland ... Toowoomba ... Toowoomba Child Care Centre Queensland ... Toowoomba ... Darling Downs Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Galbiri Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... James Cook University Union Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Townsville Childrens Day Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... St Pauls Lutheran Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Carcoola Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Palm Island Neighbourhood Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Kirwan Child Care Centre Queensland ... Townsville ... Aitkenvale Child Care Centre Queensland ... Wacol ... Goodna Day Care Centre Queensland ... Wacol ... Carole Park Day Care Centre Queensland ... West End ... Kurilpa Child Care and Pre-School Queensland ... West End ... Chinese Fraternity Day Care Centre Queensland ... Wilston ... Wilston Child Care Centre Queensland ... Windsor ... Windsor Neighbourhood Child Care Centre Queensland ... Woolloongabba ... Gabba Greyhound Racing Club Day Care Centre Queensland ... Wynnum ... Bayside Community and Child Care Centre Queensland ... Zillmere ... Zillmere Municipal Day Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Catholic Womens League Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Mackinnon Parade Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Greyward Childrens Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Keith Sheridan Kindergarten South Australia ... Adelaide ... North Adelaide Baptist Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... City Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Royal Adelaide Hospital Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Tertiary Institutions Child Care Centre South Australia ... Adelaide ... Kidman Park Child Care Centre South Australia ... Berri ... Berri Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Brighton ... Kate Cocks Day Care Centre South Australia ... Burnside ... University of Adelaide Pre-School South Australia ... Burnside ... Conyngham Street Child Care Centre South Australia ... Campbelltown ... Campbelltown Childrens Centre South Australia ... Elizabeth ... Elizabeth Child Care Centre South Australia ... Elizabeth ... Tukutja Children's Centre South Australia ... Elizabeth ... Hillbank Child Care Service South Australia ... Enfield ... Parks Community Centre Children South Australia ... Enfield ... Yugoslav Child Care Centre South Australia ... Enfield ... Jas I Malgosia Enfield Polish South Australia ... Enfield ... Gilles Plains Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Glenelg ... Glenelg Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Happy Valley ... Happy Valley Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Happy Valley ... Aberfoyle Park Childcare Centre South Australia ... Hindmarsh ... Brompton Parent Child Centre South Australia ... Hindmarsh ... Greek Orthodox Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Kensington & Norwood ... Margaret Ives Childrens Centre South Australia ... Marion ... Diagonal Road Child Care Centre South Australia ... Marion ... Hallett Cove Child Care Centre South Australia ... Marion ... Ascot Park Child Care Centre South Australia ... Millicent ... Gladys Smith Parent and Child Care Centre South Australia ... Mitcham ... Flinders University and Sturt South Australia ... Mitcham ... Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Mitcham ... Mitcham/Belair Centre South Australia ... Mt Barker ... Mt Barker Child Care Centre South Australia ... Mt Gambier (C) ... Mount Gambier Child Care Centre South Australia ... Mt Gambier (C) ... The Neighbourhood Centre South Australia ... Munno Para ... Elizabeth West Child Care Centre South Australia ... Munno Para ... Munno Para Child Care Centre South Australia ... Murat Bay ... Ceduna Child Care Centre South Australia ... Murray Bridge ... Lower Murray Community Child Centre South Australia ... Naracoorte (M) ... Naracoorte Child Day Care Centre South Australia ... Noarlunga ... Noarlunga Community Child Centre South Australia ... Noarlunga ... Noarlunga Children's Centre South Australia ... Noarlunga ... Emu Children's Centre Inc. South Australia ... Noarlunga ... Reynella Child Care Centre South Australia ... Payneham ... Campbelltown Child Care Centre South Australia ... Penola ... Nangwarry Parent Child Centre South Australia ... Pirie ... Port Pirie Child Care Centre South Australia ... Port Adelaide ... Port Adelaide Central Mission South Australia ... Port Adelaide ... Kalaya Children's Centre South Australia ... Port Adelaide ... Le Fevre Peninsula Neighbourhood South Australia ... Port Augusta ... Port Augusta Childhood Service South Australia ... Port Augusta ... Port Augusta Childhood Centre South Australia ... Port Lincoln ... Lower Eyre Peninsula Child Care South Australia ... Prospect ... St Mary's Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... St Francis Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Direk Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Salisbury Campus Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Mary Street Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Para Hills West Child Care Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Parafield Gardens Community Child Centre South Australia ... Salisbury ... Ingle Farm Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... St Peter's ... St Peter's Child Care Centre South Australia ... Stirling ... Hills Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Tea Tree Gully ... Lurra Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Tea Tree Gully ... Modbury Hospital and Community South Australia ... Tea Tree Gully ... Surrey Downs Child Care Centre South Australia ... Thebarton ... Lady Gowrie Child Centre Inc. South Australia ... Thebarton ... Thebarton Parent-Child Centre South Australia ... Unincorporated ... Coober Pedy Child Care for Migrants South Australia ... Unincorporated ... Umoona Community Neighbourhood South Australia ... Unley ... Goodwood Community Child Care South Australia ... Unley ... Rachel Child Care Centre South Australia ... Unley ... Tilbrook House Child Caring Centre South Australia ... Unley ... Parkside Community Child Care South Australia ... Unley ... St Joseph's Centre for Young Site South Australia ... Victor Harbor ... Victor Harbor Child Care Centre South Australia ... West Torrens ... Sacae Child Care Centre South Australia ... West Torrens ... West Torrens Child Care Centre South Australia ... Whyalla ... Whyalla Child Care Centre South Australia ... Whyalla ... Whyalla Aboriginal Community Centre South Australia ... Woodville ... Athol Park Child Care Centre South Australia ... Woodville ... Seaton Community Child Care Centre South Australia ... Woodville ... Queen Elizabeth Child Care Centre South Australia ... Woodville ... Pennington Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Albany (T) ... Albany Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Armadale ... Roberta Jull Multi Purpose Centre Western Australia ... Armadale ... Frog Hollow Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Bassendean ... Wind in the Willows Children's Western Australia ... Bayswater ... Silverwood Day Nursery Western Australia ... Bayswater ... City of Bayswater Neighbourhood Western Australia ... Belmont ... Belmont Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Boulder ... Golden Mile Community House Western Australia ... Broome ... Chu-Chuus Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Bunbury ... Milligan House Western Australia ... Bunbury ... Bunbury Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Busselton ... Busselton Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Canning ... Willetton Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Canning ... Treasure Island Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Carnarvon ... Carnarvon Neighbourhood Centre Western Australia ... Cockburn ... Coolbellup Family Centre Western Australia ... Cockburn ... Coolbellup Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Cockburn ... Spearwood 43 Place Centre Site Western Australia ... Collie ... Collie Neighbourhood Centre Western Australia ... Coolgardie ... Kambalda Neighbourhood Centre Western Australia ... Dundas ... Norseman Child Care Centre Western Australia ... East Pilbara ... Newman Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Esperance ... Lingalonga Child Minding Centre Western Australia ... Exmouth ... Exmouth Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Fremantle ... Esme Fletcher Day Nursery Western Australia ... Fremantle ... Fred Notley Day Nursery Western Australia ... Fremantle ... Fremantle Children's Services Western Australia ... Fremantle ... Fremantle Children's Services Centre Western Australia ... Fremantle ... Beaconsfield International Child Western Australia ... Gosnells ... Coolabaroo Neighbourhood Centre Western Australia ... Gosnells ... Gosnells C.C.C. 43 Place Centre Western Australia ... Kalamunda ... Forrestfield Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Kalgoorlie ... Goldfields Residential and Day Western Australia ... Kwinana ... Kwinana Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Mandurah ... Mandurah Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Melville ... Murdoch Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Melville ... Blue Gum Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Melville ... Boogurlarri Community House Western Australia ... Melville ... Melville/Willagee 43 Place C.C. Western Australia ... Merredin ... Merredin Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Mundaring ... Midvale Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Narrogin (T) ... Narrogin Multi-Functional Centre Western Australia ... Nedlands ... Marita Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Nedlands ... University Child Care Club Inc. Western Australia ... Nedlands ... Nedlands Campus Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Northam (S) ... Northam Share and Care Neighbour Western Australia ... Perth ... Catherine McAuley Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Perth ... Children's Protection Society Western Australia ... Perth ... Florence Hummerston Child Mind Western Australia ... Perth ... Italian Association Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Perth ... Ngal-a Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Perth ... Ngal-a Annexe Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Perth ... Wait Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Perth ... Barney's Place W.A.I.T. Child C Western Australia ... Perth ... Anglican Health & Welfare Serv Western Australia ... Perth ... Jennifer Lockwood Child Care C Western Australia ... Perth ... Victoria Park Community Day Ca Western Australia ... Perth ... Forrest Place Multifunctional Western Australia ... Port Hedland ... Len Taplin Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Port Hedland ... Boronia Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Port Hedland ... Treloar Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Ravensthorpe ... Ravensthorpe Multifunctional C Western Australia ... Rockingham ... Rockingham Multifunctional Cen Western Australia ... Roebourne ... Dampier Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Roebourne ... Bulgara Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Roebourne ... Wickham Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Roebourne ... Millars Well Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Roebourne ... Bulgara Day Care Centre Co-Ord Western Australia ... South Perth ... Lady Gowrie Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Stirling ... Salvation Army Balga Day Care Western Australia ... Stirling ... Salvation Army N/hood Centre B Western Australia ... Stirling ... Glendalough Neighbourhood Cent Western Australia ... Stirling ... Marjorie Mann Lawley Day Care Western Australia ... Stirling ... Sudbury Community Housechild C Western Australia ... Stirling ... Mirrabooka Multicultural Child Western Australia ... Stirling ... Churchlands Campus Child Care Western Australia ... Stirling ... Site for North Stirling C.C.C. Western Australia ... Stirling ... North Maylands C.C.C. -43 plac Western Australia ... Subiaco ... Subicare Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Subiaco ... Princess Margaret Hospital for Western Australia ... Swan ... Swan Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Swan ... Brockman House Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Girrawheen Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Girrawheen Contact Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Duncraig Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Heathridge Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Padbury Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Kingsley Child Care Centre Western Australia ... Wanneroo ... Shire of Wanneroo; Whitfords S Western Australia ... West Kimberley ... Scallywags Child Care Centre Western Australia ... West Pilbara ... Paraburdoo Day Care Centre Western Australia ... West Pilbara ... Koobinya Day Care Centre Western Australia ... Wyndham-East Kimberley ... Ewin Long Day Care Centremulti Western Australia ... Wyndham-East Kimberley ... Wyndham Day Care Centre Tasmania ... Burnie ... Burnie Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Circular Head ... Smithton Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Clarence ... Jack & Jill Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Clarence ... Clarendon Vale Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Devonport ... Devonport Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Devonport ... East Devonport Child Care and Tasmania ... Georgetown ... Gordon Square Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Glenorchy ... Derwent Park Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Glenorchy ... Glenorchy City Council Child C Tasmania ... Hobart ... Scots Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Hobart ... St Davids Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Hobart ... Lipscombe Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Hobart ... Community Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Hobart ... Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Huon ... Huon Community Creche No. 2 Tasmania ... Kingborough ... Kingston Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Kingborough ... Blackmans Bay Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Kingborough ... Channel Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Launceston ... Stewart Street Creche Tasmania ... Launceston ... Dame Marjorie Parker Creche Tasmania ... Launceston ... Launceston Creche Tasmania ... Launceston ... East Tamar Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Launceston ... Ravenswood Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Launceston ... Launceston Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Queenstown ... Queenstown Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Ulverstone ... Ulverstone Child Care Centre Tasmania ... Wynyard ... Wynyard Northern Territory ... Alice Springs ... Alice Springs Child Care Centre Northern Territory ... Alice Springs ... Braitling Neighbourhood Centre Northern Territory ... Alice Springs ... Gap Neighbourhood Centre Northern Territory ... Alice Springs ... Eastside Neighbourhood Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Stuart Park Child Care Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Wanguri Family Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Parap Family Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Marrara Family Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Mitchell Street-Somerville C Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Casuarina Family Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Malak Communty Centre Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Gray-Somerville Child Care C Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Dripstone Childrens Centre Inc. Northern Territory ... City of Darwin ... Driver-Somerville Child Care Northern Territory ... Darwin Balance of St ... Moulden Child Care Centre Northern Territory ... Jabiru ... Jabiru Multi Functional Child Northern Territory ... Katherine ... Katherine Family Centre and Cr Northern Territory ... Katherine ... Katherine East Child Care Centre Northern Territory ... Nightcliffe ... Nightcliffe Family Centre Northern Territory ... Parap/Fannie Bay ... Darwin Baptist Church Day Nursery Northern Territory ... Rapid Creek ... Rapid Creek-Somerville Child Northern Territory ... Tennant Creek ... Tennant Creek Community Creche Northern Territory ... Victoria ... Humpty Doo Child Care Centre ATTACHMENT B ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN 1987/88 (est.) $m Direct funded Child care Special services Program support Total child care Family support Total Via-the-State funded Child care Special services Program support Total child care Family support Total Total Child care Special services Program support Total child care Family support Total Capital 24.9 .2 - 25.1 - 25.1 18.4 - - 18.4 .1 18.5 43.4 .2 - 43.5 .1 43.6 Recurrent 157.9 14.1 4.4 176.4 .2 176.6 14.0 .5 .2 14.7 9.5 24.2 171.8 14.6 4.6 191.1 9.6 200.8 Total 182.8 14.3 4.4 201.5 .2 201.7 32.4 .5 .2 33.1 9.6 42.7 215.2 14.8 4.6 234.7 9.7 244.4 (Question No. 305) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science and Small Business, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) When does the time charter party expire for the CSIRO Fisheries Division research vessel FRV ``Soela''. (2) What is the latest date on which the Fisheries Division can advise the owners of the vessel whether or not it wishes to continue the current time charter party. (3) What plans have been prepared for the replacement of the vessel if the time charter party is not continued. (4) If a replacement vessel is obtained and is to be owned by the CSIRO, who is proposed to be the operator of the vessel and be responsible for matters such as crewing. (5) When will the Government, in conjunction with the CSIRO, make a firm decision on the future of FRV ``Soela''. (6) What sum did it cost to operate the FRV ``Soela'' in 1986-87, including all time charter party costs, and incidental and administrative costs met directly by the CSIRO. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The present time charter of the Research Vessel ``Soela'' is due to expire on 21 October 1988. (2) CSIRO would need to advise the owners of the vessel by 21 April 1988 if CSIRO wishes to extend the charter. (3) CSIRO engaged a firm of naval architects to examine the needs of the Division of Fisheries Research for a vessel, to draw up a list of requirements and an outline specification and general arrangement drawing for a vessel to meet those needs, and to examine the costs of various acquisition options. Following the receipt of the report from the naval architects and taking into account the likely level of funding to provide and operate a fisheries research vessel, CSIRO advertised inviting expressions of interest in the supply of an existing vessel which will meet the requirements outlined either as it stands, or after minimal conversion in Australia. Certain funds have been reserved in the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account by the Government for the replacement of the RV ``Soela''. (4) CSIRO's preferred option is to buy a vessel and then to invite tenders for the management of the vessel. In order to canvass all of the cost options so that it can be demonstrated that the most cost effective choice is ultimately made, CSIRO has stated that it would consider other options including an offer to sell a vessel linked with a vessel management contract. (5) The Government will make a firm decision on the future of the RV ``Soela'' after expressions of interest have been evaluated fully and a recommendation has been received from CSIRO. (6) CSIRO spent $2,159,200 on direct identifiable operating costs of the RV ``Soela'' in 1986-87. (Question No. 317) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Is his Department introducing a charging system whereby documents which are now supplied to pilots and aviation organisations free of charge will be subject to a charge; if so, (a) why, (b) when will it be introduced and (c) what lead-in provisions will it have. (2) If the Government, through legislation or regulations, requires the documents to be held by pilots and certain aviation organisations, is there any provision to permit them to be obtained through means other than the proposed scheme; if not, why not. (3) If the documents can be obtained through other means, what are those means. (4) If the documents can only be obtained through his Department, what assurance is there that the documents are being produced and distributed at the least cost possible. (5) How will his Department distribute the documents. (6) Will all necessary documents be freely available in a short period of time. (7) How long will it take for documents to be delivered from the time his Department receives an order or request for such documents. (8) What payment scheme will his Department use and will it be in line with private sector practice; if not, why not. (9) Could any aspects of the proposed scheme be performed better by the private sector; if not, why not. (10) If some aspects could be performed better by the private sector, will they be transferred to the private sector; if not, why not. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) The distribution of operational documentation has been a cause of industry dissatisfaction. The practice of distributing all documents to all licence holders, regardless of personal needs, was widely seen as wasteful. The Bosch Report on cost recovery also commented on the need to review distribution procedures and to introduce charging for publications. The Australian ``free'' distribution was seen as unique. Operational documentation must be purchased, for example, in the United States, Canada, Britain and Europe. (b) The new system was introduced with effect from 1 October 1987. (c) Industry organisations were advised of the Department's intentions in November 1986, and comments on the proposal were sought at that time. Pilots, aviation companies and organisations were informed by distribution of an Aeronautical Information Circular dated 7 May 1987, that the proposal would proceed as from 1 October 1987. They were provided with the necessary application form at that time. (2) and (3) A pilot-in-command of a flight is required by the Air Navigation Regulations to carry on the aircraft and to use the operational information applicable to that particular flight. There is no requirement for that pilot to own a personal copy of these documents. The documents may at present only be purchased through the Department. However, substantial discounts are available to bulk purchasers and the major airlines, for example, are purchasing in bulk for further distribution to their staff. The Department is developing a proposal which will encourage retailing of documents through commercial outlets at major airports, including general aviation airports. (4) Cost of production is kept to a minimum through use, on a direct cost only basis, of the Department of Defence printing facilities for documents other than coloured charts. These charts are printed commercially under nomal contract arrangements. Costs are further contained by centralising distribution and using the Department's existing ADP facilities to automate ordering, envelope addressing, stock control, and financial recording. (5) Dispatch is by Australia Post, at bulk postage rates. (6) Yes. (7) The Department seeks to ensure that all orders are dispatched within one working day of receipt. (8) Normal commercial practice is followed. Cash, cheque or credit cards are all acceptable and credit card orders may also be placed by phone. (9) No. (10) Not applicable. (Question No. 318) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) When did his Department change the regulations governing Air Navigation Regulation 203 (Commuter Operations) from the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards to the present standards, which are peculiar to Australia only. (2) For what reasons was the change made and which precedent was used as the basis of change. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The standards applicable to commuter operations were reviewed over the period 1979-1982 and legislation became effective on 1 February 1983. This was during the period of the Fraser Government. The new standards were phased in over the period 1 February to 1 August 1983, during the latter stage of the Fraser Government and the early period of the first Hawke Government. (2) The review of standards arose from the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review conducted in 1977-78 which recommended that scheduled passenger operations should not be conducted by charter operators under the exemption provided by Air Navigation Regulation 203 but should be classified as Supplementary Airline operations and operate under a discrete airline licence. The review was conducted by means of a three stage consultation process with the aviation industry and used as its basis the then existing standards for ANR 203 operations, which had been in place since the mid 1960s. In determining the new standards, consideration was given to (a) the increasing sophistication in types of aircraft and equipment introduced into commuter operations over the intervening years, (b) passenger expectations, (c) comparable standards for this kind of operation which are in place in major aviation countries overseas. I should point out that the majority of the types of aeroplanes used in commuter operations have a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 5700 kilograms and the International Civil Aviation Organisation does not prescribe specific standards for regular public transport services conducted by aircraft in this weight category. The current Australian standards for these aircraft now closely align, in essential detail, with those being observed for commuter operations in the USA. In the case of Supplementary Airline services which are operated by aeroplanes exceeding 5700kg maximum take-off weight, there are only minor differences between the standards applied to these services and the standards which apply to aircraft operated by holders of full Airline Licences. (Question No. 365) Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: (1) What is the anticipated date of completion of the (a) duplication and rerouting of the Bruce Highway from Sippy Creek to the Maroochydore Turnoff and (b) Nambour Bypass. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Queensland Main Roads Department that (a) current programs provide for the completion of the section of the Bruce Highway from Sippy Creek to the Maroochydore Turnoff during the 1989-90 financial year, and (b) work on the Nambour Bypass is already under way and is presently scheduled as a continuing project with completion in 1991-92. (Question No. 396) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What was the total sum spent by the Minister's entire portfolio on public opinion polls in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. (2) What was the objective of each of the opinion polls and what did each cost. (3) Who was commissioned to undertake each opinion poll. (4) Are the results of each opinion poll publicly available. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No funds were spent from my portfolio on public opinion polls in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 404) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: What proportion of women who enlist in the Regular Army become: (a) clerical workers, and (b) military police. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at the 31 Oct 87 there were 2,062 enlisted women in the Australian Regular Army. The number of women employed in clerical duties were: (a) 394 Clerk Administrative, (b) 109 Clerk Technical, (c) 20 Clerk Pay, (d) 11 Clerk Production, (e) 10 Examiner Psychology, and (f) 7 Assistant Administrative. This is a total of 551 or 26.7% of the enlisted women. (2) The number of enlisted women employed in Military Police duties were: (a) 8 Military Police, and (b) 4 Investigator Military Police. This is a total of 12 or 0.6% of the enlisted women. (Question No. 479) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Have increased unemployment levels forced the Government to increase its budget allocations for unemployment benefits; if so, what has been the increase in the budget allocations for each quarter since 1983 in each State and Territory. (2) Have any other budget allocations for benefits and entitlements been revised upwards as a result of increasing unemployment; if so, which benefits or entitlements allocations were revised and by what sum were they revised in each State and Territory. (3) If other budget allocations were not revised as a result of increasing unemployment, why not. (4) What will be the overall increase to social security expenditure as a result of increasing unemployment. (5) Will an increased number of unemployment beneficiaries require an increase in departmental staff; if so, how many additional staff will be required in each State and regional office. (6) If an increase in departmental staff is not required, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The premise on which the question is based-viz. that unemployment levels have increased since 1983-is incorrect. Unemployment levels have fallen since their historic peak in the last month of the Liberal-National Party government. The number of unemployment beneficiaries has decreased even more rapidly. At the end of February 1983 there were 632,800 recipients of unemployment benefits. By 27 November 1987 there were 481,236 receipients of unemployment benefits. This compares with 591,400 at the end of November in 1983, 552,900 in 1984, 520,800 in 1985 and 540,500 in 1986.