Thursday, 10 December 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives, message No. 115, relating to an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on Video Material to report. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 10, subclause 11 (2), lines 1 to 23, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (4) and substituting the following subsection: `(4) Where: (a) the amount per annum of the reduction under subsection (3) in the maximum annual rate of pension, benefit (other than a benefit under Part XIII) or allowance applicable to a person in respect of property of the person or the person's spouse that is property referred to in paragraph (1) (c) is less than the lesser of the following amounts per annum: (i) the amount per annum equal to 2.5% of the value of that property; (ii) the amount per annum that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from a purely commercial application of that property; or (b) there is no reduction under subsection (3) in respect of that property; the maximum annual rate of pension, benefit or allowance applicable to the person shall: (c) in a case to which paragraph (a) applies-be further reduced by the difference between that first-mentioned reduction and that lesser amount per annum; or (d) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-be reduced by that lesser amount per annum.'. Commencement: 13 November 1987''. No. 2-Page 11, paragraph 11 (3) (g), lines 23 to 43, leave out ``greater'' (wherever occurring), insert ``lesser''. No. 3-Page 18, paragraph 21 (e), proposed paragraph (a) of definition of ``severely handicapped person'', line 4, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric dis- ability; and''. No. 4-Page 27, clause 36, proposed section 101, proposed paragraph (a) of definition of ``disabled child'', line 6, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability;''. No. 5-Pages 53 and 54, subclause 76 (2), line 40 (page 53) to line 19, (page 54), leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) Section 53 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection: `(3) Where: (a) the amount per annum of the reduction under subsection (2) in the maximum annual rate of pension applicable to a person in respect of property of the person or the person's spouse that is property referred to in paragraph (1) (c) is less than the lesser of the following amounts per annum: (i) the amount per annum equal to 2.5% of the value of that property; (ii) the amount per annum that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from a purely commercial application of that property; or (b) there is no reduction under subsection (2) in respect of that property; the maximum annual rate of pension applicable to the person shall: (c) in a case to which paragraph (a) applies-be further reduced by the difference between that first-mentioned reduction and that lesser amount per annum; or (d) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-be reduced by that lesser amount per annum.'. Commencement: 13 November 1987''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(10.02) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments are of a technical nature. They simply bring the administrative features of the legislation into line with existing practice. I commend the legislation to the Committee. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.03) —I regret that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is not in the chamber for the handling of this debate. Mr Peter Morris —He is at a Cabinet meeting. Mr CONNOLLY —I see. The reason I regret that he is not here is that the Opposition agreed with the Minister and with his office yesterday that he would make a short ministerial statement so that there would be no confusion whatsoever as to what the proposed changes to sub-clause 11 of this Bill would in fact mean. I draw that to the attention of the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) because it is significant. Mr Peter Morris —Yes. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister may read them in. I have the words here if he wants to use them. I am simply saying that it is essential for the support of the Opposition for these proposed changes that these words be used at this stage of the process. Under the original amendments as proposed to the Act by the Government, the pension would be reduced by 2.5 per cent of the value of the property or the amount per annum that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from purely commercial application of that property, whichever is the greater. It had been agreed initially that the word `greater' be replaced by the word `lesser'. The significance of that is of great importance especially to farmers and their families, many of whom are in straightened circumstances. I might add that the same principle also applied to veterans who also are retired farmers. I commend my colleague, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), for his outstanding support in this matter and in defence of veterans in our community. The Opposition has accepted the proposed amendments on the basis that the Minister would give an undertaking to the Parliament that the new guidelines would apply to pensioners with farming properties. For example, if the farm is being operated by a family member and it is not reasonable to expect the farm to be used for another purpose, the overall financial structure of that family member will be taken into account in determining what rent, if any, that person could be reasonably expected to pay to his parents, who are the notional owners of the property. Consequently, it is significant that we have clarified once and for all in this debate at this time, before the passage of the legislation through the House, precisely the agreement entered into by the Government and the Opposition in another place and between the Minister and me yesterday, to the effect that departmental officers, in their interpretation of the guidelines relating to this clause, will work on the following basis: the guidelines for implementation of the section will expressly provide that, when calculating the pension of the person who owns farming land, the Department will determine the commercial value of the property by taking into account the financial situation of the family member who is farming the property. Honourable members would probably not be aware that over recent years there have been a number of appeals under this legislation. Eight hundred and twenty people are affected. Also, a significant number of appeals are still being dealt with through the processes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The people involved in those appeals are, naturally, concerned about the implementation of these changes and how they will be affected. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a range of situations involving both ex-farmers who may have been veterans or ordinary farmers who are now retired and who, for all intents and purposes, no longer have management control of their farms. They are simply living in the house on the land which has been allocated to them or has been part of their family estate for generations. Other members of their family, normally their children, are managing the farms, but the status and the relationship between the parents and the children are absolutely unclear in terms of these proposed changes, unless the Minister is prepared to make the statement which I have just enunciated to the House. Therefore, I once again ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the responsible Minister is at a Cabinet meeting, to clarify precisely what the Government proposes in this matter. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources)(10.08) —I convey to the Committee the apology of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Unfortunately, he is unable to be here because a Cabinet committee meeting is taking place at the moment. He has asked me to express that apology to honourable members. There has been no attempt on his part not to be here. He has also asked me to say on his behalf that the Government's proposal for the pensions assets test hardship provisions are already fair and equitable, cutting off loopholes to make sure that only those who need public income support get it. Nevertheless, given the attitude of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the other place, and because of the need to get the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 through the Parliament to enable the Government to pay the family package increases, the Government has agreed to amend the Bill in the terms that I moved a few minutes ago. The effect of the amendment will be that in cases where the amount that could be reasonably expected to be obtained from the commercial application of the property in question is less than 2 1/2 per cent of the value of the property, the 2.5 per cent calculation need not apply. The Minister has also asked me to say that, in moving the amendment, the Government undertakes that where a farm is being operated by a family member of the pensioner-for example, the child of the pensioner-and it is not reasonable to expect that farm to be used for another purpose, the provision as amended will be administered so that the overall financial situation of that family member will be taken into account in determining what rent, if any, that family member could reasonably be expected to pay. I feel that that explanation answers the request made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The Government welcomes the support of the Opposition for the amendment. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.09) —That statement made by the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris), representing the Minister for Social Security, represents a step forward in terms of this long saga of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Nevertheless, I serve notice that the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I and others will continue to monitor its application very closely because we still have some reservations that it represents a winding back by degrees of the Williamson case position. We certainly want to see that justice is done in accordance with our understanding and in accordance with what the Minister has told the House will be the procedure adopted by both the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs in administering the application of the assets test for aged and service pensioners respectively. Regarding the other amendments that have not been touched upon, I merely highlight to the Committee-this has occurred presumably because of time constraints-that whilst we appreciate the explanatory memorandum that was forthcoming as a matter of courtesy in respect of some amendments, I do not believe that it covered all the Senate amendments on this occasion. I suppose there was a logistical problem, but these are complex amendments. There was a very complex proceeding in the Senate yesterday and, if the Parliament and the nation are to stay on top of the application and the ramifications of legislation of this nature, we need comprehensive explanatory memoranda. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.11) —These amendments represent a significant change to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2). From the limited time we have had to review the amendments, with which the Government now agrees, it appears that the Government has picked up the serious concerns that were expressed by the shadow Minister, by me and by other honourable members in relation to genuine cases of hardship which have been accepted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and which had previously been accepted by the Department of Social Security under the existing discretionary arrangements that allowed the Department to pay a pension in cases where it would cause undue hardship to apply the 2.5 per cent return rule. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to accept some amendments in this situation. I regret that the Opposition in this place and subsequently in the Senate, with the support of the Australian Democrats, has had to force the Government to change this legislation to make it more reasonable. We explained the case very clearly during the second reading debate, but the Government turned a deaf ear on that occasion. It was only the force of numbers in the Senate that meant that the Government was prepared to back down. I think it is a great pity that this Government is not more sensitive to the needs of the Australian community, especially the hard-pressed rural community which would have been affected seriously by the changes had they been allowed to go through unamended. Therefore, the Opposition is very pleased that the Government has backed down and accepted the veracity of the case that we put forward that the changes would have resulted in undue hardship in a number of cases, and we believe that these amendments are a step forward. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.13) —Because of the wide-ranging cognate debate, a number of shadow Ministers debated the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2). I participated in the debate in this chamber as part of my responsibilities as shadow Minister for Health. I welcome this change in the legislation and I wish to put on the record that, as has been said, the Government, with the urging of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the other place, has recognised that hardship is hardship, is hardship, and there must always be some discretion when one tries to right rules about people's welfare. In relation to the rural sector in particular, someone eventually has to decide the asset value of a family farm. It is something that transfers from one member to another. It is really only a means of employment, and we are past the time when the amount of money that can be accumulated over one's working lifetime is sufficient to guarantee retirement when someone else goes on to the property with a growing family to achieve a living. While this Government occupies the treasury bench I hope that it will take that into account in future deliberations. The owners of a farm, people in their seventies or eighties, may pass the farm's use to people in their fifties or sixties, who then pass it to people in their early twenties. I can think of a specific example of someone in this position who has a wife and two young children. One might wonder what is the asset value of that farm. Had we followed the strict provisions of the legislation, all the very elderly people who remain owners of farms could not afford what is probably $10,000 to $20,000 worth of stamp duty to transfer them to the current incumbents, and that is why they do not do it. Those people had one solution and that was to sell the farm on behalf of the present incumbents and put them on the dole. That would not be very productive for Australia. I hope in time the Government will look further at the asset value of a genuine family farm and recognise that. This move, which in the end gives the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) the discretion to make a decision in that regard, is an excellent one. I am very grateful to honourable members on my side of politics who stuck so firmly to the commitment that irrespective of the Budget nature of this legislation this point must be made, and I congratulate the Government for accepting it and bringing it back to this place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by the resolution of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of members' interests received by the Registrar of Members' Interests during the period 21 November to 9 December 1987. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-It is with immense pride on behalf of this Labor Government that I am able to present to the Parliament today proposals of great and historic importance for all Australians. The proposals fulfil the commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that an Aboriginal Affairs Commission be established; the Commission will be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). These proposals address issues of considerable magnitude. It is time that these important issues be dealt with in a constructive manner. For more than 40,000 years Aboriginal and Islander people have considered themselves the custodians of this land. Aboriginal and Islander people have maintained their pride, their dignity and their integrity despite the impact of European settlement just 200 years ago. The impact of this settlement is still being felt by Aboriginal and Islander people today. It was only 20 years ago that the Australian people voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to give the Commonwealth the power to make laws affecting the lives of the Aboriginal and Islander people. In the light of this history, it is proposed by this Government to acknowledge that `the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. It is envisaged that such an acknowledge would be included in the preamble to legislation introduced to achieve the aims outlined in this statement. Whilst achievements have been made in recent years, there is a need to understand properly and to address seriously the vital issue of self-determination for Aboriginal and Islander people. In the past there has been a misunderstanding of what Aboriginal and Islander people have meant when talking of self-determination. What has always existed is a willingness and desire by Aboriginal and Islander people to be involved in the decision-making process of government. It is the right of Aboriginal and Islander people as citizens of this country to be involved in this process, as ultimately these decisions will affect their daily lives. We must ensure that Aboriginal and Islander people are properly involved at all levels of the decision-making process in order that the right decisions are taken about their lives. Aboriginal people need to decide for themselves what should be done-not just take whatever governments think or say is best for them. I believe this package of proposals addresses these needs. It is not simply a symbolic move but one of substance that provides a real foundation for the future. Until all Australians recognise this need for self-determination, recognise the Aboriginal and Islanders' pride and dignity as a people and until Aboriginal and Islander people can take their rightful place as full and equal participants in the richness and diversity of this nation, our claims to being a civilised, mature and humane society sound hollow. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission The central part of this package I am presenting today is the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The proposals which I will now describe will be circulated widely amongst the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for discussion and consideration. I must stress that the effective implementation of these proposals ultimately rests on receiving a positive endorsement from the Aboriginal and Islander community of Australia. The Government must be satisfied that the proposals have been endorsed by the people it will directly affect. In the early part of next year I intend to consult personally with Aboriginal and Islander people. I am developing an itinerary for consultations in each of the regions outlined in the new Commission proposal. Every incorporated Aboriginal body or organisation will be invited to attend these meetings. After these discussions, our proposal will be reviewed in the light of all comments received. It is proposed that the new Commission would commence operations on 1 July 1988. The Commission would be made up of, and work for, Aboriginal and Islander people. Only a minority of the commissioners would be appointed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Commission will be responsible to the Minister. The linchpin of the new Commission structure would be the proposed system of some 28 regional councils, comprising representatives of Aboriginal and Islander communities and organisations. I will say more about these councils shortly. The Commission will consist of a full time appointed chairman and 11 part time commissioners. Six of the part time commissioners would be selected by zone councils. These zone councils would comprise two representatives chosen by each regional council in their State or Territory. Victoria and Tasmania would comprise one zone. One commissioner would be selected by the Torres Strait Islander community. The remaining four commissioners would be appointed. Terms of appointments for all commissioners would be for up to five years. Two deputy chairpersons are to be elected by the commissioners. The administrative operations of the Commission would be the responsibility of an appointed Chief Executive Officer. It is proposed that the Act establishing the Commission would include a description of all Commonwealth functions in Aboriginal Affairs, including those undertaken outside the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The Commission structure would encompass all Aboriginal Affairs portfolio functions, so replacing the four existing bodies-the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I mentioned earlier the system of regional councils. I see it as a most important and innovative part of our proposal because it will provide the opportunity for Aboriginal and Islander people to have a real say in the running of their affairs and the determination of priorities for action. To match this system of regional councils, it is proposed that the organisational structure of the Commission will be based on some 28 regions. This decentralisation of administration will be closely modelled on the existing regional office structure of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. A regional council would be established in each of these regions, and will comprise representatives of each incorporated Aboriginal community and organisation in that region. Each council will determine, within functional budgets, relative priorities for the region, make recommendations to the Commission, and act as a general focus and sounding board for Aboriginal Affairs programs and policies. Further details are contained in attachment D, `Interrelationships between the Commission, the Minister and Regional and Zone Councils'. As I have already mentioned, each regional council will select two representatives-one female, one male-to a zone council. These zone councils will consider policy proposals brought forward by regional councils, provide policy advice to the Commission and the Minister, and each will nominate one commissioner. The structure I have described-regional councils, zone councils and, at the national level, the Commission-will ensure that the views of Aboriginal and Islander people can flow from the grass roots to the centre of government and be reflected in action, in each of its programs and activities. I believe this will be a much more effective way of providing for Aboriginal and Islander input than has ever existed. In many ways it can be seen as combining the administrative functions of my portfolio with the consultative role that was formerly carried out by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). I shall seek the views of Aboriginal and Islander people as to whether they would see the new structure as providing an appropriate replacement mechanism for the NAC. Preamble to the Act The proposals I have outlined break new ground in terms of reflecting the progressive commitment by Government and all Australians to recognise the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people. It is therefore fitting that the proposed legislation to establish the new Commission should contain a declaration in the form of a substantial preamble of the Australian people's commitment to the recognition and protection of the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people and to measures to overcome their disadvantage. A proposed preamble is attached to this statement in Attachment A. I repeat that the preamble is both significant and historic as it would officially recognise for the first time that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia were `the prior occupiers and original owners of this land'. A Compact or Agreement There is a widely held belief that we cannot come to terms with our history unless we reach some form of compact, agreement, treaty or Makarrata-the name is not significant-between the Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. It is a recognised fact that the settlers of Australia totally ignored the legitimate rights of Aboriginal and Islander people. Indeed, as the proposed preamble sets out, the indigenous people were `dispossessed of their land by subsequent European occupation and have no recognised rights over it other than those granted by the Crown'. Reaching an agreement is a difficult, and, for some, a contentious issue. The Government makes no claim to special wisdom in this matter. Nor would it be appropriate to seek to impose a particular set of propositions on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, for an imposed solution is unlikely to gain sufficient acceptance. But, as the Prime Minister's recent comments have made clear, the issue must be addressed. It is much too important a task to be rushed. No artificial deadlines will be set, no hasty drafting will be done. This time we must get it right. The first step is to consult with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to know what is thought of the concept, how Aboriginal and Islander people would see it being developed and what, from the perspective of Aboriginal and Islander people, might reasonably be included in an agreement. Accordingly I shall initiate a series of discussions with Aboriginal and Islander people in the New Year to be organised on a regional basis that will, in effect, take the form of meetings of the regional councils I have already mentioned. In these discussions the central issues will be: do you wish the concept of a compact to proceed and, if so, how should we proceed to develop it? At the same time I would expect to receive comments on the proposals for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and obtain views on appropriate consultative arrangements to replace the former National Aboriginal Conference. When the time is right, mechanisms will be set up for the further development of ideas put forward by Aboriginal and Islander and non-Aboriginal people. When the discussions reach this point, I believe it would be appropriate to set up a group of people with high standing in the community and with the appropriate background and skills to undertake the vital and sensitive task of refining options put forward by the Australian community for consideration by the Government. Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation Another exciting innovation will be to establish, within the overall framework of the new Commission, an Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. This Corporation would undertake commercial activities in its own right, provide loans and equity capital for Aboriginal economic development, and be the mechanism for the accumulation of a substantial capital asset for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Its purposes and functions will include: to facilitate and encourage Aboriginal participation in commerce and enterprise, particularly in relation to regional and national economic development; to provide and to facilitate finance for significant Aboriginal enterprises with sound prospects of commercial viability; to secure, to the greatest extent practicable, Aboriginal participation in the ownership and control of companies engaged in activities on Aboriginal land, or in areas which will have a significant impact on Aboriginal communities; to assist the development of industries and areas of economic activity which are clearly aligned with Aboriginal concerns; and to assist Aboriginal commercial and economic development through provision of specialist commercial expertise. Initial funding for the Corporation will comprise the existing $20m of the capital fund of the Aboriginal Development Commission and a capital subvention of $20m. An additional $10m in capital funds will be provided in 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Corporation would be run by a board of nine persons. Of these, at least three would be members of the Commission, and the rest would be selected for the expertise and experience that they can bring to the task. It would be independent in its operations, subject to the powers of the Minister to approve, on the advice of the Commission, corporate plans, general operating guidelines, and similar policy matters. For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the Corporation will provide a vehicle to assist them to take up the challenges of commercial development, and to participate as equals in the national economy. The existing enterprise funding functions of the ADC, many of which are oriented towards community development and employment, will be undertaken by the new Commission. The housing functions of the ADC will be undertaken by a housing trust, or similar body, to be established under the Commission. Detailed proposals for the trust are being developed. Aboriginal Land Base For Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, land lies at the very core of their identity. We cannot hope to restore their pride, their self-esteem, their culture, unless we are prepared to recognise that simple fact. Much has already been accomplished. The Commonwealth blazed the trail with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and the Parliament earlier this year enacted some important changes to that Act. In all States except Tasmania, action has been taken to provide some land for Aboriginals under various forms of title. On another front, we are making good progress in the Northern Territory in negotiations which will lead to the grant of living areas for Aborigines on excisions from pastoral properties. I have also had amicable personal discussions with Tasmanian State Ministers about the situation in that State. The Commonwealth has made a formal proposal to the Tasmanian Government. I am awaiting with confidence a response from Tasmania. The ADC's funding activities have resulted in Aborigines obtaining title to pastoral properties and to land for housing and other purposes. There are many, however, who remain dispossessed in their own land, and we shall continue to pursue policies, wherever possible in co-operation with State and Territory governments, aimed at overcoming this problem. We make it clear once again that the Commonwealth will not allow situations to develop where a State or Territory can continue to evade its responsibilities. In this regard delay and deferral, or mere tokenism, are little different from outright refusal to act. There is also the issue of the adequacy of the arrangements that are already in place, and in particular the nature of tenure. In the Northern Territory, Aboriginal land is held under inalienable freehold title. It is the Commonwealth's view that this is the most appropriate form of title. It can hardly be lasting restoration and reparation that something that is granted today may be lost tomorrow. Elsewhere in Australia, however, much land that is designated as Aboriginal land is not held with the same security of tenure. Legislation could be changed, or leases terminated or not renewed. These are important concerns, and we shall be taking up with State and Territory governments possible ways by which security of tenure for Aboriginal land can be safeguarded. I would now like to address my remarks to other sections of the proposal. Other Features of the Proposed Legislation The Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 will be replaced by the new Act. A separate part of the new Act would provide for retention of the activities now carried out by the Institute, with appropriate safeguards to ensure that existing high standards of objectivity and scholarship are maintained. It is proposed, however, to rename the Institute as the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is presently a company limited by guarantee. It is envisaged that its management functions will become integrated with other related housing type functions within the new Commission, with it continuing the actual operation of the hostels. Staffing of the Commission will be under the Public Service Act, except for hostels staff under industrial awards and the staff of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. There will be provision for persons to be engaged under other arrangements where appropriate-for example, a term contract arrangement may be a more suitable arrangement for some professional persons undertaking work with the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies. Recent Achievements in Aboriginal Affairs Madam Speaker, I have so far informed the Parliament of the new directions we are setting for Aboriginal affairs. There are several other important initiatives and achievements I now want to mention, to set them in the context of the changes already referred to. ROYAL COMMISSION ON ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY Early in my term as Minister, the Government accepted a recommendation from me and the Acting Attorney-General to establish a royal commission to investigate the shocking and increasing toll of Aboriginal deaths in prison or elsewhere in custody. At that time-just a couple of months ago-we thought there had been about 45 such tragedies since 1980. But, since then, more information has come forward. The Commissioner, Mr Justice Muirhead, tells us that the total number of cases may be double that, or even more. We recognised that the Royal Commission could not give us immediate answers to this sad chronicle of death and despair. We recognised that action was needed now. On 10 September, the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) and I met relevant State Ministers to draw up a code of practice designed to prevent or deter Aboriginal detainees from dying in jail. Police Ministers met again on 27 November and agreed to implement a code on a trial basis, pending discussions with Aboriginal and Islander people, particularly Aboriginal legal services. Here again, it is vital that all authorities should consult fully with Aboriginal people. We are committed to ensuring that this happens. The Commonwealth will push ahead, with the States, to do all we can in this area. We shall encourage the States to adopt a code of practice. We shall foster programs to prevent or at least to diminish substantially the level of Aboriginal imprisonment. We look forward, in the longer term, to considering and giving appropriate effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations. OUT-STATION MOVEMENT There has been no more significant movement in Aboriginal Affairs over recent years than that of Aboriginal people returning to their traditional land. It is a dramatic demonstration of Aboriginal initiative and drive which reflects the strength of Aboriginal people and of their ties to their traditional lands. And it reveals their dissatisfaction with the artificial life and environments of the large settlements created under the banner of `assimilation'. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, `Return to Country: The Aboriginal Homelands Movement in Australia', was presented to the House on 14 May 1987. While I shall soon be responding in detail to this report, I am able to say here that the Government accepts the general thrust of the report and its recommendations, noting that some recommendations relate to matters which are the responsibility of State and Territory governments. But a fresh approach and additional effort is necessary to provide adequate and appropriate shelter and infrastructure for the out-station movement. In the run-up to the establishment of the new Commission, my Department will be evaluating existing community infrastructure programs with a view to redirecting existing funding to target the areas of greatest need, particularly the out-stations. ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT POLICY The Prime Minister launched, on 18 November, the Aboriginal employment development policy. That policy represents a major commitment by the Commonwealth to enhancing the economic, educational and employment opportunities of Australia's Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. While we will not be able to redress all inequalities overnight, I expect that we will make significant advances each year to achieve the target for all Aboriginal and Islander people to have full equity with other Australians in employment opportunities by the year 2000. The Aboriginal employment development policy represents a significant landmark in the interaction between the Aboriginal community and government. It has been developed in response to repeated requests from the Aboriginal community for the opportunity to participate equally in the areas of education, employment and enterprise development. In establishing this policy the Government has set up a national task force to oversight the implementation and development of the policy. This entails further consultation with the Aboriginal community allowing Aborigines to decide on what suits them best, in order to achieve their goals and objectives. The Aboriginal employment development policy aims at enhancing Aboriginal economic independence. This policy will form a major focus for the new Commission. In fact, the policy co-ordination role of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will be retained by the new Commission to ensure its effective implementation and development. The Commission's functions will also include enterprise development programs and it will assume responsibility for the enterprise and small business schemes of the ADC. Employment and training schemes currently administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will also be transferred to the Commission. These programs include the Aboriginal organisation training and the community development employment projects schemes. ABORIGINAL HEALTH The living conditions and thus the health of Aborigines must continue to concern us all. The problems can be successfully addressed only if all responsible agencies are prepared to work together to deal with the complex issues involved. The Government has therefore started work on a national Aboriginal health policy which has the support of State and Territory governments and Aboriginal and Islander people. Representatives of the Aboriginal and Islander community as well as the State and Northern Territory health and Aboriginal affairs Ministers will join with officers of my Department and the Department of Community Services and Health in forming a national working party to prepare a comprehensive policy on Aboriginal health. The working party will consult extensively with all groups involved in Aboriginal health. It will report to the Commonwealth and State governments in early 1989. Aboriginal people must play a leading role in the development of any policy affecting their future. This is especially true where Aboriginal health is concerned. The working party will therefore make sure that Aboriginal people participate in all aspects of its work, so that the views and wishes of Aboriginal and Islander people throughout Australia are taken into account. Commonwealth-State Relations Ever since the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal affairs has been a concurrent responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States; that is, the States are not exempt from responsibility for their Aboriginal citizens. They have an important role to play, in co-operation with the Commonwealth. After discussions with State and Territory Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs programs and policies, I have therefore initiated a series of assessments of all Commonwealth-funded, State and Territory delivered programs. These assessments are being undertaken jointly with the States and the Northern Territory and are scheduled for completion by 31 March 1988. I record my considerable satisfaction with the level of co-operation I have received from all States and the Northern Territory on these assessments. The needs of Aboriginal people are so pressing, and the solutions demand such effort, that neither the Commonwealth nor the States can afford to work in isolation. Conclusion The achievements and new proposals I have presented today represent the most far-reaching and innovative reform in Aboriginal affairs since the Commonwealth became involved at the national level two decades ago. We believe that these proposals lay the foundation upon which real progress and achievement for Australia's indigenous peoples can be built. Aboriginal and Islander people will have the means, as never before, to determine their own future as part of this nation. The Government welcomes comment from all Australians on the proposals I have outlined. The challenge is to build a new and lasting era of mutual understanding and co-operation with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fellow citizens. Meeting this challenge will be no easy task. We can, we must, meet the challenge. I present the following paper: Foundations for the Future-Ministerial Statement, 10 December 1987 I seek leave to incorporate some attachments in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -While attachments A, B, C, D and E do not fit the guidelines, the Speaker is willing to allow them to be incorporated. However, the charts and the maps are not suitable for incorporation and will not be able to be incorporated. Leave granted. The attachments read as follows- Attachment A Proposed Preamble to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill WHEREAS the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to amend the Australian Constitution to provide the Parliament of the Commonwealth with power to make laws for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; AND WHEREAS the people whose descendants are now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of this land; AND WHEREAS they were dispossessed of their land by subsequent European occupation and have no recognised rights over it other than those granted by the Crown; AND WHEREAS that dispossession occurred without compensation and no serious attempt was made to reach a lasting and equitable agreement with them on the use of their land; AND WHEREAS, as a consequence of these and subsequent deprivations, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have become, as a group, the most disadvantaged in Australian society; AND WHEREAS it is the intention of the people of Australia to make provision for rectification, by the measures referred to in this Act and such measures as are agreed by Parliament from time to time, of the consequences of past injustices and to ensure for all time that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples receive that full recognition and status within the Australian nation, to which history, their prior ownership and occupation of the land, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire; AND WHEREAS it is also the wish of the people of Australia that there be reached with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a real and lasting reconciliation of these matters; AND WHEREAS it is the firm objective of the people of Australia that policies and programs be maintained and developed by the Government of the Commonwealth, the States and Territories, that will overcome the economic and social disadvantages of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, entitle them to the enjoyment of their culture and recognition of their traditional laws wherever practicable, and enable them, with pride and dignity, to achieve full recognition and status within the Australian nation; AND WHEREAS it is appropriate to establish measures for the furtherance of the aforementioned objective that are consistent with the aims of self-determination and self-management for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the Australian nation; AND WHEREAS the Australian Government has given effect to its long-standing commitment to protect the rights of all of its citizens, and in particular its indigenous peoples, by recognising international standards for the protection of universal human rights and fundamental freedom through the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and other standard-setting instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; NOW THEREFORE be it enacted . . . Attachment B Proposed Commonwealth Powers and Functions 1. The Commonwealth, in committing itself to the exercise of its powers and functions under this Act, will ensure that this is done in such a way as would not diminish the responsibility of State and Territory Governments for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 2. Consistent with this responsibility of the States and Territories, the Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with them for the formulation and joint funding of programs, and the making of special laws, for the economic and social development of those peoples, the enhancement of their cultural life and the protection of their interests. 3. The powers and functions of the Commonwealth under the Act, whether sole or in co-operation with the States and Territories, will be enumerated separately in the Act. Among the powers to be so enumerated will be: (a) compensation for dispossession, where other measures of a compensatory nature, including the provision of land or special programs of assistance, are impracticable or inadequate; (b) the establishment of an Aboriginal economic development corporation incorporating a significant capital base, under the control, and for the benefit, of Aboriginal people; 4. Among the functions of the Commonwealth to be enumerated in the Act would be: (a) protection of the rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the enjoyment of their culture, including languages and religion, and the promotion of understanding and appreciation throughout the Australian community of the culture, history and aspirations of these peoples; (b) protection of cultural heritage, including sacred sites and objects; (c) the provision, in conjunction with the States and Territories or separately, of land for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under secure long term tenure arrangements including, wherever practicable, inalienable communal freehold title for the purposes of: (i) maintaining or re-establishing their links with traditional lands; and (ii) assisting them meet their economic and social needs; (d) recognition, and incorporation within the Australian legal system to the extent practicable, of customary laws; (e) special programs, including, but not so as to limit the generality of this section, programs for the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people relating to: (i) the development of business enterprises; (ii) housing and accommodation, including loans and grants; (iii) employment; (iv) education and training; (v) health; (vi) art and craft; (vii) sport and recreation; (viii) community infrastructure; (ix) social support; (x) justice, including legal aid and human rights; (xi) cultural maintenance; (xii) land management; (xiii) participation in political life at local, State and national levels; (xiv) involvement in regional development; and (xv) such other matters as may be desirable in order to further the economic and social development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Attachment C Proposed Structure of ATSIS Subject to proposed consultations, it is envisaged that the Commission will consist of a full-time Chairperson, appointed by the Minister, and 11 part-time members, of whom: 6 will be selected by Zone Councils; 1 will be selected to represent Torres Strait Islanders; and 4 will be appointed by the Minister. The Commissioners will elect two of their number as part-time Deputy Chairpersons. There will be a full-time Chief Executive, a statutory position appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Cabinet. All appointments will be for up to 5 years (although, initially, some Commissioners would serve for shorter periods, to ensure continuity for the Commission later). The Commission would be responsible for formulation and implementation of general policy, including budgets, subject to the powers of the Minister. It would have a statutory responsibility to advise the Minister on all matters relevant to Aboriginal Affairs, and to act on the views of Regional and Zone Councils established under the legislation. There would be provision for the delegation of Commission powers to sub-committees of not less than four Commissioners, to the Chief Executive or to Commission staff. The Chief Executive would have responsibility for day-to-day management. The Commission will have a Central Office, State Offices in other capitals (including Darwin, but not Hobart; Tasmanian and Victorian matters will be the responsibility of the Victorian State Office) and some 28 Regional Offices. State Offices would have a considerably reduced involvement in programs, with a major emphasis on policy liaison and co-ordination with State and Territory Governments and with other Commonwealth agencies. Regional Offices would have a considerably enhanced role. They would be responsible for administering all Commission activities in the region, and would assist in the establishment of, and the provision of secretariat support for Regional Councils. Regional Managers will have greater decision-making responsibilities and delegations than at present. A number of distinct activities will operate under the umbrella of the Commission. The proposed Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies (ACAS), the proposed Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) and Aboriginal Hotels Limited (AHL) will each have a Board of nine part-time members, appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission. Each Board will include at least three Commissioners. The present housing functions of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) will be performed by a Housing Trust, or similar body. Commission staff will be employed under the Public Service Act, in accordance with established Government policy in relation to statutory authority staffing. A provision to enable the Commission to engage, with the Minister's consent, staff outside the Public Service Act will also be included. Staff employed under industrial awards by AHL and the staff of the proposed AEDC will be employed on terms and conditions approved by the Minister. This will ensure the necessary skills are available to these organisations that have responsibilities for the operation of accommodation facilities and commercial development financing. Attachment D Proposed Interralationships Between the Commission, the Minister and Regional and Zone Councils Powers and functions of Commission 1. Subject to this section, and to the succeeding sections dealing with the powers and functions of the Minister and the Regional and Zone Councils, it shall be the function of the Commission to undertake all those functions of the Commonwealth, referred to in the preceding section, as are referred to in the following sub-sections, or referred to it by Ministerial instrument. 2. The Commission's powers and functions are to: (a) co-ordinate, and provide assistance to, Regional and Zone Councils, and consult with Councils on any changes that may be desirable to priorities determined by Councils (b) in the light of regional priorities, develop budgetary proposals for the Minister's approval (c) develop and administer programs for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, communities and individuals, subject to the powers and functions of Regional and Zone Councils (See paragraphs 6 and 9 in the section below dealing with these matters) (d) develop and administer programs of Commonwealth grants to the States (e) monitor the effectiveness of programs, develop policy proposals to meet emerging national, regional and local needs and priorities, and undertake research for these purposes (f) require other Commonwealth agencies to co-ordinate through it their activities affecting Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (g) assist, advise and co-operate with Aboriginal communities, organisations and individuals at the local, regional, State and national level (h) establish, where desirable, other special consultative arrangements with the Aboriginal people (i) advise the Minister on all matters relevant to Aboriginal Affairs including the administration of legislation (j) negotiate and co-operate with other Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government agencies (k) exercise delegated powers as required (l) other matters necessary or convenient to the effective and efficient discharge of its functions and responsibilities. 3. Without limiting the generality of its powers and functions, the Commission shall have specific powers, not subject to Ministerial direction (but subject to general directions in writing): (a) to make enterprise loans and grants; (b) to make housing loans and grants; (c) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations, of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation; (d) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations of Aboriginal Hostels Limited; (e) to recommend to the Minister appointments to the Board, and oversight the operations, of the Australian Council for Aboriginal Studies; (f) recommend to the Minister appointments to, and oversight the operations of, the Aboriginal Housing Trust (or similar organisation); (g) to provide for the protection of Aboriginal cultural material and sacred/secret information; (h) to engage staff, under the terms of the Public Service Act or under special terms and conditions (to be specified elsewhere in the Act), and engage consultants; (i) to collect and publish statistical information relating to Aboriginal Affairs; (j) where desirable and deemed necessary, to make changes to the boundaries of Regional Councils; (k) to delegate its powers to Sub-Committees of not less than four Commissioners, the Chief Executive, or Commission staff; (l) to prepare an annual report, to include details of variations to Regional Council priorities. Powers of Minister 1. The legislation will provide that the Minister shall have specific powers of direction over the Commission, except in relation to specified functions/powers of the Commission. This will establish a general relationship between the Minister and the Commission akin to that between a Minister and a Department. 2. In respect of those specified functions/powers which the Commission has in its own right, the Minister will retain a general power to provide guidance and direction. Such general directions will be required to be in writing, and to be tabled in Parliament. Powers and functions of Regional and Zone Councils 1. There shall be established, in each region of the Commission, a Regional Council. These Councils shall operate under rules and guidelines developed by each Council and approved by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. 2. Membership of a Council shall comprise all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations in the region that are incorporated under Commonwealth, State or Territory laws. 3. Each community and organisation shall be entitled to have 1 person represent them at meetings of the Council, and to have 1 vote in proceedings. Other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons may attend but shall not be entitled to vote. 4. Regional Councils may elect office-bearers, to manage the organisation between meetings, in accordance with procedures to be prescribed. Regional Councils will have the power to engage staff. 5. The Regional Council shall meet at least twice a year. 6. Regional Councils shall: (a) develop and advise the Commission on policy priorities for the region, on an annual basis within broad financial guidelines approved by the Minister; (b) determine, within functional budgets, relative priorities for Commission programs within the region; (c) consider and respond to any requests from the Commission for a reconsideration of those priorities; (d) act as a focus for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander input into the activities of the Commission, and of other Commonwealth, State/Territory and local government agencies in the region, and as a sounding-board on issues of national significance (such as the proposed agreement or compact); (e) appoint 2 representatives (1 male, 1 female) to the Zone Council; (f) submit views, advice and draft policy papers to the Zone Council for consideration and forwarding to the Commission; (g) prepare an annual report for consideration by member organisations, the Zone Council, and the Commission. 7. Zone Councils will be established in respect of each State and Territory, with the exceptions that: (a) Tasmania shall form a Zone with Victoria; (b) the ACT will be included in the New South Wales Zone. 8. Zone Councils will comprise two representatives (male and female) from each Regional Council in the Zone; will meet at least 4 times a year; and will not engage staff or undertake any financial activities. 9. Zone Councils shall: (a) nominate a person to the Board of the Commission as required for a set term not exceeding 5 years (b) consider policy proposals brought forward by Regional Councils (c) provide policy advice to the Commission and the Government, and as appropriate to the relevant State or Territory Government. Attachment E Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation The establishment of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) is an important and innovative element of the total proposal for the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (the Commission), though with a substantial measure of independence of its operation. It will undertake commercial activities in its own right, provide equity capital and loans, and undertake other activities directed toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander economic development. The Commission will be responsible for the enterprise and housing loans programs currently undertaken by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), particularly those with employment and community development objectives. Purpose and functions In its enterprise functions, the AEDC could be described as an Aboriginal development corporation similar to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). Its purposes and functions will include: (a) to facilitate and encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in commerce and enterprise, particularly in relation to regional and national economic development; (b) to provide, assist in providing, and facilitate finance for significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enterprises with sound prospects of commercial viability; (c) to secure, to the greatest extent practicable, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in the ownership and control of companies engaged in activity on Aboriginal land, or in areas which will have a significant impact on Aboriginal communities; (d) to assist the development of industries and areas of economic activity which are clearly aligned with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concerns; and (e) to assist Aboriginal and Islander commercial and economic development through provision of specialist commercial expertise. Funding The Act will provide that the AEDC's capital base shall be $60 million, of which $40 million (including the $20 million in assets of the ADC's Capital Fund) would be paid on commencement, with the remainder in equal instalments in 1989-90 and 1990-91. Structure and relationship with the Commission There would be a Board, comprising nine persons, with responsibility for the operations of the AEDC. All would be part-time, and appointed by the Minister for periods up to five years. At least three would be members of the Commission; other members of the Board would be selected on the basis of appropriate expertise. The presence of at least three Commission members on the AEDC Board would help to ensure consistency of approach within the total Commission structure. In addition, the AEDC would be required to obtain ministerial approval, through the Commission, for its general policies, corporate plans, and the like. Any ministerial disagreement with AEDC proposals would have to be tabled in Parliament. In operational terms, the AEDC would be independent. Its General Manager and staff would not be engaged under the Public Service Act, though staff interchange between the commission and the AEDC, with appropriate protection of rights, would be encouraged. Mr MILES(Braddon) —by leave-I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) entitled Foundations for the Future. This statement arises from the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 14 July that a new commission would be established to consolidate the portfolio organisations into a single body. The main elements of the statement incorporate the following: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, incorporating a consultative mechanism, the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation and other portfolio organisations. The preamble to the proposed Act and discussion about a compact or agreement are the main issues on which I want to focus my comments. The Minister has said on previous occasions that this probably is one of the most important exercises that this country will become involved in. In his speech today he said, `We must get it right'. Because I agree with the Minister's comments in this regard, I believe that it is important to place the coalition's response in an historical perspective. I trust that as a nation we will get it right even though the coalition has misgivings about some of the things which are proposed in the statement. It is the coalition's desire that we go forward as a nation in which all people feel they can be full participants in the future of this great nation. Significant times of growth occur in the lives of people and, in the same way, there are focal points in the life of a nation which provide opportunities for growth. The year 1988 is such a time. Two hundred years ago the quite awesome and formidable land now known as Australia and inhabited at that time by the Aborigines experienced an interaction between two vastly contrasting cultures. Today we are still grappling with the consequences that have flowed from that interaction. Prior to 1788, Australia was inhabited by many diverse tribes which had developed a culture over thousands of years-a culture diverse in language, rich in Dreamtime stories and art and strong in family relationships. This social culture was based on an intimate affinity with the land and its plants and animals of both the land and the sea. Yet, at the same time, territorial and family disputes arose within and between tribes that led to kil-lings and insensitivities of individual people's feelings. During the last 200 years, similar acts of vio-lence and conflict have continued to occur on a scale that is totally incongruous with a country that prides itself as being civilised and having one of the highest standards of living in the world. Nevertheless, during that same period many positive social, cultural and economic developments have occurred that all provide a foundation from which we as Australians today can build a more compassionate, sensitive and co-operative society. The coalition firmly believes that there is no impediment to the relationships between Aboriginal and other Australians that cannot be overcome. We ought not to think-we would be naive to think-that any reconciliation we seek will secure sound race relations indefinitely. The ethic of tolerance must be learnt afresh by each generation and it behoves every parent, every school and the community citizens generally of Australia to pass on the skills and the attitudes of interpersonal relationships that are so necessary to deliver a tole-rant and an understanding community for all time in Australia. The rearranging, as we are dealing with today, of bureaucratic structures in the form proposed by the Minister will do little if anything to promote this fundamental value even if they are worthwhile changes. There is another aspect to maintaining good community attitudes in this area. The coalescing of the four portfolio organisation, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC)-I note there are representatives from each of those organisations in the chamber today listening to this debate-into the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission needs to be judged according to how well it delivers and whether it is the best administrative structure to deliver services such as health, education, housing, welfare, employment opportunities, et cetera, to Aboriginal Australians. I turn now to various points in the Minister's statement. Firstly, in regard to self-determination, we accept the Government's aim that Aboriginal and Islander people should be properly involved in the decision-making process in order that the right decisions are made about their lives. But there needs to be a certain distance between those who make decisions about grants and those who receive the grants. Secondly, self-determination must lead to self-sufficiency. If self-determination does not lead to self-sufficiency, one must question whether the new structures have done anything to improve the present situation. We may give control over Commonwealth funds to local organisations in such a way that it promotes separate development in those areas but we need to be careful as to the implications of that. I now turn to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Firstly, I believe this statement acknowledges the fact that for 4 1/2 years this Government has done very little in regard to the Aboriginal affairs area. The record is a very poor one up to date and I have already listed many of the failings: the Government has raised expectations of the Aboriginal people in this nation beyond what could be delivered. The simple fact is that up until now this Government has not delivered. I remind the Government of the O'Donoghue consultations. There already has been a considerable amount of consultation about the form of the consultative organisation. Yet the Government has rejected a number of the proposals put forward. For example, the election of national representatives by popular election has been rejected. The decision to insist on one male and one female delegate, as proposed in the statement by the Minister, was not a recommendation in the report on an Aboriginal and Islander consultative organisation. The report states that no special arrangements needed to be made to ensure the participation of Aboriginal women. That needs to be considered. I acknowledge what the Government is trying to do here in having positive discrimination but where there is positive discrimination in any society ultimately there is a reaction by other people within the community to that positive discrimination. I do not believe that this is necessarily the best way to get the best representatives in the 28 regional groups. It is all right for the Government to say that it is going to consult. In many ways it has already done a lot of consultation work but it has rejected many of the proposals put forward. I wonder whether the Government will get it right the second time around. I turn to the general consultation that is proposed by the Government for the setting up of the new Commission. It says that the proposals will be widely circulated and that it will have lots of discussions and consultations. I note that the Minister will personally move around Australia early in the next year. But the simple fact is that the new Commission will begin on 1 July 1988. With such a rearrangement one must question whether that gives sufficient time to put these arrangements in place and to have a correct response to the consultations which the Minister has alluded to. We note that five commissioners will be appointed by the Government. The Chairman will be full-time and will, no doubt, be the most powerful of the commissioners. The Government appointees will need to get only one other elected representative to vote with them to give them control, with the casting vote of the Chairman. This raises the important issue of autonomy and control. There are two major characteristics in the setting up of statutory commissions: one is the independence given to them by legislation and the other is that they are dependent on and largely controlled by Government in terms of funding. So the very nature of this statutory Commission, and how much control the Government will exert on it, is very important as to its functioning. When we look at the functions which the Commonwealth has outlined in relation to the States, we find that there is a maintaining of responsibilities of the States, yet there is a tendency to usurp the power of the States. I now comment on the preamble to the proposed Act. We welcome the attachment that the Minister has distributed which will allow for full discussions of that preamble. In looking through that preamble, it is interesting to note that there is no focus on reconciliation. It focuses on the past and then talks largely in terms of compensation. Before there can be genuine progress in this area of Australia, there needs to be a recognition by both Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people of a deep desire to work together and to be reconciled about our history. There are deep hurts, and there needs to be reconciliation. Before we start to address the needs of the Aboriginal community, which are indeed large, I believe that we should at least attempt a reconciliation at the hearts and minds level. We are very concerned about a number of aspects of the preamble. We note the sensitivity of the issue and the types of words which are used. In particular, in referring to a compact or an agreement, we note that there seems to be some discrepancy on the part of the Government. The preamble, refers to the making of provision for rectification, yet paragraph (a) of attachment b, concerning the powers and structures of the Commonwealth, refers to compensation for dispossession. We do not believe in talking about compensation. We recognise the deep needs of the Aboriginal community as they exist today, and we will address those issues. But I do raise our deep concern about referring to compensation. The Minister says that it does not matter how we describe the compact, agreement or treaty. The Opposition believes that it does matter. The Opposition will in no way accept the proposal for a treaty that contains a concept of two nations in Australia. We certainly welcome the consultations with the Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities about a compact or a treaty. The Aboriginal process for consultation is clear-certainly much clearer than the process for consultations with the rest of the Australian community. I have some concerns about the non-Aboriginal process. We welcome the distancing from the political process. I am sure that this reduces any danger of it becoming a political football. But we do not need another social engineering think-tank-like commission, such as the Commission for the Future or the Constitutional Commission. We are not looking for that sort of thing. The Minister is giving indications that the Government will certainly not go down that track. I appreciate that. We need more information. Perhaps a parliamentary committee could be established to nominate the members of the group that will consider those proposals. I now turn to the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation select the members of the Corporation? Of course, much of the documentation in this area is light on detail, and we will await the Bill. We welcome the fact that Aboriginal Affairs has returned to the position it held when the Government came to office in 1983. A capital fund has been set up. We note that the coalition, when in government, put $20m into this capital fund. Now, after 4 1/2 years, the Government has realised the importance and significance of that fund. We knew how important that was. It is sad that there has been a gap of 4 1/2 years in moving down the track of self-sufficiency and self-management in Aboriginal affairs. We welcome the return to that position. We note the amount of money that will be placed in that fund. An amount of $20m from the assets of the ADC's capital fund will be deposited, and the fund will ultimately have a base of $60m. We welcome that direction. I now turn to the Aboriginal land base and the nature of the tenure of inalienable freehold title. Obviously, the Government will push ahead in that direction. We noted its national land rights program, which it decided to abandon a few years ago. Again, we will wait to see which direction the Government will take in this area. I want to make a clear statement as to the coalition's position in regard to this area. We will not accept any imposition by the Commonwealth on States in regard to this matter. We believe that land use is the responsibility of the States. In closing my comments on the Minister's statement, I say that we welcome its general thrust. We have severe concerns in two or three areas, but we trust that, as we approach the new year, we will be able to address this problem by taking a rational, commonsense approach, which will be to the benefit of this nation in the future. Debate resumed from 8 December, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The House will be aware that it has been agreed that there will be a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(11.04) —In recent times there has been a lot of talk in this place about the state of our tourism industry. It could even be called the flavour of the month. No-one questions tourism as being an important, expanding industry, the largest employer in this country and a significant contributor to our gross domestic product. The figures attesting to this fact are well documented and I will not go into them now. Yet, when we are asked to swallow the propaganda about what the Hawke socialist Government has done to foster tourism, it is as if the Prime Minister and J. J. have come down from the mountain to bring divine-like intervention and, but for them, we would have no tourism industry at all. I do not want to stop their crusading spirit or their fervour, but they are the same people who have stabbed in the back struggling sections of the industry with a series of decisions that simply defy logic and fairness. Most notable, of course, was the Government's decision to abolish the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme, otherwise known as TOPS. The Government prides itself on a forward thinking tourism policy, but I am at a loss to understand why such decisions have been reached. No doubt other honourable members have also received submissions from various tourism representative bodies calling for the retention of TOPS. One such letter that comes to mind came from the Inbound Tourism Organisation of Australia, which promoted arguments for retaining the scheme. Honourable members on the Government side would do well to read this report, if they have not already done so, because it makes a lot of sense. As the Chairman of that organisation, Kerry Watson, said, the decision to scrap TOPS was `inconsistent and unfair'. Quite frankly, the Government's handling of this issue is reprehensible, yet it is indicative of the about face that has occurred in a number of policy areas, which I shall try to refer to later. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) must be acutely embarrassed and confused given some of his own comments about TOPS. He has been most praiseworthy in his references to it and, as recently as 4 June this year, he was still singing its praises. The Minister's Press release of that date-which, incidentally, was entitled `Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme to Continue'-stated: With Australia's tourism potential at unprecedented levels it is essential that industry be given every encouragement to convert the tremendous awareness of Australia generated by the Australian Tourist Commission into actual purchase of our tourism products. TOPS is a sound scheme which has been designed specifically for the tourism industry. In the run-up to the July general election, we heard this glowing endorsement of TOPS by the Minister, yet within a matter of weeks he committed the scheme to the scrap heap. Officers of the Minister's department who appeared before the Senate Estimates committee last month revealed that the scheme had been in financial trouble for some time and that the Minister had been made aware of the funding problems on 11 February 1987. In fact, funds ran out on that date and the Minister was unable to make any more approvals. We also know that when the scrapping of the scheme was announced on 15 September 1987, 1,036 applications worth $14m which had been part processed were thrown into limbo, and now we learn that they will not be submitted to the Minister for approval. According to the Department, some of these applicants would have entered into financial commitments, and properly so, taking into account customary lead times. The only response I could find from the Minister was his suggestion that anyone who spent money before approval was granted was, to use his words `crazy'. Without moving away from the subject matter of the Australian Tourist Commission Bill before the House, I point out that one has a sense of deja vu when comparisons are made between this reaction and the Minister's reaction regarding the Brisbane World Expo Theatre Pavilion. It is all very well for the Minister to lampoon these people who have committed finance to promoting Australia or Australian facilities overseas and who are doing the hard slog, for which the Minister so regularly claims credit. The inescapable fact is that only three months earlier the Minister had given a firm endorsement to TOPS, including a forward financial commitment of $9m in 1987-88. Significantly, the Minister told us in this place on 6 October 1987 that, of the $9m provided earlier, $6m would go to honour TOPS commitments, while $3m would go to the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) for `additional promotion'. It is worth noting that this payment to the ATC for `additional promotion' coincides with the ATC's move from Melbourne to Sydney, co-incidentally at a reported cost of $3.3m which, according to my colleague, Senator Puplick, resulted in all of four staff members moving. I hope that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Auditor-General will look more closely at this one. Is it any wonder the tourism industry is jumping up and down? How can the industry meet the growing demands being placed upon it if the Government says one thing and turns around and does another? How can it place its faith in the Minister with whom it is expected to liaise and develop a tourism strategy for this country? It will have no representation on the Commission, mark you, just liaison! Yet it would appear from the legislation before us now that the Minister is not really interested in liaising with the industry. We have the ridiculous situation in regard to this legislation whereby the industry has no guaranteed input into the formulation of the board of directors of the Commission. Clause 13 (1) of the Bill provides that the members of the board shall be appointed by the Minister. What we do not want and what we do not need is a situation where this board is allowed to become a bastion for a select little group of political appointees who will not necessarily be representative of the industry. In the tourism industry, of all industries, it is important that industry bodies with their wide and diverse experience should be allowed to recommend persons to the board. The industry must be allowed some degree of involvement in recognition of its interest and expertise. I am also concerned at a series of amendments accepted in the Senate which places responsibility on the board to fill the shoes of an environmental watchdog. I refer specifically to the principal objects of the Commission set out in clause 6, more specifically in sub-clause (c), which determines that the Commission should `ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism'. Subsequent clauses call on the Commission to monitor and report the effects of international tourism on the environment and for the appointment to the board of a person with relevant environmental or sociological experience. One is at a loss to work out precisely what that experience will be. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, and as Chairman of the Opposition back bench committee on the environment, I have a personal concern about the damage that could be effected by expanding tourism facilities on the ecological balance of many sensitive areas of Australia. This achieves great significance when one considers the damage that could be done, for example, to Uluru National Park given talk of a monorail facility being provided and the potential damage that could be caused to other environmentally important spots around our continent which could become tourist attractions as the years go by. In this regard further development on the Great Barrier Reef springs to mind very quickly. There is justification for the environmentalists in the community being concerned about the effect that expanding tourism will have on many places. I support them in this regard. The point I wish to make in this speech is that for all the need for environmental care and vigilance, which I strongly support, the Australian Tourist Commission is certainly not the body that should be undertaking these tasks. I am concerned that we are expanding the role of this Commission beyond that for which it can and should be responsible. It is admirable and indeed desirable for the Commission to make tourists and overseas tourist bodies aware of our ecological environment and to stress the importance of maintaining a balance between tourism and environmental issues. It is naive to expect that the Commission can and should be responsible for protecting Australia's environmentally sensitive areas. Quite frankly, the Commission is not equipped to undertake such a task. Nor should it be. As my colleague, the shadow Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Puplick, said in the other place during debate on these Bills, such responsibility should primarily be with those authorities who manage the sites of environmental and social sensitivity. I agree with him entirely. In the time at my disposal, I should like to say that the sorry saga of TOPS is not the only quaint example of the Government's forward-thinking tourism strategy being reversed in an unfair and inconsistent manner. It was also announced in the Budget that the depreciation allowance for residential and non-residential building construction would be cut back from 4 per cent to 2.5 per cent. In terms of the tourism industry, this effectively puts local developers and investors well behind the eight ball and delivers up to foreign investors the construction of tourism facilities in Australia. I wish the Minister would read some of his earlier speeches and note what he had to say about the Liberal Party National Party coalition Government and its 2 per cent rate of depreciation. Has he changed his mind or is he just being forced to keep quiet? As all honourable members know, currently our tourism industry is in a period of expansion which, if allowed to reach its full potential, will be a genuine boon to our economy. On this side of the House we acknowledge this, but we believe the industry will not be best served by a hotch-potch of ill-thought out policy decisions which hinder, rather than further, this growth. This is the type of approach the Government has taken in recent months, particularly in the legislation before the House tonight. In the short time left to me in this debate, I should like to comment on a report from the recent Education for Tourism conference in Canberra. One of the speakers, Mr Peter Barge, drew attention to the deplorable lack of training in the tourism and hospitality industries. The point was made that the Government had been aware of this problem for the past two years, but that the horse had almost bolted. Schools and colleges were not supporting the needs of the tourism industry and declining funding resources were being channelled into the wrong areas. Mr Barge went on to say: We're one of the best countries in the world at marketing, but if tourists come here and can't get the product they want, they won't come back. I might add, they will tell their friends, so they will not come at all. This is an area in which this Government will have to act, and act quickly. If we are to realise the potential of the tourism industry in this country, we have to put in the effort. The days of `take me as I am'-quaint, charming and somehow local-are gone. We have to approach the industry with professionalism. Marketing overseas alone is not enough; we have to match marketing overseas with on-the-ground resources. It is no good telling overseas visitors that somewhere is a quaint place to visit if it does not provide basic facilities. Let me conclude by bringing to the attention of the House some rather interesting figures which have come from the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism regarding the composition of international visitor arrivals in Australia. It is interesting to note that Sydney remained the major arrival gateway with some 57 per cent of all visitors in 1986. Melbourne followed with 17 per cent, Brisbane 12 per cent, Perth 9 per cent and Cairns and Adelaide each 2 per cent. This places a great burden on the facilities at Sydney airport and highlights the pressing need for Sydney to have a second major jet airport. We cannot talk about tourism without talking about this major encumbrance to future tourism prospects in this country. It is no use the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories putting out projections for 1990, 1995, or even the year 2000 if at the same time the Hawke socialist Government makes no effective provision for a second airport in Sydney. Sydney is going to remain the major arrival point for all overseas visitors and, no matter what my interstate colleagues on both sides of the House may care to think, this will not change. To be taken as fair dinkum in its tourism policies, the Hawke Government has to proceed without delay in developing a second airport for the Sydney area. The other point I make about the figures is that we generally overlook the fact that the largest market for tourists to Australia remains New Zealand. In 1986 24 per cent, or one out of four short term visitors to Australia, was a New Zealander. Interestingly, some 14 per cent of our short term visitors came from the United Kingdom. While not denying the success of the put another shrimp on the barbie campaign and the impact that Paul Hogan has had in the United States and Japan, I think it is as well for the House to be reminded that the United States and Japan account for 18 per cent and 10 per cent of all short term visitors respectively. In other words, slightly more than one in four short term visitors to Australia come from both these countries. That is only slightly more than come from New Zealand where, I have been informed, putting a shrimp on the barbie has no attraction whatsoever. I mention this in no sense of carping criticism, but rather to point out that the forecasts made by the Department regarding increasing the numbers of tourists coming to Australia have to be viewed with a certain cynicism. For example, departmental projections for visitors from Japan rise from 200,000 in 1987 to 360,000 in 1990 and one million by the year 2000 only 13 years away. The projections for tourists from the the United States rise from 300,000 this year to 445,000 by 1990 and a million by the year 2000. The point to be made is that these projections cannot be achieved unless the Government sees fit, firstly, to radically change its airline agreements with other countries and, more importantly, to embark on a policy of strongly encouraging Qantas to expand its fleet and capacity to handle these expected increases. It would seem that the Hawke Government has put on blinkers and is suffering seriously from tunnel vision. I will not touch further on this because my colleague, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), has very adequately addressed the matter in this and other debates, but I do lend my strong support to the arguments he has put forward. The Opposition is happy to facilitate the passage of this Bill and, as has been said earlier in the debate, we are not opposing the plan to restructure and reorganise the Australian Tourist Commission. Having been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it conducted investigations into the newly established ATC in the late 1960s, I have followed its progress with great interest and deep concern. It is time for a change, as the Kennedy report has clearly shown. I remain concerned that not all the recommendations made in the report have been accepted by the Government. I remain equally concerned that we are seeing a series of hotch-potch policies coming forward that do not put the future of tourism in this country into a considered, logical and regularised plan. All the advertising we do in the world-and I mean in the world-amounts to nothing if we are going to have a policy of depreciation which does not attract investment and a policy of aircraft movement which does not allow proper entry into Australia of the required number of tourists. I wish the new Commission success in its very hard job ahead. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.24) —I must say I listened with interest to the valuable contribution by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), but his proposal that the Opposition had a strategy in respect of tourism is something I find difficult to follow. It is the case that in opposition members of my party, established a strategy. On coming to government they set in place that strategy which has had significant effects on tourism in this country. That contrasts with the Opposition's continued sniping and pedantic criticism of small issues in tourism, which I find difficult to swallow. The tourism policy of this Government has been a remarkable success, and it is salutary for us to look at the results, which show that, while it took us 196 years to achieve one million visitors a year to Australia in the tourism industry, it appears likely that, in just four years of this Government, we shall be doubling that figure, and that, next year, there will be over two million visitors to Australia. That is a remarkable endorsement of the policies and strategies pursued by this Government and this Minister. While Opposition members, from time to time, congratulate the Minister on some of his successes, it is most disturbing that they choose to snipe in such a way. It is the case that, for every 32 visitors to Australia, another job is created. It is a fact that this is the fastest growing industry in Australia. It is a fact that turnover in tourism represents 6 per cent of our gross domestic product. When we add together the turnover in all the agricultural industries in our economy, we find that that represents only 4 per cent of gross domestic product. It is a fact that turnover in tourism is likely to be something like $25 billion this year, and more than 400,000 Australians are employed in the industry. There is very little on which to criticise the Government in this area, but still the Opposition finds a way. This legislation represents a move towards making the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) more commercially oriented, to improving its marketing, planning and evaluation strategies. The objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission, as set down within the legislation, are principally to increase the number of tourists coming to Australia and, perhaps more importantly for those of us living in the country, to maximise the benefits for Australia. The aim is to pursue those objectives by promoting Australia as a tourist destination overseas, and enhance awareness of Australia as a tourist destination overseas. It is also proposed that, within the more defined objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission, it will play a role in co-ordinating overseas efforts. In the past, there has been some conflict of interest between the States and the industry, and it is hoped that, in a co-ordinating and co-operative role, the Australian Tourist Commission will be able to avoid those difficulties. One of the objectives, and one of the means by which those objectives will be achieved, is enhancing the awareness within Australia of Australia as a tourist destination. It should be remembered by all honourable members that 85 per cent of tourist activity within the country is undertaken by people living within Australia. The new structure of the Australian Tourist Commission encompasses, to a large degree, the bulk of the recommendations of the Australian Government Inquiry into Tourism, chaired by Mr Kennedy. While members of the Opposition complain that, out of 96 recommendations, one or two may not have been included within this legislation to their satisfaction, by my reading of those recommendations, they are substantially taken up within this legislation. The shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), when complaining about various issues, spoke about the tourist overseas promotion scheme, and the decision to cease funding it. We on this side of the House are very much aware of the concerns within the industry that that decision created. It is unfortunate that money was spent by people within the industry before approval was given, but it is important to remember that, in government, unlike in the fantasies of the Opposition, it is necessary for us to make decisions, and those decisions are made within the broad ambit of economic policies. The truth is that, in this very vibrant industry, many spokesmen were suggesting that the job of tourist promotion could be undertaken within the industry and that perhaps industry assistance was not the most appropriate way in which to pursue promotion. While that decision has caused some heartache within the industry, it is important to understand that, within the broad thrust of our economic policy, it is necessary for the Government to make decisions that are sometimes difficult. Perhaps most honourable members are not aware that the largest promoter of Australia overseas is Qantas Airways Ltd, which spends over $180m annually promoting travel to Australia. Over the last few years, that expenditure has been shown to be very effective. If one looks at the results for Qantas over the last two years, one will find a 47 per cent increase in inbound travel to Australia by Qantas. It is salutary for us to look at the overseas performance of Qantas and see that in 1987-88 it is predicted that it will bring us export earning capacity of $1.8 billion. This will make it our fifth largest export earning industry, and it is something of which we can be very proud. From various sources come cries for the privatisation of Qantas. While Qantas has been a wholly owned government subsidiary since 1947, it is only in the past four years of those 40 years that it has made 77 per cent of its profit. It is interesting to note that, now that it is proving to be a very profitable organisation, the cries for privatisation are becoming louder and louder. Qantas has to compete with over 30 overseas airlines and, as an end destination, Australia has problems not experienced by other places and their airlines. It is important that the Government fight very hard for Qantas to have a fair and equal share of places into Australia. I applaud the Government's decision to reintroduce interlining passengers on Australian domestic sectors of international services. I am sure that that will further improve the position of Qantas. It is a very good airline, and all of us who have had experience of travel with Qantas will understand that. The devaluation which has occurred within Australia has improved its competitive edge. If we pay attention to the need for capital injection that clearly exists in Qantas, as the recent results outlined, our airline will continue to operate effectively in the international market-place. Similarly, the Government has made important moves to increase the flexibility of air travel within Australia. The decision to terminate the two airlines agreement is an important one. It will remove the straitjacket that previously existed on airline travel in this country and will create an environment which will foster increased responsiveness to consumer needs. We hope that it will also produce a wider range of fares and types of services and competition in pricing flexibility and efficiency. At the same time, it is hoped that within those changes we shall be able to preserve-it is important that we do so-the special aviation safety record that Australia has. The Government's record on tourism-it is important that we look at the figures-has, as I have said, been outstanding. In 1983, just fewer than one million people visited Australia. In 1984 we broke the one million mark and, in 1985, there was a further 12.6 per cent increase. In 1986, there was a 24 per cent increase in inbound tourists and the estimation of a 17 per cent increase, taking us close to two million this year, has been exceeded. For the first time, last year, the number of people travelling in and coming into Australia exceeded the number travelling out, and that has very important implications for our terms of trade and the net result for Australia in terms of export-import within this industry. It is important that the new Australian Tourist Commission take a careful look at how it markets itself and how it markets Australia overseas. It is important to look at some of the figures that are important indicators of Australia's visitors-who comes to Australia, why they come to Australia, how long they stay and what sort of age group they are in. The vast majority of visitors from the United States stayed for fewer than two weeks. Some 85 per cent of visitors from Japan stayed for fewer than two weeks, whereas less than 50 per cent of visitors from the United Kingdom, Europe and New Zealand are short term visitors. It is important to note that the majority of visitors from Japan and the United States come for holidays, whereas more than 50 per cent of those who visit from the United Kingdom or New Zealand are visiting relatives. Therefore, a different approach is required to marketing in those countries. Likewise, those who travel to Australia from Japan tend to be much younger than those who travel from the United Kingdom or the United States, whereas there is a much more even spread in the types of travellers from New Zealand to this country. The marketing strategy that has to be pursued must follow up those issues and I am sure that the Australian Tourist Commission, under its new arrangements, will do so. It is important that it look at the strengths and weaknesses in the market and our potential in various areas. One of the reasons we need a new and more streamlined Australian Tourist Commission is to take up those issues in a forthright way. Many speakers in this debate have talked about the necessity for training within the industry and the importance of traineeships, language studies and our immigration policy in respect of tourism. Many have talked about the co-operation that is necessary between the States and the difficult and parochial approach that has been taken by some States in the past. Many issues need to be pursued. Two days ago I read a newspaper article about the shortage of taxis in my electorate in Perth. I have experienced this shortage myself when arriving at the airport in Perth. It is important to look at all of those small issues of infrastructure which can be disturbing for the tourists but which can provide services that are necessary to attract tourists. The legislation relates to the marketing, planning and evaluation that the ATC will take on its more commercially orientated mode. It is unfortunate that honourable members of the Opposition choose to shoot down our success in the tourism area. It is absurd to suggest that the Government is not very proud of its record in tourism and that it does not wish to improve that record by introducing this legislation. I look forward to the very rapid passing of these Bills. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.37) —It is my pleasure to speak to the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987. The purpose of these Bills is to restructure the Australian Tourist Commission, which has been operating federally, overseeing overseas tourist promotion for Australia. This follows the setting up of a committee chaired by Jim Kennedy, a Queenslander who has been associated with tourism. He was associated, particularly in the early stages, with Tangalooma, a resort on Moreton Island and is now associated with South Molle in the Whitsundays. Queenslanders are very proud of the natural attributes that State has to offer tourists. It is obvious that with these natural attributes Queensland is one of the fastest growing tourism areas in Australia. It does not have the biggest tourist industry; New South Wales has a bigger overall tourist industry. It was the former Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his Government who did away with death duties in Queensland. This enabled and encouraged people to retire and invest in that State. From that time we saw the tremendous phenomenon of growth in tourism in Queensland. Unfortunately since then this Federal Australian Labor Party Government has imposed capital gains taxes on businesses. That is having a constricting effect on investments. Unfortunately for Australia, our investment figures, although up in the last few months, will show a downturn as a result of the share crash. That has been well highlighted in the Press in the last week or so. There is yet another mini-Budget coming in. The Government needs to do that to get things back into perspective after the great world share market crash. It has an enormous effect on business and investment confidence. The investment figure for this country is way down. It is one of the worst performance figures in the economy. Although the Government has allowed some depreciation on tourist development, unfortunately that support was dropped in the last Budget. It was 5 per cent; it is now down to 2 1/2 per cent. That makes it more difficult for people to establish tourist resorts. When tourists come to Australia they must have somewhere to stay. They have to have some bricks and mortar around them, some shelter; they do not all camp under the trees; they do not all go on safari. Some of them like to be near the beach and be housed in good accommodation. This is the area where this nation has seen the most improvement in the last 20 years. The standard of accommodation and tourist facilities has improved. We can be very proud of the fact that we have a number of world class facilities. We have seen the revamp of Hayman Island in the Whitsundays. There is an excellent facility there. I am not saying that we can all afford to stay there, but many overseas tourists and local tourists wish to use that facility. It is very well patronised. On the Gold Coast we saw the Skase organisation open the Sheraton Hotel on the sandspit a few weeks ago. The concept and design are brilliant. It is a very good hotel. That same corporation has opened an excellent facility at Port Douglas. The trend in tourism is towards resort type, low key type facilities where there is a total package of recreational facilities including, usually, a golf course, as well as a beach. These resorts thus have all the attractions needed. Tourism is very competitive. It is nothing new to Australia. The increase in tourism in Australia is not a phenomenon peculiar to Australia. We support the increase in tourism to Australia; it is a world- wide phenomenon. As more and more people become more affluent as we move into the age of technology where less physical work is needed, there is more time for relaxation. People can enjoy the natural beauty of our countryside. This is happening throughout the world. It so happens that Australia is a bit different as it is out of the way. The jet age has allowed people to travel extensively and people are looking for new destinations. We are lucky in that we have not had much tourism up until now. Australia has not been visited in the past by many northern hemisphere people. Those people view Australia as a place that is still a bit raw and unique. We are lucky in that our population is not large. We have only 15 million people on the whole of the continent which is as big as the United States and half the size of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When we travel in Australia we can get away from the crowded cities into the extensive, interesting and natural areas Australia has to offer. These natural areas are not just in Queensland; there are many such places throughout Australia. Ayers Rock was mentioned yesterday. It is a brilliant tourist attraction. A new Sheraton hotel has been built there. It is a brilliant facility. Once good facilities are built, people are more inclined to use them. Not everybody wants to camp, as I said, beside the camp fire, although I must say that that is a growing area of tourism particularly in the electorate of Maranoa where the four-wheel drive phenomenon has encouraged people to get off the main roads. Occasionally, people who own four-wheel drive vehicles like to take their vehicles off the bitumen-although not for long. At least these vehicles allow people to get into the real bush, to find a coolabah tree to camp under and to go to the local pubs. That type of recreation is growing in popularity in my area, in southern and south western Queensland, in the Channel country, in Birdsville, Windorah and Betoota. There are many byways in areas we would describe as the old inland Australia that are very interesting to people. Of course, we do not have lions and elephants roaming the place, but we do have kangaroos, which are a bit unusual to people in the rest of the world who like to see them. Interestingly enough, our bird population is of growing interest. We have a lot of German and Japanese people coming here who are very interested in birds. Because we live among these birds we do not realise how lucky we are to have such an enormous cross-section of birdlife. The old common galah or crow does not look much to us but people who come from places that do not have them regard those birds as quite spectacular. Mr Bilney —What, in Maranoa? Mr IAN CAMERON —There are a lot of galahs in Maranoa. I do not wish to class myself in that category. I like to think that, probably, I am more like a white cockatoo and that there is a little bit of style and class about myself. There are also a lot of white cockatoos and large flocks of galahs in Maranoa. Any time that I have had overseas visitors in the area they have always been very interested in and struck by the diversity of our birdlife-the birds that fly. Mr Smith —Here comes the cockatoo now. Mr IAN CAMERON —Here is young Michael, the Leader of the House. He has just arrived. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) is a good old mate of mine from South Australia. He has been up to Cunnamulla and those other areas I am talking about. He knows the pubs and the by-ways in that part of the world. No doubt, in his retirement from this place he will have plenty of opportunities to get back to those areas to meet some old acquaintances. We welcome him. As I said, the Australian Tourist Commission Bill proposes to revamp the Australian Tourist Commission. I am a bit disappointed that the Commission will concentrate just on overseas tourist promotion. It must be remembered that 80 per cent of tourism is still local and that we only have about a 25 per cent overseas tourist component. Therefore we must not forget that we Australians who wish to trip around this country and who have a holiday once a year take up 80 per cent of the total tourist beds in this country. Perhaps it can even be argued that really there is no need for a Tourist Commission. I am not all that rapt. The Australian Labor Party wants to privatise Qantas Airways Limited. If it is to go down the privatisation track, one wonders why it does not look at privatising the Commission itself. Qantas does most of our tourist promotion through its 50 or 60 offices around the world. Tourist promotion is done through those offices and through our legations. Therefore one really wonders why it is necessary to have the Commission. The States have been involved in tourism through the commissions which they have set up. I must say that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation was the first to be set up. It has been a pioneer in this area because it incorporated itself and appointed as chairman a person who had been associated with tourism. Sir Frank Moore, as chairman of that Corporation, has been responsible for getting tourism off the ground. The Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission, Mr Jim Kennedy, is also on that Corporation and has served as a deputy chairman on it. I cannot remember, but he may have started off as the Chairman. The Corporation has done an excellent job in tourist promotion. Governments seem to want to get into these business areas. One wonders why they do not just leave it to private enterprise because private enterprise does a better job in the long run. As I was saying, what we should be doing is giving tax incentives. We should not have capital gains taxes but we should be giving a greater investment allowance and spending money that way thus allowing private business to get up and invest, build the facilities and attract the people here who are needed. It is not really an area of government because there is no income associated with it. Qantas runs more or less as a lineball operation. All countries seem to have got into the act of having a national flag-carrier flying round the world. I guess it is a good way of promoting our country. However, I think that there is really no need for us to be operating airlines, tourist resorts or tourist commissions, or whatever, these days because there are plenty of people out there who wish to do that. The main thing is that these people have the proper business environment and are given the encouragement to do that. This Government does not do that by continuing to increase taxes, particularly by bringing in the iniquitous capital gains tax. There is no need for a capital gains tax. It is a nonsense. A young country such as Australia does not need to tax its capital. Every other country in the world has developed itself. We are still struggling as a young country to build facilities. As I said, a new hotel is being opened every three or four weeks in Queensland. Of course, without capital investment that could not happen. As a new nation it is a nonsense to think we should be taxing people because they have got the guts and are prepared to get out and spend money and make a bit of capital. These people re-invest the capital anyway, so why should the Government take half as it does. It is a nonsense. I hope that when we get into government after the next election we will abolish that tax. Of course, the revamped Commission will have a number of people appointed to it. The Bill will do away with the automatic appointments of State representatives and it provides instead for the appointment of people skilled, so-called, in tourism to it. I guess that that sort of system of appointment can be applauded to a certain extent. However, I still believe that the industry itself should continue to be represented on the Commission. I guess that in a roundabout sort of way, it may be. In some instances, however, it happens that if one does not make particular places available for industries they may no longer be represented on such commissions. This has happened since the revamping of a lot of our primary industry boards and commissions by this Government. Such industry representatives may find that the situation is very difficult because even though they may be represented on the particular commission they really do not have any power because they can be outvoted by people from outside. I would also like to mention the fact that the boom in tourism at the moment has mostly resulted from the depreciation of our dollar. It has made it much cheaper for people to come here from overseas. The depreciation of our dollar is not a good thing for our country, however, because it means that our living standard has depreciated to the extent, or near enough to it, of the devaluation of the dollar. I note that of late a lot of commentators have been telling us not to worry about this. This is a nonsense. When the Australian dollar was worth $US1.20, two or three years ago, our living standards were far better than they are now. It is now cheaper for the American tourist to come here because that tourist can buy nearly two of our dollars because the exchange rate is 60 Australian cents to each $US1. American tourists come here and think they are made because for every $US100 they get nearly $A200. They have twice as much money to spend while they are here. However, in effect it is not good for our economy. Although that devaluation has attracted a lot more people here it does not necessarily attract more money because our dollar is only worth half of what it was. However, on balance, perhaps because of the increase of the number of people attracted to this country, there are also more dollars to be exchanged. That is something that I do not agree with, however. The economists around the place are trying to browbeat us into believing that because our dollar is slumping this is good. If the Reserve Bank of Australia were not propping up our dollar, it would probably only be worth US45c to US50c. They tell us that that is a good thing. That is a lot of economic hogwash in my opinion. The same thing applies in the tourist industry. If our currency remains strong, we will remain an interesting and rewarding place in which to invest as far as international investors are concerned. Of course, tourism is an international industry. A lot of international groups are involved. I have mentioned the Sheraton group, which is just one of the hotel management chains, but behind the scenes a lot of Japanese, American and British capital is being put into this country and is being used to build up the infrastructure needed to keep tourism operating. Of course, once the hotels are built, that is just the beginning. Staff are needed to work in them. There is a great need for teachers to teach our young Australians so that they can get into this new and growing industry. Of course, the unemployment rate for those under 25 years of age is 23 per cent. That unemployment rate has actually gone up since the Labor Party came to office. Although there has been an enormous growth in tourism we still have not seen a decrease in unemployment in this country. This applies not just to our youth but to all Australians. The unemployment rate is actually higher than it was when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to office. The Prime Minister comes in here talking a lot of nonsense about the jobs that he has created. Of course they have been created, because they would have happened anyway. We should look at the reality of the unemployment figures. The rate of youth unemployment, which is a disgrace to all of us, is 23 per cent. The tourism and hospitality industries represent a great opening for these young people to get training and work. Of course, what we are now finding is that there are not enough teachers. One thing bounds ahead of another. There is a great need for skilled teachers in the technical and further education colleges. In Queensland we now have 15 TAFE colleges with hospitality training schools funded by the Federal Government. Queensland was again a pioneer in this area. The Queensland Agricultural College, at Gatton, was the first college in Australia to offer an exclusive hospitality course. It has been very successful. We now have a TAFE college in South Brisbane. Mr Jull —With a waiting list of 580. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right, it has a waiting list of 580 young people who are seeking to be trained. This is the problem I am getting at. I know that the Commonwealth is funding these areas. There is a need for more funds in these areas to assist the industry. There is a shortage of skilled, trained staff. An executive chef can now command between $65,000 and $85,000 in salary. Tourism next year will be highlighted with the Bicentenary. The great camel race is taking place in my electorate. It is starting at Alice Springs and going through to Surfers Paradise. It will cross the great electorate of Maranoa for a couple of thousand kilometres. We have got the Bert Hinkler air race on 23 and 24 April; we have the opening of the Windorah Park shelter shed to provide shelter from the blistering heat and protection from the flies in that area. Honourable members can see that we are very concerned to look after our tourists. We have got historical museums opening in Cunnamulla, Goondiwindi, Charleville, Stanthorpe, Millmerran and Emerald; we have got the polocrosse test match between Australia and a world team in Chinchilla on 28 and 29 May; and we have got the ninth world championship wheelbarrow derby in the central Queensland gem fields on 25 June. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) should partake in that race. He is pretty good at pushing wheelbarrows. The honourable member may even win that wheelbarrow race. The Jondaryan Woolshed Heritage Festival is being held on 27 August to 4 September and we have numerous other local festivals and sporting events. Mr Katter —What about the goanna races? Mr IAN CAMERON —Goanna races also take place at Pittsworth and lizard races take place at Eulo. All these events are of great interest. They attract tourists from all over the world who flood into these little towns. This is the phenomenon that has built up over a number of years. It is very important. The road system has to continue to be kept in place. There are places in my electorate such as Carnarvon Gorge and we have new motels. I have great pleasure in supporting these Bills. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(11.57) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) in the debate and to note how familiar he is with all the animals and birds in his electorate. I now understand how he manages to get re-elected. I presume all those birds and animals have votes and cast them for the National Party of Australia. I welcome the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 for the changes that it makes and presages. The Bill will produce a significant increase in the effectiveness of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) in promoting what is one of the fastest growing sectors of the Australian economy. The changes that it brings about will enable the ATC to be better placed to consolidate the dramatic growth in tourism that has occurred since the Hawke Government came to office. That growth owes a great deal to the tireless efforts of my colleague, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), among others. Since this Government came to office, tourism has developed into one of the biggest industries in Australia. According to the latest figures, it now employs over 405,000 Australians on a full time and part time basis. This year it is expected that tourism will contribute more than $24,000m to our gross domestic product (GDP); that is to say, more than 6 per cent of GDP. This is more than that generated by such traditional industries as textiles, clothing, footwear and motor vehicle construction combined. Tourism is now a very large industry. Even more heartening is the fact that the Australian tourist industry is a significant foreign exchange earner at a time when market prices for some of our key traditional exports are low. In the absence of a major upheaval in world trade policies, they look like remaining low for the medium term. Last year, for example, the tourist industry generated approximately $3.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings, which is more than our foreign exchange earnings for sugar, wheat or metals. The phenomenal growth the tourist industry has experienced is in no small measure due to the policies of this Government. Principal among these has been the rejuvenation of the Australian Tourist Commission, which suffered from years of neglect when those who sit opposite were in power. Since 1983 we have trebled the Commission's budget from $10m to $30m which has enabled us, amongst other things, to fund the very successful Paul Hogan series of commercials which revolutionised the promotion of Australia overseas, particularly in the United States of America (USA). I note here that Paul Hogan did not take a fee for those commercials, but we needed to find the money to make them and to show them on television. As a result largely of that promotion, Australia has risen as a travel priority for United States travellers from forty-ninth out of 100 countries that were listed, to first. In other words, we have come up 48 places to the most preferred destination for United States tourist travellers. The results of this strategy are there for all to see. Before 1983 the number of international tourists visiting Australia was under one million a year-950,00 a year. At the same time, over a million Australians-1.3 million Australians-travelled overseas on holidays. Now we are expecting 1.7 million visitors to come to Australia over this year alone, with 2.2 million expected in 1988; that is more than a doubling in a matter of four or five years. This is a huge increase over the 1983 figure and it is matched by a similar increase in Australians who choose to stay at home for their holidays. Again, Paul Hogan's advertising of the attractions of staying in Australia has been of great effect. Australia now has the world's strongest growth rate for international visitors. Last year the number of people visiting us rose by 23 per cent compared with an average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries of just one per cent. However, despite such success we cannot afford to be complacent if we are to consolidate our gains. In this respect it is worth noting the fate of other industries which for too long relied on natural advantages. As my colleague, the Minister for Education, Employment and Training (Mr Dawkins) has said: International competition will set the standard and if we are to compete, it will be up to us to meet or exceed that standard. Like our mineral resources, out tourist attractions are raw material which we can build upon or refine to create even more jobs, more opportunities and higher returns. And to do that we need to innovate, work more smartly, build a reputation for quality and go for added value in tourism as much as in any other industry. That is why I particularly welcome the changes in this Bill. By reducing the size of the Australian Tourist Commission Board, we can improve its ability to respond dynamically to a rapidly changing market. Similarly, by doing away with the provision for rotational representation of States and Territories, we can ensure some stability for the Board, a situation that will help it fulfil its new requirement to undertake long term planning for the tourist industry. By introducing a provision, as this Bill does, that Board members be appointed on the basis of their commercial acumen, the Bill will ensure that any plans the ATC develops will be attuned to the needs and capabilities of the tourist industry. As a South Australian, I take particular pride in the way that the Bill is changing and will improve the structure of the Australian Tourist Commission because in many ways the changes which are contained in this Bill duplicate those which have already been made at a State level in South Australia where the State Minister of Tourism, Barbara Wiese, has also restructured the Tourist Board to make it more responsive and more commercially oriented. Indeed, if we can repeat the successes of the innovative South Australian tourist industry on a national basis, we will be certain to have a sound tourist industry for a long time to come. In this respect, and referring to my earlier remarks, I point to the willingness of the Bannon Government to build on its own natural advantages, beginning with the world renowned Adelaide Festival and continuing with innovations such as the Adelaide Grand Prix which this year attracted more than 190,000 spectators over the four days it was held. The new Adelaide casino has proved a remarkable success. The $200m Adelaide Station environment redevelopment-the ASER project-will see a new Hyatt hotel, convention facilities and the utilisation of a part of the city which was previously rather unloved and neglected. There will be a novel scheme where, for $5, tourists can purchase a plastic card which will entitle them to up to $2,000 in discounts at wineries, restaurants and motels across South Australia. There are plans to build a $50m tourist facility at Wilpena Pound in the Flinders Ranges and, not least, a unique program where the South Australian Government is licensing commercial operators to run tourist bureaux in Perth, and soon in Brisbane, at no cost to the taxpayer. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the tourist attractions in my electorate. I see that the Minister has just come into the House. He has visited some of those attractions himself, particularly the wineries in my electorate. He was kind enough on one occasion to come to Hardy's restored Chateau Reynella winery, the oldest working winery in Australia, where this great industry of wine making had its beginnings. With innovations such as these it is no wonder that tourism earns more than $800m a year for South Australia alone and sustains in South Australia about 27,000 jobs. South Australia's expertise in creating tourist opportunities received international recognition this year with the decision of Skal-the International Association of Travel Writers-to hold its annual convention in Adelaide during Grand Prix week. It was a resounding success and that conference was only one of more than 220 national and international conferences being held in Adelaide this year. However, despite such successes we must take steps to ensure that our tourist industry will continue to lead the world as an innovator and, even more importantly, in its reputation for quality of service. If there is any advice which I could give to the reconstituted ATC board which will emerge from this legislation it would be that board members should encourage their commercial colleagues to devote more time and money to training their staff. This is a matter that has been referred to in the debate by other speakers. If they do not do so, we run the risk of frittering away the gains that we have made and we will be creating yet another mendicant Australian industry. If we are to retain our pre-eminence as an international tourist destination, private enterprise, in concert with the unions, must do its share to improve and maintain the quality, the skills and the flexibility of the labour force. It cannot just be left to the Government. Already demand for places in hospitality, catering and tourist training courses is dramatically outstripping the supply of places available in educational institutions, not least in South Australia. The private sector must take up this slack. We must halt the ludicrous situation where we import 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our skilled chefs, 15 per cent to 20 per cent of our catering managers in hotels and clubs. Those are short term, short-sighted solutions. If we want a loyal and productive labour force employees must take the risks and invest in human capital along the lines that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has suggested in its document entitled Australia Reconstructed. At present, however, the record is dismal. Last year only 97 people commenced waiting apprenticeships in Australia and only 65 per cent of those are expected to complete their apprenticeships. Whereas, for example, West German employers spend nearly 2 per cent of their country's gross domestic product on training employees, our employers spend less than one-fifth of that-less than 0.4 per cent-on training. It is simply not enough to rely on the fact that we have wonderful natural beauty and sights in Australia that tourists want to see which, combined with a low dollar, has brought people here until now. We simply must innovate and we must do things better. That is why I commend this legislation to the House. As well as building on Labor's already successful tourism policies the legislation encourages those in private enterprise who run the industry to take a more active interest in long term strategies to guarantee that Australia will continue to lead the world as a competitive destination for tourists. I hope that this will lead them to realise that increased investment in human capital is one of the ways of ensuring that that will occur. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(12.11) —At the outset I would like to say that I am really delighted and welcome the opportunity to be able to speak, to the Australian Tourist Commission Bill and the Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill. As the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) would know, I was able to play what I think was a fairly constructive role in the whole tourist spectrum. Strangely enough, it never cost the taxpayers of Australia one cent, and I would like to bring that to the attention of the Minister also. Maybe there can be some rectification of this situation. I refer to the great privilege I had last year of officiating at the preview of the film Crocodile Dundee. Mr McVeigh —Made in your area. Mr KATTER —As my good friend the honourable member for Groom has said, it was made in my area. I learned one very fundamental lesson from the role that I played in the United States of America. Let me add to that the fact that, prior to my entering Parliament, I had the opportunity of wandering round the world in various ways which I will not go into in any great detail because I am sure that we do not have that much time. But I would like to say that I learned one clear and fundamental lesson. I think the new Australian Tourist Commission Bill has a lot to commend it. One of the things which really commends that Bill is that all those responsible for the legislation and, no doubt, the Minister, realise that the States, much more particularly the State of Queensland, have a high degree of expertise. It is set out in the Bill that it will be left to the States to organise their own domestic tourist arrangements. Let me go back to what I was saying. The message that came through loud and clear was that though people certainly love places, above all, when people go somewhere and come home they remember the warmth of the people and the manner in which the people of a particular country accepted them and the way in which they extended warmth and friendship. We do that in Australia, with one or two minor exceptions. Before I proceed with that matter I wish to develop the theme of people. I am in the excellent situation of being able to quote examples from my State. We have seen the departure of a Premier who was known internationally. In Washington I had the opportunity of dining with three or four senators, one of whom said to me, `Mr Katter, you are from Queensland'. I said, `Yes, Senator, I am'. He said, `That is where you have that pistol-packing Premier. My God, man, we could do with him over here'. So there is a case where a country was known through a Premier. That will continue because Queensland now has a very exciting new young Premier in the form of Mike Ahern. Mike Ahern will be just as well known internationally and nationally, in a different sort of way from Sir Joh, so Queensland is very well equipped. Let us go to the precise spectrum of tourism. We have an entrepreneur in Queensland, a man who is so far above other personages in Australia when it comes to tourism that they are just not in the race. He is a furlong ahead. I refer to Frank Moore. Sir Francis Moore is so well regarded and has been responsible for such colourful and exciting promulgations of tourism that he is just so far ahead it would not matter. It is acknowledged everywhere. This is nothing to do with politics whatsoever. Closely following him is the chairman of the tourist corporation in the Northern Territory. So the stage is set with two great figures, one internationally recognised and acknowledged. I refer again to Frank Moore. By the way, we have someone in this House at the moment who has done a tremendous amount for tourism. I refer to the honourable member for Fadden, David Jull. He is acknowledged by all parties. We go to him for advice. So we have a wonderful set-up. I have spoken of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I am a gentle soul and I would not want to offend any of the other States but I am sure the other States would acknowledge that we, by the grace of God, by the expertise of fellows such as Frank Moore and so on, are gifted with tremendous, wonderful, exciting and colourful tourist attractions. Mr Ian Cameron —Like the honourable member for Kennedy. Mr KATTER —The honourable member for Maranoa indicated that there is a whole series of quite different attractions. People on the Gold Coast were going to burn an effigy of me there some time ago because I suggested a toll. Being a simple soul, I suggested that there could be a toll on the road between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I believe the people burnt an effigy of me the same night. That is not very harmful. I am not in any way reflecting on other tourist attractions but what we have to offer is so far in excess-- Mr Braithwaite —Stockman's Hall of Fame. Mr KATTER —Let us start with the Stockman's Hall of Fame. I am sure the Minister would be aware that we discussed a non-political proposal with the Australian Labor Party dominated Townsville City Council. There was a `From the reef to the rock' proposal which involved a package starting with the marine attractions in Townsville and moving across taking in Mount Isa, the largest mining complex in the world, going to the Stockman's Hall of Fame and then on to Ayers Rock. On the way one would see magnificent attractions. I shall give a simple example of what I am talking about. Some time ago when I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I had reason to be associated with the Northrop Company. I am pleased to see that the former shadow Treasurer the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) is in the House. He played a very active role on that Committee, as did the now Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley. It was a very distinguished Committee. Northrop is building 40 per cent of the FA18 aircraft, as honourable members know-if they do not know they should know-and McDonnell Douglas is building the other 60 per cent. A bit of a difference of opinion arose and as a result the vice- president of Northrop came out to Australia. He was anxious to have a look at our part of the world. I wondered what to do with him. I thought: `Here is a great business tycoon from Los Angeles, which has Hollywood, the Queen Mary, Disneyland, Linda Evans-all those things'. Mr Braithwaite —Have you been there, Bob? Mr KATTER —Yes, I was with Linda Evans. That is who I mean. I could not quite make meeting Linda Gray. However, there is another day, I guess. Getting back to my story, I thought: `What the blazes am I going to do with a great man like that? He is coming out to Australia. What can I do that will entertain him?' I got an aircraft and we went down to the Banjo Paterson country. We wandered around through that area. We got a four-wheel drive vehicle and went to the Combo Hole. We went out and saw the dinosaur tracks. We saw emus and kangaroos and it took one day and a night. He is a pretty sincere sort of bloke and he reckoned that it was one of the greatest breaks he had ever had. I was talking to my friend and colleague Ralph Hunt a while ago and I said, `Ralph, I am not too sure how the Japanese react. I am going into the House to make a speech at long last; I have got on to the speakers' list by some mistake or other. I want to make some sort of authoritative statement about the Japanese. Do they like kangaroos and emus?'. He said, `Oh, boy! I took not only a Japanese distinguished visitor but also a Chinese distinguished visitor to see kangaroos and emus. They were so excited when they saw kangaroos and emus in the outback and everything that goes with it'. Mr Ian Cameron —Galahs? Mr KATTER —Yes. They could come to Canberra to see a few of those without any trouble at all. I regret to say that most of them are on the Government side of the House, but there are exceptions. Getting back to reality, we have so much to offer but it can be spoiled. I will give another example. I went to the Townsville Airport on one occasion and I saw a very attractive young American lady sitting there crying. She had a handkerchief out and all that goes with crying. She was sitting there upset. I asked, `Excuse me, can I be of any help?'. Mr Holding —I bet you did. Mr KATTER —Words from an expert. I bow to the senior experience of the Minister in that regard. However, we live and learn in this place. Anyhow, the young lady was able to tell me that she had missed her plane. Then she said, `I went over to ask for some coins. I wanted to change a $2 note, sir. The lady said to me, ``Can't you read?'' '. There was an officious sort of a notice which said, `Don't ask for change. We don't give it'. How would that tourist have felt? One little incident can destroy the whole of our public relations. Mr Braithwaite —That's Ted Lindsay's country. Mr KATTER —I will talk to Ted about that later on. We have a new airport in Townsville now; all those things have passed on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member really does not need all of the assistance from the members of the House. The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting. Mr KATTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have notes here that are being supplemented from my left and my right. What I am trying to get across is what the overseas tourist would really look for in Australia. They are obviously finding what they are looking for. The Tourism Minister's use of Paul Hogan was certainly of tremendous value. After all, what do people look for when they go overseas? Do they want to see the oldest city in the world? Do they want to see bricks and mortar and all of that sort of thing? Of course they do not. They want to see something that is active, something that is alive, something that is warm, something that is friendly and something that gives them a sense of having been in that country all their lives. I went to a little restaurant in Rome near the Spanish Steps. I was not in Parliament then so if any of the taxpayers want to say that I had another perky trip, they can forget about it. Mr McVeigh —You have had very few overseas trips. Mr KATTER —I hope that goes into Hansard. I acknowledge that comment and want it recorded. I have had very few overseas trips. On this occasion, a couple of us were slumming around Europe, and I mean slumming. We went to this crummy old Taverna Margarita. People who go to Rome should make a note of this. The tavern is a very interesting little place. That is the impression I got after being there for about two hours telling other people what they should eat. By the way, that is a good technique. If one wants to get to know some people, one should study the menu before one goes in. I am throwing in a few tips here. I believe it is the responsibility of a member of parliament not only to make great speeches; if he is on air and he can get a few messages to the people of Australia also, well and good. If one is the gregarious type, as I am, one should get to know as many people as possible in a restaurant or wherever. What one should do is to get a copy of the menu before one goes in. One should get some long-standing local to tell one what each dish is. We did that and the very lovable and rather stout lady who ran the Taverna Margarita took us out to the kitchen. We met all the family and by about one o'clock in the morning-mind you, there was a little bit of wine involved; not a great deal, but enough-we felt pretty good. I point out to my good friend the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding) that I am not speaking frivolously. I am trying to be deep and profound. I am trying to get across the message that if one takes a holiday in another country, one remembers the little incidents that occur. Add to that the magnificent vista we have in Australia. Mention was made of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. That was created in my home town of Cloncurry. I am sure that people would like to find out about the history of that magnificent service, which has extended to other countries. If we are selling our own goods today, I mention Mount Isa, which has the largest mining complex in the world and a great group of warm and friendly people. Mr Braithwaite —Kalkadoon Park. Mr KATTER —There is now the Kalkadoon Park in Cloncurry. In the Northern Territory there is the Kakadu National Park, and so on. The only thing that is spoiling this tourism development is the world resistance-if my research is correct, even members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation are beginning to hesitate-to this insidious method of having an area added to the World Heritage List. Control of a particular area is given away to a group of nations which would not have a remote idea of where the place is situated. This is being applied in a very vicious way to the rainforests of north Queensland. Do honourable members know what will happen? If one wants to talk about tourism, one should say what will happen once the rainforests of north Queensland are taken out of the control of the foresters and the present situation, which has protected and preserved them. They will be devastated. This Government said to the Northern Territory Government, `Don't worry, we're going to have Kakadu National Park listed on the World Heritage List. We will look after you'. I am not sure what figure was promised to the Northern Territory. I think it was $17m. What has the Minister given the Northern Territory? He has given it seven barbecue spots; seven little barbecue stoves. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate will tell us how the Northern Territory Government has been reimbursed. Seven barbecue spots is not a bad recompense for the fact that the Commonwealth has taken away the control of a great part of the Northern Territory from the elected Government. Let me return to the Bill. I think the Bill is good. It acknowledges the tremendous contribution made, in particular, by Queensland. Personality is what matters in tourism. Can anyone here tell me who is a greater personality in politics than Joh Bjelke-Petersen. If there is a greater one, it will probably be Mike Ahern. Already this young man is appealing to every party in Queensland. He has gripped people's imagination. Mr John Brown —What about big Russ? Mr KATTER —For the moment big Russ is out in the paddock. I do not know whether he will come back. We will just have to wait and see what happens. He is grazing at the moment. Mr John Brown —I don't think they will send him to stud. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I think the honourable member for Kennedy is in the process of selling himself as a tourist attraction. He is only one of his kind that we have and he should be allowed to do so without interruption. Mr KATTER —The Minister and I know that Russ is a little disappointed about a few things that have happened recently. I mention particularly Our Waverley Star. We cannot have everything in this world. I conclude on a note of seriousness: if we are to take advantage of this great flood of tourists, we should take note of something which was published recently in the United States-I think it was published while I was over there with Crocodile Dundee-which showed that by the year 2000 Australia will be the mecca for tourism. As I pointed out, people will not be worried by terrorists in this country-unless they visit 101 East Street, Mount Isa, because I have three of the greatest little terrorists ever born. Setting that aside, Australia is a great and wonderful country. A movie like Crocodile Dundee shows the warmth, friendliness and relaxed attitude of a fellow like Paul Hogan, who played the part of Crocodile Dundee. Tourists can visit Cairns, the hinterland, Townsville, or wherever they like, as long as it is in Queensland. If they visit the great hinterland in Queensland and the Northern Territory, they will see a magnificent vista and they will return totally delighted, with only one thought in mind: `Let's get back to Australia, that great and wonderful country'. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(12.30) —I support the remarks of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). I pay tribute to both of them for their very constructive contributions to the development of the tourist industry in their areas. It needs to be put on record that the Stockman's Hall of Fame did not eventuate on account of government assistance; it eventuated primarily on account of the disciplined leadership given by the honourable member for Kennedy. I also endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Maranoa, wherein he paid a great compliment to the Queensland Agricultural College (QAC) which, of course, is part and parcel of the electorate of Groom. QAC is the college which initiated training in tourism and hospitality in Queensland. I hope that those who are in charge of the development of these types of courses do not try to fracture what is a very good course and endeavour to set up courses all around Queensland. We do not want quantity of opportunities; we want a quality course. It is interesting to note that graduates from QAC have no difficulty in getting jobs. There is great demand for graduates from QAC in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. That probably occurs because of the quality of the lecturers at QAC, and the very high standard of education provided to students in Queensland, compared with those in other States, by the schools that they attend and also by their homes. I generally support the thrust of the legislation and particularly compliment the honourable member for Maranoa and the honourable member for Kennedy for their contributions. Tourism, of course, is one of the great industries in Australia. In the last financial year expenditure by residents and international visitors travelling within Australia generated over $22 billion. That figure is expected to grow to $24 billion. I compliment the present Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) for the leadership that he has shown in this area. To place the size of the tourist industry in its proper perspective, those figures represent a massive 6 per cent of our gross domestic product, which is a similar figure to that provided by mining, and is a substantially higher figure than that provided by agriculture. The honourable member for Maranoa also commented on the unemployment situation. I support the view that he expressed that tourism provides a great avenue for relief of unemployment. It is not a source of pride for anyone that at present the unemployment figure in Australia is approaching three-quarters of a million. That would be considerably higher if it were not for tourism, which has created 400,000 jobs. This figure represents 6 per cent of the total work force. If we recognise that 32 international visits or 250 domestic trips create one job in the tourist industry, we can fully appreciate its magnitude. Clearly, all of us are blind to these potentially vital sources of economic restoration. We need to implement measures that are necessary to support the industry. The legislation is part of that process. Last year, the principal reason for trips by overseas visitors to Australia was for holidays. Yet, despite above average growth in arrivals in Australia in recent years, our share of major markets remained very small. Consequently, the potential for continued growth is considerable. We receive only 0.35 per cent of international arrivals world-wide, comprising a mere 3 per cent of Japanese international travellers and 3 per cent of Americans journeying overseas, and, of course, we have great support from our friends, the Kiwis, from across the ocean. Currently, each one per cent increase in international visitor arrivals creates an additional 500 jobs in the tourism and hospitality industry. Therefore, this Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 is predominantly geared towards promoting Australia as an attractive tourist destination in the international market-place. To use a trite phrase, Australia is currently flavour of the month within the international travel arena. This is due undoubtedly to the exposure Australia has received through the Paul Hogan commercials. The honourable member for Kennedy complimented the Minister on the initiative, and I, in turn, compliment the honourable member for Kennedy for the enormous contribution he made in ensuring that Crocodile Dundee was a success in America. It was largely due to the efforts of the honourable member for Kennedy that the American people were subjected to the frank and honest approach of the real Australian. I compliment him for the leadership that he showed, and the disadvantages to him and sacrifices he made in going to America, leaving his wife and family behind. We really appreciate that. The impact of this movie has been very far-reaching. The honourable member for Kennedy did not have the opportunity in his speech to refer to the successful sale of the Walkabout Creek Hotel. I understand that that hotel was sold for $290,000 and a queue of buyers was waiting. That was due to the exposure that the hotel received through the honourable member for Kennedy and other people. Our foreign neighbours have been enticed by the image of Hoges throwing yet another shrimp on the barbie. The Australian character may be nebulous, but it is what overseas tourists come here to experience. The lesson from all this is: Just let us be what we are-dinky-di Aussies. I think that is pretty top class. Once we have these foreign tourists within our grasp, let us not forget some of the international goals of tourism, apart from economic development. First of all, it is desirable to gain favourable foreign public opinion and an increased understanding in other countries of Australia's institutions and policies. Secondly, tourism should aspire to foster an increased appreciation in other countries of Australia's cultural accomplishments and contributions. I hope that for our part we realise our geographic position on the globe; we should encourage the teaching of Japanese and similar languages in Australian schools, because we will be exposed to Japanese culture and Japanese people, businessmen and tourists, to a greater degree. I believe that would be very helpful because, as the honourable member for Kennedy explained, tourists in this country have difficulty if they are not associated with and understand the Australian idiom. I can understand the move of the Australian Tourist Commission to devote its efforts solely to co-ordinating overseas tourism, but in developing that aspect let us not forget the need to promote domestic tourism. I suggest that Australia can ill afford to sacrifice its domestic tourist industry. To restate it in a more philosophic way: A man travels the world over in search of what he needs, and returns home to find it. Those words of wisdom come not from me but from George Augustus Moore, a well known novelist of the era 1852 to 1933. It is imperative that Australian tourists are satisfied when they are travelling within their own country. Total expenditure in 1986 by Australians travelling overseas was $2.9 billion, excluding international air fares. Clearly then, it is in the Government's best interest to encourage these people to holiday within their own country, thereby facilitating the injection of this massive amount back into our own area, instead of merely allowing it to be used to support the economies of other countries. As divorced from the international goals of tourism, the domestic goals of tourism focus on such ideals as the fostering of national cohesion and a sense of national identity; the development of a public respect for the environment; and the preservation of regional and minority traditions. Again, the member for Kennedy covered those points very explicitly. In the light of this pronouncement, I feel that the development of tourism from abroad should be accompanied by a similar effort to expand domestic tourism. The poor current exchange rate has forced many Australians, who may have otherwise chosen to travel overseas, to holiday within their own country. Clearly then, the Australian tourist industry is not confronted with the problem of how to keep Australians at home, and should, therefore, be seeking to capitalise on this sterling opportunity to promote tourism within Australia. Whilst the Bill indicates that the Commonwealth Government will withdraw from the sphere of domestic tourism, I had hoped that its taxation and economic policies would be such that they would encourage the development of tourist facilities irrespective of where these are within our country. The withdrawal of the Federal Government's commitment to domestic tourism has meant that some operators within this sector have been left `high and dry'. Let me first of all cite a few examples from my area around Toowoomba in southern Queensland. Toowoomba is a mere 140 kilometres from Brisbane's international airport terminal, yet it fades into oblivion simply because it does not cater to the international tourist market by having an attraction of the ilk of Seaworld or Dreamworld on the Gold Coast. Mr Katter —A beautiful city. Mr McVEIGH —Those honourable members who know Toowoomba, will appreciate that this thriving city-as the honourable member for Kennedy said quite correctly, it is a beautiful city-situated on the Darling Downs, possesses a rare, tranquil beauty and is renowned for its spectacular gardens. However, this fact is poorly advertised and, as a consequence, Toowoomba attracts predominantly day trippers. Additionally, there are only two large, high standard motels in Toowoomba to cater for incoming tourists. The Federal Government is also falling short of addressing the fact that a large percentage of visitors to this area arrive by private motor car. In the case of Toowoomba, 93 per cent of visitors arrive by this mode of transport. Therefore, there must be a properly co-ordinated, national standardised signposting policy. For example, the signposting from the Sunshine Coast to Toowoomba is irregular and unco-ordinated. Furthermore, there is no signposting at all along the road from the Gold Coast to Queensland's largest inland city. The Federal Government cannot and must not shirk responsibility for supporting its domestic tourist industry. Given the timetable for this debate, I will conclude my remarks. I thank the Minister at the table for the opportunity to be an extra speaker from this side in this debate. Tourism is a very important and growing industry as far as the Commonwealth and the States are concerned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.40) —in reply-We have only a few moments before the grievance debate, so I will wind up very quickly. I feel a great deal of satisfaction in relation to the number of honourable members who want to debate this subject, and I feel even more satisfaction to hear them exalt and rejoice in the success of tourism in Australia. It reminds me of conversations I have had with my predecessor, Sir Phillip Lynch, when he was the de facto Minister for Tourism by being the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He told me that every time he mentioned tourism in the Cabinet in the Fraser years he was looked at as if he was some sort of freak with three heads, because no one wanted to know about it. That was reflected in the Fraser Government's total lack of activity in the tourism industry. It is nice to find this kindling of interest in tourism amongst members of the Opposition. Mr Goodluck —I have always been interested. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member for Franklin has been a good tourist-that is right. The Government takes great pride in seeing the extraordinary growth in tourism that has occurred during our terms of office, and I must say that we are still only scratching the surface. This beautiful country of Australia, with its high profile tourist spots, is certainly the flavour of the year in terms of world tourism. We have so many beautiful spots as yet undeveloped that we have a long way to go. I note with some satisfaction that the leaders of the Cocos Malay community in the beautiful Cocos (Keeling) Islands are sitting in the gallery. The Cocos Islands are a spot-a paradise-that is about to undergo tourism development, particularly on Direction Island, that will allow the Cocos Malay people to become financially independent of the old and outmoded copra industry. I am sure that those people will look with some satisfaction to the growth of tourism within Australia. As I said, in a sense of Christmas bonhomie I do not intend to be too critical, except to say that the present shadow Minister is the sixth shadow Minister. I note that the first shadow Minister, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), is sitting on the back bench. Mr MacKellar —He is the best you have ever had. Mr JOHN BROWN —Probably. I am pretty well disappointed that after four years of government I am yet to hear a constructive tourism policy put forward by the Opposition. I must say, in my own defence, that I spent three years in opposition as a shadow Minister preparing a policy which we took to government and which has been the reason for the great success in Australian tourism. I am sure that every member of the Government is very proud of the great advances we have made, and so we should be proud. No country in the world is so richly endowed with all the elements for successful tourism as is Australia. We have a friendly, welcoming population, a magnificent climate and wonderful natural beauties; we have everything going for us to make Australia the great tourism country that it is. Most importantly, Australia is probably the safest country in the world in that we see very little, if any, manifestations of civil insurrection, physical violence or terrorism, and that is to the great credit not only of this Government but also of all governments in Australia; they have been particularly vigilant in keeping Australia safe. I believe that the future for tourism in Australia is magnificent. I thank all honourable members on both sides for, in most cases, their useful and constructive contributions to this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(12.45) —When the Tall Ships enter Sydney Harbour on Australia Day 1988 in a re-enactment of the First Fleet's arrival, those ships will see very little of the Sydney Harbour shoreline that has remained unchanged over that 200-year interval. Incredibly, though, a small 4.175 hectares of untouched waterfront land still exists. This pre-settlement oasis of sandstone outcrops and eucalyptus forest is at Hunters Bay, abutting Balmoral Beach and forming a backdrop to that beach which helps to give it an unspoiled beauty which attracts people to it from all over the metropolitan area of Sydney and, in fact, right throughout Australia. But, if the Hawke Government has its way, that sanctuary will be lost to the people of Sydney and sold to developers for conversion from a woodland haven to residential properties for a very privileged few. Why is it that the Government is desecrating such a unique part of our heritage and denying the people of Sydney access to what could be and must be an incomparable opportunity to create a natural bushland setting in one of the very few untouched waterfront sites remaining on Sydney Harbour? The explanation is quite simple. It is money; that is what it is all about, $16m worth of it, the amount which the Commonwealth Government believes this land will fetch if its sale is negotiated with a property developer. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) admits as much. In the Budget statements of September 1987, Budget Paper No. 1 states: The proceeds from sale of assets will be used to reduce the Budget deficit and, in this way, will reduce the public debt interest payments that would otherwise have to be made. There is no reference to its unique beauty and its location, its heritage significance, its potential as a wilderness in the heart of a city of over 2.5 million people and its unparalleled conservation value on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There is none of that, just regard to $16m to help reduce a financial embarrassment which has been created by four years of Labor Government; four years in which we have seen an aberration of financial management; four years in which we have seen great promises made. But the reality is that we are now reduced to the situation where not only are we selling off part of the incomparable Sydney Harbour foreshore, but also we are destroying one of Australia's great assets overseas, the garden of the Australian Embassy in Japan. That is what we are reduced to. In this particular case, it is for $16m to help to reduce a financial embarrassment, as I say, which has been created over four years of Labor Government. If this surplus defence land had been called Kakadu, or Lemonthyme, or Daintree, we would have seen the Prime Minister chasing the conservation vote with generous remarks about its `outstanding, cultural, biological, recreational and scenic values', and moving with astonishing speed and enthusiasm to pass legislation to preclude mining, exploration and other forms of exploitation. What do we find? None of this for 4.175 hectares of untouched heritage on the shores of Sydney Harbour that is to be sold by this vandalising Government. Conveniently ignored is the fact that part of the land, up to the 50-metre contour line, is already listed on the National Estate Register and that the whole area is being nominated for listing on that register. And rightly so, for it is likely that this land was part of the traditional land of the Camaragal tribe. What we do know is that the 4.175 hectares are part of land granted by Governor Lachlan Macquarie in one of his first attempts at settling Aborigines on farms to encourage the development of their agricultural skills. That farm is a fascinating but little-known part of our history. On 31 January 1815, Governor Macquarie appointed an Aboriginal chief and 15 other Aboriginal adults to a farm which occupied the whole of what we now know as Middle Head. Governor Macquarie gave the group the European title of the Broken Bay tribe and its chief the title of King Bungarie. Bungarie was well known in Sydney at that time, having accompanied Matthew Flinders on his voyage to circumnavigate Australia in 1801 and 1802. Early records show that the area was referred to locally as King Bungarie's farm. The 4.175 hectares of what remains of that farm have conservation and heritage value. They are also part of a complex of land on Middle Head, which today has great significance to the aesthetics of Sydney Harbour. It is not just me saying that; others have come to a similar conclusion. It is a part of land identified in 1971 by the New South Wales State Planning Authority as having conservation importance. The same conclusion was reached by a 1973 Commonwealth inquiry into our national heritage by the Hon. Tom Uren, MP, and by the 1987 Sydney and Middle Harbour regional and environmental study. I think it is also noteworthy that the New South Wales Government has State environment policy No. 19, which is relevant, but not legally binding, on the Commonwealth. This State environmental planning policy applies to the Mosman area. I would point out to the Commonwealth Government that the land in question falls within 11 of the 17 criteria outlined in that policy No. 19. But, is the New South Wales Minister interested? Not a bit of it. He says, `Sell it off'. It has no interest to him whatsoever. Is the Federal Government interested? Not a bit of it. It is only a little bit of land on Sydney Harbour. But it is not part of Daintree; it is not part of Kakadu. It does have environmental significance, it does have historical significance. It does have significance in terms of the Aboriginal history. We do not hear anything of that from this Government. This land, as I have said, does not have the vastness of Kakadu, of the Franklin or of the north Queensland rainforests. It is intimately related to one of the world's most beautiful harbours and to our national heritage. I cannot accept that the Commonwealth Government is so desperate for the $16m. After all, we heard earlier this week that the Budget is substantially in surplus at the present time, much more so than the mere $16m that is alleged to be received from the sale of this land. Are the people of Sydney going to be deprived of this area of land? Are the people of Sydney going to lose forever this waterfront woodland haven? That is not too flowery a description of it. It really is a most attractive and important part of the Sydney Harbour waterfront. Once it is gone it can never be restored to the state it is in at the present time. Morally then, this land belongs to the people of New South Wales. They transferred it to the Commonwealth at Federation in the belief that this was necessary to support our nation's defences. If that need has now passed, the moral, the right and the proper action by the Commonwealth Government would be to offer that land back to the people of New South Wales and to allow them to decide how it could be best used. This is some of the most important real estate in New South Wales. It is the front garden of Sydney and part of the vista as one enters one of the world's most beautiful natural harbours. What right has the Commonwealth Government to take land given to it by the people of New South Wales and then to sell it to a privileged few for their exclusive residential purposes? It is a poor and morally bankrupt government that would contemplate such a sale. It will be a poorer nation if we permit that sale to take place. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(12.55) —Today, in my view, is a rather significant day for all Australians, not the least of them being the Aboriginal Australians who will benefit directly as a result of the announcements made this morning by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). In his announcement about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was a preamble acknowledging prior Aboriginal ownership of Australia and the desire of all Australians for reconciliation with our prior owners. It is a pity that the co-operation and goodwill that the Government is expecting from those who have traditionally opposed the interests of Aboriginal Australians was not exhibited by the Government of the Northern Territory over the last week. I speak now in relation to the Northern Territory Government's opposition to the World Heritage listing of Kakadu National Park. As I speak, the monsoon winds are beginning to sweep across the Top End flooding the vast wetlands of Kakadu and the Top End, renewing and replenishing the land. Waterfalls like Jim Jim and Twin Falls are beginning to flow, while hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, ducks, wading birds and magpie geese are congregating to feed and nest in the abundant wetlands. In central Australia, several hundred kilometres south, the daily temperature climbs to over 40 degrees. The waterholes around Uluru and Kata Tjuta shrink as the thorny devil, dragon lizard, goanna and skink hunt for food and the arid desert landscape shimmers in the harsh Centralian summer. Both of these areas are in my electorate, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and although climatically divergent have several things in common. Both contain national parks of international, cultural and environmental significance. This significance, I am pleased to say, has been recognised this week through the efforts of this Government to place Uluru National Park and Kakadu stage 2 on the World Heritage List. The Aboriginal traditional owners of both areas have been granted freehold title and have chosen to lease those areas of land back to the Australian nation and its people, both areas to be run as national parks. Both parks are premier tourist attractions, not only for their environmental significance but also, I believe, primarily for their cultural importance. In 1986, Kakadu attracted somewhere in the vicinity of 140,000 visitors, and Uluru about 190,000 visitors. It is anticipated that within the next two years over a quarter of a million visitors will visit both parks. Both areas have long been the subject of much controversy and polarisation both in the Northern Territory and nationally, especially over the recent past. Both parks have been the targets of staggeringly expensive and, at times, stunningly racist propaganda campaigns by successive Northern Territory governments. I am afraid to say that at times they have been supported, especially in the case of Uluru, in their opposition to this park being managed by Aboriginal Australians, by the Opposition. I hope that the words of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), are echoed throughout his Party. He said this morning during his speech on the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he thought it was time for Australia to reconcile the differences with Aboriginal Australians. I hope that he will pass that message on to other areas within the Australian Government and within the States. The lease-back arrangements for Uluru not only have provided tourists with access to Aboriginal culture but also have provided and ensured the privacy of the Mutijulu community, which has now been placed off limits to tourists. Sacred sites in the region have been given protection and in the new spirit of co-operation the Maruku arts and crafts complex attracts visitors to the park who can speak with traditional craft persons, watch a demonstration of their skills and purchase locally produced craft. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has been commended by the World Heritage Committee for the way in which it has managed the Uluru National Park, has initiated and promoted a number of moves, one of which has been a tourism impact study which is undertaken on behalf of the Mutijulu community by the Central Land Council from Alice Springs and the Pitjantjatjara Council. It is at present examining access and capacity options for the park as a whole. It has undertaken a study of the fauna of the park, which has just been completed. ANPWS archaeologists have initiated a major study of rock art and archaeological sites. A cave art management program has been implemented and, together with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, a three-year integrated fauna survey has been implemented. This baseline long term management of the park as a world heritage area and biosphere reserve is essential. A vegetation map of the area is being refined and a fire map is being upgraded. There is on-going identification of small mammals in the region. These are just a few of the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in its capacity in oversighting the management of the park. The bureau of the World Heritage Committee that recommended the World Heritage listing of Uluru National Park when Uluru was being inscribed on the list as a natural site, as follows, and I think this is significant: `That the Uluru National Park should be inscribed on the world heritage list as a natural site. The Bureau also suggested that the World Heritage Committee commend the Australian Government for its innovative management approach blending natural and cultural elements of the Park'. What a fine tribute this is, not only to the Australian Government but also to the men and women who have contributed to the management of the park, who have researched in the area and who live in the area; that is, particularly, the Mutijulu community at Uluru. I would like to pay a special tribute to the Uluru Board of Management and its members: Mr Yami Lester; Mr Dan Gillespie who is the regional director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in Darwin and who acts in the place of Professor Derrick Ovington when he is not available; Penny Figgis, Neil Bell, Tony Tjamiwa, Barbara Tjikadu, Nellie Patterson, Reggie Uluru, John Liddle and June D'Rozario and important Land Trust Community members, Ross Dixon Joe, Alby Joe, Reggie Uluru, Cassidy Uluru, Peter Kanari, Barabara Nipper, Elsie Malpunka, Monica Dixon, Kunmunara Mary, Tommy Wangi, Nellie Armunta, Bruce Breadon, Peter Bulla, Tony Tjamiwa, Windlass and Elsie Intjarpati. Mr Deputy Speaker, the other matter which I wish to draw your attention to is the listing of Kakadu stage 2. Kakadu, like Uluru, is of immense spiritual importance, incredible national beauty and monumental archaeological and environmental importance. Over the past decade, unfortunately, a war has been waged over this magnificent country; a war between those who see only dollars and cents in the form of minerals and those who wish to cherish and protect this natural treasure. Once again, unfortunately, the Northern Territory Government has displayed its usual disregard for the protection of the environment and has consistently opposed the Heritage listing of stage 2 of the park. The Northern Territory Government has squandered thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on ill-advised, foolhardy campaigns against the World Heritage listing of Kakadu stage 2. I am proud to say that the current Federal Government has ensured that there will be no vandalism of the sort promoted by the Northern Territory Government. The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which came into effect on 18 May 1987 prohibit mineral exploration and mining in all stages of Kakadu National Park and apply to all mineral interests, including those which existed prior to the proclamation of the park. The area now has the greatest protection possible in Australia and its integrity in perpetuity is assured. Over the past two years, however, the Northern Territory Government has tried to claim that stage 2 is not worthy of listing under the World Heritage. It has claimed that the submission by the Australian Government was flawed and fraudulent. It is the Northern Territory Government which is both flawed and fraudulent. The Northern Territory Government has been guilty of a massive waste of taxpayers' funds. Only last July confidential Northern Territory Cabinet documents were leaked revealing that the Northern Territory Government had considered spending some $870,000 on a submission, a submission which would have no status whatsoever in the international arena. It was a submission which this document admitted would further erode Territory and Commonwealth relations and would have little chance of succeeding. In making the decision about Kakadu the World Heritage Committee commended the Commonwealth Government on its actions to ban mineral exploration and for the high standard of park management. The Committee also indicated that consideration be given to the addition of Kakadu stage 3 to the World Heritage List. By its cavalier approach, the Northern Territory Government could have embarrassed the Australian Government, but in fact the unanimous decision of the World Heritage Committee clearly justifies the position taken by the Commonwealth Government. In conclusion I would like to make some commendations on behalf of this Parliament to those people who have done most in getting the park on the World Heritage List. Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to the former Minister for Environment-Mr Barry Cohen-the present Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), the ANPWS staff, Professor Derrick Ovington and Dan Gillespie, the rangers at Uluru and Kakadu national parks-particularly Kakadu-the Northern Land Council and traditional owners of the area represented by the Gagadju Association. The Australian Conservation Foundation has taken a very responsible attitude. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.05) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this, the House of Representatives final grievance debate for 1987. This is the last grievance debate that we as members of the House will participate in prior to Christmas 1987 and, most significantly, the last grievance debate we have an opportunity to participate in prior to our most significant and historic bicentennial celebrations. I suggest that it is grievous indeed that we be here participating in a debate in a community that is currently asking itself: `What do we have to celebrate in 1988?' We are on the verge of a Christmas season, on the verge of what should be a season of goodwill and joy, asking ourselves what we have to celebrate because we find we are as a nation apprehensive about just where we are heading. We are almost expected, sadly, to feel apologetic for our past and, given the stock market crash, there are an enormous number of Australians who wonder whether we are headed in the right direction and are apprehensive about the future. That is not surprising, because all the statistical indicators give us cause to be apprehensive. Consider the simple truth that the September quarter inflation figures were, for us, 8.3 per cent, and for our major competitors, the United States of America, 4.1 per cent and the Japanese 0.5 per cent. Consider as a Parliament the unpalatable truth that, in spite of what has been done, still interest rates in some areas of Australia are at record high levels. We cannot escape the simple and uncomfortable reality that bankruptcy rates averaged over a year in Australia under the Fraser Government involved 4,717 businesses. Under the period of the Hawke Government the annual average has been 6,567 bankruptcies and that figure is growing and predicted by some to reach an incredible 8,000 this year. Public housing waiting lists continue to grow and the illusion of a housing boom has all but disappeared. As we all know, month by month we become depressed with our current account deficit figures which indicate that the average annual current account deficit under the Fraser Government was $4.7 billion per year and under this Government has been, and is projected to average this year, $11.6 billion. Most of all, the foreign debt that we will bequeath to our children is currently running at $6,700 per Australian whereas the United States, for example, has a current account deficit of $2,200 per person; compare that with our $6,700. There is no such deficit in Japan and even the United Kingdom is now lending money abroad. If those economic indicators were not in themselves sufficient reason to be mildly depressed about 1988, we have to face the truth that the measure of where we are going and of what we are doing to the oncoming generation of Australians-unemployment rates-has never in fact been worse. In spite of the rhetoric of the Government, and in spite of what it has claimed to have achieved, too few people have said loudly enough and too few media commentators have in fact been prepared to print enthusiastically enough the real figures which show that while the average monthly unemployment level under the Fraser Government was a disastrous 403,000, the average monthly unemployment level under the Hawke Government has been 636,000. In the even more disastrous area of youth unemployment, while unforgivably 150,000 young people were out of work as an average monthly figure, under this Government the average number of young people out of work has risen to 160,000. In spite of the rhetoric, far from what the Government claims to have done for youth unemployment, instead of things merely being as they were, instead of the problem having been addressed, in fact, it has got worse. While in the light of the September Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the nation may have been temporarily optimistic, the truth is that the stock market crash and the statistical reality we now face mean that people are asking this fading Government: `What do we have to celebrate in 1988?' In the minutes that are left to me, I say to the nation that in spite of the economic indicators there is something that we ought to be celebrating in 1988 because, while the fading Government may well have been at fault, the nation has not been. While the fading Government may well have made decisions that have caused the nation economically to falter, the will that characterises the European people who first landed on our shores gives us yet cause to be optimistic. The approach of the Government in running illusory figures across the face of Australians, the approach of the Government and particularly the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in addressing issues and members of the Opposition with scorn and derision, is totally different from the character that underlies all Australians. It is not like Australians to belittle rather than praise. In fact, what underlies all Australian character is a preparedness to work, to strive, to seek to achieve and to reject the politics of envy that have been characteristic of this Government. William Hornadge said earlier this century: In Australia you may call a man a bastard and reasonably expect nothing except a return of the compliment. But beware of calling any Australian a bludger. It is the deadliest insult that can be offered in the Antipodes and anyone who uses it loosely must be prepared to defend his person from assault from the person to whom it is directed. We know it to be true, because we all resent that particular title and it is that resentment, that preparedness to work, that enthusiasm to be identified with success and that enthusiasm to achieve through our own free will that is the sort of thing that we ought to be celebrating in 1988. The entire rejection of anything that smacks of being a bludger was the very spirit that drove our forefathers to conquer this nation and build it into the nation we have inherited. I have told this House of the trek of those who drove bullocks across my electorate in impossible conditions by their own capacity to improvise, by their spirit and desire to be successful, who managed to open up my electorate and make it into the little piece of heaven that it happens to be. So, across all our electorates, we have communities that have grown up out of an enthusiasm to support each other without counting the cost, an enthusiasm that is characteristic of the Australian spirit. I want to say that 1988, no matter what the economic indicators, no matter what the mistakes made in this chamber of the Parliament, is a year for every Australian to celebrate because we have a great deal going for us. For a start, we live in a democracy. Of 163 governments in the world, we are one of 57-that is a generous figure-free to change the government without bloodshed and that, heaven knows, is an enormous responsibility and opportunity. We live in a nation in which opportunities abound. We have electorates in which people, in spite of the Government, continue to achieve things and if we were prepared to encourage them, what then would they achieve? We represent primary producers who, far from being the people who scour our soil and cause erosion, are the very people who are now working to preserve our soil and increase our productivity. We live in a nation whose climate is the envy of the rest of the world. We live in a nation which, in fact, is embarrassed only by the number of people who try to get in, not the number of people who try to get out. We live in communities within that nation anxious to preserve that Australian spirit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(1.15) —Like the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), I too would like to acknowledge the Christmas season and the fact that this will be the last grievance debate. I would also like to say that it is a tragedy that, as we do approach Christmas, we look to the problems as a result of the road carnage that is ahead of us. It is one of the sad parts of the Christmas period. I would also like to state to the House the tragedy of what has happened in Melbourne this week. When I first started a petition to limit the control of firearms, we had a tragedy in Bundaberg in my electorate. Since then, we have seen a continuing tragedy as a result of firearms and the way in which society, world wide, is going. My sympathy goes to the families of those innocent victims. I feel that all States and our chamber here have to address this problem. I do not think it is right of people to bear arms; it is a right of innocent people not to be shot down in the street. It is a continuing tragedy that I think we have to face up to and overcome together collectively, putting aside our own different views and propositions. Today I wish to bring to the attention of the House the problem of dieldrin that is affecting my electorate and the effect it has had on constituents within my electorate. One particular constituent, a dairy farmer in my area, has his farm surrounded by cane farms. He has been a dairy farmer for many years, as was his father before him, and he has never used dieldrin. But over the years, unfortunately, many farmers surrounding him have used dieldrin and as a result of leaching through heavy rains, et cetera, his land has become contaminated. As a consequence of that his milk production has become contaminated and he is quarantined and no longer can earn any income from his property. Recently the Department of Primary Industries in Queensland demanded that he upgrade his dairy. He acknowledges that there may well be need to upgrade his dairy but even if he does, the fact is that he still cannot produce any milk from his property because he is quarantined; so he is in a catch-22 situation. In Bundaberg, the other problem that we face with the dairy industry is the Langdon report that has cast considerable doubt on the future of our local industry. The report recommends the closure of both the Bundaberg and the Maryborough co-operatives and it also proposes not to allow the Monto dairy to expand any further. While it may well be economically rational to put forward that proposition, the effect that it has in my district is dramatic and we are looking at the loss of 50 jobs there. I totally oppose that proposition because in small provincial cities that have put so much into this nation, there is a dramatic effect of the loss of jobs, given the fact that we have a much higher unemployment rate and more limited employment opportunities for the young people than in many of the larger areas. I would like to point out that while it has been put forward by the Langdon report that both the Bundaberg and Maryborough co-operatives should close and that Monto should not expand, by contrast the Gold Coast Dairy Co-operative which reportedly has a $14m debt, even though it has had some favourable support over the years, is to stay open. To me, that proposition really does not make sense. For Bundaberg farmers and consumers, of course, it will mean an increased cost of milk. Milk will be transported to Gympie or Caboolture, which, if this report goes ahead, will be the centre. It will then be put into cartons and transported back to Bundaberg. This increased cost will have to be met by farmers and then transferred back to the consumers. I think it is correct to say that Queenslanders already pay the highest price for milk in Australia and people in my electorate will have to pay much more if this report is implemented. Because of the dieldrin problem and also the Langdon report, the dairy industry in my area, and particularly this dairy farmer, do not have any future at all. Last week in my office two constituents who graze cattle approached me. They have also had problems with dieldrin. They were informed back in August 1979 when they sent a beast to the local abattoirs that there was a dieldrin problem but the Department of Primary Industries basically said at that stage, `Do not worry about it, everything will be okay'. Now, of course, the matter has dramatically changed. They have many young beasts on their property and cannot sell them. Their property has now been proven to be contaminated by dieldrin. They have never used dieldrin but, because of water run-off and leaching, their property is totally contaminated. They have put massive amounts of money into the infrastructure on their property, including yards; they have invested many thousands of dollars and no longer is their property viable. Because of the distance from the city they cannot look to the alternative of subdivision and, even if they could, who would want to buy land that was contaminated by dieldrin and build a house on it? We can all remember the problems with the Love Canal in the United States of America. I regret that we have not learnt from that situation. An important document arrived in my office just recently. It is a report from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries warning about the problems of dieldrin. The point is that this report was made in 1980 and released in 1980. For some seven years the State Government knew about this problem in the Bundaberg region and did absolutely nothing about it. It simply allowed the practice of using contaminants, such as dieldrin, to go on. I acknowledge that there are some farmers-though as a farmer I have never used dieldrin-who have had to use chemicals to control such pests as soldier fly. To face a problem one has at least to acknowledge that it exists. The fact that it was ignored is a sad indictment of the State Government. One of the statements in the report is that soil containing dieldrin could blow from neighbouring properties and deposit on pasture grasses. The most damaging thing of all is water run-off, water pollution. That in itself can affect farmers who, through no fault of their own, happen to be downstream or on lower ground than existing properties that use the chemical. The report went on to state that milk from the Biggenden and Mount Perry areas had been contaminated by dust from Bundaberg. While I do not purport to sustain that myself, the fact that the report said so shows how dangerous and highly contaminant dieldrin is. I believe that water run-off is the biggest threat that dieldrin poses. Of course, dieldrin was used extensively in central and south Queensland, as I said previously, for the control of soldier fly in sugar cane, and also, sadly, in the control of insect pests in feed lots. As we know, it has got into the whole beef industry and has affected our capacity to export beef. Investigations have been carried out in the Bundaberg district in soil, grass, water and milk. The findings have grave implications for cattle fattening and for the dairy industry in my region. I pose the question: Why did not the State Government acknowledge this fact and do something about it some seven years ago when the report was originally made? The other problem it has posed is that there are farmers in my region, and I would assume in the central coast area of Queensland, who have looked for diversification. As a consequence of the over-use of dieldrin their ability to go either into cattle fattening or potatoes and such crops is now totally destroyed. Crops such as potatoes cannot be grown in areas where dieldrin has been used, because it is a contaminant. I believe there is something like a 10-year life span at least for a contaminant such as dieldrin. I feel there needs to be a recognition by the State Government of this fact and, in particular, of the problems of farmers such as the dairy farmer in my area, and the State Government should consider compensation in this area. I would like to acknowledge that the Federal Government has allocated a million dollars to assist State governments in safe transport and storage of chemicals. Some local authorities are co-operating and I would like to compliment them for that fact. However, the Isis Shire has placed chemicals in a rail carriage, I believe. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch), stated recently that a chemical storage shed in his area has been placed next to the Blackbutt school. I do not think that is satisfactory at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.25) —Today in the grievance debate I wish to refer to a couple of matters in connection with Christmas Island and particularly to its casino. I wish to raise a matter in relationship to the Christmas Island casino which, I believe, must be addressed before the project actually proceeds; or the Government must show that it has addressed it by tabling the Australian Federal Police (AFP) report on Federal Hotels. A tabling of that report has been asked for by the Opposition but has been refused by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The first matter I want to refer to concerns Dr Stanley Ho. Until recently, Dr Stanley Ho was a director and, with one million shares, the second largest shareholder in Tal Holdings, owner of Federal Hotels. Dr Ho had two irons in the fire with the Darling Harbour casino. Ho's Hong Kong-Macao-Sydney company and Federal Hotels consortia were among the first eliminated from tendering after the New South Wales police investigation. According to the Australian Financial Review a government source said: `Neither had received a completely clean sheet'. According to Perth's Western Mail, late last year the Christmas Island casino could have been funded from Asia but the Woodmore group rejected the offer after its own investigation revealed some dubious connections and it is believed that Dr Ho was behind that offer. It has been alleged to me that a condition of the Australian Federal Police's clearance of Federal Hotels to operate the Christmas Island casino was that Dr Ho divest himself of his interest in Tal Holdings, Federal Hotels owner. I believe the AFP report was finished before Dr Ho did divest himself of his shares and Federal Hotels director, Mr Peter Wolfe, visited Hong Kong in November to resolve what we call the Ho connection. I am informed that Dr Ho's million shares were still on Tal's register on 18 November and were not transferred until 19 November 1987. This is intriguing because on 7 October the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), told this House that the AFP had found Federal Hotels to be above question and reproach. In a Press release the same day the Minister said that the Commissioner of the AFP had now advised that the investigation revealed no information which would cause the force to recommend against Federal Hotels being granted the licence. On 26 November the Minister again told the House that the police report painted a glowing picture of the decency and propriety of Federal Hotels. I recall his words at that time, that they had been squeaky clean. In spite of that, the report was not offered for tabling in this House. The Western Mail has reported allegations that the Government pressured Federal Hotels to get rid of Dr Ho so that Tal could satisfy AFP investigations that Dr Ho resigned as a director of Tal Holdings in May and that the AFP then carried out a check of Federal Hotels, giving them a clean bill of health even though the shares were still held by Dr Ho and Tal Holdings. Is there any continuing connection between Dr Ho and Tal Holdings? I have said that Dr Ho's shares were not transferred until 19 November. It has been reported that Dr Ho sold his shares to a nominee company. It is not impossible that Dr Ho's shares have been sold to Mulawa Holdings, Tal's ultimate holdings company. Without new inquiries from the Australian Federal Police, how can the Government now be sure that Dr Ho does not have a stake in Mulawa or Mulawa's shareholdings? In April 1987, Federal Hotels became the first Australian private company to sign a hotel management agreement with China to operate a new hotel on the Pearl River. Mr Ho has strong links with China. The joint venture agreement for the $30m project was signed by China and Federal Hotels' Hong Kong partner, Cecil Chan. Chan is manager of C-Ho Land Development Limited. I ask: Has the Government established that Dr Ho has no connection with C-Ho Land Development and therefore no continuing links with Federal Hotels? In July the Sydney Morning Herald reported the gangland style execution of Dr Ho's personal aide which Hong Kong police said could involve the colony's triads. Dr Ho's aide was murdered in a tennis club car park after a professional assassin took to his arms and legs with a `purpose built chopper'. They were the reports. I have also noted reports from the independent commission against corruption in Hong Kong and the New South Wales police tribunal some years ago that the business group, the STDM of which Dr Ho was a controlling director, paid a Macao hotel bill for a disgraced New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner, Mr Bill Allen, and his family. The other controlling partner of the STDM was Mr Tony Yip who told the Commissioner he was a personal friend of Allen's. I also now want to refer to the Tal-TNT link. In elaborating on the connection, this is interesting insofar as the agreement between the Government, Federal Hotels and the developer of the Christmas Island casino, specified BAE 146 aircraft and no one has yet explained why one aircraft's specification rather than the operation and configuration requirements was indeed specified. Tal Holdings, which owns Federal Hotels, was incorporated in 1983 to acquire the whole of the issued capital; that is, to take over Ipec Holdings Ltd. According to Sydney Stock Exchange records, Tal was formed as part of the reconstruction of Ipec Holdings. In June 1983 Ipec sold its 80 per cent shareholding in International Parcel Express Company, which was the holding company for the European transport operations, to TNT for $30m. Earlier that year TNT acquired Ipec Skypak International for $25m. The TNT 1983 report says that the purchase of Ipec's worldwide courier service which was merged with TNT's existing business and renamed TNT Skypak, shortly afterwards experienced a combined growth of 40 per cent in volume, making it the second largest international courier business in the world. Although circumstantial, this link between Federal Hotels and TNT is interesting. In the second Darling Harbour casino tender Federal Hotels entered a partnership with Sabemo and Resorts International. Resorts International's involvement in rackets came out at the time of Federal Hotels Darling Harbour hotel bid. So, too, has the fact that two Sabemo executives admitted to a Sydney judge that an assumed construction contract was used in an attempt to evade tax on the Blue Cow ski resort. Recently the Times on Sunday reported that the proposed 900-room twin hotel complex at the Darling Harbour site was originally awarded to Sabemo for a car park. But Citistate persuaded the New South Wales Government to make it a hotel site as well. Citistate won the hotel tender over leading developers and appointed Sabemo as the builder. Citistate's partner in the hotel development with a 20 per cent stake is Petroleum Securities Ltd, the largest shareholder of which was a 25 per cent interest, is TNT. Again, while only circumstantial, it is interesting that indirectly TNT and Federal Hotels have had an association with Sabemo in construction projects. It is also interesting that in May 1986 the Australian Financial Review noted that the Christmas Island casino may offer the chance for Trans Australian Airlines (TAA), as it was then, and Ansett Airlines of Australia to begin international services to South East Asia. TAA and Qantas Airways Ltd spokesmen said that they were unaware of the casino project, whereas Ansett was aware and expressed interest if the casino firmed up. I also now wish to refer to the organised crime link. In this House the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), has alleged that Federal Hotels director, Peter Wolfe, has had a long association with Neil Ohlsson, a former Federal Hotels director; that Mr Ohlsson has had an involvement with United States Mafia figures, including West Coast teamster official, Rudy Tham, and one described as a Mafia hitman, Jimmy Fratianno; and that Ohlsson has also had an involvement with Mr Bila Csidei, who has frequently been observed meeting with Fratianno and Tham. While again I stress that it is purely circumstantial, Tham, Fratianno and Csidei have also had reported links with a prominent Australian businessman. I believe it is in this businessman's interest that it is established he has no link with the Christmas Island casino. The National Times has said that this businessman told it he remembers being introduced to Tham in 1972, though he was unaware that Tham had close Mafia connections. Apparently Fratianno has testified to several meetings with this businessman, while the San Francisco CIU has told the New South Wales police that money has been exchanged between the businessman and Tham. It has also been reported that Tham paid at least one visit to Australia where he contacted New South Wales organised crime figures. The National Times says that this began a series of visits to Tham on the United States West Coast by Csidei, who at the time was a friend of this businessman, an ex-policeman Murray Riley. It has also been reported that Tham introduced the two Australians to Fratianno and that as a result of surveillance of Tham, Csidei and Riley, this businessman came to the notice of the FBI. I stress that while these links are purely circumstantial and there is no guilt to be inferred simply from friendships, I believe that the Australian Federal Police should examine these matters if they have not already done so, and that the Government should table the Australian Federal Police report that is available and address the additional matters that I have raised before proceeding with the Christmas Island casino which the island and the people desperately require. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(1.35) —I want to draw to the attention of the House a particular grievance. A businessman approached my office recently saying that he was in debt for some $20,000, which is not an unusual situation for someone in a failed business. In this particular case the businessman held a franchise of a store known as a 7/Eleven store. The 7/Eleven franchise is run by the company Pacific Seven. I investigated not only this case, which was a 7/Eleven store in Redcliffe, but also five other stores around Brisbane. I have come to the conclusion that the debts that these stores are running into may not be caused by the franchisee and that there may be serious problems with the way in which Pacific Seven runs its organisation. A 7/Eleven store is a 24-hour food convenience store and, in fact, 7/Eleven stores have been in this country and throughout Australia for the last decade and probably introduced the notion of convenience stores for the 100 or 150 most popular, most commonly purchased items. The way that the franchise works is that Pacific Seven will give to a small operator a franchise which he might purchase for about $15,000. In addition to the franchise purchase, the small shopkeeper purchases an amount of stock; around $10,000 is his investment in the stock of the store. What occurred in the case of the gentleman from Redcliffe is that, when every three months Pacific Seven would come in and audit the stock, it found substantial audit shortages. The reason the gentleman went broke, if you like, is that after very few months he got to the point where he lost his entire investment in the stock and, therefore, had to withdraw from the business. He lost his investment of $10,000 in the stock. He, in a sense, had broken the franchise agreement so he lost his $15,000 from the franchise agreement. So that a total of $25,000 or so was lost by that gentleman. The nature of the agreement is basically, as I said, that the franchisee becomes a shopkeeper in the hands of Pacific Seven; most of them work 18 to 20 hours a day, they are usually family-run businesses and they have this relatively large investment of $20,000 to $25,000 in the business. In all cases-in the five stores I have now looked at, they have gone broke or there are three that are very close to going broke-the same problem has occurred. It is a shortage in the stock, a deficit. I want to read some figures into the record of the sort of shortages that these people are establishing. Pacific Seven says that there is pilfering, there is what it terms `stock shrinkage' and that is the problem, that the owner has not been locking the doors, that he has been hiring people late into the night who, no doubt, are pinching material. When the franchise agreement was written between each of these five individuals Pacific Seven noted that there would be about one per cent stock shrinkage; that is, pilfering and loss and so on. The sorts of losses we have encountered in these five stores range between 5 and 18 per cent and, as the man from Redcliffe said, he could not have lost that much stock if he had backed his truck into the back door and taken it out on pallets. He just could not have lost that amount of stock. The other key thing to remember with these stores is that they are mainly family concerns, so that there are sons and daughters and the kids who work after school are all physically involved in the labour of running the store. There is very little labour hired, one of the reasons being that they do not make much money out of these concerns. The general agreement is that Pacific Seven takes 54 per cent of all profits. It pays the electricity and the rent and so on and does all the marketing and all the auditing. This is the interesting part: all the paperwork is controlled by Pacific Seven. The storekeeper is nothing more than the person who marks off the inventory. I suspect that the real problem revolves around, not the physical stock disappearing, but the pricing of that stock, because there is an amazing revolving door notion of pushing prices up and then dropping them down and pushing them up and dropping them down. I suspect that within Pacific Seven's auditing system there is a paper loss to the franchisee but not an actual physical loss. In all five cases, the franchisee, the small shopkeeper, has had other people in to help with the audit and they cannot find difficulty with the physical audit. Rather, I suspect, it is the pricing of the audit. In each case, these people have lost stock, or at least have in paper terms, and have been thrown out of their businesses. Let us have a look at the sorts of losses that have been sustained. In all five stores, the businesses in terms of turnover have been running extremely well. They are, if you like, making money. They are selling goods, but they are all going broke. In the Aspley store, in 15 months there was $20,000 worth of stock lost. The ex-franchisee from Aspley now has to carry that loss and make it up. Two of these people are now, of course, considering bankruptcy. In the Redcliffe store, starting in September 1986, there was-and this goes every three months-a $6,000 loss on stock and then a $2,000 surplus. But then thereafter, two weeks later there was another $6,000 loss, another $2,500 loss and then another $3,500 loss. Within a few months, the Redcliffe store went broke because it had lost all the net worth in the stock. In this particular case, there had been 18 per cent of stock shrinkage-18 per cent of turnover. It would be almost impossible, as I said before, to carry out that much stock physically. The Stones Corner store, which is still in operation, is running an audit loss of $42 a day. That is a lot of milk bottles, pies and lollies, and the rest of it-$42 a day. Again, it is difficult to sustain the accusation by Pacific Seven that it is all down to pilfering. At the Kingston shop, which is still operating, there are also audit deficits. In May 1987, there was a $3,200 deficit; in July, there was a $3,500 deficit; and in August, a further $3,000 deficit. The gentleman running the Kingston store is now running very close to the wind in terms of losing the value of his investment in his stock and being thrown out of the store, and losing his entire investment in the franchise fee and the stock. Turning to Everton Park, in September 1986, when the franchisee took over the store, there was apparently $7,500 over. There was too much stock there. But in October 1986 there was a $4,000 deficit and so on it runs; a $3,000 deficit; a $6,500 deficit; a $2,000 deficit; and the last a $2,000 deficit. His average stock loss per day is running at $70. Again it is incredibly difficult to sustain the accusation that it is down to pilfering. I have spoken to one of the consultants of the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation to get an average figure for stock loss in small business, mainly food retailers. He tells me that the average for Queensland is around 2 to 3 per cent stock loss. So, we accept that there has to be pilfering. We accept that maybe in 7/Eleven stores, because they are so well known and advertised, that degree of pilfering may even be higher-who knows-although remembering that essentially they are family stores. The losses we have seen in these five examples are in one case 5 per cent, in another case 10 per cent, and the highest being 18 per cent of stock loss. It seems to me, and I have spoken in detail to each of the five franchisees, that they have taken enormous tasks to try to minimise pilfering. They have their friends come in at particular times to look over the store and it seems that this amount of stock loss cannot simply be down to pilfering. Whilst my time is very short, I have to refer to the accusation of Pacific Seven that it is bound to look at the audit system, especially the pricing system. It often ups the price of goods that are on the shelves, which is not a fair practice. It is beholden to speak directly-and I have been trying to have this happen-to the four shop- keepers in Brisbane who are now in real trouble and to prove to them that, in fact, their audit system is a viable one. But I suspect that on the evidence, Pacific Seven is willingly or otherwise denying the storekeepers up to $20,000 and sending them broke. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(1.45) —In today's grievance debate I would like to pay tribute to the great Swedish diplomat Raoul Gustav Wallenberg, a man who symbolised the greatest human qualities of courage and strength and who was captured and incarcerated by Soviet authorities at the end of the Second World War. I pay tribute to the great qualities he had of courage and strength. In 1944 the United States Government and representatives of Jewish organisations arranged for Raoul Wallenberg, who was a member of one of Sweden's wealthiest Lutheran families and a business man, to go to Budapest to save Jewish people under threat of the gas chambers. Raoul Wallenberg is credited with saving more than 100,000 Jewish lives and countless Christians from the Nazi slaughter houses. He did this mainly by issuing them with identity documents, a type of passport called laisse passers, which were a form of document or passport guaranteeing the holder immunity from Nazi arrest. Due to his almost superhuman efforts there were 120,000 Jews in Budapest at the end of the war, the most substantial Jewish community surviving in Europe-a tribute to Wallenberg and his bravery. His reward was imprisonment by the Soviet Union as its troops marched into Eastern Europe, his imprisonment under a repressive system under Stalin which resembled in many ways Hitler's brutal and anti-Semitic society. It was a tragic and ironic end for Raoul Wallenberg. For years Soviet authorities have denied arresting Wallenberg. Yet many years ago Andrei Gromyko, when Deputy Foreign Minister, said a search of prison archives revealed `a prisoner named Wallenberg had died of a heart attack'. Andrie Gromyko became Foreign Minister and is now President of the Supreme Soviet and I think the time has come for the Soviet people and the people of the world to be told by the Soviet leadership what was Raoul Wallenberg's fate. There have been periodic reports over the years, some as recent as 1980, that Wallenberg was then alive. I believe that President Gromyko should uphold the spirit of glasnost, so called, an tell the world about the hero's existence. I believe the description of Raoul Wallenberg by Frank Vajda, who was saved by Wallenberg and who is now head of Australia's Wallenberg Committee, pays the most fitting tribute to this man who deserves the world's highest accolades and yet who died a lonely, almost unsung hero of the persecuted-himself persecuted. Frank Vajda has said: `For the last 40 years I have kept thinking of Raoul Wallenberg. To me his name is synonymous with the finest in humanity and decency. I know that if there is a man like Wallenberg who could be alive and may be saved it is the most elementary duty I have to try and free him'. In a period of unthinkable barbarity and cruelty, Raoul Wallenberg gave hope and comfort to those innocent people condemned to die because of their religion and their culture and their belief. He gave them reason to believe in human love, courage and dignity. His greatest gift of all was to protect the sacred right-the right to live. Yet despite Raoul Wallenberg's efforts, we still today witness the repression and persecution of Jews and Christians in the Soviet Union. In this communist country and the days of so-called glasnost, there are still countless thousands who are denied the basic human right to religious worship. While definition of human rights may differ with each culture, the right to religious freedom should be universal and transcend political and ideological boundaries; but this is not so, this is not the case in the Soviet Union. Today, there are more than 400 Christians incarcerated for the mere crime of practising their religion and declaring their faith. Churches are destroyed and clergy and priests are arrested for teaching religious beliefs. Far too little attention has been paid to the plight of Christians in the Soviet Union as glasnost is examined in the West and is used by the Soviet Union as a public relations exercise to convince the West that so-called democratic changes are taking place. But of all the religious groups Soviet Jews suffer the greatest persecution. Anti-Semitism is fostered by the state and well entrenched in Soviet society. Soviet Jews suffer blatant discrimination at the hands of Soviet authorities who deny them the right to practice their religion and culture or to instruct in Hebrew. Literature in Hebrew is banned; so is the importation of religious books such as bibles, prayer books and Hebrew grammars. None of this has changed under glasnost. There is no evidence of change under glasnost. Only this week in Moscow when there were some demonstrations by Soviet citizens against the policies of the Soviet Union in relation to human rights, the Moscow heavies moved in in plain clothes and got rid of the crowd in a very tough and rough manner. Soviet Jews are denied the right to immigrate. Those who are game enough to seek permission quite often have to endure harassment from the KGB and the humiliations of becoming a refusenik; that is, a Soviet Jew who has been consistently refused permission to emigrate to Israel. Those people who do apply and do become refuseniks are in fact very brave people because they become effectively non-persons in the Soviet Union. Jobs are denied to them. They are harassed. There is no future for them. There are some 11,000, it is worth remembering, of those brave people who have tried to leave the Soviet Union and they must not be forgotten. I have been involved at a personal level in this issue of the rights of Soviet Jewry to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Since 1982 I have made personal representations both to the former Ambassador and the present Ambassador here in Canberra, and direct to the Supreme Soviet seeking exit visas for two families-the Slutzky and Volvosky families. These families have been seeking permission to leave for more than a decade. I have heard nothing from the Soviet authorities that they have been granted permission to leave. I wish the Soviets would answer their mail. Let us look at the case of the Volvosky family. In September 1974 Mr Leonid Volvosky applied for an exit visa to Israel. Soon after, he was dismissed from his job as a senior research fellow in the oil and gas industry. Although his application has been repeatedly refused he and his family have had to endure harassment by the KGB, confiscation of their belongings and evictions from several flats. I call on Secretary-General Gorbachev in the so-called spirit of glasnost to stop this behaviour and treatment of refusenicks. Is this the well publicised glasnost we read about? Mr Borbachev's trilogy of reforms, namely, glasnost, democratisation and perestroika seems to have done little to improve the freedom and rights of religious Soviet citizens in the manner that I have spoken about. I welcome the power and increased flow of Soviet Jewry being granted exit visas in the last 12 months or so. I note that since the representations by the Speaker of this House in a delegation of members of this Parliament to the Soviet Union in 1986 people on those lists have been granted exit visas, but more needs to be done. Whilst Jewish emigration has averaged about 800 people a month this year, it is well below the average of 2,000 a month during the Cold War years of Secretary-General Brezhnev's rule and the record number reached of 4,250 a month in 1979. Glasnost does not extend to religious prisoners and refuseniks. I conclude by referring to the past, having talked about the present, and noting the contribution of Raoul Wallenberg to freedom, because he gave the world an outstanding example of what extraordinary feats man can achieve for his fellow human beings. He is deserving of no less than honorary citizenship, I believe, and I would like to see this Government and this Parliament amend our Citizenship Act so that we can bestow such a humble honour on such a great man. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(1.55) —On Tuesday morning of this week I gave notice of motion in my name to the Caucus, seeking legislative control of the importation of certain firearms to this country. I did so on Tuesday morning not knowing the awful events that would occur in Melbourne on Tuesday afternoon, but those events only strengthen my conviction that something needs to be done to control the types of sporting firearms, or so-called sporting firearms, that are currently being imported into this country. I do so as a sporting shooter. I have handled and shot firearms and have used them for most of my adult life, and I have no objection to the proper use of sporting firearms for such purposes. I am concerned, however, and I think every member should take the time to wander into firearms shops and have a look at the sorts of firearms which are currently being sold. The firearm used on Tuesday afternoon, for example-an M1 30-calibre military rifle produced in the 1960s in the United States-is not a sporting weapon. It has no sporting function. Its barrel is too short. Its calibre is wrong. It was designed purely as a high firepower infantryman's weapon. It has no proper application for sporting purposes and yet such weapons are commonly available throughout Australia at very cheap prices. For between $200 and $350 dollars an M1 carbine is very easily obtained. Sporting shooters do not require high firepower military-style calibre weapons to pursue their sport. They do not require short-barrelled automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and in fact a better sporting shooter is one who uses a bolt-action long-barrelled rifle because it does require the shooter to concentrate on the prey and ensure the prey is destroyed with a single shot. Those sporting shooters who require and use automatic and semi-automatic weapons are invariably poor sportsmen and poor shooters because they rely upon firepower and not skill. A perusal of any sort of a firearm shop today in Australia will show that in addition to the M1 carbine currently been sold, there are a large number of quasi-Rambo style design weapons for sale. They are shaped in the guise of a military weapon. They have large magazines capable of holding multiple-use ammunition. They are short-barrelled weapons and they are designed to attract the unfortunate members of our community who seem to feel that the ownership of a gun, of a rifle, gives them some degree of power and our shops, unfortunately, are full of such poor design non-sporting firearms. This Parliament has the control through the Customs power to ensure that firearms which come into this country have a specific sporting purpose. The firearms have no multiple use and firearms cannot be used for the sorts of purposes that we saw on Tuesday or earlier at Clifton Hill in Melbourne. I believe it is appropriate that we now seek with a great deal of haste to use the Customs power to ensure that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are prohibited imports; that they are not available for sale in this country; that firearms which are designed on cheapness, firearms which are designed to attract the Rambo-style figure of our community are prohibited weapons; that they are not imported. In conclusion, may I say that as a sporting shooter I regret the occurrences of Tuesday. I regret the fact that sporting shooters in this country are going to face a great degree of control upon their use of firearms, but I believe that sporting shooters have a right and I believe sporting shooters have a duty, in fact, to support controls, that sporting shooters should be out in public saying that the sorts of weapons which were used on Tuesday in Melbourne should not be sold, that sporting shooters do not require automatic or semi-automatic weapons. The sporting shooter should be supporting this Government and all State governments to ensure that the people of our community who have problems are prohibited from obtaining such firearms and that the ease of obtaining such firearms is greater controlled because, whilst the person behind the gun is the person who pulls the trigger, he can pull the trigger only when he has the gun in his hands. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy I inform the House that the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, will be absent from Question Time today on government business. Questions normally directed to the Attorney-General should be addressed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Staples. I inform the House also that the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, will be absent from Question Time today on government business. Questions normally addressed to Mr Howe should be addressed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to his statement on 25 November last that the 11.8 per cent increase in investment in the September quarter contributed to the 2 per cent rise in import volumes during the same quarter and that this investment was due to greater export and import substitution. Is it true that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has revised the estimate for growth in investment in equipment in the September quarter from 11.8 per cent down to 0.5 per cent? Is it also true that during the September quarter imports of capital goods fell by 3.4 per cent while imports of consumption goods rose by 5.7 per cent? Further, is it true that the latest survey of capital expenditure, which was compiled largely before the stock market crash, suggests that investment will grow by only 9 per cent in 1987-88-in other words, very little in real terms? How then does the Treasurer reconcile his statement of 25 November with those facts? Mr KEATING —It is true that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has both revised and corrected the national accounts for investment for the September quarter. After the correction and revision the numbers fall out pretty much in line with Budget estimates. Let me just advise the House accordingly. Total capital investments, after the revision, are slated to run at 3.7 per cent in real growth. The Budget estimate was 4 per cent. The figure of 0.5 per cent for equipment after revision is consistent with the Budget equipment number of 3 per cent and, as I indicated at Budget time, equipment investment abstracting for motor vehicles is consistent with the Budget estimate of 7 per cent. Building construction remains at about 11.5 per cent. In other words, after revision the investment numbers are still basically running in line with Budget forecasts. It would have been nicer to have that 11.8 per cent investment number in place, but it is not. It was very strong, almost too good to be true; and it was not true. It was corrected and it is still strong enough to maintain Budget forecasts. Mr SNOW —I ask the Minister for Resources and question without notice. Is the Minister aware of the depletion of some fish stocks in Australian waters? Mr Kent —There is not enough snapper. Mr SNOW —I agree, there is not enough snapper, but we are also concerned with other species. In view of the fact that this could threaten the viability of many fishermen and an export industry worth almost $600m to Australia, what is the Government doing to promote the success of our fishing industry? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member's question draws attention to one of our industries of growing importance. The Government is aware of the challenges facing the fishing industry and the contribution it makes to export income. In the past financial year almost $600m in export income was earned by the fishing industry. Two recent factors are transforming the fishing industry into a major export earner. One is the depreciation of the Australian dollar and the other the high global demand for seafood products. The challenge facing both fishermen and government is how best to develop these previously underutilised resources while at the same time ensuring that the resources are not overexploited. Recently there has been the development of new technology, the development of new methods off the south coast of New South Wales, the introduction of deep-sea and mid-water trawling and new products such as sashimi tuna and the newly discovered fish, the orange roughie. The roughies are all from Tasmania. The new markets for those products that are developing, particularly in Japan, have meant that increasing wealth and sophistication of the industry are outstripping some of the institutions of the industry. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro has taken an active part in his own electorate and in that region of New South Wales in the interests of the industry. The Government has been quick to react to the developments I have mentioned. It is progressively developing administrative arrangements to meet the requirements of the industry. The National Fishing Industry Council has evolved into the major point of contact between the industry and the Australian Fisheries Service with the formation of a liaison group chaired by the Director of the Australian Fisheries Service. This has meant that government policy can react quickly to export opportunities while, at the same time, remaining alert to the dangers of overexploitation in some areas. Currently the Government is reviewing the overall role of the Australian Fisheries Service with a view to allowing more industry participation in the management of some fisheries. It is also looking at ways to make government involvement in the industry more effective and to give the industry a greater role in its own management. I thank the honourable member for his concern and for the active and responsible role he plays in the fishing industry on the south coast of New South Wales, particularly in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. I assure him and the House that the Government is concerned to ensure the future viability of the fishing industry. We are determined to take advantage of domestic and export opportunities for all Australians. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to a question asked yesterday on the extent to which an implicit Commonwealth guarantee is provided to State governments' involvement in rescue packages for certain entrepreneurs experiencing difficulty in the wake of the stock market collapse. In part the Treasurer replied: . . . it is up to the States to make judgments about their own affairs, including their own business affairs. The responsibility for those decisions rests with the State government, and it is accountable to the public of that State. Is the Treasurer categorically saying that if a State-owned bank or a State-owned insurance corporation were to experience difficulties as a result of unduly large exposure to a particular client the Commonwealth would not be prepared to support such State government institutions? Mr KEATING —I am not going to get into hypothetical answers suggesting that some institutions are going to fail and how we would respond to that. Mr Tuckey —You have been in it up to here. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not interject again. Mr JOHNS —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the claims by the President of the Australian Small Business Association in the Australian Capital Territory that the Government's changes to pharmaceutical wholesalers' margins will greatly affect the viability of retail pharmacies and lead to shortages of vital drugs? If so, will the Minister give a response to those claims? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his question. My attention has been drawn to the alarmist claims attributed to the President of the Australian Small Business Association in the Australian Capital Territory. As a small businessman for 20 years, and one who paid into such associations for 20 years, I found that all they used to do was send me a brochure and tell me about increases in wages. I can say to pharmacists who have an association with the small business associations that they want to stop paying them, because of the nonsense that they are putting out and the alarmist attitude that they take in relation to these comments. According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on 8 December, the Pharmacy Guild says that the comments are emotive and exaggerated. The Guild's President, Mr Jim Matthews, has said that the public will have no problems whatsoever in getting their medications. It is simply not true to say that pharmacists' stocks will be devalued by 20 per cent as from 1 January. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme list price for pharmacists will reduce by only 5.6 per cent. With the large discounts provided by wholesalers, pharmacists have been paying significantly less than this list price anyway. A reported statement that retail pharmacy incomes average between $33,000 and $40,000 is quite untrue also. In fact, in its document entitled Community Pharmacy in Australia 1987, the Pharmacy Guild estimates an average income per pharmacy of $57,000 for 1985-86, which is a lot different from $33,000. With the increase in the average price since then, the figure would be significantly higher, and, because they receive the percentage mark-up, pharmacists have benefited greatly from the dramatic increase in the average prices of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Mr MILES —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement on Aboriginal affairs in which it is stated: . . . the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were the prior occupiers and original owners of the land. What legal advice has been received by the Government on whether this legislation constitutes a basis for claims for compensation for past dispossession? If he has received legal advice, will he table it or make it available later? Is it also the intention of the Government by this legislation to create a right to claim compensation for past dispossession of land? Mr HAWKE —I have not received any advice in the area to which the honourable gentleman directs his question. If he wants to know whether the Minister has received any advice in that area-I know that, as my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs said yesterday, the honourable gentleman has not had much practice-I suggest that he direct that question-- Mr Beale —You've got the wrong bloke. Mr HAWKE —Well, the comment is valid. I suggest that he direct the question-- Mr Howard —The Attorney-General is not here, in fairness. He is the first law officer. Mr HAWKE —Well, in fairness-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will ignore the interjections. Mr HAWKE —We can do without the Leader of the Opposition taking over your role, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is here and, if the honourable gentleman wants any answer from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs as to whether he, in preparing his statement, has received any advice, he should direct the question to him. I can say to the honourable gentleman, in answer to his question to me that I have not received any advice. Mr Porter —Did you discuss it in Cabinet? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will not interject. Mr HAWKE —The statement that has been prepared by the Minister not only has been arrived at after careful consideration by the Minister and those with whom he has consulted but also has been endorsed by the Cabinet. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Opposition members seem surprised by that. They know very little about how to conduct themselves as an opposition. At least they might know something about the processes of government. Let me remind Opposition members that for 30 of the past 33 years in this country they have been sitting on this side of the Speaker. For 30 of the past 33 years they have constituted the government of this country and they ought to be ashamed of just about every area of the governance of this country-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I meant up to 1983. I accept that correction. For 30 of the 33 years before we came into office, the Opposition constituted the government of this country and Opposition members should be ashamed of themselves, if they look at just about any area of the governance of this country, and of the abysmal record that they have. It does not matter whether one looks at the question of economic management, social justice or any of the other fundamentals. In the area to which the question from the honourable gentleman goes, the Opposition does not have the greatest of records. This Government has been concerned, quite honestly, to face up to a fact that needs to be faced up to and which should have been faced up to before, and that is: What is the nature of the relationship between the European community in this country and the Aboriginal people who have a proud history of 40,000 years before European settlement? As we go into 1988 and as we properly celebrate 200 years of European settlement, it is appropriate that we honestly face up to this issue of the relationship between the Europeans in this community and the Aboriginal people. That is what the statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is intended to do. We should not have any worry about acknowledging certain facts. This cuts across party lines. Historically, my Party is not guiltless in this area. We should not be afraid of facing up to the fact that all of us have a guilt and a responsibility for many of the injustices that occurred in those 200 years. Mr Nehl —Rubbish! Mr HAWKE —The honourable gentleman can say `Rubbish!'. Of course he would, because he has no sense-- Mr Nehl —You can't change history. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —I am glad to say that there was only one cry of `Rubbish!' from the Opposition. I acknowledge that, generally speaking, on the other side of the House there would be no objection to the honest proposition that I put, namely, that we all, collectively and across party lines, if we look back over our period of governance of this country, share a sense of guilt and responsibility in respect of the Aboriginal people. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —We have flushed a few more of them out, but there is still a majority of acquiescence on the other side. What this Government is doing on this issue is trying sensibly and responsibly to face up to this issue. We are saying that we need to have consultation with the Aboriginal community, to discuss these issues-issues that arise out of the indisputable fact that the Aboriginal people were the prior occupiers of this country. Is there anyone who disputes that fact? Of course there is not, because one cannot dispute the obvious. Insofar as that is the fact, we should responsibly face up to the issue, in consultation with the Aboriginal people, as to what consequences flow from that. What is the sense of obligation that responsibly we should have? It is my hope, as I have discussed with the Minister, that, as these consultations are held, we may be able to get a sense of bipartisanship on this. I am not saying that honourable members on the other side of the House will be expected to endorse every approach that we have; but I express the not unreasonable hope that, as we accept the responsibility at this time in our history to address these issues, the Opposition will join with us in this process of consultation to see how, as we go into 1988, we can best express, as a parliament, a community and a people, our sense of responsibility. The issues raised in the honourable gentleman's question will be part of that process of consultation. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Amongst the most distressing problems that honourable members on both sides of the House face are those relating to people in their electorates who are trying to gain access to adequate housing. I ask the Minister for Community Services and Health: What is the Federal Government doing to improve access to housing for low income earners? Dr BLEWETT —Owing to the work done by my predecessors, the honourable member for Adelaide and the present Minister for Administrative Services, we have now in place at the Commonwealth level a range of housing services unparalleled in this country before. In addition the success-- Mr Connolly —No crisis in housing, you said. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bradfield will cease interjecting. I recognise that it is the last day of the sitting, and the Chair would not like to have to take action on the last day of the sitting. Dr BLEWETT —In addition to the specific housing policies of the Government, we have had the success of our economic policies in the last months in bringing down significantly the interest rates for home loans. In fact, over the last few months interest rates have dropped by an average of 1.5 per cent. That kind of fall in bank interest rates will reduce payments on, for example, a $50,000 housing loan over 20 years by around $55 a month. The results of those falls provide, in part, the explanation for the fact that in the September quarter, lenders lent $1,466m for housing, the highest level since September 1985. In addition, the first home owners scheme (FHOS) is now generally acknowledged by the industry as the most effective housing scheme yet introduced in this country. Already over a quarter of a million Australians have benefited from the first home owners scheme of this Government, and a further 52,000 will benefit in 1987-88. In addition, in October the weekly applicants for FHOS have risen by 29 per cent over the previous year-again, an indication of the increased activity in the housing sector as a result of falling interest rates. In public housing this year-- Mr MacKellar —What is the position in the States? Dr BLEWETT —I will take on the question of the honourable member for Warringah and say that in public housing this year we have provided to the States $1,114m-$700m of that through the housing agreements with the States-which is double the amount of money spent on housing by the Opposition when it was in power. The private rental market has been assisted by the Government's decision on negative gearing and also by the fact that this is the first Government which has made available a rent assistance payment to working people on low incomes. Under the supported accommodation assistance program we have committed this year $88.5m for support for emergency and assisted housing. That program provided accommodation for some 60,000 homeless people last year and it will continue to serve that emergency purpose this year. In fact, 1987 has been an increasingly improving year for housing and 1988 will be even better. Mr HOWARD —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the earlier question asked by my colleague the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government has received any legal advice as to whether the preamble in the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission Bill, that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were, inter alia, the original owners of the Australian land mass, will constitute a basis for claims for compensation for past dispossession of land? If so, what was the nature of that advice? If it is in written form, will he make it available, because it is a very important element of the Government's legislation? Mr HAND —I received no specific advice of a legal nature on that point. I did, however, receive a lot of advice from a number of people on the question of this proposal. I endorse the comments of the Leader when he says that what we are attempting to do here is to recognise what is a fact. I refer to a resolution passed on 20 February 1974 in the Senate, moved by Senator Bonner, and I read it: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. I put it to the House that the preamble outlines an attitude towards this question. It recognises 40,000 years of occupancy in this land. It recognises the fact that we have been here 200 years and it attempts to bring about a settlement between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the non-Aboriginal community. That is what we are attempting to do. I do not see that there is any problem for people in terms of the question that has been raised whatsoever. Currently, the Commonwealth has the power to compensate people. The Aboriginal land rights introduced by the Opposition, is obviously a recognition-by way of land rights and the granting of land of a form of compensation. Mr Howard —So you would expect claims of compensation, would you? Mr HAND —Come on! The Leader of the Opposition should not cross-examine me. I will try to answer his original question and that is all I am entitled to do. The Leader will not listen. One of the pleasing aspects of the policy statement today was the response by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the Opposition wants to continue, as I understand it, a bipartisan approach to this question and the way we are approaching a whole range of issues. The other point, on the question of the States-of all political persuasions-is that they have indicated support for the concept we are proposing; in other words, the discussions we want to have. The Leader of the Opposition asked his question about compensation and prior ownership. I think that prior ownership is a fact. Does the Leader of the Opposition dispute the fact that the Aboriginals were here? Does he dispute that they were the first occupiers of this land? The fact is that they were. Mr Howard —I am interested in the legal consequences. Mr HAND —There is no legal difficulty with this proposal, as far as I am concerned-- Mr Howard —You don't know; you have not got any advice. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. He is now not heeding the Chair. Mr TICKNER —As a preface to my question to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, I congratulate her for her spirited defence of the defence service home loans scheme. Having said that, will the Minister inform the House what benefits will flow to service personnel and their families as a result of the Government's decision on this issue? Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I point out that the administration of defence service home loans is a matter which relates to the portfolio of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the question should be directed to him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question has been directed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Mrs KELLY —In response to this question I thank my colleagues who have assisted in this debate, particularly the honourable member for Hughes, the honourable member for Herbert who is sitting behind me, the honourable member for McEwen and many others who assisted in putting the case for and on behalf of the defence service personnel. I am very pleased to outline to the House the implications for these new arrangements for defence service personnel. The first very important aspect of these new loan arrangements is that the new loans scheme is fully portable. This is a great boon for service personnel. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the Minister resume her seat. Does the honourable member for O'Connor wish to raise a point of order? Mr Tuckey —Yes, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 142. It states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he- and I presume that would now mean she- is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. The responsibility in this matter, I am advised, is with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the question is therefore out of order for being directed to the wrong Minister. I add, while I am on my feet-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not add anything. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Humphreys —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the House to order. I call the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, on a point of order. Mr Humphreys —Madam Speaker, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is responsible for the conditions of the defence service personnel. Defence service homes are part of those terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, she is justly entitled to answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Mrs KELLY —The very important aspect of this scheme which will have a great benefit to defence service personnel is that the new scheme is fully portable. That means that the loan is a loan for life. That is one aspect of the scheme that the defence service personnel have wanted for a very long time. It means that they can buy a home early in their defence careers and take that loan with them for the rest of their lives. Also the scheme will eliminate the current 10-month waiting period. That will be a large saving to defence service personnel. The third very important aspect of this scheme is that when the loan mortgage is sold off it will be possible to take the loan as part of a first mortgage. This also would entail considerable financial savings. I repeat: This is a very important asset for defence service personnel. It will enhance conditions of service for defence service personnel. Again, I would like to thank all the Government members who assisted in putting the case to the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet. I would also like to conclude by thanking the Prime Minister for his support on this issue. He listened to the advice he received from the defence service personnel and acted to enhance conditions for defence service people. Mr McGAURAN —I refer the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to his statements on 7 October that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) could reveal no information which would cause them to recommend against Federal Hotels Ltd being granted the Christmas Island casino licence and also found Federal Hotels to be above question and beyond reproach. I ask: Was the AFP clearance of Federal Hotels conditional on Dr Stanley Ho divesting himself of his one million shares in Tal Holdings Limited which, as the Minister would know, is Federal Hotels' owner? Was the AFP report completed and were the Minister's statements made before Dr Ho actually divested these shares which were still on Tal's register on 18 November and transferred only on 19 November? Will the Minister now table that police report and will he recommend new inquiries to ensure that there is no continuing connection between Dr Ho and Federal Hotels? Mr JOHN BROWN —The information I gave the House on the date referred to by the honourable member-I assume the date the honourable member mentioned is correct-described the position as I know it. The decision was made prior to my being in this portfolio. As I understand, the police report stated that nothing was found in regard to Federal Hotels that would preclude it from getting the licence. As far as I know, that is still the position. As far as the police report is concerned, I think that that question should be directed to the Minister in charge of the Australian Federal Police. It is nothing to do with me. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The police investigation did take place during the Minister's jurisdiction. It took place during July. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will sit down. The Chair will not countenance points of order which are not points of order. The honourable member is using devious means to get around the Standing Orders. Mr CHYNOWETH —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Was it a fact that certain veterans and war widows living in retirement village units were not eligible for rent assistance? If so, what has the Minister done to help these people? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. The answer to the first part of his question is yes. In relation to the question as to what I have done to help the veterans, let me say that it was in response to representations made by the honourable member for Dunkley and other honourable members to my Department pointing out the difference between the social security beneficiaries and beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans' Affairs that resulted in my directing that the situation be reviewed. I am very pleased to announce to the honourable member for Dunkley and all the other honourable members that we have decided that veterans and war widows will now be treated exactly the same as pensioners of the Department of Social Security in relation to rent allowance. Where these people live in a retirement village or the equivalent and have signed a tenancy or licence agreement, but have no title or shares in their home, they are eligible for rent assistance. If they pay $15 a week or more in rent, they are eligible for the rent assistance of up to $15. I am sure the honourable member will he happy to announce that to all the veterans in his electorate. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Did the Minister receive a report from Mr Hillier, the Chairman of the Australian Pavilion Theatre Review Panel, the second committee to consider tenders for the theatre in the Australian Pavilion at World Expo 88? Is it a fact that the report recommended that the contract go to an Australian company, AAV Australia Pty Ltd? Did the Minister refuse to accept that report and then send it back to the Review Panel with a direction to do it again and come up with the right answer? Is the Minister aware of any facts showing why the House should not conclude that this was a blatant attempt by the Minister to interfere in the consideration by an independent tender board of tenders for a major government proposal? Mr JOHN BROWN —As I recall the situation, I did receive a preliminary report from Mr Hillier. We appointed a committee of five. The House was informed of this and, in fact, I even invited the Opposition to suggest the names of people to go on that committee. The preliminary report was provided by only four members of that committee. I sent the report back to the committee for the fifth member to have his say. The fifth member had his say and the report came back in exactly the same way as it had come back in the first place. AAV was given the contract. Mr MILDREN —Bearing in mind the concern of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to maintain the viability of the Australian meat industry, I ask the Minister directly: What are the implications for the Australian meat industry of the Senate's possible refusal to pass legislation concerning the national residue survey program? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. I guess the Australian cattle and meat and livestock industries are pretty concerned that the National Party of Australia has decided to oppose the Government's move to enhance the national residue survey program, which is an essential tool for Australia's meat export industry and which has great relevance to the domestic meat industry as well. The National Party is doing this at the behest, I am told, of the Cattle Council of Australia. The National Party does not have any policies of its own but is always willing to be wound up by people outside who have been fully consulted. Of course, the Opposition parties already have a 50 per cent cost recovery principle. It was only their own administrative inefficiency that did not have them on 50 per cent cost recovery in this area when we came to office. We have already gone through that. The principle has been accepted. The national residue survey is in exactly the same boat as the issue of meat inspection. It is part of the overseas requirements so that we can guarantee the health of our product. What we are trying to put through the Parliament is an enhanced national residue survey program as a result of our assessment of its worth with the recent chemical residue problem. What the Government was doing was increasing its contribution. If the Opposition parties-I hope the Australian Democrats have a bit more sense-are going to oppose this enhancement of the national residue survey program, it will stay at the level it is now. That will be on their heads. What this is all about is that the Opposition wants some taxpayers' funds to go into this at, as I said, the Cattle Council's behest. I point out that about 70 per cent of the people at the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation's annual general meeting last week in Albury voted in favour of additional funding, including the lot testing or residue testing program, which may amount to $47m or $3.50 per head. The industry has expressed its opinion on this matter and for a lot of other reasons it is essential that the industry takes on board the responsibility of clearing up this problem. I do not know why the Opposition is picking on the national residue survey program. It is very minimal. It might amount to about 15c per head. The taxpayers are already putting money in. If one puts that up against the $3.50 per head that the industry has voted itself, I frankly do not know what those opposite are on about. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement yesterday when he said: In this regard I feel the deepest satisfaction at the role Australia will play in helping to verify Soviet compliance with the terms of the agreement through the operations of the joint defence facilities . . . Does the Prime Minister recall signing an advertisement published in the National Times on 13 September 1976 demanding the closure of the joint facilities in Australia because they made Australia a potential nuclear target? What would Australia's role have been in the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement had the Fraser Government not rejected the now Prime Minister's demand of September 1976? Mr HAWKE —I do not recall it, but as distinct from the geniuses on the other side-- Mr Downer —Here it is in my hand. Mr HAWKE —Wait a minute. Just calm yourself down, little boy. As distinct from all the geniuses-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HAWKE —Oh, big gun! Big gun! Mr Tuckey —We would call you `little gun'. You are not even in the pistol category. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor cannot come to the dispatch box and start shouting across the table. Does the honourable member have a point of order? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, my point of order is to refer you to your remarks and advice to this Parliament regarding personal attacks. `Little boy' is not parliamentary and should be withdrawn, particularly when it comes from a little squirt. Madam SPEAKER —I think the honourable member just defeated his own case. Mr HAWKE —I was saying that as distinct from the geniuses on the other side of the House who can remember everything they have done over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, as intelligent as I am I do not profess to be able to remember everything I have done over the last 10 or 15 years. If those opposite have got the evidence there I am not disputing it, I am simply saying I do not remember. Can they understand that? Good. The honourable member for Mayo should nod his head again. He has got it. I make this point again: as distinct from those on the other side of the House, I have a capacity to learn and develop. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Madam SPEAKER —I suggest the Prime Minister wait until the mirth dies down. Mr HAWKE —I am quite happy, Madam Speaker. I freely confess to the honourable member for Mayo that there are many views and positions that I have held previously in my life that I do not hold now. I note from the laughter on the other side of the House that it is regarded as humorous or absurd to change positions that one has held through life. All I can say is that I am very satisfied, in regard to myself and in regard to many people on this side of the House, that we have the capacity to learn and that we do not always take the view that whatever we may have said at any previous stage in our life is forever more correct. One reason why those opposite will continue to inhabit the Opposition benches far into the future is that they have no capacity to learn. Whether they look at matters economic or matters international, the one distinguishing characteristic about the bunch of people on the other side is that they are antediluvian. They have fixed ideas about the past; they cannot keep up with the changing world; they have no capacity to learn; and while they demonstrate that incapacity to learn and to change that is where they will be-where they deserve to be, in opposition. The only distinction between now and after the next election is that they will have even fewer people on that side of the House. Mr Downer —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the document in order to refresh the Prime Minister's memory. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Mr PRICE —I address my question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Following the inscription of the Uluru National Park on to the World Heritage List, can the Minister advise the House whether he has received word from Paris that stage 2 of Kakadu National Park has now also been placed on the List and whether the World Heritage Committee has been pressured not to inscribe stage 2? Mr JOHN BROWN —The World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation was pressured not to include stage 2 of Kakadu National park by that ridiculous team of vandals from the Northern Territory. However, despite that, just 24 hours after the inscription of Uluru National Park, the World Heritage Commission last night also included on the World Heritage list stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. I am sure all honourable members will be delighted that the efforts of this Government and its very responsible view in regard to the protection of the environment has led to this inscription. My fellow Minister, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) announced that this morning with great glee. He pointed out that stage 1 of Kakadu National Park was submitted in 1981 with the Great Barrier Reef. It was the first Australian national park to achieve World Heritage listing. The inscription of stage 2 has increased the size of Kakadu National Park that will be preserved for future generations of Australians to more than 13,000 square kilometres. I do not think that I need to go into all the delights, all the treasures, that are involved in Kakadu stage 2 except to say that the area does have outstanding cultural and natural features, including several thousand archaeological sites of great interest. In recent times, one excavated site has yielded some of the world's earliest evidence of ground edged axes, as well as pigments some 18,000 years old. I think that what has happened in Paris in the last two days has vindicated the great efforts that this Government has made in the environmental area for many years and that it was, furthermore, a direct embarrassment to the vandals from the Northern Territory Government who sent six people over to embarrass Australia with their efforts to have this very forward step in Australian environment protection taken by the leaders in World Heritage. Madam SPEAKER —Did the Prime Minister give permission for the paper from the honourable member for Mayo to be tabled? Mr Hawke-Yes, I did. If it is so devastatingly important, he may do it. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.47) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Menzies moving forthwith that this House censures the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in that he- (1) failed to exercise proper ministerial standards; (2) misled the House and the Australian public over the circumstances associated with the contract for the theatre in the Australian pavilion at Expo 88; (3) was responsible for the Commonwealth incurring a liability to Bob Rogers and Co. whereas with proper care and responsibility that liability would not have been incurred; and (4) improperly interfered with the process of the consideration of tenders for a major Commonwealth project. Will the Government accept the setting aside of Standing Orders? Mr Young —Question Time is over. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(2.48) —The Government will facilitate the debate. It is rather amazing that the person who has been sacked from the shadow ministry has got to be called upon-- Mr N.A. Brown —Sit down. Mr YOUNG —No. I am speaking. I am supporting the motion. I have got the call. Opposition members-Sit down. Mr YOUNG —No. I will not sit down; I am supporting the suspension of Standing Orders. I have got the call to speak. I have been asked to speak and now I am going to say a few things. It is just amazing that those opposite have been here all this time asking about the telephone book and the street directory and now they have got to call the person whom they sacked from their shadow ministry to move a censure motion on the last day of sitting. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I have to have a mover and a seconder to the motion. Mr YOUNG —I will second the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the House is seconding the motion? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Menzies asked me to. Madam SPEAKER —It is quite in order if the Leader of the House seconds the motion. Mr YOUNG —If the honourable member for Menzies asks me anything I always agree with him. But it is just incredible when we look at the performance of the Opposition over the whole of this year. The honourable member for Menzies has asked his questions; the questions have been answered, but he is not satisfied. He wants to raise all this innuendo in the form of a censure motion because no one in the shadow Ministry has the courage, the skill or the ability to be able to do it on behalf of the Liberal and National parties. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that he was going to judge his team after a year. Here is a fair judgment: on the last day of Parliament the Leader of the Opposition has to call upon a person he sacked. The Leader of the Opposition dismissed him from his executive because of his incompetence and now, in a last fling in the dying hours of this session of the Parliament, he re-calls that honourable member, as he has other people he has sacked and put on the back benches. He has sacked them not because of their ability but to try to meet the demands of some of his mates on the front bench. Let us just look at them. Do honourable members recall what members of the Opposition said about the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith)? They said, `Wait until he is shadow Attorney-General. He will make this place rock'. He has not asked a question of the Attorney-General this session. He is terrific. He has to be one of the new high fliers of the Liberal Party of Australia. After the election the Leader of the Opposition said, `I will hit the road running. We will be ready'. The last question he asked in this Parliament was where to find the emergency phone book. For God's sake! When Andrew got up I thought he was going to ask about the street directory and Sinkers will be asking questions about mud maps. Have a look at the Opposition front bench. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) always wants to talk. Why did the Opposition not ask him to speak today? It did not because it knows that he is too loony Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you to ask the court jester to withdraw that remark. All he is good for is jokes. He has never been serious about anything. He is just an absolute joker. He could not say anything serious in a fit. When has he ever done anything? Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not hear what was said. Mr YOUNG —I said that he was loony. If he wants me to withdraw, I will withdraw. But it is amazing; the honourable member for O'Connor wants to talk all the time. But when demands are made in a parliamentary debate of this nature those front bench members are all passed over. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), one of the brilliant leaders of the Opposition at the last session, raised more points of order in one session than we have had since Federation. He is a QC who receives $5,000 a brief, but he will get nothing for this one. He will not take on the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), no sirree. The Opposition has to get a person on the back benches to move this motion. It cannot do any more damage to the honourable member for Menzies; it has done all the damage it can. It has sacked him, dismissed him, disregarded his performance as the Deputy Leader and said, `Up you go with the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). They were all dismissed and sacked but when the Opposition wants to use them it grabs them because they cannot do it any more damage. I sympathise with the role that the honourable member for Menzies has to play. We will facilitate the debate today because this is a censure motion, but it just shows up the miserable team opposite led by a person who does not have the courage today to move the censure motion which must have been decided by the shadow Cabinet. A decision must have been taken by all the people opposite on the front bench to move this censure motion but they get a person who is not in the shadow Ministry to move the motion. What a bunch of cowards! The Opposition will continue to use these people. The Leader of the Opposition does not have to wait for another six months to make his judgment. We can all make if now on the make-up of the next shadow Ministry. We have much pleasure in inviting the honourable member for Menzies to move his censure motion, and we feel very sorry for him. Question resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Motion of Censure Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.55) —After that juvenile, irrelevant rubbish I move: That this House censures the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in that he- (1) failed to exercise proper ministerial standards; (2) misled the House and the Australian public over the circumstances associated with the contract for the theatre in the Australian pavilion at Expo `88; (3) was responsible for the Commonwealth incurring a liability to Bob Rogers and Co. whereas with proper care and responsibility that liability would not have been incurred; and (4) improperly interfered with the process of the consideration of tenders for a major Commonwealth project. This motion arises from the way the Government let a $5m contract for the theatre to be built as part of the Australian pavilion at World Expo 88. In early 1986, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown), announced that the Federal Government would spend $14m on an Australian pavilion at Expo 88. In the Australian pavilion will be a theatre, where there will be a $5m audio-visual presentation of Australian life and history. The Australian pavilion is an important project. It is a major part of Expo, and Expo itself is a major part of our bicentennial celebrations. But it is the theatre in the Australian pavilion that we are concerned with here, itself a contract for $5m. Tenders were called for this contract and tenders were received. The Australian Expositions Committee, appointed by the Minister, considered the submissions put in by the companies that tendered for the job. In early 1987, it became known that the Minister had awarded the contract to an American company, Bob Rogers and Co., and that the contract was about to be signed. A public debate then erupted; and honourable members can understand the concern. Did the awarding of this contract to an American company mean that there was not one single Australian company which could present this Australian display? As a result of this public uproar, the contract with Bob Rogers and Co. was cancelled and tenders were called again. A new tender committee was appointed. This second committee was called the Tender Assessment Panel. The Minister's press release of 24 February, announcing this new committee, stated that the awarding of the job would be `subject to standard Government purchasing procedures'. And finally, on 13 April 1987, after the Tender Assessment Panel had done its work, an Australian company called AAV Australia Pty Ltd got the job-over a year after the Australian pavilion was announced. In all of this saga, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories was heavily involved. Unlike the Government, judging from the trivia we heard from the Leader of the House (Mr Young), the Opposition is concerned about high standards of public administration which the Government obviously is not concerned about. From the Minister's involvement and the fact that the Minister's frolic has left the taxpayer with a bill for over a quarter of a million dollars this censure motion arises. We have five separate charges against the Minister and he had better stand up and answer each of them in turn, otherwise the House will reach its own conclusions. The first charge is that there has been an appallingly bad piece of public administration. The Government gave a contract for $5m to Bob Rogers and Co. on 7 December 1986. But after the public uproar, it backed off. It abandoned Rogers' company, broke the contract it had, went through the whole tendering process again and then, four months later, gave the contract to a different company. The result is that Rogers's company is now claiming $US200,000 from the Australian Government. And, to top it all, this ham-fisted Minister has now guaranteed that that claim will succeed. He said on 17 November in the House: . . . it is quite obvious . . . that Bob Rogers is entitled to the expenses he incurred . . . So the claim will succeed. It will succeed because of the incompetent bungling of this Minister. There was bungling in the first place because of the way in which he gave the contract to Rogers's company. Having done that, he cancelled that contract four months later and the Government then gave the contract to AAV Australia Pty Ltd. This knee-jerk change, this breach of contract, has now made the Government liable to Rogers' company to pay his damages. And behind all of this bungling, of course, is the Minister. If ministerial responsibility means anything at all, the Minister must carry the responsibility for this succession of bungles. And the claim will succeed, secondly, because of the Minister's gaffe in admitting the claim in public. The Minister did not even give the taxpayer a fighting chance of defending the claim; he had to blab it out in Parliament, when negotiations where still under way, that it was `quite obvious' that Rogers would succeed in his claim. For all of this, the Minister has to carry the responsibility. There was a clear bungle; the taxpayer is left with the bill, and a bill which will be at least $250,000. It will be at least $250,000 because of two new facts of which I can inform the House. The first fact is that the Department of Finance, because it cannot do anything else, in view of the position the Minister has put the Government in, has approved already the payment of up to $250,000 to Rogers. The second fact is that I am advised that the Attorney-General's Department will now pay any price to get off the hook that the Minister has impaled it on. Someone has to pay the price for this incompetence and in our system that someone is the Minister. The second charge is that the Minister interfered with the tender process-this was a public tender-for a job worth $5m. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth rules on tendering applied to it. And if the Minister says that this was not a case of public tenders, let me remind him that on 17 February, he said in the House: Five Australian companies were commissioned to supply a tender-I repeat, `a tender'-for the provision of this theatre. There was even a tender board-the Australian Expositions Committee-that the Minister appointed to advise on who should get the contract. People were appointed to this board through the famous Dr Emmanual Klein, the Minister's secretary whom the Minister and the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) tried to have appointed as Australian Trade Commissioner in Milan. So, there is no doubt that this was an official body to consider public tenders for a major Commonwealth project. One would think the Minister would have had enough sense to leave it alone, to let the committee get on with the job, to keep out of it. Indeed, in the recent debate on the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd scandal, we were given a lesson on that very principle. On that occasion, the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) told us: . . . Ministers should not be personally involved in tender assessment and evaluation procedures. But no, the Arts Minister could not keep out of it. He interfered in the tender process and twisted and contorted it to make sure that Bob Rogers and Co. got the job. He even spoke with members of the tender committee during their deliberations. He attended meetings of the committee. This is unprecedented: a Minister should not attend meetings of a body considering tenders. But he did attend them. And attending them, he promoted one tenderer to the prejudice of all others. The House will be staggered to hear that the meeting of the committee, when Rogers was given the `verbal nod', took place in the Minister's own office. And it occurred on a Sunday-Sunday, 7 December 1986. Is this the way that this Government believes that public tenders should be handled, with a Minister so closely involved? Is this the way this Government hands out its contracts-with a verbal nod in a Minister's office on a Sunday? If this Minister is not censured or sacked, the public will be entitled to believe that, indeed, this is the way that the Hawke Government handles its business. The House should censure this deplorable conduct. From that arises the third charge: the Minister misled the Parliament in February by falsely claiming that no contract had been made with the Rogers company. He said this several times and on each occasion he said it in this House. On 17 February he said it was a `$5m contract, which we may or may not let to Bob Rogers'. `There is no contract', he said on 20 February. `No contract has been formulated', he said on 25 February. He knows this was false, as false it was. When the Minister told this House that there was no contract with Rogers, he knew that that was false, because he knew that it was his own conduct that had created the contract. We know it was false because the Minister was driven under questioning to admit that he gave the `verbal nod' to Rogers on 7 December. So, he knew in February that the contract had been given to Rogers in December. Yet he falsely maintained that the contract had not even been let, the grossest misleading of this House. There was a contract with Rogers. He went ahead with the work because he had the contract and he believed he had the contract. He started work and spent money, and now he is threatening to sue the Government. The Attorney-General's Department has given advice that Rogers will win because it was the Minister's own conduct that made the contract with Rogers and led Rogers to believe he had the job. Let me give the House one more piece of evidence to show just how true that is. Three weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked the Minister whether he had been advised by the Attorney-General's Department `that the whole of his conduct in this matter has created a legal obligation on the part of the Rogers company'. The Minister said, `No'. I have spoken to someone who was actually present in the Minister's office on 7 December. I asked that person whether what the Leader of the Opposition had said in his summary was accurate. The person who was present said yes, it was. My notes, which I have here, record what this person said to me. He said: Brown gave him the nod. His conduct created the contract. So, when the Minister told this House in February that no contract was made with Rogers, that the contract had not even been let, he knew that that was false because his own conduct had created the contract the previous December. From that comes the fourth charge: the Minister misled this House by saying on 17 November that he did not know whether the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had made a decision on whether compensation was payable to Mr Rogers. This is untrue. He knew all right. He knew because his own Department told him about it twice. I can tell the House now that the Minister received the substance of the Attorney-General's Department's advice. He received it from his own Department first when the Attorney-General's Department gave oral advice that the Commonwealth was liable because of the Minister's conduct. That oral advice was given in a minute to the Minister. There is a document showing that he received it and noted it in the way Ministers always note advice from their department. But the Attorney-General's Department then gave written advice, again saying that the Commonwealth was liable. That written advice was also given to the Minister. There is another document showing that the Minister received this written advice. If there are no such documents, if the Minister did not receive this advice on two occasions, let him stand up here and say so. If he does not say so, then the House should conclude that what I have said is true, that the Minister knew full well when we questioned him on 17 and 18 November, only a few weeks ago, what advice the Attorney-General's Department had given. The fifth charge is that when the second committee, the tender assessment panel, was set up to examine the tenders again, the Minister again interfered with the tender process. But this time it was worse. When the balloon went up, the Cabinet intervened and tenders were called a second time. But the Minister continued to push the barrow for Bob Rogers and Co., to the prejudice of other contenders. The tender assessment panel, under Mr Hillier of the Department of Administrative Services, considered all of the tenders and decided in favour of the Australian company AAV. Mr Hillier wrote a report recommending the contract go to AAV. But the Minister rejected it, not just on the spurious ground that someone had not been at a meeting, as was suggested today; the Minister rejected the advice of the tender panel because it did not give the advice that he wanted. And he made it plain that it did not give the advice that he wanted. He sent the report back and told the panel to consider the matter again and to come up with the right answer, a recommendation in favour of Rogers. The Minister was right at Question Time today in saying that one member of the committee then entered into this drama. But what happened was that not only did the Minister do what I have described, he also gave directions to get on to Mr Peter Faiman, a member of the panel, for him to cast a vote in favour of Rogers and thereby swing the contract to Rogers. So, once again, Mr Hillier and the tender panel set to work, once again Mr Hillier wrote a report and once again the panel decided in favour of the Australian company. But the Minister set about undermining even this second report of the tender panel, a complete perversion of the tender process. The matter was going to Cabinet; indeed, on 13 April, the Cabinet decided to award the contract to AAV, the Australian company. But in the meantime the Minister set about deceiving even his own Cabinet colleagues. On 6 April, just seven days before the issue went to Cabinet, only seven days before the Cabinet was due to consider a report from an independent tender board, here is the Minister, in the notorious car telephone conversation saying to one of his mates: `Mate, I will get my ........ way sooner or later. Exploring a million avenues'. He also said, `So we are still there fighting, mate'. This was said in the course of a public consideration of tenders, in the course of consideration of a matter that was about to go to Cabinet. This Minister will have to be taught by this House that the `look after your mates' rule is not good enough for considering Commonwealth tenders. The whole history of this matter is one of the Minister, in an open tender process, twisting at every turn to get the contract for the favourite son. The tender procedure is supposed to be above reproach. It is supposed to be free and fair. The Minister's Press release stated that the matter was subject to standard government purchasing procedures. This means that Ministers are supposed to keep out of it. But this Minister could not resist the temptation. He intruded, and at every turn used his influence to have the contract awarded to one applicant, to the prejudice of all others. The House simply cannot stand by and do nothing when there is such a blatant attempt to pervert the tender process, such an attempt by a Minister to frustrate standard government purchasing procedures. We ask: Are these the standard government purchasing procedures of the Hawke Government? Is a Minister able to say, in the course of the consideration of tenders, `I will get my way sooner or later'? Is this the standard? The Minister should be censured for this alone, even if there were nothing else against him. In summary, the Minister interfered in the tender process not once, but twice. He misled the Parliament not once, but twice, about his own involvement in making the contract with Bob Rogers and Co. and with respect to his knowledge of advice from the Attorney-General's Department. As the Minister responsible for this series of shambles, in his involvement in the letting of the contract and in making his extraordinary admission of liability, he has put the Government and the taxpayer in an impossible position and has cost the Australian taxpayer dearly. If any of these allegations are true, the Minister should table all of the documents. There is a vast quantity of documents-minutes of the committee meetings, which will verify what I have said, correspondence and memoranda. Those documents should be tabled. If the Minister is not prepared to table those documents, if he is not prepared to explain on the record so that the House can make its own judgment as to what the situation was, the House is entitled to reach only one conclusion-that is, that the allegations that I have made are correct and that they are supported. They are supported by people who are appalled at the bad and low standard of public administration involving the Minister that has taken place in this matter. If those allegations are untrue, there is a course, as I have said, that is open to the Minister to disprove them-that is, to come clean in the same way in which, when we were in government we tabled vast quantities of documents and papers about a matter that concerned the then Opposition. But this Government will not do that. It refuses to answer questions, produce documents or make those documents available for inspection. If the documents are not tabled so that we can make our own judgment, we are entitled to conclude that there has been the grossest impropriety by this Minister in the handling of this large government contract. If the Minister will not do that, the House, frankly, must reach the only conclusion that is open to it: that this Minister is unfit for office and that he must be censured. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —Yes, and I reserve my right to speak. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(3.14) —Of course, a censure motion is a very serious motion. I accept my responsibility to answer it in those terms. There have been some very serious charges made against me, and I do not accept any of them. It amuses me when I hear comments such as, `high standards of ministerial administration by the previous Government'. Maybe I will get around to talking about that. Let me trace the saga of the contract for the Australian pavilion at the Brisbane Exposition. A committee met for 12 months, trying desperately to find an Australian theatrical group capable of producing a theatre of high quality for our pavilion in Brisbane. I point out to the House that there are two contracts involved: one is for the pavilion generally and the other is for the theatre which is part of that pavilion. The same committee that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) has, by implication, maligned for the unanimous decision it gave me that Bob Rogers and Co. should get the theatrical part of that contract awarded a contract to AAV Australia Pty Ltd. I accepted its nomination. I did not hear any complaint from AAV or the Opposition about my action or the committee's action in that regard. It is very peculiar that, after 12 months of searching and 12 months of frustration in trying to find an Australian company capable of producing the theatre that we wanted-I think everybody would want the theatrical component of the Australian pavilion to be of high class-eventually, my committee made a unanimous decision that it should be awarded to Bob Rogers. That decision was that Bob Rogers would become a subcontractor to AAV as the main contractor. AAV had no objection to that. But subsequently, it claimed that it was being put under great pressure by other Australian companies in the audio-visual area with which it deals to the effect that it would be very difficult for AAV to deal with an American company in the Australian pavilion. I found that rather strange and I mentioned this in the House on many other occasions when this matter was the subject of debate. In fact, one of the people on the committee, who quite obviously has fed information to the honourable member for Menzies, was himself, on behalf of the Australian Film Commission, a competitor for that theatrical contract. I recall him putting up a proposition for an omnimax theatre which was to be 85 per cent owned by the Canadian Film Board and 15 per cent by the Australian Film Commission. This proposal was rejected because, for one thing, it was far too expensive. Somewhere down the track that same person said that he would rather have Rolf Harris painting signs on a galvanised iron wall than have an American company get this contract-for which he had put forward a proposal, 85 per cent of which would be owned by the Canadian Film Board. So much for his credentials! Mr Howard —And he was on the board. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member for Menzies was heard in silence; please allow me that courtesy. He was a member of the committee. At long last, on 7 December, my committee met in my office on a Sunday morning. I cannot see anything terribly sinister about the meeting in my office. It had been done repeatedly. It did so when it awarded the contract to AAV. Did AAV find anything sinister about that? Mr Connolly —Were you there? Mr JOHN BROWN —I was there and I was given the unanimous decision by my committee that Bob Rogers should be given the contract. I accepted that, in exactly the same way as I accepted its decision to give AAV the major contract-the bigger contract for the pavilion. It was 7 December. Time was running out. My committee suggested to me that, as we could not get a contract drawn-as most honourable members who have been in government would know-in the next day or two, as it does require a deal of time, Mr Rogers should be given permission to do some preliminary work on his theatre. Mr Rogers had been working for my committee in a voluntary capacity for 12 months, in which time he was contracted to Qantas Airways Ltd to produce a theatre at Brisbane World Expo 88. As it turned out, the Qantas contract fell through. As a matter of background, Rogers produced the three theatres at the Vancouver Exposition which won first, second and third prizes for excellence. Quite obviously, my committee and I, on behalf of the Australian people, want our theatre at the Brisbane Expo to be excellent. There is no man in the world with greater knowledge not only of theatre but of world expositions generally than Bob Rogers. He is the acknowledged world expert. In this period when he was trying to arrange a contract with Qantas, he worked for my committee voluntarily. He provided us with information and advice on how our pavilion should be built which was probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually, the decision was made to negotiate a contract with him. He was not given a contract; it was never drawn up. The letter of intent was never signed. But on the suggestion of my committee, I gave him permission to do some preliminary work, which he did, part of which involved visiting the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs (Mr Holding)-because the theatre project was about a dreamtime with an Australian Aboriginal background. The work that he did with the then Minister and with the architects of our pavilion is work for which he is entitled to be paid. Subsequently, a contract was not drawn, because we found a flaw in the tender process, which I openly admitted in this House on several occasions. The contract was never awarded to Mr Rogers. But the work he has done and the work for which he has now made a claim-and the claim was $US197,000-is a matter of discussion between the Government's solicitors and Mr Rogers's solicitors. I point out to the House that all these facts were made known to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at the time. There was nothing secret, nothing sinister, nothing misleading, nothing dishonest, or nothing corrupt about the whole process. As I said, subsequently he did not get the contract. However, he has made a claim on the Government for the work that was undertaken. As I said in the House, I feel that, morally, he is entitled to some payment. What payment he is entitled to is yet to be decided. When the honourable member for Menzies asked me a question in this House-and the honourable member now claims that I have misled the House-I answered: I do not know whether the Attorney-General has yet made the decision as to whether the compensation is payable or whether the compensation has been paid. That happens to be a fact. I do not tell lies. I do not mislead this House. The honourable member for Menzies alluded in his question on 9 December to advice I had received from my Department of the need to pay compensation. Submissions to my Department from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) express a legal opinion that the Commonwealth might be found liable to pay some compensation. There is no assurance about it. The matter is still being discussed between the Government's solicitors and Rogers's solicitors. I cannot find anything terribly sinister or dishonest about that. If Rogers cannot substantiate his claim, of course he will not be paid. I can tell the House, because it is very important, and very germane to the subject under discussion; that if Rogers is paid money-and my own belief is that he should be, but that has nothing to do with it-not one cent will be wasted. My opinion is not, as the honourable member for Menzies claims, the fulcrum upon which this decision will be made. The Attorney-General will not decide, because I said in the House that I think Rogers is morally entitled to be paid, that he has to be paid. That is a load of rubbish and the honourable member for Menzies knows it. He is a QC and a former Attorney-General, and I would have thought that, as an eminent jurist, he would know more about the law than that. Can honourable members imagine the Attorney-General making a decision about the payment of some bill to someone because I as a Minister expressed an opinion in the House that I thought that that person was morally entitled to be paid? What a load of rubbish! Mr Rogers will not be paid unless he can substantiate his claim. I do not think that I should resile from the fact that, on the committee's recommendation, I gave him permission to do some preliminary work. The important point is this: no matter what Mr Rogers is paid, whether it is $US197,000-which is his claim-whether it is nothing, or whether it is somewhere between nothing and $US197,000, I assure the House again that not one cent of that money will be wasted. In the event the contract was eventually given to AAV after the second committee decided that AAV should be awarded the contract. I will come back to the second committee later. That venture of AAV is a photostat, a copy, an absolute facsimile of the Rogers theatrical concept; it is a total pinch. It involves the same theme, the same theatre-the same everything. All the work that Rogers did for which he is now claiming money; that is, conducting negotiations with the Aboriginal community and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, is work that has been used by the latter mob, because it is doing the same thing. The work that Rogers did with the architect in redesigning the pavilion to include the theatrical concept, to readjust the queueing systems, to build the north parapet of the pavilion, is all work that is now being used by the person who was awarded the contract. Not one cent will be wasted if Mr Rogers is paid. The whole argument advanced by honourable members opposite falls down. There is no great scandal involving this bumbling Minister, to use the expression of honourable members opposite. I have bumbled all right. Honourable members opposite bumbled along for 30 of the past 38 years in government and could do nothing about tourism, and I have bumbled so much that tourism is now our biggest industry. How do honourable members opposite answer that? They are full of criticisms. The shadow Minister for tourism is the seventh shadow Minister; there have been six ahead of him, but not one of them has made a dent; not one of them has put together a policy. The honourable member for Menzies is now trying to malign me, but he will not do that, because none of his charges can stand up to examination. I have not misled this House. My action has not led to Rogers being paid something that he is not entitled to-if he is ever paid. They are the facts. The honourable member for Menzies sits behind his Leader and censures me about some enormous amount of money that may or may not be paid. If it is ever paid it will be money well spent. The honourable member sits behind his Leader, who sat in this House as a former Treasurer, and allowed the biggest growth industry in Australian history to grow right under his feet-a tax evasion industry that cost this country $20,000m. For the honourable member to stand up behind his Leader and censure me for some alleged misuse of public money is quite humorous. As for the honourable member who will second this censure motion, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) where was he when the meat scandal was going on; where was he when the Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Pty Ltd scandals were going on that cost this country untold millions of dollars? The honourable member for Menzies has the hide to try to censure me for an act which is quite honourable and which is quite open to examination. Eventually the papers will be released to the honourable member under the freedom of information legislation or they will be tabled in this House when the negotiations with Mr Rogers's solicitors have been completed. Does the honourable member for Menzies really expect us to table them now when this matter is the subject of legal discussion between two groups of solicitors? Just how silly do honourable members opposite think we are? We are honourable; this is an honourable government. This is the only government that I can recall since Federation which started with a certain number of Ministers and four years later still had the same number. How many Ministers did the Fraser Government lose in four years? I think it was 23. Honourable members opposite have the hide to ask about ministerial propriety and the propriety of this Government. They are jealous of the fact that they have never been able to tag anything of a dishonest or corrupt nature on this Government. I absolutely reject the spurious claims that have been made. The honourable member for Menzies has maligned some outstanding Australians who gave their time freely to provide me with advice, advice that the Opposition is quite happy to accept when it comes to AAV. There is a very sinister implication about AAV. Quite a number of people have had a high profile in this matter. Mr McAuley of the committee is one of those people; Mr Browning, the man who was awarded the theatrical contract, is another. I negotiated with Mr Browning for six or seven months about a theatrical concept that he tried to sell me and eventually I found out that I was dealing with a $2 Northern Territory company. Is it any wonder that I was not prepared to talk to him again? Schildberger and Singleton were the only members of the Press who ran this issue. It is quite interesting to note that Mr Schildberger is a director of an AAV company that happens to produce a business video on his behalf. Ms Singleton, who ran this matter quite unashamedly on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 7.30 Report every night for about a month, when nobody was taking any notice of it, is also part of the old Channel 9 mafia in Melbourne, to which McAuley, Browning and Schildberger were partners. As far as the second committee is concerned, when I reported to the Cabinet that there was some doubt about the validity of awarding a contract to Rogers-and I have freely admitted that there was an indiscretion committed by a member of my committee which led us to believe that a contract should not be signed with Rogers, and it was not signed-I appointed the second committee. I was asked a question today about why I returned that decision. The decision I got was two-all. There were four people on that committee. It was pointed out to Mr Hillier before he started that he was to chair the committee, and that he was not to have a vote. The members were Kathleen Norris of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, Geraldine Paton, the publisher of the Australian, Mr McAuley, who was on my original committee, from Film Australia, and Michael Edgley. The decision that they gave me was two each. What would honourable members opposite expect me to do? Spin a coin or send it back to allow Peter Faiman, the fifth person, to put in his report? Do honourable members opposite know what his report said? He voted for AAV because he thought that an Australian company should get the contract, but he also suggested that there was $1m difference in the price, and he suggested-and it is noted in the papers-that we should put the $1m towards AAV to help it come up to somewhere near the excellence of Mr Rogers's theatre. My only hope is that AAV is able to do the job. I must say the contract I have had with AAV since leads me to think that it will do a good job. But AVV has very big boots to fill to come up to the original choice of my committee, which was Mr Bob Rogers. I reject the charges. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.30) —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) should resign or be sacked. There is no room in the business of government for a man who is prepared consistently to mislead the House about the circumstances of the negotiations of a contract. As if that were not bad enough, today we have had completely revealed the process of the abuse of the tender that the Minister has been entering into. What I want to do this afternoon is point out to the House that irrespective of the defence the Minister has just given, he has admitted his own guilt. He has said that consistently, regularly, in his presence, in his office, negotiations have been conducted towards the letting of a tender for the theatre in the World Expo 88 Australian pavilion. Mr John Brown —On a point of order: before the Leader of the National Party runs away with something, I attended one meeting of that committee, and that happened to be on 7 December. The meetings were conducted in my office in my absence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr SINCLAIR —All honourable members know that on 7 December 1986 the verbal nod, to use the Minister's expression, was given to Mr Rogers. As a result, this whole appalling circumstance of a payment that we were told was in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money arose. This censure motion is based on that. We know that although the Minister attended only one meeting he attended the critical meeting. We know also that he saw fit to intervene in a tender process quite contrary to the normal and proper practice laid down for the normal letting of tenders by the Commonwealth. I want to say a little about that in a moment. Honourable members will remember it is only a week or so ago-on 25 November-a censure motion was moved in this House on the man who is now Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) and who was Minister for Transport in the last Hawke Ministry. The basis for that Minister's defence was that he took advice. When he let the tender to the man he told us was the proper contractor to conduct the coastal surveillance watch around Australia, he had received advice from his Department. It was on the basis of that advice that the tender was let. I put it to all honourable members that the admission by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in the last half an hour shows that he was not receiving advice but he, through this verbal nod that he talks about, put the Commonwealth taxpayer into the position of accepting responsibility for a contract he says persistently has never been let. What makes it worse is that the Minister has also admitted that the tender related to a design that ultimately was let to a company, he has told us this afternoon, that pinched the design from Rogers. If the company pinched the design from Rogers, why does Rogers not sue AAV Australia Pty Ltd? Why is it that Commonwealth taxpayers have been called upon to assume the responsibility of this quarter of a million dollars that the Minister let the Commonwealth into? Apparently the Minister accepted his responsibilities, but he told us this afternoon he intervened in the tender process. I shall return in a moment to the defence by the Minister for Resources as to why he was not culpable in the circumstances of the letting of the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has said this afternoon that the design of this theatre is exactly the same as that which Rogers put forward. If the design is the same, why is Rogers not suing AAV, if it were not for the fact that this Minister has intervened in the process and through his direct involvement with Rogers ensured that the Commonwealth is responsible and not AAV? The circumstances of this debate really revolve around the fact that the Hawke Ministry has no understanding of propriety. Not one of these men and women who pretend to be Ministers accept any responsibility for anything they do. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) had the effrontery to talk about propriety-Mr Paddington Bear himself. He, who, through his involvement in that much vaunted long lunch, saw Mr Combe as the Australian Consul in Vancouver. Honourable members well know what happened when he was appointed to Vancouver. The Americans said they were not prepared to have that man accept the normal area of responsibility across into the United States of America. The Australian Government even had to reduce the bounds of his responsibilities because the ministerial propriety of the Leader of the House was such that he had to pay off his mate. The same thing is happening today. This Government has an array of Ministers who should never be Ministers. Honourable members know that the Prime Minister is too soft, too weak, too inept, too hopeless and too incompetent ever to take action against Ministers who do not undertake their ministerial responsibilities. Honourable members know about the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his tax return and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the fiddling with his tax. Honourable members are aware of the problems with the Minister for Resources and the Amann contract. Have they ever heard anything more disgraceful? The report of the Review of Tender Procedures for Coastwatch Contract by Mr Menzies tells us how the department for which the Minister for Resources had been responsible had abused the normal tender process. We heard that the Minister was not responsible: he just did not know about it. Of course, he did not inquire. Long ago the Leader of the House laid down a doctrine that said that anyone who has an act undertaken on his behalf is responsible for the actions of his department. That is totally ignored. It is not so long ago that the Leader of the House said: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people and Australia. Nothing is more important, said the Leader of the House, than the relationship between the Government and the people of Australia. There can be not one skerrick of trust between the Australian people and this Government because of the way this Government has conducted itself and continues to conduct itself. Of course, it is quite true that neither the Minister for Resources nor the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories deserves to be a Minister of the Crown. Honourable members know the Prime Minister is too inept, too incompetent and too lacking in understanding of the basic propriety and requirements of Ministers to do anything about it. Honourable members know that the Government has the numbers to win the vote that will be taken in a little while. The Minister will be able to go off and say `I am whole again'. He is not going to be whole again because he has misled this House, he has abused the tender process. In the circumstances of his admission half an hour ago he has acknowledged that if his story were correct Mr Rogers would have sued AAV and not called on the Australian taxpayer to bear the responsibility. When members on this side of the House heard the findings of the Menzies report we understood that it was said that the information provided, including information provided to the Minister a few days earlier, was insufficient to alert the Minister to any of these matters. The report stated: Information put before Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Submission seeking funds authorisation and the submission seeking authority under regulation 48 (c) of the Finance Regulations . . . did not reveal either the facts set out in (4) or the unreliability of the financial investigation described in (6). It was on that basis that the tender process was entered into within the Department. The Department of Transport did not properly embark on that tender process and the Department of Transport did not reveal to the Minister the circumstances wherein Amann Aviation was not capable of fulfilling the contract. Therefore the Minister for Resources said `I am not guilty'. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories by his own admission was involved in the tender process, he cannot say it was through lack of advice from his own Department. If the Minister says that regularly, through the course of 12 months, a committee advised him of the circumstances and that Mr Rogers was by far the best of the advisers at Expo in Vancouver, and that he was a world expert, this Minister cannot draw on the excuse that it was someone else's fault. He knows it is his fault. If he is to blame than he has to accept the consequences of his failure to exercise proper ministerial responsibility. What this debate is about, even though we might lose the vote in a moment, is the fact that the Government no longer has any reason to have the confidence of the Australian people. If Ministers are not prepared to exercise their duties in the way that they should, they have no right to come in here and they certainly have not right to mislead the House by saying, `Oh, there's no contract; no I did not enter into it, but, yes, the Attorney-General says, as he did, that there may be a legal liability'. The reality is that there is a legal liability, and this Minister ensured that there would be, and the legal liability is by the Australian taxpayer, and the Australian taxpayer has a responsibility because this man failed in his ministerial responsibility in a way that deserves the condemnation of this House and the Australian people. It is not good enough for this Government to have selective propriety. I was quite interested to look up the precedents of how this should apply, and the man who, just a little while ago, said that he was not prepared to accept smart-arse comments about his Government sent a letter to the President of the Senate on 15 July 1975. I am sure the Prime Minister is not interested in the fate of his Minister because he is not here. I find it quite appalling that, in what is a most serious and significant event in the House, there are only three Labor members. Mr Cadman —He is not supported by his own mates. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister is not supported by his own mates. He is certainly not supported in the way that he and his colleagues support their cronies outside, and the whole point is this. To what degree and to what extent Labor Ministers are extending cronyism beyond the normal bounds of propriety? This is yet another example of people going out there and saying, `I will help you if you will help me'. Is that really what this contract is about? Is that why the Australian taxpayer is going to be called on to meet the bill for another quarter of a million dollars? Let me go back to Mr Whitlam's letter of that date to the President of the Senate. He said: The principle of ministerial responsibility is, and must remain, the keystone of our parliamentary system. He continued: In taking this course- I will not go into what the course was in that event- the fundamental character of Ministerial responsibility is challenged. It is the Government-not the Public Service-that will answer in the Parliament any request, any challenge put to it. If the Minister at the table is not prepared to accept the challenge, it must be accepted by the Prime Minister, who is not in the House, who is not prepared to support his Minister, who has run for cover and who has left here three Ministers, none of whom is highly regarded by the present leadership of the Australian Labor Party. There is the man who is sitting at the table, the Minister for everything else, and the man who was dropped from the ministry of Aboriginal Affairs because he was an absolute failure in it. There is also the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) who has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not know what is going on in his Department and he was in sight of getting a censure motion himself over his appalling behaviour in the Amann affair. That is the basis of support for the Minister at the table. The point is that ministerial responsibility means that, where the taxpayers are given a responsibility by a Minister improperly involving himself in the tender process, he should resign or be sacked. Beyond that, where the Minister has consistently misled this Parliament about the nature of his involvement and, over a successive series of answers to questions, has told us, `There's no contract', `There is a contract', `There may be a contract but, yes, there is a legal liability', he should be sacked because he has been misleading the House. He should be sacked because it is not just he who is to blame, but the whole of the Government which suffers because of it. The core of this motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) is that this Minister should no longer enjoy the confidence of the Australian electorate because, when a Minister is prepared to abuse his responsibility and fail to exercise proper ministerial standards, to mislead `the House and the Australian public over the circumstances associated with the contract for the theatre in the Australian pavilion at Expo 88' because of the nature of his involvement with Mr Bob Rogers and his company, when he improperly interfered with the process of the consideration of tenders, he deserves to be sacked. As far as this House is concerned, we believe that he should most certainly be censured. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs)(3.44) —It is fascinating to sit in this House and hear the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) talking about a `hold Minister', referring to my colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown). Has there ever been such an allegation levelled by the one political figure in the House who walks around looking like a political sieve? He is a man who has had to use the numbers of the National Party of Australia to survive in a coalition after he had a commission finding which said that he ought to be sacked. Mr Sinclair —How is the Richmond City Council, Clyde? Have you spent all that money yet? Mr HOLDING —If the right honourable gentleman wishes to talk about the commission on the Richmond City Council, let me point out that I was examined very fully and the financial findings in respect of me made me a lot cleaner than him. There was no question of signing cheques on my behalf or anybody's behalf. I invite the right honourable gentleman, before he makes those sorts of comments, to realise that he went through an inquiry and finished up having to face criminal charges. I went through an inquiry and there was never such a suggestion. If the right honourable gentleman wants to get into that sort of game, I am happy to accommodate him. That is the seconder of the motion. What is the heart of the allegation moved by the perilous QC, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), a man who knows the law and the procedures of this Parliament, and a man who knows that, if one wants to raise a censure motion, it is about as serious an allegation as one can make. There was a time when parliaments were regarded as having the same sorts of concepts as courts. If one wants to move a censure motion and make an allegation, one should present the evidence on the basis of facts and truth and with the same kind of integrity with which any person who ascribes to hold the position of QC would use if he were facing a judicial tribunal. Mr N.A. Brown —It is all facts, and you know it. Mr HOLDING —Let us look at the facts. Is it a fact that the honourable member would be listened to for two minutes in a court if he wanted to say that he rested his case on the basis that somebody that he would not name gave him hearsay evidence and that unnamed person happened to be from the Minister's office at a particular time? That is a hearsay allegation that the honourable member would not be prepared to put in a court. What is the second allegation, from the learned Queen's Counsel? The second allegation depends on a telephone conversation which has never been recorded or presented in any transcript-it was on the basis of a muck rag running around this Parliament, on which nobody with any decency or integrity who had any belief in the parliamentary system would want to rely for two minutes. Here is this great QC, leading this star, the Leader of the National party, saying that this is terribly serious. I rest my case first of all on the basis of a hearsay allegation and secondly on the basis of a tapped telephone conversation which is properly subject to the muckraking allegations which fly round the political corridors but which should never be brought into this Parliament as the basis of a censure motion. I assure the right honourable gentleman that, from time to time, we have heard some scurrilous allegations about him, and we are not prepared to bring them into the House because they are without fact or foundation. Anything will do if the Opposition wants to attack a Minister in this Government. The real problem for this hopeless Opposition is that there has never been a government with Ministers who have stayed in office and whose integrity has never been challenged in the history of Australia. Mr Sinclair —Mr Justice Hope does not matter. Tell us a bit about his findings. Mr HOLDING —The right honourable member was a member of a government where the Prime Minister, on the basis of integrity and honour, had to change his Ministers as often as the right honourable gentleman has to change his shirt. He knows that and I know it. Let us get down to the facts of the allegation concerning the Minister. I was one of the Ministers who actually met Mr Rogers. He came to Melbourne because he had successfully won international acclaim in respect of the theatrical exhibitions that he put on at a World Expo overseas. A number of members of parliament on both sides of the House saw that exhibition-although I did not-and were tremendously impressed. He came to see me because he wanted to repeat the theme which had been so successful internationally in the case of the Canadian exhibition that centred around the legends of the Indian people. He wanted to adapt the very modern technology, which at that stage did not exist in Australia, to a theme which centred around an Aboriginal person and the Dreamtime. Such was the nature of the production that it was not just a question of putting it on any old stage; it was a question of designing a theatre and using the most modern electronic equipment. The central part of that production involved using lighting, and having figures and music, co-ordinating with the movement of the actor on stage. It is a very advanced theatrical technology. He discussed with me the fact that he would need a large number of Aboriginal male actors of similar height and appearance because the program would be continuous. We discussed that and the possibility of finding those people. He also indicated an interest in seeing whether there would be any funds available from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because of the relevance of this program and of the possibility of creating a greater knowledge in the community about Aboriginal matters. I regretted to inform him that there were no such funds available. In the course of the discussions I asked him what were the costs and he said the figure was around $5m. The case I want to put to the House is that we were not dealing with some ordinary theatrical production. We were dealing with a set of theatrical mechanisms which, at that stage, I think to the knowledge of the Minister and to my knowledge, were completely unknown in Australia. Therefore, if we were going to go down that track, Mr Rogers's presence was not merely relevant in terms of the production itself; it was also relevant in terms of the actual design of the theatre. Mr Sinclair —The whole thing doesn't make sense. Mr HOLDING —The right honourable member does not want it to make sense. Mr Sinclair —Why was it rejected if he was so good? Mr HOLDING —It is very simple. I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a theatre goer from time to time. If he went to see Cats-I think that is the in-thing in Melbourne at the moment-he would find that the Australian production is based on an American production, that it has an Australian cast and that appropriate contractual arrangements had been made with those who own the show to put it on in Melbourne. Mr Sinclair —`Appropriate'-that's the point; proper. Mr HOLDING —Let me finish. In this particular case, as I understand it, the concept to be put forward at Expo-and I was there last week-is the Rogers's concept and the theatre is in terms of Rogers's design. There is one significant change and that is that the technology which Rogers had at that time is now available in Australia. Not only do Australian companies have it but also, as I understand it, the research work that has been done at Monash University has taken the technology one step further. If an Australian company possesses that technology, if the technology has been improved in some areas of Australia, as a matter of preference for an Australian Expo it seems perfectly appropriate that the work ought to be done by an Australian company. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that the initial concept was Rogers's. The whole technology and the way in which the theatre was designed rested very heavily on his experience. We had to use that experience in order to get a proper lead time. Theatres are not built overnight, especially this type of theatre. So is what the Minister said not perfectly appropriate? Could anyone be more honest than the Minister when he said that if we are using his concept and technology for that production-that the design of the theatre rested heavily on his knowledge and background-he is entitled to receive payment? That is the subject of the negotiation. That is the heart of the matter. It is as simple as that. The problem with the Opposition is that it has a former Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is anxious to claw his way back to the front bench. I do not blame him for that. He has put together a set of facts from which to allege conspiracy for looking after mates and to call for the censure of the Minister. He has only to get up to look twice as good as most of the people on the Opposition front bench. If he can make it up with the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Tuckey —You are a hopeless Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I have warned the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —I did not hear you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have called the honourable member to order on two or three occasions for interjecting. Mr HOLDING —I deny what the honourable member for O'Connor said. After all, everybody knows that he is totally irresponsible for the things he says in this Parliament. I do not have any problem about saying that although I think the honourable member who moved this motion made a mess of it. Even if he was not trying he would be twice as good as the honourable member for O'Connor, and everybody knows it. The honourable member for O'Connor is on the front bench for one reason and one reason only. It is because when the Opposition wants some muck thrown and Johnnie Howard does not have the guts to do it and Sinkers is too ashamed to do it, the honourable member for O'Connor can do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Seeing that I had warned the honourable member for O'Connor, the Minister might-- Mr Tuckey —Yes, that's the point. You got your courage up all of a sudden, didn't you, you little twerp. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Sit down. Mr HOLDING —I am not frightened today because you do not have your loaded lead hose and you do not have a couple of mugs to hold me if you want to have a go. You would never take a man on in your life. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister and the honourable member for O'Connor will come to order. We will get this debate back on to the rails. Mr HOLDING —What we have before this House is a censure motion which rests on what? It rests on a so-called taped telephone message taken from a car. The tape has never been produced. It is the basis of scuttlebutt around this Parliament. That is one aspect. The other aspect is that it rests upon a hearsay allegation about somebody being in a member's room. Does the Opposition call that evidence? Of course not. We have explained the situation in respect of Mr Rogers. If this Minister is guilty of anything it is his dedication to the development of Australian tourism, his commitment to seeing that this Expo works in a way which will be a credit to the people of Australia-not just to this Government. He has shown a dedication and commitment which is outstanding and far beyond what is called upon from a Minister. If in fact he had not been quite closely concerned about the tender processes and there had been a mess, these fellows opposite would have been getting up and saying, `Why didn't you ask questions? Why didn't you get it in?'. This is a sleazy censure motion from a desperate and hopeless Opposition. We can only say, `Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, for God's sake do a bit of work and come back to the Parliament refreshed because we are sick of dealing with this type of political scuttlebutt'. I move: That the question be now put. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has already admitted that he had an adviser-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will sit down or he might go home early. Question put: The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.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. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Hayden, W. G. Shack, P. D.Klugman, R. E. Woods, R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. That the motion (Mr N.A. Brown's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, BBeale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. M. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. 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. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.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. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Snowdon, W. E.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Hawke, R. J. L. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Report relating to the proposed works in the Parliamentary Zone-High capacity fire hydrants. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, and for the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the year 1986-87. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, and for the information of honourable members, I present a schedule showing the Presiding Officers' response to the report of the Joint Committee on Publications entitled Review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series-1986 With the concurrence of honourable members the response will be incorporated in Hansard. The response read as follows- RESPONSE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS TO REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS Review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Paper Series-1986 Although this response addresses all recommendations of the Committee's report it is recognised that the Committee, the Presiding Officers and the Government are each involved in the consideration and implementation or otherwise of sections of the Committee's findings. Thus the Presiding Officers see: the Committee as responsible for action in respect of recommendations 1 to 5 and 10, the Presiding Officers as responsible for initiating action in respect of recommendations 14 to 19 and 22 to 32, and the Government as primarily responsible for evaluating and responding to recommendations 6 to 9, 11 and 12, 20, and 21. Recommendation 13 is seen as involving all 3 elements-the Committee, the Presiding Officers and the Government-and in order to advance this matter the Presiding Officers will initiate discussions with appropriate Government agencies at officer level. [For ease of reference, the recommendations of the Committee have been numbered.] Recommendation of Committee Response of Presiding Officers Content of the Parliamentary Papers Series (Chapter 2, recommendations 1 to 5) 1. That the documents comprising the Australian Treaty Series should not be recommended for printing. 2. That reports of delegates to conferences and international visits should not be recommended for printing. 3. That all parliamentary committee reports other than final reports on an inquiry or final reports on aspects of the inquiry, should not be recommended for printing. 4. That ad hoc committees of inquiry reports should continue to be included in the Parliamentary Papers Series except when the historical or political interest is limited to the short term. 5. That the Committee's publishing guidelines be revised to read: (i) that all reports, returns and statements of departments, authorities, Parliamentary and ad hoc inquiries and royal commissions which are presented to Parliament be recommended for printing; (ii) the previous resolution is not intended to include interim annual reports of departments and authorities nor reports of unfinished Parliamentary inquiries and reports of ad hoc inquiries with short term interest; (iii) papers which are regularly presented and subsequently printed as Parliamentary Papers should continue to be recommended for printing on those occasions when they constitute a `nil' return; and (iv) wherever possible, the reports of the Auditor-General which are presented in conjunction with annual reports and financial statements of statutory bodies be included in the one printed document with those reports and statements. Recommendations 1 to 5 The content of the Series is determined by decisions of the two Houses based, in large measure, on recommendations of the Publications Committee. As the Committee's publishing guidelines are a matter for the Committee to determine, recommendations 1 to 5 do not call for a response from the Presiding Officers. The Presiding Officers would, however, make a comment in respect of recommendation 3. Some authors have, in the past, titled reports which have a continuing significance as a `progress' or `interim' report. An example of this would be the 203rd report of the Public Accounts Committee presented on 9 December 1982. It was titled `Medical fraud and overservicing-Progress report'. It would be unfortunate if reports such as these were, because of the title accorded them, not adequately considered by the Publications committee. Production of Pamphlet copies of the Parliamentary Papers Series (Chapter 3, recommendations 6 to 13) General response to recommendations 6 to 13 The Committee's report properly draws attention to the difficulty experienced by AGPS in administering the production standards for documents that are to be presented to Parliament and the need for the standards to be adhered to more closely if waste is to be avoided and costs controlled. The past record of disregard for the production standards by some departments and authorities supports the Committee's conclusions that the standards need to be supported by appropriate legislative provision, i.e. by incorporation in the guidelines made pursuant to section 25 (7) of the Public Service Act or by the passage of an Annual Reports Act. Mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that these provisions are oversighted by a relevant Government authority. The Presiding Officers note that the Government has recently presented to the Parliament its ``Guidelines for the preparation of Departmental annual reports''. In particular the Presiding Officers welcome the statement that AGPS guidelines on standards of production must be observed. This is a timely strengthening of this aspect of the guidelines from those announced in 1982. The Presiding Officers are confident that Parliamentary Committees, in particular the Joint Committee on Publications, will continue to monitor and to comment on the way in which departments adhere to the guidelines concerning production standards. 6. That the standards relating to the production of the cover of Class I reports be upgraded so that two colour designs may be included and that Class II be dropped from the production standards. Response to specific recommendations in this chapter: Recommendation 6 The Presiding Officers support the recommendation that the production standards governing the covers of Class I reports be changed to allow two colour designs. The recommendation that the Class II category of documents be omitted from the production standards for documents presented to Parliament is not opposed. The Government, however, may wish to consider whether this change may unduly restrict the format of the reports of departments and non-commercial agencies. 7. That the current Class III standards be applied only to reports of those government agencies competing in the commercial sector. 8. That the guidelines which are to be presented to Parliament pursuant to section 25 (7) of the Public Service Act 1922 include these references [e.g. to program budgeting and access to freedom of information material] and that the guidelines relating to reporting standards of statutory authorities also incorporate them. Recommendations 7 and 8 Supported. 9. That a system of two edition annual reports be available to those organisations wishing to publish an annual promotional document. Recommendation 9 Not opposed. The Presiding Officers recognise that expensive promotional reports which are tabled as annual reports significantly increase the cost to the Parliament of the Parliamentary Papers Series. In instances where an organisation opts to publish a promotional review of activities in addition to its annual report to Parliament, the Presiding Officers see it as essential in order to avoid confusion, that the promotional document be given a title other than `Annual Report'. While promotional annual reviews could be presented to Parliament, departments and authorities should be placed under no pressure to do so. Care would need to be exercised in any development of a system of publishing two documents-a simply produced annual report and a promotional annual review-that the costs of writing, preparing and printing two publications did not outweigh the advantages and savings seen in such a system. 10. That the edition which includes the financial statements and Auditor-General's report, and meets the other guidelines under the Public Service Act 1922 or those for statutory authorities, only be included in the Parliamentary Papers Series. Recommendations 10 to 13 Supported. 11. That the Government consider the introduction of an Annual Reports Act as a means of ensuring that federally funded bodies report on their responsibilities to the Parliament and do so within the appropriate production standards. 12. That `camera-ready' production of reports which fall readily within the Parliamentary Papers publishing guidelines should be produced in accordance with the AGPS requirements. 13. That alternative technology [e.g. microfiche, computer readable material on disk and audio or video cassette recordings] may be used in the production of material that is not required to be read with the body of a report provided the Joint Committee is consulted prior to production. Distribution of Pamphlet copies of the Parliamentary Papers Series (Chapter 3, recommendations 14 to 19) 14. That secondary schools no longer be eligible for the distribution of pamphlet copies of Parliamentary Papers. 15. That the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and newspapers be excluded from the free distribution guidelines. 16. That overseas addressees that are the main national or parliamentary library of a country be admitted on request to the free distribution list, if an exchange arrangement exists with the National Library of Australia. 17. That the stock of pamphlet Parliamentary Papers made available to AGPS be reduced from 100 to 25 or sufficient to meet subscribers' standing orders. 18. That free distribution to Federal Political Parties should be on the basis that the party has been registered by the Australian Electoral Commission. Recommendations 14 to 19 Accepted. The Presiding Officers are aware that the Committee has expressed concern about the increasing cost to the Parliament of the Parliamentary Papers Series. We share this concern and believe that implementation of these recommendations will assist to contain and in some instances reduce costs associated with the Series. The Presiding Officers will arrange for these recommendations to be implemented with the publication of Parliamentary Paper No. 1 of 1988. The Presiding Officers note the Committee's consideration in its 1986 report of the use of blue covers for pamphlet copies and its subsequent request that the Presiding Officers determine a suitable workable cost-efficient alternative. This matter is being reviewed and any necessary changes will be implemented at the commencement of the Parliamentary Papers Series in 1988. 19. That the distribution guidelines be as follows: That libraries of State, State parliaments, municipalities, tertiary education institutions, and Commonwealth departments (or in absence, the Secretary); and foreign embassies, political parties which are registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the main national or parliamentary library of a country which has an exchange arrangement with the National Library of Australia, and appropriate addresses as determined by the Presiding Officers which are consistent with the terms of this recommendation, be entitled to be supplied with one free copy of each of the undermentioned publications, upon request: Parliamentary Papers, Standing Orders of both Houses and the Short Description of Business and Procedures of the House of Representatives. That trade, business, employer, employee, professional commercial and similar organisations including members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and newspapers, be not entitled to receive free distribution of the above. Production of the Bound Volumes of the Series (Chapter 4, recommendations 20 to 22) 20. That AGPS, when supplying the pamphlet copies of Parliamentary Papers, provide a cumulative listing of all Papers issued in that year and a list of outstanding papers from the previous year. Recommendation 20 Supported on the basis that AGPS provide the lists at regular quarterly intervals. 21. That any production of the Parliamentary Papers Series in microfiche should be accompanied by the appropriate amendments to copyright legislation to enable 100% reproduction of a paper in the restricted circumstances described [i.e. when a copy of the original paper is not available from the local AGPS bookshop]. Recommendation 21 This recommendation is supported in principle. No action is required on the recommendation until such time as a decision is made to publish the Series in a microform or other non-hard copy format such as read only memory (ROM) disc. 22. That the number of sets of bound volumes prepared annually be reduced to 27. Recommendation 22 The response to this recommendation is related to the response to recommendations 31 and 32. Distribution of the Bound Volumes of the Series (Chapter 4, recommendations 23 to 32) 23. That the practice of maintaining reserved stocks of bound volumes cease. Recommendations 23 to 30 Accepted. The Presiding Officers will arrange for these recommendations to be implemented as soon as possible. 24. That AGPS dispose of the current reserve stocks by providing missing stock to current recipients and other interested parties. 25. That free distribution to the House departments (the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives) and the Parliamentary Library be maintained. 26. That the National Library of Australia should be maintained as a recipient of two sets of bound volumes as it houses Australia's national collection. 27. That the Australian Archives remain on the free distribution list. 28. That free distribution be maintained to each of the State Parliamentary Libraries and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. 29. That State Libraries be maintained on the free distribution list. 30. That the issue of bound volumes be restricted to those overseas libraries that are the national or parliamentary library of a country which has an exchange arrangement with the National Library of Australia. 31. That the following categories be removed from the free distribution list for bound volumes: Commonwealth Departments Municipal Libraries Universities Colleges of Advanced Education Commonwealth Parliament Offices Overseas Libraries [which are not national or parliamentary libraries that have an exchange arrangement with the National Library of Australia] Recommendations 31 and 32 The Presiding Officers accept the Committee's conclusion that the provision of full case-bound sets of Parliamentary Papers to the categories of recipients listed in recommendation 31 cannot be justified given the very high costs associated with the provision of this item. Whilst not providing case-bound sets of papers to Australian universities and colleges in future, the Presiding Officers consider the value of the Series for students undertaking courses in the major tertiary institutions sufficient to justify the continued supply of two copies of each paper to universities and colleges: the first copy, in pamphlet form, when the Parliamentary Paper is published, and the second copy, again in pamphlet form at a later stage when all papers in a calendar year series have been published, collated in groups with the appropriate contents pages ready for the institution to bind according to its own standards and at its own expense, if it so chooses. In accepting the Committee's recommendation, the Presiding Officers also note that municipal libraries will continue to be eligible to receive pamphlet copies, though not case-bound sets, of Parliamentary Papers. Implementing the Recommendations (Chapter 5, recommendations 33 to 35) 33. That the following recommendations can be implemented on Government approval: camera-ready production [recommendation 12] alternative technology [recommendation 13] cumulative list of papers [recommendation 20]. Recommendations 33 Noted. 34. That the consistency within each year be maintained by implementing the following recommendations at the commencement of a Series: Recommendations 34 to 35 Accepted. publishing guidelines relating to treaties, reports of delegations, Parliamentary inquiries and ad hoc committee reports [recommendations 1 to 5] guidelines for the distribution of pamphlet copies relating to secondary schools, Parliamentary Press Gallery and newspapers, overseas recipients and `for sale' copies [recommendations 14 to 19] production standards and the content of annual reports [recommendations 6 to 13.] 35. That the recommendation reducing the number of bound volumes and the associated changes to the free distribution be implemented in the binding of the 1983 sets of Papers. Further, the Joint Committee recommends that the existing run-ons be offered to those organisations that will cease to receive free sets of bound volumes. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of the House, I present a report on the forward estimates of Budget outlays-1988-89 to 1990-91. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to clause 25 of the schedule to the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1985, I present the annual report of the rural adjustment scheme for 1986-87. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Resources and Energy for 1986-87. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Acting Treasurer) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Treasury for 1986-87. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Acting Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, I present the annual report on the operations of the Act for 1986-87. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, I present the annual report of the Affirmative Action Agency for 1986-87. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Central and Local Trades Committees for 1985-86. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act, 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Arts, Heritage and the Environment for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act, 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 20 the the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act 1987, I present the interim report of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the summary record of the fourth meeting of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council held in Hobart on 15 May 1987. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the proceedings of the World Health Organisation/Australian Inter-regional Ministerial meeting on AIDS, held at Westmead Hospital, Sydney on 21-23 July 1987. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Foreign Affairs for 1986-87. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —Pursuant to sub-section 9B (4) of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Midwater Technological Resources Pty Ltd. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —Pursuant to sub-section 9D (1) of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present a subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing 1987. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —Pursuant to sub-section 44 (3) of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 and section 63M of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commission for the Future for 1986-87. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1985, I present the Auditor-General's report covering the audit of the Australian War Memorial's financial statements for 1986-87. This report forms part of the War Memorial's annual report which I tabled on 7 December 1987. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 66 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian National Railways Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Shipping Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. 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. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. by Mr Beale,Dr Blewett,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Connolly,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We must 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 Milton. To: The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth,Mr Rocher and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experimentation on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Miles. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: 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 tax and social security fraud in the most cost-efficient and effective manner. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. Reject the 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Webster. 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. 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 or 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 and Mr Tuckey. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively 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 and Mr Tuckey. 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 program on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds. 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their business and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. 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 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 petitions 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problems require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to A.C.T. legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We, the undersigned citizens, object to the proposal of Telecom to charge for each three minutes of a local call, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. The telephone is sometimes the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. Also, when making business calls, you are quite often asked to hold the line or are transferred from one Department to another and this all takes time. We sincerely feel that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom will not introduce a time charge on local telephone calls. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: We are concerned that- (a) the proposed changes in legislation to Unemployment Benefit for young people adds to the already ill-conceived and over-bureaucratic welfare system and (b) the abolition of CEP and the inadequacy of other training programs and (c) cuts in funding for education, public housing and other welfare areas means that young peoples needs are being neglected by the Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Government immediately takes steps to: (a) establish an anti-poverty level of income for all young people regardless of whether they are in training, retraining, education, employment or unemployment. The first step in achieving this is the full reinstatement of Unemployment Benefit for sixteen and seventeen year olds with automatic indexation linked to CPI increases. (b) increase educational opportunities for all young people. The first step in achieving this would be to create 120,000 new places in higher and further education. This would make up for the 100,000 people turned away from TAFE courses and 20,000 people from universities and CAEs this year. (c) establish a long term job creation program. The creation of 53,100 jobs for those young people who have been unemployed over 12 months is required immediately. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breech of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term `extraordinary circumstances of the economy' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. 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 proposed nomination of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland to the World Heritage List. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area, including areas of State Forest scheduled for Timber Harvesting on a sustained yield basis, will have a detrimental effect of the Timber and Allied Industries and on the citizens and economy of North Queensland. The listing as a World Heritage of such a vast area will inhibit the future development of North Queensland on a broad economic base. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the listing of Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland as a World Heritage. And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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. The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to legislate for the Australia Card Bill, 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. 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 you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. 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 Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia.'' (Report 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we are strongly opposed to the proposal for metering of local telephone calls by Telecom since- (i) higher phone bills would add more pressure to the family budget, and some would not be able to pay them; (ii) elderly, sick and lonely people, many of whom are pensioners, rely on the telephone as their communications with the outside world. We therefore request the House to give this matter a lot more thought before acting on the proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan. The tobacco industry wants kids. Statistics show that the younger a person gets addicted to tobacco the harder the addiction is to throw off. More people are aware of tobacco hazards, thus the industry is working harder to get more certain lifelong (short!) customers. Tobacco advertising is aimed at your kids by associating the things kids want-poise, friendship, sporting involvement, confidence, music and festivity, sexiness-with smoking. Advertising is a legitimate part of business, but an industry that tries to get people addicted with a deadly drug, for profit purposes, should not be allowed the same right as a business with more benevolent aims. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled The humble petition of these Electors showeth that as: In Australia, tobacco kills about four times as many people as the total killed by drink, drugs, murder, suicide, road accidents, rail accidents, air accidents, poisoning, drowning, fires, snakes, lightning, and every other known cause of accidental death all put together. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will prove your worth with effectual action against the promotion of tobacco. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The un-Australian ID card is finished and has been a waste of taxpayers' money because the Hawke Labor Government made a mess of the legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop immediately any further action on the ID card and withdraw the legislation as it will never be able to be used, and not waste any more taxpayers' money. 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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: 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania showeth: That the Government ensure that the `Armed Forces Food Science Establishment' in Scottsdale, Tasmania be maintained due to its strategic significance in providing specialist food products and food science research to the Australian Defence Forces. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The grave threat to academic freedom posed by the Government's policy proposals for higher education. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— 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. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.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. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Snowdon, W. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Harvey, E. R. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. 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.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Hayden, W. G. Shack, P. D.Klugman, R. E. Woods, R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, subclause 2 (2), line 9, leave out ``and paragraph 9 (a)''. No. 2-Page 1, subclause 2 (2), lines 9 to 11, leave out ``, and the first regulations made under paragraph 67 (1) (ac) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act,''. No. 3-Page 3, paragraph 9 (a), lines 33 to 42, leave out the paragraph. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(4.31) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Unless the Committee objects, we shall deal with the amendments together. The effect of the amendments made in the Senate is to remove provisions which would have enabled regulations to be made to provide for a legal entitlement for the reconsideration of certain decisions and a mechanism for the collection of fees for such a service. As honourable members are aware, since 1982, when the Immigration Review Panels were established, persons have been able to appeal decisions made by departmental officers on immigration cases. This has been an administratively based appeal mechanism which since the Budget was brought down I have extended to include the enhanced appeal rights and the imposition of a fee. The Opposition has made it clear both in the Senate and in this place that it is not opposed in principle to the extended appeal rights or the imposition of the fee. Rather, it wishes to see the detail spelt out in legislation rather than in regulation. I will take the Opposition's views into account in my review of the amended clauses. As the Bill contains other important Budget related provisions which will enable enhanced services to be provided by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Government has decided to accept the amendment made by the Senate. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.33) —The Opposition concurs with the Minister's remarks and his description of our position. We look forward to the return of legislation after Christmas. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr JULL(Fadden) —I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the seventy-seventh Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Conference, held in Managua, Nicaragua, from 27 April to 2 May 1987 and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr JULL —I present this report on behalf of the deputy leader of the delegation. It was a most interesting conference. It was attended by some 430 members of parliament from 90 national groups. As a result of the efforts of the previous Australian delegation the following agenda item was one of the two main topics that were listed for discussion at that conference. The Australian contribution to be debated was put as the contribution of parliaments to achieve a fair international trade in all aspects, including trade and agricultural products, the elimination of trade, tariff and other barriers and a better understanding of the socio-economic impact of protectionism, particularly on developing countries. I must say that our draft for that debate was one of 18 drafts that were submitted by a number of countries around the world. The consolidated motion from those 18 countries was in fact taken as the Australian draft. I think a great deal of praise should be given to the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) for his contribution in getting that draft to the table. The debate on that item lasted more than one day and it was my pleasure to be with the honourable member for Sturt during some of that period in making sure that Australia's real concern about what was happening in terms of international trade really got to that conference. I think that all the Australian delegates can take some pride in what we achieved in getting that motion up. There has been a great deal of debate about the relative values of Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences over the years in this place. May I say that as one who has now attended two IPU conferences, I think there is a great deal of benefit for Australia in ensuring that it always has a delegation at the IPU. Apart from the physical debate that goes on on the floor, they are one of the opportunities for members of parliament from most countries to get together on an eyeball to eyeball basis. Perhaps some of the greatest work that is done at IPU conferences happens in the back rooms and the corridors. Australian Delegation to IPU Conference Australian Delegation to IPU Conference I think that due tribute should be paid today to the members of that delegation. Personally, I would like to pay tribute to the leader of the delegation, Senator Colston, and to the deputy leader, the honourable member for Sturt. We were also accompanied by Senator Alston and Senator Black, Mr Lewis Kent and Senator Vallentine. That, I think, was a most interesting cross-section of the membership of this Parliament. But as often happens in these delegations, so much of the work and so much of the background material, of course, falls back on to our staff. I think it is only fair that we pay particular tribute to Mr P. N. Murdoch who was the secretary to the delegation. Mr Murdoch was a Clerk-Assistant in the Department of the Senate. We also pay tribute to Mr Geoff Crawford, adviser to the delegation from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Personally, I am terribly sorry that we will no longer have the tremendous advice and support that we have received over the years from Mr Geoff Crawford as I understand that he has been appointed to another position at Vatican City. I think we should also give due appreciation to the quality of staff from Australian embassies. The two IPU delegations that I have been a member of have been the one to Mexico City and, the latest one, to Managua. It has been the duty of the Australian Embassy in Mexico City to provide the support staff. I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the other members of the delegation when I take the opportunity to record the delegation's very special thanks to the staff assigned from Mexico City. In regard to the Managua conference, I would like to pay tribute to the very good work of Mr Glen Waller and indeed of Ms Beverley Morresby. Ms Morresby has been with me on both of those delegations and her advice has been excellent. I am delighted to see that she is now employed at the Australian Embassy in Washington. It was a most interesting delegation; it was a most interesting conference. I think it would only be true to say that many of us on this delegation did have some concerns that this conference would be held in Managua, Nicaragua. Many of us wondered just how a country in the state in which Nicaragua is presently existing could stage a conference for more than 400 parliamentarians, plus support staff, from around the world. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that we were all pleasantly surprised, and would like to express our appreciation to the authorities in Nicaragua for staging a very good conference. In some respects it seemed a little strange that in the middle of the devastation in Nicaragua we enjoyed the most magnificent conference facilities that had been built specially for the IPU. Amidst the devastation of previous earthquakes and the war that is the legacy of Nicaragua at the moment was this magnificent facility that provided full air-conditioned comfort and full translation facilities from the usual IPU bank of interpreters. Despite all the difficulties and problems with the infrastructure of Nicaragua, this conference went ahead. One of the things that came through to us was the friendship and support that we were given by the people of Nicaragua. It was certainly a very great honour for me to be a member of that delegation, even though it proved to be quite a difficult one in terms of the work that the delegation had to do. I was delighted to see the tremendous support that all members of this delegation gave to each other in the difficult circumstances. It was very true, as usually happens with these IPU groups, that we certainly went as an Australian delegation. I believe that the work that was done in Nicaragua was constructive. I sincerely hope that those who will be fortunate enough to travel as members of IPU delegations in the future will work as hard as the members of this delegation did to make sure that the Australian view is put forward and, indeed, that Australia has a real contribution to make to the IPU and to the promotion of better relationships and a better understanding between the nations of the world. Mr KENT(Hotham) —by leave-I join the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) in his remarks, especially in pointing out the difficulties under which Nicaragua managed to stage the seventy-seventh conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and give us hospitality. The conference was very well managed. I also join the honourable member for Fadden in paying tribute to the staff of the Australian Embassy in Mexico, especially Mr Glen Waller and Beverley Morresby, who gave us every possible assistance, stayed with us throughout the conference and gave their valued advice. This was my second visit to Nicaragua. I led a parliamentary delegation there in 1984. It was interesting to compare the situation in Nicaragua today to the situation that prevailed three or four years ago. Before I say a few words on that topic, I return to the subject of the conference, which was opened by Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the President of Nicaragua, who expressed his people's desire for peace. Indeed, delegate after delegate-hundreds of them-as they spoke, talked of peace. Twenty years ago that was a dirty word in international conferences. Anyone who mentioned peace too often was called at least a fellow traveller, if not a communist. Today the world has changed. The pressure on members of parliament from their constituencies makes sure that they express the people's desire for peace. It was very interesting to see that that was the main topic, besides the topics that the honourable member for Fadden mentioned. I also point out that the delegation was made up of members of the Opposition, Australian Democrats and the Government. We had no problem in being unanimous in the views that we expressed at the conference concerning trade, the situation in the Middle East, as well as the situation in Central America. I was surprised at how well organised the conference was, especially in view of the circumstances under which Nicaraguans live today, because of the activities of the contras, which have claimed 40,000 lives and which have created 200,000 internal refugees. The contras come into Nicaragua overnight and attack villages. I had the opportunity to talk to some of the villagers who had been taken prisoner or who had managed to escape from contra activities or capture. They described the horrors that they experienced and the ravages that occurred in the countryside. It is quite a tribute to Nicaragua to stage a conference under those circumstances and to receive hundreds of delegates. It is a small emerging country which fought for its independence for a long time. During my first visit to Nicaragua it was pointed out to me by various personnel of the United States Embassy how the area was under turmoil because of Soviet and Cuban intervention. They forgot to mention that there was American intervention in Nicaragua last century. An American adventurer, William Walker, grabbed the presidency more than a hundred years ago. There was repeated American intervention in the area before any communist regime existed anywhere in the world. Time and again the United States (US) invoked the Monroe Doctrine which gave it the God-given right to intervene thousands of kilometres away from its border. Even today, the US Ambassador says that Nicaragua represents a threat to the United States. A small country, two-thirds the size of Victoria with three million inhabitants, represents a threat to one of the biggest and mightiest countries in the world! I hope that the new initiatives of President Arias will be approved. I also hope that Nicaraguans who fought for so long against dictatorship in their country will finally be able in peace to consume the fruits of their victory against the Somozan dictatorship and US intervention. I do not think that Soviet and Cuban arms in the area is the question; the question is American arms and American intervention in all of Central America. There will be no stability and no peace unless that intervention stops. I hope that recent peace moves by President Arias of Costa Rica will be successful and that Nicaraguans will continue to live in peace. Mr Shipton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. Leave not granted. Consideration resumed. Clauses 1 to 14-by leave-taken together. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.49) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 13, page 4, lines 31 and 32, omit subclause (6), substitute the following subclause: ``(6) Of the members appointed pursuant to paragraph 12 (e), at least 2 members shall be appointed by the Minister from persons nominated by the Australian Tourist Industry Association.''. (2) Clause 14, page 5, at the end of subclause (2) add ``, provided that if the member was appointed following nomination by the Australian Tourist Industry Association, the person appointed in that member's place shall be appointed from persons nominated by the Australian Tourist Industry Association.''. These amendments relate to membership of the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). In particular, they refer to the fact that the Board should have on it two members that are nominated by the Australian Tourist Industry Association (ATIA). We propose this for a number of very good reasons. They are, I believe, historical reasons; they are reasons which also relate to ensuring that a line of communication is maintained between both the Board of the Australian Tourist Commission and the industry that it is set up to promote, and that lines of communication are maintained between that Board and the peak industry association that represents the tourist industry. We move this amendment also to ensure that there can be no claims that appointments to the board of the Australian Tourist Commission provide an opportunity for jobs for the boys. Mr John Brown —Or the girls. Mr SHARP —As the Minister so appropriately points out, or the girls. There are a number of good reasons why the Australian Tourist Industry Association is the appropriate body to be considered as the representative of the industry on the board of the Australian Tourist Commission. I want to refer to the background of ATIA, if I may; it was established in 1929 under the name of the Australian National Travel Association (ANTA). Its primary tasks were to foster the interests of tourism and travel and promote Australia as a travel destination. By the mid- 1960s the Association had established a worldwide marketing network, it published Walkabout magazine and it had a substantial presence in every State. There was a strong pressure on the Federal Government to give more recognition to tourism. The CHAIRMAN —Order! While it might be fascinating to hear the history of the Australian Tourist Industry Association, if the honourable member is using that history to illustrate his point in relation to clauses 13 and 14, that is probably going a bit far. At this stage he should restrict his comments to his amendments to clauses 1 to 14. While his amendments refer to ATIA, it is probably drawing a long bow for the honourable member to give us the history of the Association in illustrating the point. Mr SHARP —I refer to the history, because it is important to understand that there is an historical reason why the board of the ATC should involve representatives of ATIA. It goes back to when the Australian Tourist Commission was set up; it was actually taken out of ANTA, and ANTA handed over to the ATC all its assets- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member has my drift. This stage of the proceedings is about specific issues, not reversals or what may or may not, or should or should not have been said in the second reading speech. This is a more precise area. Mr SHARP —I know it is a more precise area, but I am trying to explain why there is a need for ATIA. Mr Mildren —Whom are you speaking on behalf of? Mr SHARP —I am speaking on behalf of the industry. I make these points because it is important to understand that ATIA is the body that was once ANTA, and ANTA bred from it the Australian Tourist Commission. As a result of negotiations in 1967, ANTA was guaranteed that it would have two members on the board of the ATC, and that is why I refer to ATIA; ATIA is now the industry association that took over from ANTA. The point I make is that there is an historical reason why ATIA ought to have representatives on the board of the ATC. It goes back to the days in 1967 when the ATC was first set up and ANTA, which is now represented by ATIA, handed over all its assets to the ATC. At that time it was guaranteed two positions on the Board of the ATC. Since the Government has decided to restructure the ATC, we have found that the agreement that was struck in 1967 is no longer to be honoured. I make the point that it is important to maintain the integrity of governments, no matter which political party happens to be in power. It was agreed in 1967 that the peak industry association would be represented on the board. I make those points because I believe they are very important. I also want to take issue with some of the points that were raised in the Senate when the amendments were first put forward. It was claimed that ATIA is not the peak industry association representing the tourist industry. ATIA is recognised by all the people in the industry-I am sure that the Minister would agree with me-as being the peak industry body. In fact, all the major bodies that are involved with the tourist industry are represented on the board of ATIA. They include the Australian Federation of Travel Agents Ltd, the Inbound Tour Operators of Australia, the Australian Hotels Association, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, and Qantas Airways Ltd. The Australian Tourist Commission is also represented on the board of ATIA, as well as the Victorian Tourism Commission and other organisations. Quite clearly, an argument could be sustained to highlight the fact that ATIA is the peak industry body for the tourist industry. For those reasons we say that it ought to be represented on the board of the ATC. We believe there is an historical reason; we believe there is a reason to ensure that communication is maintained between the board of the ATC and the industry; and we also believe that it is important to ensure that there are no claims in the future. I am not suggesting that there will be jobs for the boys regarding the present appointments, but there could be claims in the future that there are jobs for the boys. One way to ensure that that is not the case is to have the ATIA put forward to the Minister a list of names from which the Minister can select those that he or she feels would be best suited to be on the board of the Australian Tourist Commission. For all those very good reasons we have moved this amendment. As a result of amendments moved by the Australian Democrats, one person will have to have environmental or sociological skills to qualify for membership of the board. As I have said previously, I do not believe that that is necessary for the board of the Australian Tourist Commission. We all have an interest in the environment, and we all recognise its importance in relation to the tourist industry. However, we also recognise that a large number of State and Federal government bodies have been set up with the specific purpose of looking after the environment and our society. We do not believe it is necessary to duplicate those facilities by especially appointing someone to the board of the Australian Tourist Commission on the basis of environmental or sociological skills. We note also that when industry boards are set up and the Government announces the names of board members, there are always industry representatives. For example, the board of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has members from its area of interest and a similar situation applies to the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Medical Association. A whole host of peak industry bodies are represented on government statutory authorities that relate to their areas of interest. We move this amendment knowing that in the clear light of day it is sensible and reasonable; it is a provision that would best serve the interests of the industry. We can see no harm in it from the Minister's point of view. He could select the membership from any panel of names that the Australian Tourist Industry Association put forward. If, in the future, the Minister finds that the ATIA is not a suitable body, let him say that and let him move amendments to this legislation. Let him find a body that is better suited to represent the tourist industry. We believe that this is a sensible amendment and we hope that the Minister and the Government will pick it up, because it will work in the interests of the industry. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(4.59) —The Government does not accept this amendment for a few good reasons, which I will not bother to enumerate except to say that many members of the ATC board are presently members of ATIA. I reserve my right as the Minister to appoint members to this board. I am not about to retrace the steps that were made in the past. I believe it is a fact that the Australian Tourist Commission under this Government's tutelage and funding has worked better than it did back in those historical and hysterical days. The Government does not accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.00) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 7, after clause 22 insert the following new clause: Minister to observe private enterprise practice ``22A. In determining terms and conditions of appointment pursuant to section 22, the Minister shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment.''. (4) Page 12, after clause 39 insert the following new clause: Board to observe private enterprise practice ``39A. The Board, in determining terms and conditions of appointment of the Managing Director pursuant to section 39, shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment.''. (5) Clause 42, page 14, after subclause (2) insert the following subclause: ``(2a) The Board, in determining terms and conditions of employment pursuant to subsection (2), shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of employment.''. (6) Clause 43, page 14, after subclause (2) insert the following subclause: ``(2a) The Board, in determining terms and conditions of engagement pursuant to subsection (2), shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of engagement.''. These amendments relate to terms and conditions of employment for people engaged by the Australian Tourist Commission. At present, people employed by the Commission are employed under Public Service rules and conditions of employment. A principal feature of the Kennedy report, which is the whole basis for the restructuring of the Australian Tourist Commission, was that the Commission ought to be withdrawn from terms and conditions of employment relating to the Public Service. It recommended the Commission should be put into the real world, the competitive world, the world where one can pick up the best talent the market-place has to offer. It recommended that the Australian Tourist Commission operate under private sector rules and conditions of employment. Honourable members know what private sector rules and conditions of employment are. They are that one can hire and fire, employ the best people the market has to offer and be prepared to pay what the market demands for those best people. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Australian Tourist Commission has amongst its staff the best people the industry has to offer. I cannot overstate the importance of employing these people because the Commission is the body that will be selling the Australian tourist product overseas. Australia depends so much on tourism. We must ensure that we capitalise on the full potential the tourist industry can offer. The tourist industry can create tremendous wealth for the country. It can create many thousands of jobs. For those reasons we have to have the very best people selling our tourist product overseas. The Australian Tourist Commission is the body that does that. It will not be able, under Public Service terms and conditions of employment, to get the best people to do the job because it will be too inflexible. We believe the Kennedy report was quite right to say that the ATC should be withdrawn from Public Service rules and conditions of employment and put out into the real world to get the very best people to work for it. The Kennedy report places great emphasis on the amendment the Opposition is putting forward. I know, from speaking with people who were on the Committee, that one of the things that has upset them greatly is that this particular recommendation was not adopted by the Government. The Government will not adopt it purely and simply because of its links with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the union movement. It would not be agreeable to them to have this sort of thing happen. I return to the report of the Kennedy Committee. The Western Australian Tourist Commission made a submission to the Kennedy Committee in the following terms: The Public Service jurisdiction places unnecessary restrictions on the Australian Tourist Commission insofar as the administrative procedures, employment of staff from outside the Service and hours of operation are concerned. Australian Airlines also made a submission to the Committee. It said: Financial restrictions and the public service structure of the Australian Tourist Commission are significant impediments to the Australian Tourist Commission's ability to attract management and staff with strong marketing skills, a prerequisite for the Australian Tourist Commission to ascend to a leadership role. The Association of Australian Convention Bureaux Inc. made a submission to the Kennedy Committee. It said: The Public Service conditions that currently constrain the activities of the Australian Tourist Commission inhibit a result-geared mechanism necessary to measure effectively the activities of the Commission. The Kennedy report goes on to analyse what the Government said in its discussion paper entitled Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises. It quoted a number of items from that report. The report said: We consider that such a strong case could be mounted in favour of the removal of the Australian Tourist Commission from its current statutory relationship with the Public Service Board. Of the 96 or 97 recommendations of the Kennedy report, this is the most important recommendation that was not adopted. In effect, two recommendations were not adopted. One was recommendation 46 which refers to private sector terms and conditions of employment and the other referred to the tourism overseas promotion scheme. The Kennedy Committee put forward its report following extensive submissions from people right throughout the industry, people with expertise, people with knowledge and with hands on experience. The best thing this Government could do to ensure that the Australian Tourist Commission did the best job for Australia would be to take the ATC out of the Public Service terms and conditions of employment and install it in the real world so the sharp edge of competition will inspire the people working in the Commission to produce the best job for the industry that presents so much opportunity for this country. The Opposition feels very strongly about this matter; we feel it is a basic principle. The Opposition moves these amendments with the utmost vigour. We intend to make the most of this as we go around the countryside. We believe the Government has passed up a golden opportunity to restructure the Australian Tourist Commission into what could have been a very hard-nosed, competitive, effective and efficient organisation promoting Australia's tourist industry overseas. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(5.05) —The Government rejects these ridiculous amendments. It strikes me as rather odd that I have to be lectured by someone representing a party which, for so many years, had no idea of the potential of Australia and allowed the Australian Tourist Commission to vacillate, be restricted in staff and funds and unable to do its job. In the seven years of the Fraser Government the budget of the Commission increased from $7.5m to $10m. Under this Government the Australian Tourist Commission's budget has risen from $10m to almost $40m in the following four years, and I am being lectured by a very unsuccessful shadow Minister-my sixth, I might add-about what the Government should do with tourism. If this concept was such an urgent necessity why is it that the previous Government did not adopt it? It had seven years to do it. It strikes me as odd that the Opposition is prepared to accept selectively the Kennedy Committee report. The Opposition has railed hard and long and strong about the desire to move the Australian Tourist Commission from Melbourne to Sydney, which was the first recommendation of the Kennedy report. I have accepted almost all of them except the one concerning terms and conditions of employment which is basically impossible when one is dealing with a statutory authority. The shadow Minister, by his comments, has gratuitously insulted everyone who has worked for the Australian Tourist Commission in the past or is working for it at present. We have just selected an extraordinarily talented range of people to run the Tourist Commission. John Rowe, now the Managing Director and formerly General Manager of the Tourist Commission, would not be terribly overwhelmed by the gratuitous remarks the honourable member just made about our incapacity to get the best to sell Australia. Tony Thirlwell, the new Marketing Director, who came from CSR Ltd with an enormous reputation, and Phil Collins, the new public relations man, are people of the highest order. For the honourable member to say we cannot get the best because we are constrained by Public Service guidelines is an absolute gratuitous insult to those people and all the other people who have occupied positions within the Tourist Commission. God knows what sort of tourism growth we would get if we had the best. The number of movements into Australia is 16 times the world's average. If that is not a stunning success by these second grade people who, by implication, work there, I do not know what is. The Government rejects these amendments. Also, to those people who have been so gratuitously insulted by implication by these amendments, I apologise. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.09) —The remarks just made by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) require a response. The first of the honourable member's amendments is: In determining terms and conditions of appointment pursuant to section 22, the Minister shall observe normal private enterprise terms and conditions of appointment. The Minister has managed, as he frequently does, to turn such a recommendation into an insult to certain people who may be doing a very good job but who would also agree that what is basically a commercial activity-namely the business of tourism-would require commercial terms of employment. It is a silly argument that the Minister raises. That is not the only point he made. He also suggested that the Opposition should have done all this in government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has just said that one can learn from experience and time. If I use the Minister's argument, he has just insulted his Prime Minister. I advise the Whip that I shall not take very long; I shall take only another minute. The whole point is that this is a free enterprise approach, and the Minister has prided himself on some of his own free enterprise approaches. He has advised us time and time again about his activity in getting Paul Hogan to come forward and run those advertisements, from which Australia benefited greatly. But I think that he should also remind us that Paul Hogan went to him and offered that proposal, and it was not the Minister's idea. Hogan did it, by his own admission, the better to advance his image in America on behalf of the Crocodile Dundee film. It is about time that was understood in the community. Mr John Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I find the implications of that remark absolutely insulting to Paul Hogan. To suggest that he offered to do those advertisements because he was going to make Crocodile Dundee and to get himself a reputation is a gross insult to a great Australian who has done all that work for Australia for nothing. I am sure that he had no desire to make Crocodile Dundee when he made them. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Sharp's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. 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. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford M. C. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Snowdon, W. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Harvey, E. R. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Young, M. J.Hurford C. J. Shack, P. D. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 December, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 December. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(5.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to clarify and refine the operation of certain provisions in the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987-the Ownership and Control Act-and related provisions in the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1987-the Television Equalisation Act. The Ownership and Control Act was introduced in the context of the Government's equalisation scheme for providing additional commercial television services in regional areas. It replaced the `two station rule' for commercial television prescribed interests in the Broadcasting Act 1942 with the `60 per cent population reach' rule. It also introduced new multi-channel service (MCS) and cross-media prescribed interest limits, together with associated directorship limits and provisions to grandfather interests or directorships acquired before specified dates. In the case of the cross-media limits, the prescribed date for the provision of grandfathered protection was 28 November 1986, being the date of the announcement by the previous Minister of the Government's intention to introduce new media ownership legislation. The Television Equalisation Act provided the legislative framework for the Government's equalisation scheme. It also introduced in the Broadcasting Act a one television licence to an approved market prescribed interest rule and one television licence in Tasmania prescribed interest rule, together with transitional grandfathering provisions. The principal focus of the Bill is the technical operation of the MCS, cross-media and one tele-vision licence in an approved market or Tasmania grandfathering provisions. I should point out, however, that the amendments in the Bill in relation to the MCS limits and associated grandfathering provisions will have no immediate practical application. Each of the current approved markets for regional commercial television will be proceeding directly to service area aggregation, rather than additional television services being provided by regional stations within their existing service areas under the MCS option. The MCS limits will therefore have practical operation only in the event that a new approved market is declared-in, say, South Australia or Western Australia-and if MCS permits are then issued in respect of licences within that market. The technical operation of each of the amendments in this Bill is explained in some detail in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I will provide a brief overview of those amendments which relate to the cross-media limits and associated grandfathering provisions in the Ownership and Control Act. The cross-media grandfathering amendments are also mirrored in those provisions in the Bill dealing with the MCS and one television licence in an approved market or Tasmania grandfathering rules. Service Area Aggregation Perhaps the most important amendments in this Bill are in new sub-sections 27 (6A) and 27 (10) of the Ownership and Control Act-paragraphs 9 (b) and 9 (e) of the Bill. These amendments have the effect of exempting a person who has acquired relevant interests or directorships before 28 November 1986 and who would otherwise contravene the cross-media limits as a consequence of service area aggregation in accordance with the Government's equalisation scheme. The absence of grandfather protection to cover these circumstances has been a matter of strong concern within the broadcasting industry. The basis of this concern is that it is inequitable to penalise licensees who were involved in service area aggregation in compliance with Government policy and who had held relevant interests before the new cross-media rules were announced by the previous Minister. The provisions in this Bill recognise that these concerns are legitimate and rectify the unintended consequences of the existing grandfathering provisions. Licence Consolidation This Bill also provides for maintenance of grandfathered protection under the cross-media limits where licensees in an approved market elect to have their licences consolidated within a combined service area for the purpose of service area aggregation. The grandfathering provisions of the existing Ownership and Control Act do not take into account the effect of licence consolidation on a person who held grandfathered prescribed interests in one or more of the former licences. New sub-sections 27 (4A) and (4B) of the Ownership and Control Act-paragraph 9 (b) of the Bill-therefore provide for maintenance of grandfathered protection where a grandfathered person continuously held a prescribed interest in one or more of the former licences between 28 November 1986 and the grant of the new consolidated licence. This will ensure that only a person who had grandfathered protection in respect of a former licence will be able to claim protection in respect of the consolidated licence. At the same time, the provisions allow sufficient flexibility in corporate restructuring so as to encourage voluntary licence consolidation in accordance with the planning objectives of the Government's equalisation scheme. Acquisition of New Interests After the Grandfathered Date The amendment of sub-section 27 (3) of the Ownership and Control Act in paragraph 9 (a) of the Bill confirms that a person will lose grandfathered protection during the period while that person holds any new interests acquired after 28 November 1986, but that the person can regain protection by the subsequent divestment of those interests. During the period while new interests are held, the person will contravene the cross-media interests limits, but will have the benefit of the statutory period of grace provided in the Act-six months, or longer with Australian Broadcasting Tribunal approval-before the contravention becomes an offence. Paragraph 9 (b) of the Bill also introduces new sub-sections 27(4A) and (4B) of the Ownership and Control Act. These provisions provide a mechanism for regaining grandfathered protection where new `interests' are attributed to a person through the acquisition of shares by another company in the corporate investment chain. Under the existing provisions of the Ownership and Control Act such a person could regain protection only if that other company were to divest the new shares which it had acquired. That other company may not be grandfathered and may have no incentive to take such action. The provisions in the Bill allow a person who is indirectly attributed a new interest to regain protection by subsequently reducing to the percentage shareholding interest which was held in the licensee or newspaper company before 28 November 1986. This is subject, however, to an overall requirement that the person is not in any position to exercise greater control of the licensee or newspaper company than before 28 November 1986. Cross-Media Directorships Clause 6 of the Bill includes a drafting clarification to confirm that the cross-media directorship limits in section 92FAD of the Broadcasting Act 1942 do not prohibit the holding of a directorship in a single company holding controlling cross-media interests. Such a prohibition is unnecessary because a non-grandfathered company would contravene the cross-media prescribed interest limits in section 92000000FAB000000 of the Broadcasting Act by holding such interests. More importantly, such a prohibition would prevent a grandfathered company from replacing any of its grandfathered directors on their death or resignation, because each replacement director would then be contravening the cross-media directorship limits. The existing provisions of the Ownership and Control Act would also not allow a grandfathered person holding more than one directorship within a grandfathered corporate group to be replaced by another single person. Each of the original directorships would need to be filled by separate replacement directors. This is an unnecessary restriction on the replacement of grandfathered directors because no more cross-media control can be exercised by a director of a company holding grandfathered cross-media interests if the person were also to hold other directorships within the same corporate group. Paragraph 9 (d) of the Bill overcomes this unnecessary restriction by introducing a new sub-section 27 (8a) of the Ownership and Control Act which allows a person who holds a directorship in a grandfathered company also to hold a directorship in a subsidiary of that company without contravening the cross-media directorship limits. Paragraph 9 (f) of the Bill also amends sub-section 27 (12) of the Ownership and Control Act to empower the Tribunal, upon application, to grant an extension of the six months period of grace currently provided for excess cross-media directorships held before commencement of the Ownership and Control Act on 1 July 1987. This amendment is consistent with the transitional provisions in section 92fab of the Broadcasting Act which empower the Tribunal to grant an extension of the six months period of grace provided for excess cross-media prescribed interests held before commencement of the Ownership and Control Act. Other Matters The Bill also includes other minor drafting improvements to provisions in the Ownership and Control Act. For example, clause 5 of the Bill corrects a technical drafting defect in relation to the period within which notices of the acquisition of a prescribed interest in a newspaper must be provided to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal pursuant to section 92fac of the Broadcasting Act. Paragraph 9 (g) of the Bill also introduces a new sub-section 27 (16) of the Ownership and Control Act to ensure that grandfathered protection is maintained where an `old system' commercial radio or television station licence, held under the previous Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, is converted over to the current Broadcasting Act. The Ownership and Control Act has facilitated fundamental changes in the patterns of media ownership in Australia. These structural changes have complemented the Government's equalisation policy of providing competitive commercial television services within larger and more viable regional markets. The fine tuning amendments in this Bill are designed to ensure that the technical operation of provisions in the Ownership and Control Act and the Television Equalisation Act are more certain and equitable for those persons who held legitimate interests before the new media ownership legislation came into effect. Financial Impact There are not expected to be any additional costs to the Commonwealth in the administration of the provisions in this Bill. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 9 December. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(5.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill covers a wide range of matters affecting public broadcasting and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's administrative procedures. It will also make technical amendments to the Broadcasting Act and related legislation. The Government's decisions which are incorporated in this Bill have not received the same public attention as have many other broadcasting policy initiatives in recent years. These are, nonetheless, important reforms. They reflect this Government's commitment to a healthy public broadcasting sector and to ensuring that regulatory arrangements, in broadcasting as in all industries, are efficient and are achieving their objectives. The Bill provides for the amendment of four Acts: the Broadcasting Act 1942; the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 as in force immediately before 1 January 1986 for the purpose of its continued application to old system licences; the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985; and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Public Broadcasting The main focus of the Bill is public broadcasting. The first public radio stations in Australia were licensed under the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1974, although `experimental' stations were established under the Wireless Telegraphy Act some years earlier. Since then public radio has expanded at a rapid rate. In 1980 there were 21 stations on air; today there are 66. I expect to invite applications for the eighty-eighth public radio licence in 1988 as a milestone in an ongoing program of planning additional services. The public radio sector of the Australian broadcasting system is non-commercial, non-profit and is supported and financed primarily through listener subscriptions, sponsorship, donations, limited government funding administered by the Public Broadcasting Foundation, and the efforts of volunteers. Public radio was introduced in Australia with several objectives: * firstly, to make broadcasting accessible to individuals and sections of the community seeking such access, particularly those who do not have access to other media; * secondly, to enable community organisations to own, operate and control their own independent broadcasting services, thereby diversifying control of the media; and * thirdly, to expand meaningful programming choice to satisfy a wide diversity of needs and interests of listeners, whether numerous or not. Public stations may concentrate either on one or more particular special interests or cater for a broad mix of interests in the program schedule. In either case public stations are the result of local initiatives and interests, organised to provide a service to the particular community in which they operate. In the first decade of its development, public broadcasting has acquired a very firm place in our broadcasting system. It complements the roles of the national broadcasters, that is, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), and the commercial broadcasters. It has provided a uniquely Australian contribution to media in this country. It is appropriate that we should mark its first decade with this package of legislative reforms, building on the experience of the past 10 years to clarify the role of public broadcasting and ensure that its contribution continues to be lively and effective. Amendments to the licensing, ownership and control, funding and other provisions affecting public broadcasting are intended to strengthen its basic character and reinforce the objectives of the sector. This is being achieved firstly for formalising in the Act the planning scheme set out in the Planning Guidelines for Public Radio published by the then Minister for Communications in August 1985. The amended Act will provide for public licences to be granted for general community purposes or for special interest purposes. A community purpose licence will serve the full range of interests and needs of the community located within the service area of the licence. A special interest purpose licence will serve a particular specified interest or need or a number of specified interests or needs of the community within the service area of the licence. The particular special interest may be specified by the Minister, or, where he or she chooses not to, by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Under the Planning Guidelines, examples of particular special interests which the Minister might specify include educational, ethnic, Aboriginal and print handicapped purposes. The Tribunal will not be constrained by the purposes set out in the guidelines, and has previously granted special interest licences for fine music, sporting and religious purposes. The second major area of reform encompassed in this Bill is to the criteria to which the Tribunal must have regard in considering applications for the grant, renewal, transfer, suspension and revocation of public licences. Most of the new criteria relate to the ownership and control of public licences. From 1976 the Act applied common ownership and control rules to both commercial and public radio licences. However, the differences between public and commercial broadcasting and the corporate structures of public and commercial licensee companies, meant that many of the rules for commercial licensees were irrelevant or unnecessarily complex for public licensees. The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985, therefore, removed public licences from the scope of these provisions, requiring new provisions to apply to public broadcasters. The amendments I now introduce embody a simpler approach to regulating the ownership and control of public licences. They will continue to prohibit the grant of a licence to a corporation the objects of which include the acquisition of profit by the corporation's individual members. A new provision is being introduced also prohibiting the grant of a public licence to a government corporation or political party. However, other matters will be taken into account by the Tribunal not as fixed prohibitions, but only as factors relevant to its licensing decisions, which provide policy guidance for it in exercising its licensing powers. These new factors will be: the undesirability of one person controlling more than one public licence; the undesirability of the Commonwealth, a State or the Northern Territory, a statutory authority or a political party controlling a public licence; the undesirability of a public licence being operated for the purpose of conferring profit on a third party; and the desirability of members of the local community controlling and participating in the running of public stations. These new provisions will supplement the Tribunal's assessment of an individual's fitness and propriety and financial, technical and management competence to hold a public licence, emphasising in particular the non-commercial nature of public services and their relationship to the community they serve. The transfer of a public licence will not be permitted. However, the Tribunal will be empowered to agree to the licensee admitting another person to participate in any of the benefits of the licence or to exercise any of the powers or authorities granted by the licence, where it is concerned in the public interest to do so. The Bill changes the provisions which govern the ways in which public broadcasters may raise and spend funds. Public broadcasters currently are prevented from broadcasting advertisements other than sponsorship announcements. In November 1985, the Tribunal released a draft policy statement, which set out its preliminary interpretation of what the Act allowed in sponsorship announcements. The draft was criticised by public broadcasters for its broad interpretation of the meaning of `advertisements' which, reflecting the Federal Court's decision in the Benson and Hedges case, substantially expanded the category of announcements which they are prevented from broadcasting under section 119ab of the Broadcasting Act. The draft was also criticised for limiting the forms of sponsorship announcements which public broadcasters could broadcast. Public broadcasters were particularly concerned about prohibitions or limitations on their ability to provide community information and to promote themselves and their programs. They claimed its adoption would narrow current practices to the extent that some would not be able to raise sufficient funds to continue operating. These amendments retain the advertising prohibition while clarifying the scope of the exceptions to it. The exceptions will continue to include sponsorship announcements, but the definition of these is slightly altered to make clear that the announcement may acknowledge financial or other support for the service generally or for a particular program, and to impose a general non-promotional provision. The exceptions to the advertising prohibitions will also include community information announcements and material which promotes the service itself or particular programs. The receipt of payment for broadcasting information will be a relevant but not conclusive factor in determining whether information is not community information. These new exceptions are intended to retain the non-commercial character of public broadcasting services, while permitting legitimate revenue raising and self-promotion activities consistent with that character. A separate provision will prevent the expenditure of a station's own funds other than on the service itself or for the benefit of public broadcasting generally. This will not prevent the conducting of appeals for particular causes where the funds raised are not derived by the licensee himself or herself. However, the conduct of such appeals will be a relevant factor for the Tribunal at licence renewals, in assessing whether a station has been conducted wholly or substantially for the purpose of conferring profits on a third party, so as to justify non-renewal. The Bill also provides a mechanism for public broadcasters to gain access to the Aussat satellite and thereby provide services to remote areas of Australia. While there are considerable economic obstacles to be overcome, the Government would welcome such an extension of public services. Since it is likely that existing licensees initially may be best placed to provide such services, an existing public licensee will not be prevented from also gaining a further licence for broadcasting to remote areas. The licensing criterion making it undesirable for one public licensee to hold two licences in this way will still apply. But this will only be one factor for the Tribunal to consider and will not prevent an existing licensee obtaining a further licence to serve remote areas where the Tribunal is satisfied it represents a satisfactory way to provide a new service. The final amendment relating to public broadcasting provides for the conversion of the Melbourne radio station 3CR to a public licence. The station was granted a limited commercial licence in July 1976 before public licences were introduced. The conditions which were applied to the licence to establish its limited character related to restrictions on advertising. These conditions were reflected in the scheme of public broadcasting which was introduced subsequently. Since 3CR has always been conducted as a public licence, it is appropriate for it to be formally converted to that form of licence. The current situation is an anomaly which needs to be corrected to ensure that the other amendments made by this Act apply to 3CR in the same way as to other public stations. The conversion is a purely administrative process which will not affect the operation of the station. I share the views of public broadcasters that the amendments I have just outlined clarify important principles for the structure and ongoing operation of public broadcasting. Their importance is reflected in the extensive discussion and consultation processes which have taken place with the public broadcasters themselves in preparing this legislation. Other sectors of the broadcasting industry have been consulted on these provisions through the Broadcasting Council, the statutory consultative body established under section 125d of the Broadcasting Act to advise the Minister on matters generally affecting broadcasting in Australia. Streamlining of Tribunal Procedures The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is an independent statutory authority which carries out most of the detailed administration of the regulatory arrangements set out in the Broadcasting Act and associated Licence Fees Acts. This Bill includes a number of relatively minor amendments which are intended to streamline the Tribunal's procedures. They cover those areas in which the Tribunal has experienced difficulties and inefficiencies in its operations. As a package, they will assist the efficient delivery of new services. The Broadcasting Act currently provides for the Tribunal to be constituted by one Chairperson and six full time members. There is also provision for the appointment of up to six associate members to assist the Tribunal with particular inquiries. In order to provide the Tribunal with a greater degree of flexibility in the appointment of associate members, the Bill provides for their appointment for particular periods or for specified classes of inquiry rather than just for a single inquiry as is currently the case. It also empowers the Chairperson of the Tribunal to use more efficiently the services of associate members in the composition of divisions of the Tribunal. The Chairperson may use associates to replace members where necessary or to designate additional associate members to divisions. An amendment is also being made to streamline the Tribunal's reporting requirements. The Bill deletes the requirement for the Tribunal to include in its ordinary inquiry reports to the Minister, the parties to the inquiry and the public, a summary of the proceedings at the inquiry. This time consuming obligation is considered unnecessary because the Tribunal's inquiry regulations also require a full record of the proceedings of an inquiry to be placed on the inquiry file which is publicly available. Another amendment proposed in this Bill relates to the procedures currently prescribed in respect of two particular categories of licence in the Broadcasting Act. These are known as re-broadcasting and re-transmission licences and are useful particularly for small communities or areas of poor reception which seek to obtain or improve reception of broadcasting services through the Government's self-help broadcasting and re-transmission scheme. Such licences have typically been used to enable small communities in remote and regional areas to fund their own radio and television transmission facilities. Invariably, these licences are uncontested and non-controversial and do not lend themselves to the more complex procedures appropriate to other applications. Accordingly, the Bill removes the administration of re-broadcast and re-transmission licences from the Tribunal's substantive powers, allowing the Tribunal more procedural flexibility in handling these licences. This will reduce backlogs in the grant and renewal of such licences, speeding up the delivery of services to the particular communities involved. The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 provided for the licensing of radio and television services broadcasting from the Aussat satellites to remote areas. This Bill provides for the extension of the period of the initial grant of these licences from five to seven years. The amendment implements a recommendation from the Tribunal in its first report on the remote commercial television services. It recognises also that the substantial costs of leasing transponders on the satellites and associated capital costs require a longer term investment from a remote licensee than from a terrestrial licensee. The Bill amends the provisions relating to changes in the memoranda and articles of association of television and radio licensee companies, empowering the Tribunal to give retrospective approval to a resolution to change the memorandum or articles of association of a licensee company. Any such resolution will, however, only come into effect after it has been approved. This is to avoid a licensee company requiring two meetings, firstly to resolve to make the changes, and secondly, to affect the changes once approved by the Tribunal. There are also a series of amendments to clarify the operation of the transitional provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985. That Act changed the basis of broadcasting licensing from the technical means of transmission to the service being provided, and the geographic area which it serves. The transitional provisions were designed to facilitate the conversion of existing `old system' techno-logy-based licences to `new system' service-based licences. While this process of conversion is well advanced, the amendments made by this Bill will simplify the process further and correct some deficiencies in the existing provisions. Other Matters This Bill also makes several other unrelated amendments. It deletes the political identification requirements currently set out in section 333 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and consolidates these requirements in the Broadcasting Act. These provisions set out the requirement for identification of speakers in electoral broadcasts and records of electoral broadcasts to be kept by broadcasters. The amendment will overcome the confusion caused by the similar obligations which are currently imposed by these different Commonwealth Acts, thus implementing a recommendation in the 1984 report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. A further amendment will restore a right of appeal to the Minister for Transport and Communications by third parties against decisions by the Secretary to the Department of Community Services and Health about medical advertisements. A separate part of the Broadcasting Act deals with the Special Broadcasting Services. A provision of this Bill seeks to amend the Act in respect of the approval by the Minister of SBS contracts. At present the Broadcasting Act requires ministerial approval for all contracts entered into by the SBS involving amounts in excess of $100,000. This limit has remained unchanged since the SBS provisions first were inserted in the Broadcasting Act in 1977. As the real value of this limit has been substantially eroded over the last 10 years, many contracts dealing with routine operational functions of the organisation have come to require ministerial approval. The original intention of the provision was to require ministerial approval only of major contractual commitments. The Bill raises the limit to $1m and provides a regulation-making power to facilitate future variations. It also provides that contracts for the sale or other disposition of programs by the SBS be excluded from the limit. Through a new definition of the term `Parliament', the Bill will extend the electoral blackout provisions in the Broadcasting Act to elections for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and such other bodies as may be prescribed from time to time by regulation. This will overcome the long-standing anomaly whereby the prohibition on the broadcast of advertisements relating to Federal and State elections between midnight on the Wednesday preceding a poll and the close of polls does not extend to Northern Territory elections. The regulation-making power will facilitate the extension of the blackout provisions to elections to any future legislative body, most importantly in the Australian Capital Territory, if that is thought appropriate at a later date. Financial Impact The amendments in this Bill are expected to provide small but useful administrative savings for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. These should assist to reduce delays in the Tribunal's extensive inquiry program. In the policy document which accompanied the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the election in July, this Government committed itself to a thorough overhaul of what has become a complex and unwieldy Broadcasting Act. This Bill represents a step in the direction of that much needed reform. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendments made by the House the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Debate resumed. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) concurrently with the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.55) —Having regard not only to the hour of the day and the Government's program but also to the significance of this day in terms of the parliamentary calendar, I will restrict my remarks on the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. The Opposition does not oppose either Bill and there has been a full and extensive debate of these measures in the Senate. Having listened to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) formally moving the second reading of the Bills, I am moved to remark that I have some considerable sympathy with, if not embarrassment for, him. Not only has this Minister had to suffer the ignominy of wearing the mistakes of a former Minister in terms of Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, but also he is responsible in this place for the policy of this Government on broadcasting. The two pieces of legislation that are before the House are ample evidence of the Government's confusion, and indeed incompetence, in this area. The Government does not have a proud record in broadcasting policy; in fact, it has an embarrassing record. One has to think only of the innuendo that exists in the granting of licences. One has to look only at the comments that have been made by Ministers of the Government, by significant media personalities, by no less a person than the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself in this area and the leaks that we have had from both Cabinet and Caucus. The Government really is divided and confused in terms of media policy. The Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) deals with ownership and control. Basically, the objective of this Bill is to correct the mistakes that were contained in a previous Bill because the Government rushed the legislation through without due consideration to its impact and it now has to correct it. I am told that we even have further amendments to the Bill that was introduced because, after it was introduced, the Government discovered that there were even more errors that had to be corrected. That indicates how deeply and thoughtfully it has considered its broadcasting policy. There is concern about the Government's broadcasting policy by no less a person than the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal who said that the ABT is a toothless tiger and does nothing. Of course, the Australian community at large is very concerned about this Government's ownership policy on television and, recently, radio, and it is also worried about the close association of certain senior figures in the Government with some very public and prominent people in the Australian business community and, particularly, the media industry. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3) relates to public broadcasting. Again the Opposition does not oppose this measure but I think I am obligated to comment on one specific measure, and that relates to the question of sponsorship that is provided for public broadcasting. This Bill is an endeavour to clarify a long-standing problem that exists in the definition of sponsorship and the confusion between sponsorship and advertising. One of the basic principles underlying public broadcasting is that there not be advertising and it not compete with commercial licensees. The great difficulty is in defining what is a sponsorship announcement and what is an advertising announcement. The Government will move amendments at the committee stage to the provisions of this Bill and I am aware of the concerns of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. On behalf of the industry I seek an assurance from the Government that the amendments are policy neutral, that they will not have the effect of allowing advertising on public broadcasting stations and that the announcement will be restricted in the spirit of this Bill to sponsorship announcements. But even this issue of sponsorship relative to advertising raises the question of the competence and the speed with which this Government can act and operate in this very important area. The question of confusion over sponsorship and advertising goes back to 1984. It is now the end of 1987 and the Government, some three years later, is moving to do something about it. The Government has been tardy on broadcasting policy for its entire term of office. It has been confused. We had the original policy of the then Minister for Communications, the present Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy). When he was in that portfolio he was rolled by a combination of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer. The Prime Minister acknowledges that he did in fact roll the Minister. I am pleased that he has publicly acknowledged that. There have been various changes of the policy because even what the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wanted was rolled when it went to Caucus. I hope that for the sake of the Australian community, for people who listen to radio and watch television broadcasts, the Government will actually make up its mind on its broadcast policy. We have had backdowns on announcements contained in the recent Budget. In fact, the other day in another place, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) announced a further change to the changes that were made after the announcement that was contained in the Budget in respect of establishment fees for radio licences. Having regard to the need to ensure that the business of the House is completed today, I conclude my remarks here and simply say that the Opposition does not oppose these Bills but we are astounded at the Government's incompetence and confusion on this very important policy area. We hope that this time it has got it right. Debate (on motion by Mr Duncan) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.01) —I move: That this House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 February 1988, unless otherwise called together by Madam Speaker, or, in the event of Madam Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) all wish to convey their best wishes to honourable members and to people who have assisted in the House and this motion gives them the facility to do so. I forsake what normally the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business would do in expressing a few views and just join with the Prime Minister when he expresses his gratitude. I think I should refer to one person who will be leaving us who has played an outstanding role in the last couple of years, and that is the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, John Engledow. He has been here for a couple of years and he has been an outstanding success in the job. I am sure Opposition members have found him a very competent and confident person to deal with. On behalf of the Government, and I am sure the Opposition, I would just like to say to John, thanks very much for a job well done. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(6.03) —I thank the House for its courtesy in adjusting its timetable to allow me to make these remarks at this stage. Madam Speaker, before leaving, as I have to shortly for an engagement in Sydney, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to those who have served this House during this session. The Budget session, as we all know, has been a necessarily compressed one following the election and of course this has placed its own strains both on members and on the officials who serve the Parliament. Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that your own role in the running of this House deserves special commendation. You have ruled on proceedings which at some times have been unruly with a firmness and a fairness that has been exemplary. In our judgment, you have been ably assisted by Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and by all of those who serve as deputy chairmen of committees. Yours, Madam Speaker, is without doubt sometimes a very thankless job and we on this side of the House take this opportunity of thanking you. Our thanks are also due to the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Serjeant-at-Arms and other parliamentary officers, and to the attendants for the role that they play in the smooth running of the House. I would like to mention especially today Noel Bucholtz who I understand is retiring after being an attendant here for 17 years. Noel has also worked on a voluntary basis as a first-aid officer. As you know, Madam Speaker, he was awarded the Australia Day medal in February of this year for outstanding services. On behalf of all members I wish him and his wife a happy retirement. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter and all of the Hansard staff, the Parliamentary Librarian and staff also merit special mention for their invaluable service, service without which we would not be able to begin to perform our work. I must also thank the Secretary and staff of the Joint House Department for their attending to our basic needs of food and accommodation. Of course, as we always necessarily and with great feeling do, we thank John May and his team for managing the transport of members of this House to and from this place. The telephonists in this place also deserve our thanks. I will refer to members of the parliamentary Press Gallery in their absence-or just about in their absence; I know they will all be sitting upstairs with their ears glued to the broadcast. May I say to them that I think the gallery has had a full and eventful year. On both sides of this place, we have done our best to give them things to report, both inside and outside this chamber. With just the occasional exception, if I may say so, they do a pretty good job in keeping our masters and our judges, the people of Australia, informed about, and I think for the most part, interested in, what goes on in this place. To all members of the gallery go our thanks for their efforts over the year. Of course, our thanks also go to the broadcasting team of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On our side of the House, I would also like, without any qualification whatsoever, to thank my friend and colleague, the Leader of the House, Mick Young. I wish he would not always be so damned serious though. I would like to thank him and our whips, Barry Cunningham and Tony Lamb for their work throughout the sittings. If I could be excused, Madam Speaker, for introducing a personal note, I would like to place on record my thanks to my own staff who have done for me a magnificent job throughout the year. As Mick Young has said, this is John Engledow's last session as our Parliamentary Liaison Officer. In his behind the scenes role, John has always carried out his duties with professionalism and with good humour. We thank you, John, for a job extremely well done. I will, just for a moment, speak of things inanimate. This, as we appreciate, will be the last occasion on which we will be making these valedictory remarks in this place. As a relative newcomer to this Parliament and acknowledging that there are many here with very much longer service-they will have longer associations and longer memories-I simply want to say that this place will, I am sure, remain very special to all of us for a variety of different reasons. Madam Speaker, may I conclude by extending to all honourable members and their families, and to those who serve and who are in any way associated with this place and their families, our best wishes for a very happy Christmas. Our bicentennial year, 1988, will of course have its challenges and its celebrations. In conclusion, I express the hope that we will all come back refreshed and ready to meet those challenges and to enjoy those celebrations. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I wanted to notify honourable members when I was on my feet before that we have agreed that the Parliament will continue sitting after 6.30 p.m. to complete the business rather than breaking for dinner and coming back. We should be able to complete the business in a fairly short time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(6.10) —I would like to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in extending on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Opposition a number of thanks as the year draws to a close. I would like, first of all, to extend my thanks to you, Madam Speaker, and to Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Clerks, the attendants and all of those who make the parliamentary chamber operate. The Prime Minister rightly reminded us that this is the last occasion on which valedictories of this order will be conducted in this chamber. I must say-and I do not think I am the only person who will say this-that I have a sense of very deep regret that we will be leaving this chamber. I say that as an individual. I do not wish to intrude any kind of partisan note. I think that people on both sides on the House hold very different views on this subject. It is not an occasion for any kind of partisan response. There will be enormous advantages in moving up the hill, but in terms of the history of this country, the departure from this chamber will be, I think, a very great pity. Many people on both sides of the House may well feel that that is so and may well have reason to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of decisions taken across party lines in the late 1970s and whenever the final decision was taken. Be that as it may, that decision is very much set in concrete. Anybody who comes to this city could hardly be unaware of the fact that we will move, no matter what anybody thinks and no matter what anybody may have thought. It will certainly be a very interesting experience to move into the new chamber. I say a word of thanks to a number of people on this side of the House. I particularly thank the Deputy Leader of my Party, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), our Whip, the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), and all of my other colleagues for their assistance and help during this parliamentary session. I also thank the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Lloyd). Most particularly, on behalf of all members, I thank the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) who has been the Manager of Opposition Business, for the way in which he has conducted that business. I join the Prime Minister in extending good wishes to Noel Bucholtz and his family. He has been an unfailingly friendly and courteous friend and attendant to members of parliament on both sides of the House in the 13 1/2 years that I have been here. I speak for many in the Liberal and National parties in wishing him a very happy time in the future. I also appreciate the contribution made by members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I am very happy that the industrial turmoil that sometimes besets that organisation does not intrude into parliamentary broadcasts. Perhaps many people think that that is a shame. In any event, I would like to thank the ABC very warmly for its contribution. I also extend my very warm thanks to all the others, in particular the transport staff, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, the Parliamentary Library and those who provide food and sustenance to us throughout the year. The final thing I would like to say is on behalf, I would imagine, of every member of the House-that is, to convey a word of thanks to our families. The families of politicians put up with an enormous amount. They are in some cases the least acknowledged segment of our existence as politicians because of the strains imposed, particularly on Federal politicians who live in the more distant parts of the country. It is a little easier if one happens to live in Sydney or Melbourne because one can sneak home, as I was able to do on a couple of occasions over the past couple of weeks, for the odd speech night and partake of some of the things that are important in the rearing of children. But it is a lot harder if one lives in Western Australia or Queensland. In such circumstances, it is worth remembering the enormous sacrifices. I remember one of my very close colleagues, who had served as a Minister in the former Government for most of the time of that Government, lamenting the fact that the distance he had to travel denied him the opportunity of attending any of the confirmations of his three children. He said that it remained one of the things that he regretted most about the sacrifices he had made in public life. That is not meant to be a self-serving remark because I think the community appreciates the sacrifices that our families make. On an occasion like this it is worth while recording our collective thanks for the endurance of our families, whatever our political vantage points may be. I wish the Prime Minister and his family a very happy Christmas. Christmas is a family time and I hope all honourable members have the opportunity of enjoying Christmas with their families. I certainly intend to do so with my family, and will take the opportunity to come back re-invigorated and re-enthused. I look forward to seeing all honourable members then. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.16) —Madam Speaker, on behalf of members of the National Party of Australia I join in the observations and remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). To you, as Speaker of this place, I thank you for the way in which you have exercised your custodianship of the chamber. You and your deputies have an unenviable task. On other occasions I have remarked that it is a rather lonely role. It is one, however, which is critical for the functioning of the democracy of which we are a part. I commend you and each of your deputies for the way in which you have attempted to fulfil your function. Albeit at times there might have been differences among us, we recognise that you do your job in a way that certainly is designed to enhance the atmosphere and aura of this chamber of which we are a part. To those people who really make the place tick-the Clerks, the Serjeant-At-Arms and other officers of the House-I say a particular thank you. I know that there are suggestions of changes to their responsibilities as we climb up the hill. I see them essentially as the protectors of the rights and privileges of ordinary members of parliament. Those roles must be protected in any changes that ensue, for they essentially are critical to the way in which each of us is able to perform his function. I make special mention of John Engledow, the Parliamentary Liaison Officer (PLO) who is retiring. I know that since the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) has taken over the role of Manager of Opposition Business he, like I, has come to rely very much on the PLO. It is an interesting job. It seems to be a bridge between the two sides of politics. It is certainly the most important officer position in keeping this place going. John Engledow has carried out his duties effectively and well. Although I understand that he will continue to be about this chamber in another role, I wish him well and pay credit to him for the way in which he has exercised his functions. Indeed, I also wish his successor who, I understand, is to be the first lady to occupy that post well as she assumes her responsibilities. I thank the Hansard writers, each of those who work within the Parliament, the parliamentary dining room, the chefs, the staff, the attendants and, in particular, Noel Bucholtz. I am delighted to see that he is in the House. Noel has been here for just about as long as I have. It is an emotional time for him-as it would be for anyone-stepping down from his responsibilities. He has been courteous, kind and helpful-qualities that we all admire in him. I wish him and his wife all the best for their future retirement. There is obviously a large number of people in this place to whom we are indebted for their help. In addition to those I have mentioned, I thank the security staff, whose role I do not envy. They have to stand outside, as they frequently do, in spite of inclement weather. I thank the cleaners, the telephonists, all those members of the Joint House Department, the gardeners who keep the precincts as they are, the maintenance staff, the Parliamentary Library and, of course, John May and his willing band of helpers, without whom any of us would be stuck on many occasions. I particularly thank those people for the role they play. It has been mentioned before, but I express to members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-the silent voices who occasionally manage to interject in the silences that occur when the bells ring, but who otherwise are largely unheard and unsung-my thanks for the way in which they have conducted their function as do, I am sure, all members of the National Party. The Prime Minister mentioned the absence of those in the Press gallery. Things have not improved since I entered the chamber. I see that they are still largely notable by their absence. As the Prime Minister remarked, they do, however, serve a vital role in our rather fishbowl-type existence. In some ways, we would all be a lot happier without them, yet unless we have their services, the sending of our messages across the airwaves and to the people of Australia would be so much more difficult. We commend at least some of them for the way in which they undertake their functions. It appears that there are some people who will not be with us when the House resumes. I hear that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and perhaps the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) might be moving to other tasks. If they do so, we wish them well in their new responsibilities. I even read that one of my own colleagues might be doing that. If so, I am sure that all honourable members wish him and those other honourable members well as they exercise their new charges. There are a number of people whom I have not mentioned, such as the Hansard writers and so on. However, within the Parliament there are two officers, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the shadow Leader of the House. To them I extend my thanks for the way in which they have undertaken their role. To Wal Fife I must say it is great to be able to sit back and watch others take responsibility. It seems a few years ago that I first assumed the mantle, but my compliments go to Mr Fife for the way in which he has undertaken the job on our behalf. To John Howard, Andrew Peacock, Bruce Lloyd and my former deputy, Ralph Hunt, I extend my particular thanks. All have served their cause so well. To the Whips, and Noel Hicks my own Whip in particular, I would like to say, `Well done.' It is not always an easy task. To Ewen Cameron and Neil Andrew and to the two Australian Party Whips, Barry Cunningham and Tony Lamb, go my congratulations and thanks for the way in which they have been able to maintain their good humour. I was delighted to see that neither the Leader of the House nor the Whips were able to maintain the House throughout the proceedings yesterday. When we go up to the Hill that might be even more difficult. I, like other honourable members, would like to say that leaving this chamber is, in one sense, a sad occasion. It has been a good debating forum, but it is more than that. It is a forum in which we can all express our message to the people of Australia. Here we are, essentially, the servants of our electorate and the wider community. I only hope that, in the rather more dispassionate building, with its sheer vastness, it will not be more difficult to maintain the liaison and the personal contact that has been important in this place. Indeed, I recall that when I first came here most honourable members did not even have individual rooms. We worked within our party rooms; we had tables in the corners; we had a shared telephone and lockers. The individual rooms were certainly a source of much good fellowship. Today, sadly, that is not as present and in the new Parliament House it will be a real challenge for us all to maintain the personal contact that is so important. To our families, our staff and all those outside this place who make our lives a little easier I also extend my best wishes, and above all I wish them and their families a Happy Christmas and a happy and holy time in what is essentially a time of reunion with one's own loved ones. Our Bicentenary in 1988 is a significant occasion. All of us recognise the significance of the passage of time and, whatever our recollections of our origins, it is true that 1988 will be an important opportunity for us Australians to commemorate our role and status as an independent nation. Whatever our attitude about some of the more divisive aspects of the origins of this country, we should accept that 1988 will be an opportunity for each of us to make our mark which, hopefully, will register this country as a stronger and more powerful nation in the future. I close by wishing the Prime Minister and all honourable members of the House, on my behalf and on behalf of my wife, a happy Christmas and a prosperous 1988. Madam SPEAKER —I would like to say a few words to all honourable members. This has been a difficult year for everyone. I might remind the Prime Minister that winter elections are not terribly popular. Mr Hawke —I reckon they are all right. Madam SPEAKER —It is very difficult if there is no break in the middle of the year. My congratulations go to all honourable members who managed to get through this difficult year in the way they did. I also thank those who have helped to make the Parliament work; they have been thanked in detail by those honourable members who have spoken before me, and I add my thanks. I simply add to that list the printers, who do a remarkable job and who do it with such courtesy and friendship that we are very indebted to them. My thanks go to my own staff. I doubt that I would survive without them. To Leo McLeay, who gives me tremendous support and loyalty at all times, I extend my thanks. I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had to say; those of us who live close by are very lucky. We see more of our families and we do not have those tremendous travelling times. Recently I went to Perth and it came home to me very forcefully that honourable members from Western Australian have to travel that distance twice a week. I do not think that I would have stood for a seat under those conditions. I was glad to see that my staff brought Noel Bucholtz into the chamber tonight. When I arrived here in 1974 he was the first friend I made. He helped me enormously, and he has served the House with dignity and loyalty. On behalf of all honourable members I made a presentation to him earlier this afternoon so that he can take with him a memory of the many friends he has made in this place. Mr Donald Cameron —A bound volume of Hansard. Madam SPEAKER —No, I did not give him a bound volume of Hansard. I thought he might have had enough of that. To those honourable members with whom I cope daily-and, of course, they also have to cope with me daily-I extend my thanks for the patience they have shown at times, and I thank myself for having displayed patience I did not know I had. I also thank many honourable members on both sides of the House for the friendship they have offered me both inside and outside the House. I will treasure that. If one can find friends among one's opponents, that is what makes this place tick. I too will be sorry to leave this House. I love it; I think it is part of our history and part of our traditions. It is a place where we see quite a lot of each other. I feel that we will be enormously isolated in the future. In the new Parliament House we may also have to make greater efforts to find each other. I would like to thank Kasey Visser from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). He is the sort of person who is very rare in this place. He has been here for 21 years, hearing everything and seeing everything, but never saying a word. Mr Kasey Visser, a member of the parliamentary broadcast team, retires today after a long career with the ABC and I am sure that every honourable member will join with me in wishing him well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendment (by Mr Duncan) proposed: Page 28, Schedule 2, proposed paragraph 111BA (3B) (a), omit ``announce or''. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(6.31) —I wish to add just a few words to do with the communications in my part of the world. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the cognate Bills very much cover satellite broadcasting and the aggregation which is taking place throughout Australia, particularly in Queensland, up and down the coast and out to Channel 10 which is in Toowoomba. Those stations are being enabled to expand their coverage with an extra two channels of television. I would like to mention also the commercial aspects of remote area television. The Parry Corporation has taken over Q-Net. The Qld Government has offered it a $2.5 m package, but I am not too sure what the Parry Corporation will continue to do in that mode. Unfortunately, most of the commercial broadcast footprints in Australia, the south-east and the central, still are not operating. The only one that is operating is the one in the west which is operating with a Government subsidy. In Qld, we are still hoping that we will get a commercial channel to put up a broadcast and bounce it off the satellite, to be picked up with our existing Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) dishes. We are hoping that the Parry Corporation will be doing that, but as yet we are not too sure that it will be. It is good to see that the term of the licence has been extended from five to seven years, because obviously these channels are not very economic to run and this is the reason why we are finding it difficult to get a commercial operator to put up the channels. If we cannot use the footprint, we will have to turn to the networks to see whether they will network a commercial operation across Australia. I would like to thank the Government for announcing the unencoding of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) signal last Friday. I thank the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support (Mr Duncan) and his counterpart in the Senate, Senator Evans. I made a number of representations, not just to Senator Evans but also to the previous Minister, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy). I could never understand why it was encoded in the first place. Apparently, it was to help the networks; but now that we are not able to get commercial signals, we can use the SBS signal as a second channel. Those of us with dishes in areas such as Maranoa are able at least to get the Australian Broadcasting Corporation through Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) as well as the SBS channel, provided that we have the right sort of dish. It has to be slightly bigger than the existing dish, the further away they move from the footprint, which is roughly centred on Canberra and oscillates up into Queensland to about 200 to 300 kilometres north of the Queensland-New South Wales border. People listening in on radio tonight, if they have the B-mac transmitter, which is the black box on the television, should be able to pick up that signal. Also, SBS radio is available through the satellite. As to the licence for the remote area, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is going to broaden the coverage of the existing licences, and I think this is important. Those holding public radio licences will be able to use the satellite, if necessary, once they have a licence. I would like to mention the fact that these Bills cut the backlog and the red tape involved in this enormously regulated communications industry. Obviously, a lot of it is quite unnecessary, but at least these Bills move towards freeing up the industry a little bit. As to the receiving and rebroadcast of the self-help remote area community television, and the radio transmitters that have been set up throughout the nation, the Bill enables them to put themselves into place more quickly than has been the case up until now. I have been working on one for a while now, at a place called Yellow Cap, which is south of a small town called Meandarra. The only way that these people have been able to afford to use the present HACBSS system, the ABC satellite and the Aussat satellite, as well as now the SBS signal, is to have the local Tara Shire Council increase the rates on those people to put this facility in place, and then they will be reimbursed by the Department. It is hoped that, perhaps, the Council will not have to go to the trouble of picking up extra rates and that now that this thing has been speeded up the Department will be able to put in the facility. We hope that it will be transmitting by the end of 1988. I thank the ABC broadcasters. We are being broadcast. This gives me the opportunity to wish the Minister and all those in the House, and obviously all the constituents of Maranoa, a very Happy Christmas. In my part of the world we have been very fortunate in that it has started to rain again, and in Maranoa we look forward to a very prosperous New Year. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(6.36) —I would like to endorse the remarks made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) when he praised the Government for new initiatives that have been taken in his area. Like me, he has a large country electorate to serve. I think of important changes that have occurred in my area in the nearly five years of the Hawke Labor Government-the new television transmitter for Capital 7 in Bombala, another transmitter for the same channel, the new television channel for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation also at Jindabyne and a new community radio station, EAR-FM at Moruya, serving the Eurobodalla Shire which has been waiting for many years for a new ABC radio service. At last, that service is scheduled; but meanwhile EAR-FM is providing an excellent community radio, with the full participation of a wide range of groups in the shire. Radio 2CN's transmission has improved since it changed its position on the dial. For a long time, farmers and communities not all that far from Canberra were not able to hear radio 2CN, which has a good regional content. Since the change in the position on the dial not so many years ago, the reception has been far better. Radio 2XL in Cooma should have a transmitter at Thredbo before long, and it is great to see radio 2EC as it now is, formerly radio 2BE, expanding with a new transmitter at Narooma. I shall comment briefly on a couple of remarks made by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). First of all, he criticised the fact that the Government had to introduce this legislation and these amendments. I point out to him that current broadcasting legislation is complex and it is in need of constant updating and adjustment, mostly because radio, television and, indeed, even the print media, but particularly the electronic media, are moving very quickly. Changes are happening quickly. The industry has been subject to great technological change in recent years. The broadcasting environment has become extremely sophisticated. I believe that it is difficult to have anything other than constant revision and constant upgrading of the system, and constant consultation, which has taken place. I congratulate the Government on that consultation. The honourable member for Richmond also mentioned that, in his view, the Government was divided and could not come to agreement on legislation. I point out that it is far less divided than the coalition parties. Senator Hill and the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) cannot agree with the rest of their Party on the amount of television coverage that should be held by the ownership. Their regulators cannot agree with their deregulators and they are having a lot of trouble in coming to some agreement on communications in particular. I point out to the House the importance of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) which ties up the effects of aggregation so that television stations do not contravene the cross-media ownership rule. It tackles company structures and the cross-media ownership rules. Although there have been many critics of what has happened in cross-media ownership, there has been a refreshing change in the ownership. It has meant that we have had owners of television and radio stations who are more interested in flourishing as businesses than having political power. For too long we have had media owners who have been solely concerned with political power. It is great to see the injection of new firms which are interested in operating as successful businesses and which are not particularly interested in political power which the old owners often sought. I am happy to support the legislation. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duncan)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- Senate's amendments-(1) Page 2, clause 3, lines 7 to 22, leave out proposed paragraphs 82aa (1) (c) and (d), insert the following paragraph: ``(c) if there is no licence whose service area is substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-specify a number as the population of the service area of the proposed licence; and''. (2) Page 2, clause 3, lines 26 to 43 and page 3, lines 1 to 16, leave out proposed subsection 82aa (2), insert the following subsections: `` `(2) The amount of the fee specified under paragraph (1) (e) shall be an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: F X M where: F is the amount of the fee that would be payable under subsection 6 (2) of the Licence Fees Act in respect of gross earnings in respect of a licence if: (a) the gross earnings were equal to the amount of the comparable gross earnings in respect of the proposed licence; and (b) the fee were calculated in accordance with the Licence Fees Act as in force at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is published in relation to the proposed licence; and M is the multiplication factor for the comparable gross earnings. `` `(2a) The amount of the comparable gross earnings in respect of a proposed licence is: (a) if there is one licence only whose service area is substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-an amount equal to the gross earnings of that other licence in respect of the relevant fee period for that other licence; (b) if there are 2 or more licences whose service areas are substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: G -- N where: G is the sum of the gross earnings in respect of those other licences in respect of the relevant fee periods for those other licences; and N is the number of those other licences; or (c) in any other case-an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: P X D where: P is the service area population of the proposed licence; and D is $15, or such other amount as is fixed by the regulations.''. (3) Page 3, clause 3, line 19, leave out ``subsection (2)'', insert ``subsections (2) and (2a)''. (4) Page 3, clause 3, line 26, leave out ``overlaps'', insert ``is substantially the same as''. (5) Page 3, clause 3, line 29, leave out ``subsection (2)'', insert ``subsections (2) and (2a)''. (6) Page 3, clause 3, lines 38 to 40 and page 4, lines 1 to 3, leave out proposed paragraph 82aa (4) (c), insert the following paragraph: ``(c) if the holder of a licence whose service area overlaps that of the proposed licence fails to comply with paragraph 123 (1) (c) in relation to the relevant fee period for the licence-the gross earnings in respect of the licence in respect of the next most recent period in respect of which a fee was payable in respect of the licence under the Licence Fees Act.''. (7) Page 4, clause 3, lines 24 to 34, leave out the proposed definitions of ``overlap area population'' and ``relevant fee period'', insert the following definitions: `` `multiplication factor', in relation to comparable gross earnings, means: (a) if those earnings are less than $2,500,000-the number 30; (b) if those earnings are equal to or greater than $2,500,000 but less than $3,500,000-the number 35; or (c) if those earnings are equal to or greater than $3,500,000-the number 40; `relevant fee period', in relation to a licence (in this definition called the `existing licence') whose service area is substantially the same as or overlaps that of the proposed commercial radio licence, means the most recent period in respect of which a fee was payable in respect of the existing licence under subsection 6 (2) of the Licence Fees Act, where the 6 months referred to in paragraph 123 (1) (c) beginning at the end of the period had ended before the day on which the notice under subsection 82 (1) in relation to the proposed commercial radio licence was published in the Gazette;''. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.42) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments to this Bill were moved in the Senate by the Australian Democrats and supported by the Government. Their effect is to change the basis of calculating the establishment fee for new regional commercial radio licenses. Rather than relating directly to the revenue of the incumbent licensee or licensees as was the Government's original proposal, the fee will now be based on the most recent licence fees paid by the incumbent. In most markets where a new commercial service is currently proposed, the new licensee will be placed in direct competition with an existing solus operator with substantially the same service area. In these situations the new licensee will be charged a multiple of the incumbent licensee's licence fee, assessed in the most recent accounting period for which that licensee has been required to submit financial information to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal under section 123 (1) (c) of the Act. Where there is more than one licensee whose service area is substantially the same as that of the proposed licence, the fee will be calculated as a multiple of the licence fee which would be payable on the average earnings of those licensees. Where there is no existing licensee with a service area substantially the same as the proposed licence, the establishment fee will be calculated as a multiple of the notional licence fee which would be payable on earnings set at $15, or such other figure as set by the regulations, per head of the population in the proposed service area. The $15 figure reflects the average per capita earnings of solus regional commercial radio licensees in 1985-86, the most recent year for which data is available. The multiples referred to will be 30 times for revenue less than $2.5m per annum, 35 times for revenue between $2.5m and $3.5m and 40 times for revenue over $3.5m. Since the licence fees scale is itself progressive the result will be a sharply progressive establishment fee scale which reduces the fee for smaller markets but increases it for higher earning markets. The Government supports the amendments although they will result in lower revenue by approximately $1.8m from establishment fees and $2.7m from establishment and conversion fees in 1987-88. I am satisfied that the Government's primary policy objective to ensure a reasonable return from the commercial use of a public resource which more accurately reflects its true value will not be compromised. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.45) —The final passage of this tawdry episode with the attempts by the Government to introduce commercial FM radio to certain regional centres of Australia is a very sad reflection on the Government. It has changed its policy of its own volition three times and has been forced to change it a fourth time to get the legislation through, and that is what we are discussing now. First, it said that there would be applications for these commercial radio stations, and I refer in particular to my own area of Shepparton in the Goulburn Valley. That was fine. But it then decided to have an auction system to raise money. It changed the rules of the game about three parts of the way through the application system. It then changed its mind again, after the outcry, to a set fee. In the case of Shepparton, the set fee would have been higher, probably, than the tender would have achieved. Now, because of a deal with the Australian Democrats we have these changes. I want to make it very clear that although there will be no opposition to this change because there is no point in it anyway, the coalition parties are opposed to it. We believe it is wrong in principle because the first criterion of establishing those licences, applications, et cetera, should have been adhered to. The Democrats have sold out the ability for locally controlled and programmed regional commercial FM radio in those regional areas, particularly in my area of the Goulburn Valley. The Democrats will live to regret it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(6.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. The principal amendments bring the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act into line with the Public Service Act 1922, as amended by the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986, in the areas of promotions, transfers, appeals, forfeiture of office and attachment of salary. Provision is also made for the transfer of staff from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to certain other Commonwealth authorities. The Commonwealth Teaching Service established under the Principal Act is divided into three parts or `components'. The two largest components are the Australian Capital Territory schools component and the Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education (TAFE) component. The schools component consists of teaching staff employed in Commonwealth schools, mainly in the Australian Capital Territory. Teachers employed in the Australian Capital Territory TAFE colleges belong to the TAFE component. Staff are made available to the educational institutions in each component by the notional employer, or `relevant authority', of the component. Turning first to the question of promotions and appeals; seniority has been removed as a factor in determining the most suitable applicant for a position, leaving efficiency as the sole determinant. The definition of efficiency has itself been broadened to allow a relevant authority to consider an applicant's potential for future career development and his or her ability to perform the duties of other positions at the same level. In addition, the relevant authority in each component now has the option of promoting or transferring an officer on the advice of a joint selection committee comprising an independent chairperson and either two or three other members agreed between the relevant authority and the appropriate union. Measures have also been taken to reduce the number of appeals. New provisions inserted by the Bill exclude appeals in two situations: firstly, where a person is promoted to a position by a relevant authority acting on the advice of a joint selection committee; and secondly, where a person did not apply for a position. The appeal process has itself been streamlined by removing the need for a promotions appeal board to make full inquiry into the claims of the different parties to the appeal and by substituting a requirement that a board make only such inquiries as are necessary to enable it to form an opinion as to the most efficient of the applicants. It is expected that these changes to the promotions and appeals systems will significantly reduce the time take to fill positions and there should in general be less recourse to an increasingly lengthy and costly appeal process. There is currently no provision in the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act, or in the determination and awards governing conditions of employment in the Commonwealth Teaching Service, for terminating the contract of an employee who has been absent on unauthorised leave for an extended period or who has left the service without submitting a resignation. Provisions in the Bill similar to the forfeiture of office provisions in the Public Service Act remedy this. Persons retired under the new provisions will have access to a two-tier review process. The manner of application for review will be prescribed by regulations under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. It is intended that a relevant authority's decision not to re-appoint a person will be reviewable by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. The amendment of the Act to allow a proportion of an employee's salary to be deducted to satisfy debts incurred by the officer will provide a firm legal base for existing practice. Administration costs will be defrayed by the charging of a fee at a rate prescribed by regulations under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. Finally, new section 50a, inserted by clause 11 of the Bill, empowers the Minister to transfer staff to another Commonwealth authority where the function performed by the staff is taken over by that authority. The section will allow staff to be transferred from the service to the proposed ACT Institute of TAFE and the proposed Canberra Institute of the Arts. Ordinances establishing the two institutes are scheduled to commence in early 1988. The Government proposes to consult with employee representatives about applicable conditions of service before staff are transferred under new section 50a. Conditions of service of staff transferred under the section would remain broadly comparable to those applying immediately before the transfer. Fundamental entitlements, such as superannuation, maternity leave and long service leave, would also be preserved. No additional costs are expected to flow from the implementation of this Bill. Some minor savings are expected to flow from a reduction in the number of appeals required to be determined by promotions appeal boards. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land, Transport and Infrastructure Support)(6.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 will amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Radiocommunications Act 1983, and the Telecommunications Act 1975. The principal changes made in the Bill are intended to: streamline the procedures by which the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), Australia Post and Telecom Australia can enter into hedging contracts; enable Australia Post and Telecom Australia to issue securities not guaranteed by the Commonwealth; clarify and strengthen the law relating to the sending of explosives and other dangerous goods through the mail; confirm the Minister's power to test equipment as part of the process of issuing licences under the Radiocommunications Act; place the practice of type-testing radiocommunications equipment on a statutory basis; and provide a statutory power to prohibit the supply, operation or possession for the purpose of supply or operation of devices intended to cause interference with the legitimate use of the radio frequency spectrum, or likely to cause interference to radiocommunications in such a way as to endanger life or property. Various other amendments of the four Acts of a purely formal or technical nature are also included. Financial Impact Statement The amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1983 relating to testing are expected to provide a very small increase in revenue through testing fees. All other amendments are expected to have no financial impact. I will deal first with the amendments to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, and the Telecommunications Act 1975. The commissions established by these three Acts-respectively OTC, Australia Post, and Telecom Australia-each have power to enter into hedging contracts as part of their normal trading activities. Each commission must also obtain the approval of the Minister for a contract involving the payment or receipt of money in excess of a specified amount. At present each of the three Acts contains a definition of `proposed contract' the effect of which is to require the respective commissions to await ministerial approval of a trading contract before entering into a hedging contract in respect of it. Given the speed with which currency values can fluctuate, it is commercially vital for the commissions to be able to enter into hedging contracts as soon as the trading contract is negotiated, otherwise the benefit of the hedging contract may be totally lost. The Bill therefore amends the three Acts to permit this. Secondly, the Postal Services Act 1975 and Telecommunications Act 1975 presently require securities issued by Australia Post and Telecom Australia respectively to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This obligation is commercially unnecessary and is inconsistent with the flexibility that exists with other non-prescribed forms of borrowing, and the Bill therefore removes it. These amendments will place the two authorities in the same position as other Commonwealth business enterprises, other than financial institutions, where guarantees of borrowings may be provided at the discretion of the Treasurer. Thirdly, the Bill amends the Postal Services Act 1975 to clarify and strengthen the law relating to the sending of explosives or other dangerous goods or substances through the post. Honourable members will remember the explosion at the Brisbane parcels centre in January 1987 which seriously injured a postal worker. This incident focused attention on the need to significantly tighten the legislation relating to the carriage of explosive or other dangerous substances in the mail. The proposed new section makes it an offence to send explosives through the mail and provides for acceptance of dangerous or deleterious substances on conditions determined by the Commission. The current section 100 of the Postal Services Act 1975 does not clearly differentiate between those items which are prohibited from transmission by post and those which may be conditionally accepted. The proposed new section also significantly increases the penalties for such offences. This proposed new section 100 is but one of the measures being taken to minimise the risks to postal workers through the carriage of dangerous goods in the mail. Australia Post is working closely with unions on a comprehensive preventative program that includes training programs for staff receiving parcels, contact with companies likely to be sources of dangerous goods, especially explosives, and work to secure the co-operation of other postal authorities. The Bill amends section 58 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 to increase the monetary penalties from $40 to $500 in relation to disciplinary action. An increase of this order was one of the recommendations contained in the report of Mr F. H. R. Vincent, QC, on a review of allegations against Telecom Australia. The level of the monetary penalty proposed is in line with a similar provision in the Public Service Act following amendment to the Act in 1986 as part of the Government's streamlining reforms. Fourthly, the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 is amended to correct a drafting error, and the Telecommunications Act 1975 is amended to render its language gender-neutral. Next I shall describe the amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1983. There are two major and several minor amendments. The first of these amends the Act to provide a statutory basis for the issue of a certificate to be called a `type approval certificate'. When issuing licences for the operation of radiocommunications transmitters or receivers under the Act, the Minister or his or her delegate is required to take into account the effect on radiocommunications of the proposed operation of the transmitter or receiver, and therefore needs to know the characteristics of a transmitter or receiver. The purpose of the amendment is to permit manufacturers or importers of equipment to submit samples of equipment for testing and obtain a certificate to the effect that the equipment has no undesirable effect on radiocommunications. Where such a certificate is issued in respect of a particular model of, say, radiocommunications transmitter, the holder of the certificate will be authorised to affix a statement to each example of that model that such a certificate has been issued. When issuing licences covering the operation of equipment for which a type approval certificate has been issued, the Minister will have no need to examine or test the equipment further. The sections of the Act covering licensing of radio-communications transmitters and receivers are to be amended to place beyond doubt the Minister's power to require applicants for such licences to submit the proposed equipment for testing, if necessary. The second major amendment is to give the Minister power to prohibit particular devices, where the devices are either expressly designed to interfere with the legitimate use of the radio frequency spectrum, or where a device substantially interferes with, or substantially disrupts or disturbs, radiocommunications in a manner likely to endanger the safety of persons or cause substantial loss or damage. The power is to be exercised only after publication of the details of the proposed prohibition, and the giving of reasons for it, and following consideration of any representations which may be received in answer to the notice. Once made, the declaration of the prohibition is to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and tabled in the Parliament as if it were a regulation. Once a device is prohibited, its supply or operation or possession for the purposes of supply or operation is an offence, subject to fines of $1,000 for a natural person or $5,000 for a body corporate. This amendment is designed to protect legitimate users of the spectrum from certain devices which are available overseas and may be imported into Australia. Control of such devices under the standards power is not appropriate since standards are intended to apply only to devices which are licensable, and it would be inappropriate to make standards for devices which would never under any circumstances be licensed. Moreover, a standard only applies to devices manufactured or imported after the date on which the standard was made, and therefore does not catch devices manufactured or imported earlier. The mere possession of a prohibited device will not in itself constitute an offence; however, so that a person who owns a device which is subsequently prohibited will commit an offence only if the device is actually used or sold to another person. A less important but still significant amendment is to the provision of the Act allowing a licensee to authorise another person to operate the licensee's equipment. Cases have arisen in the past where fears have been expressed that a person whose licence had been cancelled for breaches of the Act or Regulations might arrange to obtain access to another transmitter by way of such an authority. This amendment therefore provides that a person whose licence has been cancelled cannot lawfully be authorised to operate another transmitter of the same kind as the licence was issued in respect of, for a period of three years, unless that person has been issued with a new licence subsequent to the cancellation. Further, if a person is currently licensed to operate a transmitter, and also holds an authority from another person to operate another transmitter of the same class, if the former person's licence is suspended or cancelled, the authority lapses at the time of the suspension or cancellation. The Bill also amends the Act to extend the range of offences subject to fines in lieu of prosecution by adding to it offences against subsection 65 (9) of the Act; that is, offences in the nature of using radiocommunications transmitters for harassing another person by causing interference with radiocommunications. As with other offences subject to fines in lieu of prosecutions, the maximum fine that may be imposed in this way is one-fifth of the sum prescribed as penalty by the Act. The Bill makes a number of minor and consequential amendments to the Act, and also amends it to render its language gender neutral. The Bill represents further evidence of the Government's commitment to efficiency and sound commercial practice for major government business enterprises such as OTC, Australia Post and Telecom Australia; to the safety of Australia Post's employees and legitimate users of the postal services; and to efficient and equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum, which is a scarce and valuable resource. I commend the Bill to the House and I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I present a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Expenditure on 10 May 1984. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill No. 2 1987 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 Maritime College Amendment Bill 1987 Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1987 Australian National University Amendment Bill 1987 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987 Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD —(Murray) (7.05)-The purpose of the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987 is to validate regulations following identification of a technical problem by a Senate committee related to the name of the industry organisation responsible for making a report to the Government. The amendments validate the wheat tax regulations amendment, SR 1987, No. 182, which provide for an increase in the rate of wheat tax from 40c to 45c per tonne operative from 1 October 1987 for the purposes of research. The Opposition parties support the legislation. In spite of the bungling of the Government on this legislation it is sensible that any increased levy for wheat research be applied at the beginning of the wheat harvesting season which then allows that increased tax or charge to be levied equitably across the total wheat production for Australia. The bungle by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), his Department, or both, is the latest in quite a number of bungles that we have seen in this session of Parliament. This is the second bungle on wheat legislation alone this session. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) also included in its amendments the change of the name of the appropriate industry organisation from the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation to the Grains Council of Australia. A very hurried series of amendments were put through to the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill because the earlier amendments had not properly covered the situation for hen quotas in each of the States. Presently we have the absurd situation whereby amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) legislation, particularly in relation to changing the voting procedure at the annual general meeting of the AMLC, are still to be debated and passed in the Senate. I think that legislation went through this chamber about a month or six weeks ago. The annual general meeting of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for which the amendments were drafted was held in Albury last week; hence the farcical nature of the amendments. Two years after the cattle industry had asked for those amendments, to make the already absurd voting requirements slightly less absurd, the legislation is still waiting to be passed in the Senate. The bungling of the Minister and his incompetence in relation to agricultural legislation is also to be seen by his failure to assist equitably and fight for agricultural exports and agricultural industries particularly in comparison to the massive levels of assistance being given to secondary industry which it is claimed will assist it to export or to be import competitive. Our export figures indicate that no such boost in manufacturing export is taking place. The steel plan, the heavy industry plan, the motor vehicle plan, the textiles plan, the ship repair plan and so on are costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet when it comes to wheat, which is a major export commodity of this country, the Government has just changed the rules on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, making it more difficult and more costly for the wheat industry to maintain its second major market, which is Egypt. The Government has a policy of meeting 50 per cent of the costs of meat export inspection charges. However, when an additional export inspection cost is incurred because of the beef residue problem the Government will not honour its own policy. I agree with the Minister that the beef residue problem or pesticide residue problem in export meat was not incurred by the livestock industry; it was incurred by other industries and was actually as a result of the lethargy of state departments. Because the Government will not honour its policy means that the livestock industry of this country, which has already been hit with additional costs and which is taking on additional costs to increase promotion, will be paying an extra $20m to $25m this year. To add insult to injury, the Government is now trying to impose a 50 per cent cost on the national residue survey-that is, the national food basket survey-for which the Government has always paid in the past because it is a public health measure, and the Government will continue to pay for all commodities except meat. It is now attempting to add an additional cost on this already overloaded industry which is one of the great export industries of this country on which we will have to rely, along with wheat, wool and other agricultural exports, to turn around our disastrous balance of trade problems. This year wool will be the largest single export of this nation. That is a tremendous achievement for an industry that has been counted out several times, an industry that has put more money into research than any other industry in this country. It is a common feature of agricultural industries that they put more money into research than other industries, and that is why they are world competitive. However, the Government broke its promise, which it repeated during the election campaign, to match on a $1 for $2 basis the wool promotion costs of the wool industry. That wool promotion assistance by government is the only assistance the industry gets from government; therefore, it is probably the least assisted industry of any of the industries in this country. Not only has the Government broken that promise but also it now has an inquiry which will be used-- Mr Andrew —Hear, hear! Mr Jenkins —Don't encourage him. Mr LLOYD —I very much agree with the interjection made by my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield, and I think there was an interjection from the Labor side of the House also giving me support. Honourable members should not interject any more. The Government will use that inquiry as an excuse to reduce its assistance in the wool promotion area when its contribution to this great industry is already pitiful. We have learned that, because of the discussions in New Zealand a few weeks ago between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Lange, the memorandum of understanding for dairy arrangements between the two countries has been effectively broken. Without any guarantees of fair trading New Zealand will almost certainly be exporting more products to this country with the additional assistance that its farmers will receive in the very near future. I know that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is very interested in the wine industry. I wonder whether he is aware that French champagne will rank as the official champagne, along with Australian champagne, for the Bicentenary. That indicates the assistance given by the Government and government-backed and supported organisations to these great agricultural industries. I want to come back to the bungles in the grain industry. Today we are debating and supporting measures which will increase a tax on wheat so that the industry can put more into research and that increased money will be matched by money from the Government. The barley section of the grains industry has also requested the ability to increase the tax on its production so that it can spend more money on research. I quote form a letter from Mr Charles, the President of the Grains Council of Australia, to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy which states: I understand that the requested increase in the barley research tax has not yet been granted. The Grains Council is very concerned about this further lack of action in the area of research levies. As with the grain legumes research levy, this increase was foreshadowed and was followed by a formal request. The request increase will not result in the amount collected exceeding .5 per cent of GVP-- that is, the gross value of production-- for barley. That is the maximum that the Government permits to be applied through this levy. The letter continues: The Grains Council considers the Government is not meeting its commitment by failing to process these requests. In fact, the Government's failure is contrary to your statement-- meaning the statement of the Minister-- when introducing the Rural Industry Research Bill 1985 where you said encouragement will be given for industry investment in research for a continuation of the dollar for dollar matching arrangement up to the Commonwealth's maximum contribution. The Government will seek to increase its funding to the maximum rate over a five year period but this is dependent on an increase in industry contributions. So the point made in that request by the grains industry is that it accepts the challenge from the Minister and the Government to increase its taxes to obtain more money for research. It is not only the barley industry that wants more money from research. Let me quote again from a letter written by Mr Charles, the President of the Grains Council of Australia, which states: I understand that chickpeas, pidgeon peas and mung beans have been included in the grain legumes research scheme for the 1987-88 harvest. The Grains Council is extremely concerned about this lack of action, particularly as the request was foreshadowed in September 1986. This was followed by a formal request in May 1987. We would appreciate immediate action being taken to have these grains included in the scheme as soon as possible. So we have two significant agricultural industries and, in particular, a new developing one, the grain legumes industry, wanting more money for research. This is all part of the grains industry about which we are talking in this legislation. I doubt that many people in this chamber would be able to tell the difference between wheat and barley. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I am having great difficulty in staying engrossed in this debate. I was about to ask the honourable member to stay relevant to the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill but I understand that there is not much in it. Mr LLOYD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am talking about the Grains Council and the same grains. I have only one more letter from which to quote. Mr Jenkins —Let's save the mung bean. Mr LLOYD —I have been sitting on the Opposition front bench for three days waiting for the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill to come before the House, and I will make the points that I want to make. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We have been waiting for it all year. Mr LLOYD —Mr Deputy Speaker, the wheat industry has also been waiting. Just today, Laurie Eakin, the Executive Director of the Grains Council of Australia, received this letter from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy: Thank you for your telex of 11 November 1987 concerning the request by the Grains Council of Australia for an increase in the rate of levy for research on barley from thirty five to forty cents per tonne and the inclusion of additional grain legumes as leviable crops. While I appreciate your concerns, in this instance it has not been possible to introduce the necessary regulations prior to the start of the 1987/88 season. In other words, some significant industries are prepared to put more money into research. They have been requesting action from the Government, in one case for the last 18 months, and they have now been told, `There is no money this financial year. You will have to wait until next financial year even though you are prepared to put this money up yourself'. This is just another example of the bungling of the Minister and his Department. They have failed to give high priority to these most significant industries in Australia which are prepared to do the research that is necessary so that they can remain internationally competitive and turn around our disastrous trade balance; yet they have had no action or support from the Government. At this late hour, the Opposition supports the legislation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.20) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987. There is a touch of irony about coming to this chamber to debate this issue when, while I stand here, the chances are that there are a great number of wheat growers around Australia currently making their way around paddocks in ever-decreasing circles with their tractor radios tuned to this debate and grain rattling into the bins behind them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Give them all a good hi-ho from the honourable member for Wakefield. Mr ANDREW —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Far from this matter being something that ought to be treated facetiously, we need to appreciate that for many of these grain growers what is rattling into the bin behind them is the difference between survival and the end of their farming careers. I find it somewhat disturbing to have to come into this chamber to join the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) to be one of only two people participating in this debate and to discover, in terms of wheat grower participants, the Government benches to be empty. Whilst it is easy for us at 20 past seven Canberra time to say, `Oh well, it is the last sitting evening of the Parliament. The Prime Minister has been in here. He has spread his style of Christmas cheer and we all ought to be going home'. There is no way any of those grain growers will be knocking off now. The opportunity exists for some Government members to participate in this debate but it is being forgone. I am happy to cut my remarks short-I will try to keep them under five minutes-in recognition of the fact that we are sitting longer than anticipated. But there is no reason for Government members not to be participating in this debate. As the honourable member for Murray has said, the Act that we are debating here tonight currently refers to the industry body as the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation when, as every wheat grower knows, in 1986 that Federation became the Grains Council of Australia. That Council requested the Government that the industry contribution be raised from 40c to 45c per tonne to bring the wheat growers' contribution to research into line with the 0.5 per cent currently being paid in research levies by other major agricultural and horticultural industries. The legislation still refers to the Wheatgrowers Federation and this validating Bill being debated tonight simply changes that reference to the Wheatgrowers Federation to an appropriate and correct reference, to the Grains Council of Australia. It is a reflection on the Government that we should have to rush into the chamber at this late hour to correct another error the Government has made in its handling of rural industry. This is not the first time. The honourable member for Murray has referred to a number of rural industries that have been treated with similar scant regard. The honourable member for Murray might recall that within the last 12 months we have had to come into this chamber to correct other legislation that was introduced when the allocation of first payments and the categories of first payments had been incorrectly apportioned and had to be changed at the last minute by participants from this side of the House. This dithering, this uncertainty, this confused identity which the Government has with the rural sector is cruelly characteristic of the quandary currently facing wheat growers around Australia. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in South Australia. I have to concede, in the generally festive Christmas spirit that pervades the chamber this evening, that the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, is right now on the Eyre Peninsula in one of the key grain growing areas looking at the dilemma facing Australia's grain growers. I would like to be able to say that he had done it voluntarily but a succession of poor years and successive publicity, principally in South Australia's principal provincial newspaper, the Advertiser, over the last six months have finally forced the Premier to do something. I refer to an article in the Advertiser this week in which the writer said: One of the key grouches of entire rural communities across South Australia is that there is no grassroots understanding by governments and other key decision-makers of their plight. Now, at the last minute, in an effort to redress a cruel situation, the Premier of South Australia is talking to west coast grain growers in South Australia. One might well say that if that is the reality-and it is-facing grain growers in South Australia and facing grain growers, as the honourable member for Murray has said, around the nation, why have we not one voice raised on the other side of the chamber in the interests of South Australia's grain growers? I will stand by my earlier agreement to be brief. I want to say in my concluding remarks that the problem facing grain growers in Australia is not based solely in South Australia. While wheat stocks are down, grain growers nonetheless face an impossible position and that impossible position is best illustrated by some statistics the Parliamentary Library drew out for me which indicate that in 1987 one bushel of wheat will purchase only half as much fuel as it did in 1977. The grain growers of Australia have done more than their share in increasing Australia's productivity without taking a greater slice of the loaf, if you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker. But for them there is no 4 per cent productivity flow on; instead for them there is the reality that the grain rattling into the bins behind them is scarcely enough to meet their costs of production. The grain growers of Australia have made more than their share of productivity increases without a 4 per cent price rise; would that some other industries follow their example. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(7.27) —I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). Mr Cowan —You will do just as well, Ben, if not better. Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Lyne for the compliment. I do not want to take up too much time. The Minister is out meeting and talking with primary producers and farmers at the moment. I appreciate that the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) are supporting this legislation. However, I do not think criticism of the Minister is warranted, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party was saying. The Minister is known as the Bob Hawke of the bush. I know that the farmers really appreciate the great work that he has done for primary producers. Mr Andrew —Are there no other farmers on your side? Mr HUMPHREYS —The honourable member was criticising the Government for not taking part in this debate. We want the legislation passed through very quickly so we can help the farmers. The honourable member for Lyne is the only National Party member except for the Deputy Leader in the chamber, yet the Opposition has been criticising the Australian Labor Party. Mr Lloyd —But we should have debated this legislation months back. Mr HUMPHREYS —That is absolute nonsense. The honourable member has had his go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister might return to the matter before the House. Mr HUMPHREYS —I am just saying that the Minister is not here because he is out talking to the farmers. He has done a great job for primary industry. Never before has so much been done for the farmers. When the National Party was in power for all those years there were meat substitution scandals and all the other nonsense. Mr Lloyd —The beef residue scandal is a far bigger scandal than that one was. Mr HUMPHREYS —Do not worry about that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister might get back to the matter before the House and conclude his remarks. Mr HUMPHREYS —The Opposition has done nothing for farmers and he now comes in here to accuse the Minister. I absolutely refute the allegations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys) read a third time. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the third report from the House of Representatives Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 46, subclauses 39 (2), (3), (4) and (5), lines 16 to 40, leave out the subclauses. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(7.30) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. I do not intend to debate this proposal at any length. This is a very unfortunate example of grandstanding of the worst kind as far as the Opposition in the Senate is concerned. It is perfectly clear that this is a demonstration, and a very shallow one, as it turns out, of what the Opposition would wish to be recognised as its commitment to deregulation of the labour market. I will briefly explain what this measure is about. There is a provision in the current States grants Act to provide financial grants to universities, colleges and other tertiary institutes around Australia and that requires that the institutions pay no more-and, indeed, no less-than the amount specified by the Academic Salaries Tribunal and, in the future, by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That has been done in order to ensure compliance with those industrial conditions. In the Green Paper which I tabled yesterday the Government indicated that it is prepared to discuss with the institutions and staff associations the relaxation of that provision to allow for greater salary flexibility within those institutions. However, that particular concession on our part is part of a package of measures which we are proposing to institutions and staff associations, essentially in order to improve the way in which staff are appointed and employed within those institutions. I am not prepared to see that package, as we have proposed it, compromised in the way in which the Opposition seeks to do. What is very interesting about the current provision in the Act-a provision which had its origins during the time of the Fraser Government and which has simply been carried on and extended in one small way by the current Government-is that, when an institution paid more or less than the amount specified by the Academic Salaries Tribunal, the Government could reduce the grants of the institutions by a like amount. In doing so, the Minister had to make a determination which could be disallowed by the Senate. So there was never any reason for this amendment. If, at any time, the Senate did not approve of any exercise of my discretion in relation to the reducing of grants because an institution was paying more or less than the amount specified by the Academic Salaries Tribunal or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, of course, it could disallow my determination. So this exercise of knocking out this clause is a nonsense proposition and one which is being used simply to highlight what the Opposition believes is its preferred position in relation to industrial relations practices and the labour market in general. The reason we are deciding to accept this proposal is that we can achieve precisely the same purpose, but in a slightly different way, elsewhere in the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. This proposal deals with clause 39, but if members of the Opposition were to look at clause 32, they would see that it is possible for me, under the provisions which will remain in the Bill when it becomes law, to change particular grants for any reason. It is my intention to continue to observe the practice of my predecessors in ensuring, at least for the time being, compliance with the determinations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Opposition has decided, together with the Australian Democrats, to use its numbers in the Senate to remove this provision. In doing so, it loses the scrutiny which it had by the preservation of clause 39, because of the requirement for me to make a determination. There are ways in which I can use my powers under section 32 which do not require scrutiny by the Senate, although a regulation would be required if I were actually to withdraw funds from an institution. I am perfectly conscious of what that means. I am not prepared to see the totality of the Green Paper package distorted in this piece-meal kind of way. The Opposition has to recognise that, regardless of the provision that it is now arguing about, if it really wants to achieve a freeing-up of the labour market, at least as it applies to higher education institutions, the totality of the package that we are talking about makes a much greater contribution to that objective than this proposition. The other point I make is that this is quite clearly exposed as symbolism. This measure seeks to rectify situations which might have occurred during 1987. During 1988, we would be able to adjust grants in respect of overaward payments for the sake of the argument, made during 1987. So it is not a measure which will affect the future. It will only affect our ability to correct, at least in terms of existing policy, what has been done in the past. The reason for accepting this amendment is that I am not prepared to see this matter become one of huge controversy at the moment; one which would put at risk the payments which are due to higher education institutions sometime next week. I am accepting it because I can achieve my purposes, or at least the purposes of the existing policy, by resorting to measures which remain in the Bill. The Opposition has tried to be very clever as far as this is concerned, but it has outsmarted itself. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(7.38) —It is regrettable that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) should demonstrate such petulance at this late hour. It is true that the Opposition has made a relatively small amendment to this package. It is a package which we agree has considerable merit. We have said that in the other place. Our spokesman on education, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has made that point quite clear. I re-emphasise the fact that our concern in relation to this clause stems from the fact that some faculties of universities are having considerable difficulty retaining highly competent and trained staff who are substantially in demand in the private sector. The tendency, as the Minister is well aware, in Australian institutions is that the salary scales for professors, senior lecturers, demonstrators, et cetera, are more or less set both within and between institutions and, in many cases, this factor does not take account of the fact that the demand, for example, for somebody who is an expert in social science, is not the same as for someone who is an expert in medicine, dentistry, engineering or any of the other sciences. Therefore, we believe that, if the Minister and the Government are serious about giving greater autonomy to institutions, it surely follows that they should also have greater responsibility and the opportunity to be in a position in which they can compete on the labour market for scarce intellectual resources of the quality we obviously need if we wish to maintain a high standard of intellectual capability within our institutions. For that reason I reject the observations of the Minister. The Opposition, naturally, is pleased that he has seen fit to permit this amendment to be passed. Let us hope that the package as a whole, despite the problems that we have identified with it, will in its own way lead to a significant improvement in tertiary education in Australia. Amendment agreed to. Resolution reported. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(7.40) —I move: That the report be adopted. Let me say in response to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that the amendment he seeks to make will not affect what happens during 1988. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It is not appropriate for the Minister to repeat the debate. He can speak to the motion that the report be adopted, but not to the matter that was dealt with in the committee stage. Mr DAWKINS —That is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will certainly abide by your ruling. This report ought to be adopted to ensure that this Bill can now be reported to the Senate. The provisions of the Bill will then become law and we will be able to make payments to the higher education institutions as we had originally intended, without there being any effective change in the policies we had originally proposed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning I tabled a paper that was deficient by one page, and I now seek to add the missing page. For the information of the House I present an addendum to the report on the forward estimates of Budget outlays that was presented earlier today. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the following reports: 278th Response to report of the Auditor-General 1983-84 and September 1984; 281st Report of activities-July 1986-June 1987; 282nd Review of efficiency audit-Australian Wool Corporation-Property operations; 283rd Response to report of the Auditor-General-April 1985; 284th Stratplan-Department of Social Security ADP re-equipment program-Final report; 285th Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1985-86); 286th Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1986-87); 287th Australian Taxation Office-Computer system re-equipment and redevelopment; 288th Review of the efficiency audit-Administration of capital grants to non-government schools, Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr TICKNER —I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —In this my first tabling speech as the newly elected Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I would like to take the opportunity briefly to remind the House and the Parliament of the vital importance of the work of that Committee. The Committee has been described as the `watchdog of the public purse' and `the taxpayers' best friend'. I firmly believe that the history and track record of the Committee testify to the truth of these words. The Committee is, of course, crucial to the scrutiny role performed by the Auditor-General. Other Committee members and I were delighted that the Auditor-General recognised the work of the Committee in his annual report when he stated: This Committee thus is the main focus of Parliamentary consideration of my reports and plays a crucial role in reviewing the observance of public accountability obligations of Commonwealth departments and agencies. Consideration of those Auditor-General's Reports has prompted inquiries of enormous significance, including medical fraud and overservicing, defence project management and Commonwealth property administration, to name but a few. In addition, the Committee has produced significant reports under its standing reference to inquire into major automatic data processing acquisitions by departments. I have today tabled two additional reports under this reference. The Committee noted in its report on the Australian Taxation Office's re-equipment and redevelopment program that aspects of the Taxation Office's proposal clearly demonstrate the benefit that has already accrued to that organisation as a result of the scrutiny given by the Committee to other major ADP proposals. The Public Accounts Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament has long been regarded as a pacesetter in establishing public accountability in government. Public accounts committees have been established by all State governments, with the notable exception of one. As all honourable members are aware, a major impediment to the establishment of a public accounts committee in Queensland is no longer present, and I welcome the indications by the Queensland Government that it will initiate this long overdue reform in that State. I raise this matter because I believe that a well-resourced public accounts committee is an essential force in a modern Parliamentary democracy. The reports I am tabling this afternoon speak largely for themselves. Subject to specific matters I will raise, I wish to speak in a general manner about the reports as a whole. It would be remiss of me as Chairman if I were not to make some comment on the implications on the Committee's program of the recent restructuring of the committee system of the House of Representatives. I am on the public record as being one of the strongest supporters of the establishment of that new House of Representatives committee system but it is, of course, public knowledge that, as a result of the additional committees, the Public Accounts Committee will have its staff reduced from 15 to 5. This will assist in adequately staffing other committees without increasing committee staffing levels overall. However, as I have indicated, it is my obligation as Chairman to place on record that the Committee considers that the drastically reduced staffing level will prevent the Committee from fulfilling the obligations imposed on it by the Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee. I have the responsibility as Chairman of a committee which has a long-standing reputation for bipartisanship to maintain that tradition, and I make my remarks in that context. I am confident that the Committee's concerns will meet with a sympathetic response from all those to whom we have directed them. Having said that, I would like to comment briefly on reports 285 and 286-the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1985-86 and 1986-87. The Advance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation acts and made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriations and section 36a of the Audit Act 1901. The Committee continues to be concerned by the many instances of insufficient documentary information being provided by departments in support of their applications for funds from the Advance. Further, the Committee doubts whether the current procedure enables the most timely and effective means of ensuring accountability. Given the delays which now occur between the incidence of expenditure from the Advance and its examination by the Committee, the Committee feels that perhaps there is a case for introducing a procedure which enables more immediate Parliamentary scrutiny. It is appropriate at this stage to make some brief reference to a particular approach which I wish to bring to the Committee as its Chairman. That approach is to ensure that, in addition to dealing with case by case inquiries into departments and authorities, the Committee will always look to the broader picture and towards ideas for structural change in public administration which have the effect of changing the rules and improving the system that is often the cause of poor public administration. I would like to give another example of what I will be trying to achieve in this area. I see little point in committees of the Parliament conducting extensive inquiries and producing reports, often very constructive reports, if there is no effective system of follow-up on what action governments take on these reports. This principle applies not merely to the Public Accounts Committee but to all committees of the Parliament. For this reason, I was delighted that the Government accepted the Committee's proposal that annual reports of Government departments should contain information regarding any reviews by the Auditor-General or parliamentary committees which directly affect the department concerned showing the recommendations arising from the reviews and the actions taken to address them. This will be welcomed by all of us in the Parliament who embrace the parliamentary committee system. I would also like to comment on the 287th report, on the Australian Taxation Office's acquisition of computers. This report presents the findings of the Committee's review of the proposed computer system re-equipment and redevelopment program for the Tax Office. The Committee supports the Australian Taxation Office in its endeavours to make better use of information technology and is firmly of the view that the Taxation Office has no alternative but to proceed with its computer system re-equipment and redevelopment proposal. The project is one of the largest of its kind ever to be undertaken in this country. Nevertheless, the Committee has a number of concerns with matters that relate to the proposal and has made recommendations accordingly. The principal concerns include the continuing shortage of suitably qualified computer personnel and the effects that this problem will have on the Taxation Office's proposal, and the management expertise of those charged with `driving' the re-equipment and redevelopment program through to completion. We believe that the Tax Office should set up a task force dedicated to the re-equipment and redevelopment program and the task force should be managed by highly experienced external personnel. A third concern relates to the justification of the project used by the Tax Office and, in particular, the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. The Committee is somewhat sceptical about the staff savings that are predicted by the Tax Office and used as justification for the project. The Committee has recommended that the Tax Office re-evaluate the justification for its proposal and identify the proposal's potential benefits in terms of the objectives and performance targets defined in the Office's corporate plan. The Committee has also recommended that the Tax Office and the Department of Finance adopt a co-ordinated and timely approach to the specification of appropriate performance indicators for the re-equipment and redevelopment program. The Committee notes that in justifying its proposal, the Tax Office has not used revenue gains that might result from the new systems. The Office had advised the Committee that revenue gains had already been put forward to the Select Committee on an Australia Card. However, subsequent to the Government's decision not to proceed with the Australia Card, the Tax Office advised the Committee that it was preparing for Cabinet consideration a proposal for the development of a high integrity numbering system as part of its computer system re-equipment and redevelopment proposal. The Tax Office advised the Committee that it would prepare a cost-benefit analysis of the re-equipment and redevelopment proposal which did not include the use of a high integrity numbering system. This analysis would be presented to Cabinet together with the proposal for the high integrity numbering system. I want to pay special tribute to the staff of the Public Accounts Committee, some of whom have been with the Committee for a very long period and operate in the finest traditions of staff of the Parliament. I wish them and their families all the very best for Christmas. I also want to make a reference to a former staff member, Mr Peter Mason, who is still very much part of the family in the House of Representatives, who gave very dedicated service over five years to the Committee. We thank him for that service. I commend the reports to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I commend the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), for his excellent address. Tonight we are somewhat pressed-pressed by the Government, which is anxious to ensure that this debate is wound up as quickly as possible; and pressed in the sense that nine committee reports are to be considered as one. Normally in a debate in relation to committee reports, debate would ensue on each and every one of the reports that are tabled. Each and every one of them represents hours of sweat and effort on the part of not only the members of parliament but the staff who are appointed to assist in the undertaking of important inquiries. The Public Accounts Committees of the Parliament, as the honourable member for Hughes has said, accepts a very important statutory responsibility and has done so over a long period. It is a very distinguished committee of this Parliament. It has a unique role. It is formed from members of this House and of the Senate, and its role is given to it by the Act of Parliament that established it. It is a role that is beyond interference by this Parliament. In other words, the references, the matters at which it looks, are determined by the Committee itself and not by the Parliament. It is accepted wisdom that public accounts committees are important if we are to have effective accountability by the Executive to the Parliament. That argument has been mounted by the Australian Labor Party time and time again in relation to Queensland-where the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is from. I must say that I am one of those who accept that argument and believe that it is correct. I am glad that the Minister does too, as he signifies by his nodding. But the fact of the matter is that the one and overriding issue which I shall address tonight relates not to all of these reports, which represent a great deal of work and effort, but principally to report No. 281, which deals with the activities of the Committee. What this report reveals in detail, and which one cannot adduce in a matter of minutes, is the enormous work load undertaken by the Committee and the way in which the Committee has been resourced to carry out that workload given to it by statute and by the Government. Let me take honourable members through the index-it is the briefest way to explain it. In the year 1986-87, up to June, the Committee considered four major reports: on forward obligations of government expenditure, defence equipment support, implementation of the offsets program, and administration of the Commonwealth's property functions. It considered six efficiency reports under its statute-in relation to Australia Post, the administration of quarantine services, a review of action, and four efficiency audits in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. It also considered a number of inquiries in relation to its automatic data processing standing reference from the Minister for Finance, a project design for the Department of Defence, and the Department of Community Services proposal to acquire computing services. There were another 13 reports, finance minutes, and responses to particular reports considered before. To undertake that work load, as the report reveals, the Committee used a number of sub-committees to undertake the particular work, and then the Committee dealt with the detail of it later. On page 48 it is revealed that the full Committee had three sub-committees-A, B, and C-and specialist sub-committees on information technology, defence offsets, and medifraud and overservicing. In order to break up that work load, the staff was split into a number of task forces to serve each sub-committee. There was the secretary, who had a steno-secretary attached, and there were a number of class 9 officers heading four work teams to ensure that this work load was addressed. The fact of the matter is that that work load will not diminish, the quality of the work should not diminish, and certainly the requirement for accountability has in no way diminished. Yet, as the Government moves admirably to form other committees to undertake other inquiries, the staff available to the Public Accounts Committee is to be reduced under the present plans from 15 to 5. It is being done on the basis of an argument, developed before a government committee that considered the committee structure, that all committees ought to be comparatively served, presumably regardless of what they do. I draw to the attention of honourable members the Notice Paper for today. It reveals the present state of affairs in relation to committees. What it tells us is that we have an Aboriginal Affairs Committee, which will have a staff of five, with one reference; a Community Affairs Committee with a staff of five and no references; an Employment, Education and Training Committee with two references and a staff of five; an Environment, Recreation and the Arts Committee with no references; a Finance and Public Administration Committee which has eight references and, again, a staff of five; an Industry, Science and Technology Committee with one reference; a Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to which I belong, which has no references; and a Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Committee with one reference. It may be that these committees will be given other references over time; but, in the meantime, they are to be staffed by stripping the committee, which has 19 current references, of its support-the support that enables it to carry out this important function-and one which is eulogised elsewhere and which the Minister himself acknowledged is so important. When he spoke on this matter, the honourable member for Hughes indicated that he was confident that, as a result of the reviews that are taking place, and presumably of Madam Speaker's letter to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Committee might be able to get some extra staffing to deal with this problem. I do not share his view. I suspect, and some would say that I am perhaps looking for other motives, that in all that has happened the intention has always been to strip the Public Accounts Committee of its capacity to do its job. If one looks at the environment in which we are operating, one sees that we are moving into an environment in which the Government sees accountability as something that one wants when one is in opposition, and not as something one gives when one is in government. I say that for a number of reasons. With each of these other committees about which I have spoken, what matters they will address is in the hands of the Government. They can consider references only if they receive them from the Parliament-and for the committees of this House, the Labor Government has the majority-or from a Minister. The committees cannot develop or make their own terms of references to scrutinise government activity. The one committee that can do it is the one committee that is being most substantially affected as a result of this decision, and it is in a context in which we have seen, well documented, a number of other decisions taken by this Labor Government in relation to accountability. We have seen, particularly, the decisions made in relation to freedom of information, the charges that are made for the material that people seek and the filing fees that have been increased. We have in the area of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal system fees in the tax area increased from $2 when one went to a taxation board of review to $200 if one now wants to go and review a decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to tax matters. Of course, there are also increased fees in relation to Administrative Appeals Tribunal applications generally. We have the situation with the Ombudsman. He was established originally to be the parliamentary commissioner, to augment the work of the Parliament in seeking review of administrative action. We see a situation in which the Government has failed, for months, to appoint a replacement for the now retired Ombudsman, such is its regard for that position. As I understand it, it has not even advertised for a replacement. In relation to the resources of the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General's own report details his inability properly to discharge his duties in relation to external audit functions and to pursue his responsibilities in reporting to this Parliament. It is clear that, in this case, the executive government is hamstringing the Auditor-General in the carrying out of his duties. It is in this context that I look at what is happening to the Public Accounts Committee, and I do not think that it is being cynical to see in it ulterior motives. The only way in which I will be persuaded that there are not ulterior motives involved in this is if decisions are made quickly wherever they have to be made, whether it is by the Speaker, the administration or the Minister for Finance. I will not be persuaded otherwise. This matter was raised in the other House. One of the remarkable things is that the Senate has no control over this because this Committee is staffed by the House of Representatives; but I would encourage all of those who have some responsibility in relation to this matter-the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and the Clerks-to look at what was said in the Senate today. Because these same reports were tabled there, as I understand it, a number of my senatorial colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, spoke. That is not to suggest that there is any threat involved in this, but the Opposition sees the Public Accounts Committee as an important committee of the Parliament. It sees parliamentary scrutiny as being important and it certainly believes that this Government cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of nonsense. I conclude by saying that we as a parliamentary committee have been admirably served by a large number of staff, led by Michael Talberg, and I want to pay a tribute to him and to those who have worked with him for the support and encouragement that they have given us. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —by leave-I rise to support, on this occasion, a number of the remarks that have been made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in relation to the tabling of these reports-the bulk tabling of a large number of reports which should have been dealt with on an individual basis-and also, like my colleague the honourable member for Dundas, to express grave concern about what the Government is doing to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. There can be no doubt that one of the unique features of this Committee in this Parliament and in the parliaments of most other Westminster systems is that the Committee has the capacity to initiate investigations on its own account. It does not depend on a reference from anybody else. That is one of the things that make it a very effective form of scrutiny in relation to the operation of the Executive and the administration. It is a very sad day when we have to stand here, at the end of 1987, and witness, after many years of effective operation by the Public Accounts Committee, a downgrading in its effectiveness and in its staffing which has been reduced, as we know, from 15 to five. When one looks at the other committees which are being set up in relation to the House of Representatives, one has to say that it is a very sad transfer of resources because, as the honourable member for Dundas has pointed out, many of the other committees have no references upon which to operate. Moreover, they depend upon references being given to them by other people. That means that, even if, in the course of 1988 and 1989 the committees take on a number of references, those references will not be taken on by their own initiative; they will be passed on to them by others at the convenience of others. That is a matter of very grave concern. When one looks at what is happening to a number of independent vehicles of scrutiny that have been available for many decades in the operation of the affairs of the Commonwealth, one must feel that there really is a move afoot to downgrade all those independent vehicles of scrutiny. The honourable member for Dundas has quite correctly referred to the difficulties that have been created in the area of freedom of information, with the introduction of fees and, most particularly-which I find quite fascinating-the operation of a time based fee. The only organisation that can be the judge of the amount of time that is taken up in searching out particular information has to be that element of the bureaucracy itself. It virtually can hand to the person who is accessing information a bill for what it thinks the amount of time was. Of course, there is no independent way of checking that. There has also been the increased difficulty in accessing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because of the establishment of a $200 access fee. The Ombudsman's role has been left in abeyance. In fact, we do not have one. The job of Ombudsman has not been advertised. There has been considerable publicity of late about the reduced resources being made available to the office of Auditor-General. When one adds those separate considerations to the downgraded role of the Public Accounts Committee, one has seriously to make the allegation that this Government is embarking on a course of reducing all independent vehicles of scrutiny. This is not the only parliament in which it is happening. It is also happening in the Victorian Parliament. Premier Cain, who initially talked about operating on a more open basis, is now in a number of areas trying to close up information in a manner very similar to what is being done here. He has taken similar steps, for instance, in relation to freedom of information. In conclusion, I very much share the deep concerns expressed by the honourable member for Dundas. I say in relation to the concern of members of the Public Accounts Committee that this is not the last occasion on which this House nor the Australian public in general will hear about this matter. We will have a lot more to say about this when Parliament resumes in 1988 and also to the community at large in the coming year. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth) —by leave-It is with grave concern, as was expressed by previous speakers from this side of the House, that I rise to endorse strongly the comments that previous speakers have made about the activities of the Public Accounts Committee and in particular about the fact that the Government is now seeking significantly to cut its resources. This is a very important issue. It is one of the most critical issues that will be before the Parliament for some time. It relates to the Capacity of the Public Accounts Committee adequately to meet its statutory obligations for the proper scrutiny of Government business. It is absolutely fundamental to our present system of government that committees such as the Public Accounts Committee-and as my colleagues have emphasised, specifically the Public Accounts Committee-be allocated sufficient funds to enable them to be free of repressive political influence and to perform satisfactorily what are effectively their bi-partisan statutory functions and responsibilities. Yet disturbingly, we see this Government demonstrating a clear intent to reduce its resources, which in the end could virtually destroy much of the effectiveness of committees like the Public Accounts Committee. This is yet another example of the unbounded arrogance of this Government which is now in its third term. It is most disturbing that this Government seems to believe that it can so easily disregard the normal proprieties of our democratic parliamentary process. Over the years the Public Accounts Committee has been fundamental to that parliamentary process. It has made a number of significant and well recognised contributions in terms of the scrutiny of public administration and of government activities. To attack the Public Accounts Committee in this way, and at this time, is surely one of the most serious issues before us at this time and I suggest, as I said before, that this matter will be raised on numerous occasions. We on this side of the House will not let this matter lie down. Of course, the Government seeks to defend its actions in the current economic circumstances by saying there is an overriding macro policy need to restrain expenditure at all levels, particularly its own expenditure. It is true that this is a pressing macro need. It is equally true that this Government is yet to face it. But there are a host of areas of government activities and expenditure that should attract the attention of the Government long before it turns its attention, in such a draconian manner, to such fundamental institutions of this Parliament as the Public Accounts Committee. This is particularly so if it is simply using this identified need for expenditure restraint as an excuse to cover up its more basic intention of reducing external parliamentary surveillance of its activities. What is the Government afraid of? What has it got to hide? Recent events would suggest that there is probably a lot that this Government has to hide. As every day goes by we are getting more evidence of the incompetence of this Government and of its continued bungling of the normal processes of public administration. For example, I ask the House to look at the way it has dealt with the tendering processes in relation to the contract for Coastwatch surveillance and in relation to the theatre at the World Expo 88 pavilion. Today there was the motion to censure the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) for the most unbelievable ministerial bungling and incompetence. The motion sought to censure him for the total disregard for the correct procedure of public administration and for gross impropriety in the performance of his ministerial duties and in not meeting his ministerial responsibilities. The House might also recall that there have been other motions of censure against Ministers, most significantly against the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) for a similar sort of Ministerial bungling. So much for the so-called and well-established standards of government purchasing procedures. No wonder these events are indicative of the fact that this Government does not want any further scrutiny of its activities. Unfortunately, these two examples of what the team opposite likes to call `systems failure' are not isolated examples. I guess we can reasonably expect that there are many other comparable examples of incompetence and bungling on a fairly wide scale throughout other activities of this Government. Hence one suspects the widespread incidence of this sort of incompetence is the principal explanation for the Government's attempt to avoid the proper scrutiny of its activities-in this case by reducing and retarding the important role of the Public Accounts Committee. As another example of the way this Government is seeking to reduce scrutiny of its activities, I remind the House of the annual report of the Auditor-General that was tabled in this House recently in which the Auditor-General raised some specific concerns about the dangers in this Government's current attitude to his office that may in the end reduce his effectiveness and independence. I will quote briefly from that report. On page 14, paragraph 1.4.3.6 states: It remains true that my formal relationships with the Executive and dealings at ministerial level have consistently exhibited proper recognition of the functional independence of the Auditor-General. But the practicability now seems to be that, not to put too fine a point on it, the pressures on the Department of Finance to achieve expenditure savings have eroded the modus vivendi that I formerly perceived. He goes on in paragraph 1.4.4.1 to state: Continuation of some recent trends could well see the AAO in for a turbulent time. I hope that this will not prove to be the case. Ultimately, of course, it is for the community to determine whether the Commonwealth is to continue to have a robust, effective and independent external audit institution; or, perhaps, to make do with some sort of docile client of the Department of Finance. If it is to be the former, the pre-requisites are a strong and clear audit mandate, and resourcing arrangements that do not prejudice the institution's independence. These comments should not be taken lightly. It is a fundamentally serious problem when a person of the stature of John Monaghan, the Auditor-General, feels compelled to make remarks of this sort and to bring his concerns to the attention of the Parliament and the Australian people. Anyone who has had any experience of John Monaghan would know him to be a modest, experienced, professional public servant, and certainly not one easily inclined to exaggeration or quick to make ill-considered responses. I suggest to this House that John Monaghan must have been particularly disturbed by what was happening to feel compelled to make such a strong statement before this Parliament. It is, therefore, of great concern to me that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in answering a question in this House on the issue of the independence of the Auditor-General on 26 November 1987, simply tried to brush those comments aside. On that occasion the Prime Minister hung his response on the fact that the Auditor-General in his Press release which accompanied the annual report had not been critical of his relationship with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Prime Minister essentially made two points in his answer. First, he said: The process of determining funding for the Auditor-General has no bearing on the independence of the operation of that office. I guess we can certainly dispute that. Secondly, he said: There has been no question of the Government or the Minister seeking to do other than respect the functional independence of the Auditor-General. I am glad and appreciative of the fact that the Auditor-General himself recognises that fact. Whilst that might be true, one can imagine that there is an explanation for the difference in views between the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General. I suggest to the House that that explanation lies in the fact that it is the Department of Finance, as distinct from the Minister, that has been heavying the Auditor-General and his staff. I imagine that it is that sort of less direct pressure from the Government that the Auditor-General was talking about in remarks that he made and which I quoted from his annual report. Against this background, and to put my mind at rest, I challenge the Prime Minister to assure this House that the Department of Finance has similarly respected the fundamental independence of the Auditor-General, as the Minister has claimed to have done. Might I suggest that the only way he can do this is to table all the relevant recent correspondence between the officers of the Department of Finance and the Auditor-General and his staff in relation to this matter. To conclude, I emphasise that we are dealing today with a very serious problem, the capacity of the Public Accounts Committee, a joint committee of this Parliament, to maintain proper surveillance and proper scrutiny over the activities of the Government. Of course, some review of the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee itself is desirable. In fact, it has been done and the Committee has indicated that it can operate with fewer staff. However, it is certainly unacceptable to try to cut staff numbers on that Committee from 15 to 5, as the Government is doing in the name of so-called economy. Clearly, the Government has plenty to hide. It intends effectively to gut one of the most important committees of this Parliament thereby preventing it from adequately performing its statutory obligations. This behaviour by the Government is totally deplorable. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief because I understand that there are other members who desire to make a contribution to the discussion. I have a great deal of interest in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I served on that Committee in the Thirty-fourth Parliament and I am very pleased again to have been appointed to it in this, the Thirty-fifth Parliament. It is not my intention to rehash all the claims and the discussions that have taken place but I particularly support the contribution of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who put the case very clearly indeed. It is clear to all of us that the job of the Public Accounts Committee is of vital importance, not just to this Parliament but also to the whole of Australia. As has been made clear, it has the responsibility to examine all of the reports of the Auditor-General and to provide independent scrutiny of the actions and activities of every government department. I think therefore that the case for the Public Accounts Committee does not have to be proved; its track record is there for all to see. The work of the Public Accounts Committee must continue in the interests of this Parliament and the people of Australia. It cannot continue to do the work with which it is charged if its staff is cut by two-thirds from 15 to 5. I take this opportunity, because I believe it is of such importance, to ask the Government, to reconsider. I accept, and I am sure all of Australia accepts, that there must be a cost cutting and that government expenditure must be reined in but we should not do this at the expense of the independent scrutiny provided by the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider and see that the Public Accounts Committee has sufficient staff to enable it to do its job properly. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much time. I seek leave-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is leave granted? Mr Humphreys —No. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an example-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave is not granted. Mr Connolly —This Minister-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will resume his seat. Mr REITH(Flinders) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak on this important constitutional matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Humphreys —No. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an issue of fundamental importance to all Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will resume his seat. (Quorum formed). Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Connolly-You think it is funny to hand over your rights to the Executive. You are a bunch of fools. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The question is: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Ruddock-Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak to that question. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) agreed to: That the question be put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.29 p.m. until Tuesday, 16 February 1988, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 10 December 1987: National Health Act-Declaration pursuant to section 85, dated 1 December 1987. Mr Scholes asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) How many papers were presented to Parliament in each year since 1982. (2) How many papers were presented to the House of Representatives. (3) How many papers were distributed (a) under the Parliamentary Papers series and (b) by request. (4) What action is taken with the remaining stocks of papers. Madam Speaker —The response to the honourable Member's request is as follows: (1) and (2)- Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Papers presented to Parliament (i.e the papers presented to the House only, those presented to the Senate only and those presented to both Houses.)... 981 1185 1408 1384 645 Papers presented to the House of Representatives (i.e. the papers presented to the House only and those presented to both Houses.)... 705 887 1101 1096 479 Note: The above figures exclude ``machinery'' papers such as statutory rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, notices and proclamations. The figures for 1987 are to 5 June. (3)(a) The numbers of papers ordered to be printed in the Parliamentary Papers Series for the respective years are: Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 No. of P.P.'s... 407 327 512 450 196 The figure for 1987 is to 5 June. There are 480 copies of each Parliamentary Paper produced (520 in the case of Parliamentary Committee reports) to meet the following distribution: Quantity Recipient 179 Supplied to AGPS for distribution to addresses (+) on free list to receive pamphlet copies of Parliamentary Papers. 110 Held by AGPS for subsequent binding into annual volumes and issue to approved addresses. (+) ((+) Note: These addresses fall within the prescribed eligible categories as recommended by the Joint Committee on Publications in 1977) 100 Supplies to AGPS for Commonwealth Bookshop sales and subscription orders. 31 Supplies to AGPS for issue to Library Deposit Scheme addresses. 30* House of Representatives-Stock to meet future requests by Members. 30* Senate-Stock to meet future requests by Senators. 480 Total (*increased to 50 for Parliamentary Committee reports) (b) When reports and other ``non-machinery'' papers are presented to the Parliament, the House of Representatives Bills and Papers Office is provided with 180 copies. This allows for a distribution of 1 to each Member (if required) and a small stock to meet further requests by Members and, in some instances, Chamber requirements. The remainder of this stock is subsequently replaced by the Parliamentary Paper version of those papers ordered to be printed. No record is kept of the number of either the tabled or Parliamentary Paper versions of papers issued on request. Papers are supplied on request to Members or a Member's staff on the basis of 1 copy per Member and, where stocks permit, up to a further 5 copies. The Parliamentary Library and, occasionally, Hansard are supplied with papers. Requests from other sources are normally referred to the Commonwealth Government Bookshops or the author body. (4) Stocks of papers surplus to requirement are disposed of in the following manner: (a) Tabled version-are kept until the demand for them wanes (usually the long adjournment following a period of sittings) or until the Parliamentary Paper versions are received, any surplus copies are then offered back to the author body. (b) Parliamentary Papers-AGPS retains its ``for sale'' copies for a period of 3 years at which time it advises the Chamber Departments of those remaining and requests disposal instructions. The Chamber Departments replenish their stocks from those available and authorise disposal of the rest. Mr Blunt asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) How many persons are employed by each of the Parliamentary Departments. (2) What are their classifications and salary ranges. (3) What are their job descriptions. (4) Will additional positions be created during 1987-88; if so, (a) for what purpose, (b) at what classification and salary range, (c) how will the positions be advertised and (d) what will be the cost of advertising. Madam Speaker —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE SENATE (1) Total operative staff in the Department of the Senate at 31/10/87 was 220 (excluding 7 casuals). (2) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (3) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (4) (a) Yes, additional positions will be created during 1987/88 to meet the increase of functions/responsibilities associated with the occupancy of the new Parliament House. (b) (1) Computer Systems Operator, Grade 4 ... $38,265-$39,700 (2) Senior Parliamentary Officer, Class 9 ... $35,127-$36,827 (3) Computer Systems Operator, Grade 3 ... $34,127-$36,827 (4) Parliamentary Officer, Class 8 ... $32,858-$34,127 (5) Parliamentary Officer, Class 7 ... $29,782-$31,423 (6) Computer Systems Operator, Grade 2 ... $28,853-$31,423 (7) Parliamentary Officer, Class 6 ... $27,162-$28,853 (8) Parliamentary Officer, Class 5 ... $24,449-$26,367 (9) Parliamentary Assistant, Grade 5 ... $18,957-$19,997 (10) Parliamentary Assistant, Grade 4 ... $17,703-$18,429 (11) Parliamentary Security Attendant, Grade 2 ... $17,318-$17,703 (12) Parliamentary Security Attendant, Grade 1 ... $16,267-$16,969 (c) The positions will be advertised by way of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and the local National Press. (d) The cost of advertising will be approximately $4,000. DEPARTMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1) At 31 October 1987 the Department of the House of Representatives employed 227 staff (excluding casuals). (2) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (3) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (4) (a) Forty-nine additional positions will be created during 1987/88. Forty-eight positions will be for Attendant staff who are required to meet the increased functions and responsibilities associated with the occupancy of the new Parliament House. One position will be recruited in the Committee Office. (b) 1 Clerical/Administrative, Class 11 ... $41,208-$42,910 1 Attendant, Grade 3 ... $18,065-$18,429 10 Attendant, Grade 2 ... $17,318-$17,703 38 Attendant, Grade 1 ... $16,267-$16,969 (c) All the positions will be advertised in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and the Canberra Times. The position of Clerical Administrative, Class 11 will also be advertised in the National Press. (d) The cost of advertising will be approximately $2,000. JOINT HOUSE DEPARTMENT (1) At 30 September 1987 the Joint House Department employed 235 staff excluding casuals. (2) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (3) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (4) Yes, 261 additional positions have been projected for 1987/88. Sixty-one percent of projected staff increase is in servicing much larger cleaning, gardening and catering operation in the new House. Staffing projections are based on transferring current arrangements to the New House. These projections and the way services are provided are currently under review. (a) The position will be used as their classifications and titles denote. (b) The salary ranges for proposed positions are listed at Attachment A. (c) Joint House Department positions are advertised within the APS through the Commonwealth Gazette and in the Press. The services of the Commonwealth Employment Service are also utilised for certain classifications of employment. (d) The Department's recruitment advertising budget for 1987/88 is $51,000. DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING STAFF (1) The Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff has an establishment of 82 permanent positions and up to 66 sessional and casual employees. Almost all of the sessional and casual employees are Typists. As at 20 October 1987, 77 of 82 permanent positions were filled. The number of sessional and casual employees varies from day to day according to the sittings of the Parliament and its Committees. In 1986/87 the average number employed was 27: the estimated number for 1987/88 is 25. (2) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (3) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (4) No approvals have been given for the creation of additional positions in 1987-88. DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY (1) The Department has an establishment of 202 positions and a staff budget of 198 staff years to operate against that establishment. The number of people employed at any one time varies according to position vacancies and workloads (temporary employment provisions). (2) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (3) Listed in table form at Attachment A. (4) Yes, approved by Presiding Officers on 9 June 1987, and included in the staff year budget. (a) To organise collections for movement to new Parliament House. (b) 2 x Librarian Class 2 ...$26862-29444 1 x Library Officer...$20299-22217 (c) By normal processes-internal/Gazette notification and possibly local press. (d) $50 for each position for Gazette notification; approximately $250 per year position if advertised in the local press. ATTACHMENT A Level Salary Range Description Senate Curr Prop* House of Reps Curr Prop JHD Curr Prop Hansard Curr Prop Library Curr Prop Clerk ... 74,485 Administrative 1 1 1 Level 6 (equivalent) ... 73,217 Administrative Level 5 (equivalent) ... 68,452 Administrative Level 4 (equivalent) ... 63,686 Administrative 1 1 1 1 1 Level 3 (equivalent) ... 58,920 Administrative 1 1 Level 2 (equivalent) ... 54,154 Administrative 1 1 1 1 2 2 Level 1 (equivalent) ... 49,389 Administrative 5 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11 ... 41,208-42,910 Cl/Admin 20 18 19 4 5 10 10 Class 10 ... 38,265-39,700 Cl/Admin 4 4 4 2.5 3.5 1 1 2 2 Class 9 ... 35,562-36,827 Cl/Admin 8 22 22 9 12 1 1 23 23 Class 8 ... 32,858-34,127 Cl/Admin - 3 3 1.5 5.5 1 1 4 4 Class 7 ... 29,782-31,423 Cl/Admin 34 20 20 6 15 7 7 Class 6 ... 27,162-28,853 Cl/Admin 1 3 6 2 2 6 6 Class 5 ... 24,449-26,367 Cl/Admin 11 10 10 3 6 1 1 3 3 Class 4 ... 21,794-23,712 Cl/Admin 2 3 3 6 14 2 2 3 3 Class 2/3 ... 18,766-21,083 Cl/Admin 2 7 7 3 4 3 3 Class 1 ... 15,543-18,198 Cl/Admin - - Hansard Reporting 43,802-45,263 Staff Leader 3 3 38,384-40,205 Supervisor 7 7 36,684-38,384 Senior Reporter 8 8 32,581-36,684 Reporter 15 15 21,794-24,353 Rep-in-Training 5 5 5,330-8,635 Cadet Reporter 4 4 Clerical Assistant Grade 8 ... 23,520-24,171 Cl/Assist 1 2 2 Grade 7 ... 22,229-22,868 Cl/Assist 5 1 1 4 4 Grade 6 ... 20,538-21,576 Cl/Assist 3 - 5 5 5 Grade 5 ... 18,957-19,997 Cl/Assist 2 10 10 - 1 2 2 5 5 Grade 4 ... 17,703-18,429 Cl/Assist 6 6 6 5 16 28 28 Grade 3 ... 16,267-17,318 Cl/Assist 7 1 1 5 18 12 12 Grade 2 ... 15,263-15,918 Cl/Assist 1 1 2 16 9 9 Grade 1 ... 14,635-15,026 Cl/Assist 1 1 1 1 Librarians Principal ... 37,782-40,364 4 4 Grade 3 ... 30,723-34,558 19 19 Grade 2 ... 28,862-29,444 15 17 Grade 1 ... 19,538-25,835 7 7 Library Officers Grade 3 ... 22,844-24,618 1 1 Grade 2 ... 20,299-22,217 5 6 Grade 1 ... 17,862-19,634 3 3 Parliamentary Fellow 27,162-28,853 1 1 Personal Secretary Grade 2 ... 23,977-25,258 Pers Sec 4 1 1 1 1 Grade 1 ... 21,530-22,687 Pers Sec 1 1 1 1 Typist Controller Grade 2 ... 21,943-22,494 Administrative 1 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 2 ... 19,592-20,772 Steno-sec 7 5 5 Grade 1 ... 17,831-18,717 Steno-sec 13 8 8 6 4 Word Processing Supervisor Grade 2 ... 20,637-21,056 WP Super 1 1 1 1 Grade 1 ... 19,592-20,180 WP Super 2 1 1 Word Processing Typist Grade 2 ... 18,717-19,160 WP Typist 2 2 2 1 2 9 9 Grade 1 ... 17,794-18,273 WP Typist 7 10 10 4 7 6 6 Data Processing Operator Grade 2 ... 17,463 1 1 Tradesman 2nd Class ... 16,850-17,286 Tradesman 5 5 Apprentice Painter 1st Year ... 8,871 App Painter 1 1 2nd Year ... 10,165 App Painter 3rd Year ... 13,861 App Painter 4th Year ... 16,263 App Painter Gardening Overseer Grade 2 ... 25,114-25,552 Garden Overseer 1 - Grade 1 ... 22,460-23,291 Garden Overseer - 2 Gardener Grade 1 ... 18,480-19,064 Gardener 2 2 Grade 3 ... 16,788-17,213 Gardener 7 11 Apprentice Greenkeeper 1st Year ... 7,392- 8,778 App Greenkeeper 2 3 2nd Year ... 11,088-11,550 App Greenkeeper 3rd Year ... 13,860-14,322 App Greenkeeper 4th Year ... 16,632-17,094 App Greenkeeper Executive Chef 41,208-42,910 Executive Chef - 1 Food Service Manager Grade 5 ... 27,706-29,926 Food Serv Manager - 3 Grade 4 ... 24,703-26,020 Food Serv Manager 4 2 Grade 2 ... 19,211-20,840 Food Serv Manager 2 11 Grade 1 ... 17,197-18,463 Food Serv Manager 2 - Stores Purchasing and Control Officer 18,133-18,607 Stores Purchasing and Control Officer 1 1 Chef-Senior Sous 34,245 Chef-Senior Sous 1 4 Senior Catering Tradesperson 20,192-20,806 Senior Catering Tradesperson 3 4 Catering Tradesperson 18,033-18,646 Catering Tradesperson 9 16 Senior Catering Assistant 16,518-17,131 Senior Catering Assistant 12 18 Catering Assistant 15,225-15,838 Catering Assistant 32 73 Senior Cleaner 17,717 Senior Cleaner 1 3 Cleaner 15,879-16,307 Cleaner 29 112 Computer Systems Officer Grade 5... 41,208-42,910 Computer Systems Officer 1 1 Grade 4... 38,265-39,700 Computer Systems Officer 1 1 1 1 Grade 3... 34,127-36,827 Computer Systems Officer 1 2 1 1 1 1 Grade 2... 28,853-31,423 Computer Systems Officer 1 1 Attendants 20,538-21,576 Prin Attendant 2 1 1 1 1 18,957-19,997 Sen Attendant 2 2 2 Grade 3 ... 18,065-18,429 Attendant 14 10 11 Grade 2 ... 17,318-17,703 Attendant 11 15 25 3 3 Grade 1 ... 16,267-16,969 Attendant 23 44 82 4 4 1 1 Engineer Class 5 ... 43,428-46,005 Engineer 1 1 Class 4 ... 39,177-41,609 Engineer - - Class 3 ... 33,904-37,443 Engineer - 1 Technical Officers Principal ... 34,302-35,160 Technical Officer 2 2 Senior ... 30,118-31,733 Technical Officer 1 1 Grade 2 ... 25,759-27,077 Technical Officer 1 1 Grade 1 ... 20,770-25,116 Technical Officer 4 4 Trainee ... 10,618-19,778 Technical Officer 1 1 Maintenance Officers Senior ... 27,404-27,951 Maintenance Officer 2 2 21,616 Air-conditioning 1 1 21,616 Electrical 1 1 21,616 Mechanical 2 2 20,430 Painting 1 1 20,430 Carpentry 1 1 Watchmen Overseer ... 18,435-18,742 3 1 1 Grade 1 ... 3 5 5 Asst Mechanic-in-Charge 19,966-20,524 Asst Mechanic-in-Charge 1 - Senior Fitter 19,676-20,084 Electrical 6 9 19,676-20,084 Mechanical 2 4 Senior Carpenter 19,676-20,084 Senior Carpenter 2 2 Senior Painter 19,676-20,084 Senior Painter 1 1 Senior Plumber Grade 1 19,813-20,221 Senior Plumber 1 2 Plumber 18,980-19,533 Plumber - - Mechanic 18,481-19,533 Air Conditioning 1 2 18,481-19,533 Carpenter 2 2 18,481-19,533 Painter 3 3 18,481-19,533 Fitter - 3 Apprentice Cook 1st Year 7,213-8,566 Apprentice Cook 8 14 2nd Year 10,820-11,271 Apprentice Cook 3rd Year 13,525-13,976 Apprentice Cook 4th Year 16,230-16,681 Apprentice Cook Trainee Food and Beverage 17 Years $140.70 per week Trainee Food and Beverage 6 3 18 Years $160.80 per week Trainee Food and Beverage 19 Years $180.90 per week Trainee Food and Beverage Computer Operator Grade 2 19,006-19,802 Computer Operator - 4 Grade 1 20,622-21,154 Senior Computer Operator - 2 Nursing Sister 21,430-23,331 Nursing Sister - 2 Curator Grade 2 23,424-26,717 Curator - 2 Journalist A Grade 30,022-31,222 Tape Transcription 9.9 Printers Senior Assistant, Grade 1 19,386-19,902 Printers 1 1 1 Assistant, Grade 2 18,301-18,837 Printers 1 1 1 Assistant, Grade 1 17,759-18,301 Printers 1 2 2 209 227 277 235 496 77 77 202 205 * Although the description of additional positions to be created during 1987-88 by the Department of the Senate is included in their answer 4 (a) and (b) the number of new positions in each category is not included. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Hawke —On 25 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2672), the honourable member for Dundas asked me a question without notice concerning reports of an agreement between Australian and Soviet Union officials relating to the investigation and prosecution of war criminals. The issue raised by the honourable member was fully canvassed in the course of the second reading debate on the War Crimes Amendment Bill on 26 November 1987. I draw the honourable member's attention to the statements made by the Attorney-General, particularly at pages 2792, 2793, 2797 and 2798 of Hansard. I note that the exchange of correspondence between Australian and Soviet Union officials has been made available on an in-confidence basis to the Opposition and that the Attorney-General has undertaken that Mr Greenwood and Mr Temby be available to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. For the record I emphasise the following: the purpose of the War Crimes Amendment Bill is to permit prosecutions to be dealt with in Australia, according to Australian law; there will be no extradition of Australians to the Soviet Union or Eastern European countries for war crimes; so far as evidence is concerned, my Government intends that, to the maximum extent possible, any evidence, particularly witnesses, that may be available in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, will be brought to Australia, so that the evidence is taken in Australia and is thereby subject to the rigorous scrutiny of all evidence that is such a central feature of our criminal law. (Question No. 64) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What sum has the Government allocated for expenditure on the promotion of its Australia Card arguments. (2) When was the decision taken to have an advertising campaign. (3) Why was the decision taken. (4) What advertising agency has been awarded the contract for the campaign. (5) How was the agency chosen. (6) Were tenders called for the contract. (7) Which agencies tendered for the contract. (8) On what basis was the successful agency chosen. (9) What was the brief given to the successful agency. (10) Will he provide copies of the brief and the tender. (11) Was the awarding of the contract considered by the Ministerial Committee on Government Advertising; if so, when was it considered. (12) If the contract was not considered by the committee, why not. (13) What are the aims of the advertising campaign. (14) What is the commitment of the Government to achieving the aims. (15) Will the Government conduct another advertising campaign after this one. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An amount of $500,000 was earmarked for the provision of information to the public about the Australia Card program. While details had not been developed for the expenditure of this money, it was allocated for the general purpose of: identifying those aspects of the Australia Card program that were the subject of public misunderstanding; based on the above, preparing and printing of brochure material containing basic factual information about the program for wide public distribution; and preparing and despatching replies to correspondence from the public on the program. Following the announcement by the Prime Minister on 29 September 1987 that the Government was not going to proceed with the Australia Card program, it was not considered necessary to continue with the activities described above. However, a small proportion of the funds is being used to respond to letters from members of the public about the program. (2) At the time of the Prime Minister's announcement, no decisions had been made on detailed plans associated with the provision of information on the Australia Card program. Specifically, no decision had been taken to mount an advertising campaign in relation to the Australia Card program. (3)-(15) See answer to question (2). (Question No. 122) Mr Courtice asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) What specific services and projects has his Department provided in the Division of Hinkler since March 1983. (2) What sum has been allocated to these services and projects. (3) What sum has been allocated to Home and Community Care projects in the Division of Hinkler since 1983. (4) Which Home and Community Care projects in the Division of Hinkler have received (a) hostel accommodation funding and (b) nursing home funding, and what sum was allocated to each of them. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As the information requested by the honourable member is too extensive for incorporation in Hansard, I have arranged for it to be placed in the Parliamentary library where copies may be obtained by honourable members. (3) Over $1 million has been allocated to Home and Community Care (HACC) funded projects in the Hinkler Electorate under the HACC Program. (4) Hostels and Nursing Homes are not eligible for funding under the HACC Program. Funding for these forms of accommodation is provided through the Residential Care Program. (Question No. 141) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Are letters from the Minister's Department forwarded to individuals and corporations marked ``postage paid'', without date stamping; if so, are there significant revenue savings from these measures. (2) If letters are not date stamped, will the Minister ensure all letters are appropriately date stamped. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Bulk postage articles are dispatched to individuals and corporations without date stamping. There are no postage savings from this practice but labour costs are avoided. (2) No. Additional labour costs would be incurred and mail could be delayed. (Question No. 186) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) Has the Government established a committee to better co-ordinate and promote the identification card proposal; if so, who are the members of the committee and what are their credentials. (2) Has Mr B. Bowtell been appointed to head the committee. (3) For how long will the committee exist. (4) When was the decision made to establish the committee. (5) What is the committee's task. (6) When does it have to report. (7) What is the breakdown of costs for running the committee. (8) What action is the Government taking to promote its approach to the identification card. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(8) In line with the Prime Minister's statement of 29 September 1987, the Government has discontinued all matters related to the introduction of the Australia Card. (Question No. 238) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 5053 (Hansard, 6 May 1987, page 2749), has his attention been drawn to the March 1987 report of the NSW Alcohol and Drug Authority which describes its 1986 survey of drug use by secondary school students in New South Wales. (2) Does the survey indicate that (a) 27 times more school children in NSW smoked the Peter Jackson brand of cigarettes in 1986 than smoked that brand in 1983 and (b) nearly twice as many NSW school children smoked the Alpine brand of cigarettes in 1986 than smoked that brand in 1983. (3) Is it a fact that both of these brands are made by the Philip Morris company and are the only locally manufactured cigarettes available in packets of 15. (4) Have health authorities criticised the marketing of cigarettes in packets of 15 because of their appeal to children. (5) Have health authorities recently criticised cigarette advertising, particularly that of Peter Jackson and Alpine, because of its appeal to children. (6) Is he able to say whether tobacco companies state that the only purpose of cigarette advertising is to cause a shift in brand share to redistribute the market among competing companies. (7) Is he able to say whether Australia's tobacco companies are signatories to a Voluntary Code of Cigarette Advertising which prevents them from advertising in a manner directed to children. (8) Is he able to explain why, apart from cigarette advertising, such a massive change in purchasing habits could have occurred among NSW school children. (9) Will he ask the Trade Practices Commission to investigate this apparent breach of the Voluntary Code for Cigarette Advertising concerning Peter Jackson and Alpine advertising which appears to have had a substantial effect on children. (10) Has it been argued that advertisements in national magazines and sponsorship of national sporting events, including the Benson & Hedges Test Cricket, inhibit control of tobacco advertising and promotion by individual States and Territories. (11) Will he introduce legislation which will phase out cigarette advertisements in national magazines and sponsorship of national sporting events by tobacco companies, so as to assist States and Territories to control more effectively tobacco advertising and promotion within their borders. (12) Has his attention been drawn to the policy of the Federal Executive of the Australian Journalists' Association which opposes all cigarette, tobacco and alcohol advertisements in the media and the direct and indirect use of the media to promote cigarette, tobacco or alcohol use will exist for the print, television and radio media; if so, does this policy have his support. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(5) Yes. (6) I cannot say with certainty that tobacco companies give change of brand share as the only reason for cigarette advertising, but it is the only reason I can recall being put forward. (7) The major tobacco manufacturers have agreed to observe the Media Council's Cigarette Advertising Code, Clause 2 of which states: ``The content of cigarette advertisements shall be directed only to adult smokers and only intended to effect or deter a change of brand.'' (8) No. However, price may be a factor as cigarettes in packets of 15 are cheaper than the larger packets. (9) A Working Party of the Australian Health Ministers' Conference has raised this matter with the appropriate body-The Media Council of Australia. (10) Yes. (11) Legislative control of cigarette advertising in the print media rests with the respective States and Territories in which the various national magazines are printed. In the case of sponsorship of national sporting events by tobacco companies, the Commonwealth's only control is in relation to advertising on the electronic media where it has already legislated to ban cigarette advertising. I am concerned, however, that the provision of the Australian Broadcasting and Television Act which allows ``accidental'' advertising of these products appears to be being used by the tobacco companies to circumvent the ban in relation to sporting events. Advertising of tobacco products is subject to a voluntary code which is currently under review by the Trade Practices Tribunal. The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, consisting of all State and Federal Ministers with responsibilities for legal and health matters, will be examining the outcome of this review and are prepared to look at other options for regulation in this area if self regulation continues to prove unsatisfactory. (12) Yes. The Australian Journalists' Association wrote to me in May 1987 about their policy and in my reply I pointed out that powers to control or ban tobacco and alcohol advertising outside the electronic media rests, primarily, with the States and Territories. I went on to explain that it is not the Commonwealth Government's policy to ban alcohol advertising from TV and radio. The Commonwealth Government banned cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising from the electronic media in 1976 and I have now written to my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Communications, requesting that the ban be extended to include all tobacco products. These actions were taken because smoking at any level is harmful to health. The same cannot be said about alcohol consumption. (Question No. 247) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: Is the profit made by Mr Perron on the sale of East-West Airlines Ltd and Skywest Holdings Pty Ltd to TNT Air (Australia) Pty Ltd and News Limited subject to capital gains tax? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The secrecy provisions of the income tax law prevent the Commissioner of Taxation from disclosing information about the affairs of a taxpayer. I am, therefore, unable to offer any comment on the taxation affairs of Mr Perron. (Question No. 251) Mr Scholes asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: Who pays the fringe benefits tax on fringe benefits paid to executive employees of tax exempt organisations in lieu of salary. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Tax exempt organisations, such as government departments, charitable institutions, trade unions and sporting clubs, covered by the fringe benefits tax are required to pay the tax on fringe benefits paid to their employees. Benefits provided by public benevolent institutions are exempt from the tax as are benefits provided by religious institutions to a minister of religion or a member of a religious order where the benefit is for that person's religious duties. A further exemption applies to employers who are exempt from taxation generally under international immunities and to certain international organisations established under international agreements. An amendment of the law, introduced into Parliament on 29 October 1987, if enacted, will also extend exemption to government bodies in respect of benefits they provide to employees performing duties in public hospitals. (Question No. 260) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Are registered trade unions and their umbrella organisations, including the ACTU, exempt from payment of the fringe benefits tax. (2) Can employees of such organisations receive bene-fits upon which fringe benefits tax would otherwise be payable but that no tax would be payable on benefits received. (3) What inquiries has the Commissioner of Taxation made to satisfy himself as to the nature and extent to which fringe benefits are paid to trade union officials. (4) Can he advise the extent to which revenue is foregone through such arrangements for employees and officials of the ACTU, State Trades and Labour Councils and registered trade unions. (5) If fringe benefits are provided and no tax is payable, do these circumstances constitute rants, rorts and rip-offs of the Australian taxpayer. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Trade unions have the same liability as other taxpayers to pay fringe benefits tax on any benefits they provide to employees. (3) The Australian Taxation Office conducts regular audits into the affairs of a wide range of employers who are liable to pay fringe benefits tax, including trade unions. (4) The secrecy provisions of the fringe benefits tax legislation prevent any comments being made about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. However, if the honourable member has any information that trade unions are evading their fringe benefits tax liability he should supply such information to the Commissioner of Taxation. (5) Where fringe benefits are provided by trade unions to their employees a liability to pay fringe benefits tax arises. (Question No. 297) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) What are the details of the agreement between Qantas and AUSTRADE to fly 10 foreign journalists to review Australia Made concerts in early 1987, referred to in the issue of Business Review Weekly, dated 6 March 1987, as a Steedman coup. (2) Was a draft response to this question prepared for the former Minister for Trade; if so, when was it prepared. Mr Barry Jones —I am advised by the Australian Trade Commission that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Ten foreign journalists visited Australia in January 1987 to review Australia Made concerts under customary contra deal arrangements between Qantas and the concert's promoters. This occured after AUSTRADE and Mr Pete Steedman conveyed to Qantas the Australian Music Industry Export Panel's view that Australia Made provides a unique opportunity to publicise Australian popular music in overseas countries. (2) A draft response to Mr Braithwaite's question was prepared on 3 June 1987 for the former Minister for Trade immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament. (Question No. 300) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: What plans does the Government, the Constitutional Commission or the Bicentennial Authority have to celebrate officially in 1988 the success of the Australian Constitution in providing stable and democratic government since 1901. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government agrees that the Australian constitution has played an important role in providing stable and democratic government in Australia since 1901. However, the Constitution is not perfect and the Bicentennary provides the opportunity for the people of Australia to consider the ways in which the Constitution may need updating. With this in mind the Government established the Constitutional Commission to review the Constitution and to report by 30 June 1988. The Government also proposes to display in King's Hall from May to July 1988 the United Kingdom Public Records Office originals of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the Royal Commission of Assent, which the United Kingdom Government has agreed to lend for this purpose. The Bicentennial Authority has two specific programs relating to the Constitution planned for 1988. The first involves a major display within the Australian Bicentennial Exhibition on the theme of democracy in Australia. The display will include a high quality facsimile of the Australian Constitution. The Exhibition will visit 34 centres around Australia during 1988 and is expected to be viewed by close to 2 million people. It is the Authority's major event for the year. The second is a program of educational videos for schools, produced by Film Australia entitled ``Film Australia's Australia''. The videos explore many issues in Australian culture, and two of twelve videos in the series deal with the subject of individual rights and democratic government. They were released in late October 1987. (Question No. 303) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) How often is the Directory of Multilingual Health Publications, which was published by the Migrant Health Unit of the former Department of Health, revised. (2) When did the last revision take place. (3) What are the (a) titles of, and (b) languages used in, the leaflets produced since the initial publication of the directory. (4) What leaflets currently are available. (5) To where should orders for multiple copies of the leaflets be directed. (6) Which leaflets currently are not available and, in each case, what is the reason for its unavailability. (7) Will any leaflets which currently are unavailable be reprinted; if so, which leaflets will be reprinted and when will they become available. (8) What new leaflets are being planned and when will they be published. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(2) The Directory of Multilingual Health Publications was published last in 1982 in response to the need for such a compendium at that time. It has not since been revised as the former Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has published a Directory of Migrant Information Material which includes a comprehensive section on Health. This Directory is updated annually and the 1987 revision was released in November. (3) My Department has no way of identifying the titles of translated health pamphlets produced from all sources since 1982 or the languages used. However, many of these are listed in the publication referred to above. (4) See (1)-(2) above. (5) The Directory of Migrant Information Material contains addresses of contacts for the material contained therein. (6) The Directory of Migrant Information Material does not identify those leaflets which are not available. (7)-(8) This is a matter for the organisation concerned-whether Federal, State or non-Government. (Question No. 391) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, 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 Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2)-(4) Not applicable. (Question No. 398) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Administrative Services, 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 West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $219,443 (2) and (3) I am advised that eight opinion polls were commissioned-six in respect of the Australian Made Campaign and two in respect of the electoral system. The objective, cost and firms which undertook each were: Australian Made Campaign Assessment of advertising proposals; $20,090; Creative Dialogue. Measurement of attitudes to buying Australian made goods; $8,100; Pratt Research. Assessment of consumer attitudes to the Campaign; $19,900; Reark Research. Six-month qualitative assessment of the Campaign; $21,950; Creative Dialogue. Six-month qualitative assessment of the Campaign; $24,983; Reark Research. Twelve-month qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Campaign; $65,750; Creative Dialogue. Electoral System Test community knowledge of and attitude to the Australian electoral system; $56,700; Roy Morgan Research Centre. Test understanding of ``apathy'' as used in election enrolment advertising; $1,970; Roy Morgan Research Centre. (4) In respect of the Australian Made Campaign: No. In respect of the electoral system: Highlights have been released in summary form; full details will be published in 1988 in a paper by the Australian Electoral Commission. (Question No. 469) Mr Smith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How was the mailing list for the Constitutional Commission's publication entitled Australia's Constitution-Time to Update determined. (2) How many individuals and organisations are on the mailing list. (3) What was the cost of mailing the publication. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) & (2) The booklet Australia's Constitution-Time to Update summarises the reports and recommendations of the Constitutional Commission's five Advisory Committees which reported in July and August 1987. The Constitutional Commission has advised me that the booklet has been sent to the following: (a) The individuals and organisations on the Commission's mailing list. The list has been compiled during the life of the Commission and consists in the main of individuals who and organisations which have telephoned or written to the Commission to seek information or make submissions. The mailing list also includes numerous libraries, members of parliament, judges and media organisations. The mailing list consists of approximately 25,000 individuals and organisations. (b) Approximately 2,800 individuals who have specifically requested, either by telephone or letter, a copy of the booklet as a result of the Commission's promotion of the booklet. (c) Approximately 1,050 organisations and individuals the Commission thought likely to be interested in some or all of the proposals for constitutional reform: teacher's associations political associations electorate secretaries to State and Federal Parliamentarians local, school and institutional libraries major and small business groups trade unions rural groups women's groups aboriginal groups ethnic affairs bodies public speaking bodies civic associations state local government associations welfare groups environmental groups (d) 20,000 lawyers and accountants. Approximately 86,000 copies of the booklet had been distributed by the end of November 1987. (3) The Commission has advised me that the cost to it of mailing the publication is estimated to be approximately $33,342. Only an approximation can be given because additional Commission publications, and in many cases a copy of the Constitution, have been generally provided in the same envelope as the booklet Australia's Constitution: Time to Update. (Question No. 470) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science and Small Business, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) What Customs analysis is undertaken to ensure the accuracy of stated contents at Australian ports. (2) How is the duty assessed. (3) Where is the Customs analysis located. (4) Does the Australian Customs Service undertake the analysis; if not, which Government agency undertakes this work. (5) Has the level of Customs analysis changed since 1980. (6) If the level of Customs analysis has decreased, what is the rationale for the decrease. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Imported goods generally are not subjected to analysis by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the stated contents. Analysis is, however, undertaken of certain goods to ensure the level of specified contaminant does not exceed the level prescribed under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. (2) All goods imported into Australia are subject to Customs duty and Sales Tax at the rate prescribed in the Australian Customs Tariff Act and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. (3) See (4). (4) The analysis of goods for Customs purposes is normally carried out by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories (AGAL). Commercial (non in-house) laboratories accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities are permitted to perform such work provided the analysis is not to determine whether or not the goods are prohibited imports (as that function rests with AGAL). AGAL, a division of the Department of Administrative Services, is represented in all State capitals except Brisbane where analyses are carried out on its behalf by the Queensland State Government Chemical Laboratory. (5) Yes. (6) The ever increasing volume and complexity of international cargo and the need to clear that cargo with the minimum of delay has necessitated Customs adopting a more critical and selective approach to goods examination. Greater emphasis therefore is placed on documentary control and risk management principles. (Question No. 480) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) What has been the average period a person has been unemployed in each quarter in each State and Territory since 1983. (2) Has the average period of unemployment increased since 1983; if so, (a) what is the percentage increase and (b) why has it increased. (3) How many persons have been unemployed for peiods greater than 2 years in each quarter in each State and Territory since 1983. (4) Are more persons unemployed for periods greater than 2 years now than were in 1983; if so, what is the percentage increase. (5) How many persons have been interviewed in the long-term unemployment beneficiaries' review in each quarter by each regional office. (6) Did the review interview all persons classified as long term; if so, how many (a) lost benefits, (b) had benefits reduced and (c) had benefits increased. (7) What is the cost for each of the changes in benefit value referred to in part (6) by each regional office. (8) How many persons received an invalid pension in each quarter since 1983 and has the number increased since 1983; if so, by what sum has it increased in (a) real and (b) percentage terms and (c) why has it increased. (9) How many persons over 50 years of age have been unemployed in each quarter since 1983 and has the number increased since 1983; if so, by what sum has it increased in (a) real and (b) percentage terms and (c) why has it increased. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) See tables below. The data shown below in response to this and other parts of the question concerning unemployed persons relate to unemployment benefit recipients. Data by State relating to mean duration are not available prior to February 1986. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS-AVERAGE CURRENT DURATION: AUSTRALIA (weeks) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 February ... 36.1 47.8 53.0 57.5 58.0 May ... 40.5 52.5 57.8 60.6 62.0 August ... 45.2 54.7 60.8 61.2 63.9 November ... 49.0 56.7 63.2 64.0 (a) (a) not yet available. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS-AVERAGE CURRENT DURATION: STATES (weeks) N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. 1986 - February ... 68.1 55.7 43.0 61.5 44.0 64.3 47.7 39.4 May ... 71.8 58.9 45.6 64.5 46.4 66.8 49.8 42.6 August ... 72.8 59.9 47.0 64.7 45.5 67.3 48.2 43.1 November ... 75.8 61.8 49.9 67.3 48.6 70.5 51.6 42.9 1987 - February ... 69.2 55.1 45.7 61.7 43.1 65.4 49.9 35.2 May ... 73.9 59.2 49.2 65.6 45.6 69.2 51.0 38.7 August ... 75.6 60.8 51.9 68.0 46.4 69.7 50.6 40.3 (2) (a) Yes. The increase between August 1983 and August 1987 was 41%. (b) The total number of unemployment benficiaries declined by 17 per cent between August 1983 and August 1987. The decline has been most rapid among those with shorter durations of benefit. Long-term beneficiaries, particularly those in the older age groups, who came on to benefit during the 1982-83 recession, appear to have faced greater problems in finding work. The Government is addressing the needs of this group and other unemployed people in the context of the Social Security Review. (3) See table below. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS-PERSONS WITH DURATION MORE THAN TWO YEARS: STATES (number) N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas N.T. A.C.T. Aust 1983 February ... 20,675 11,001 3,816 6,654 2,636 2,349 702 530 48,363 May ... 22,973 12,129 4,218 7,336 2,953 2,625 847 544 53,625 August ... 25,806 13,156 4,791 8,058 3,372 2,966 850 557 59,556 November ... 28,163 14,046 5,273 8,464 3,758 3,101 838 557 64,200 1984 February ... 33,161 15,621 6,320 9,223 4,467 3,486 938 577 73,793 May ... 37,114 16,551 7,140 9,552 5,014 3,567 933 554 80,425 August ... 41,633 17,754 8,409 10,039 5,825 3,737 928 526 88,851 November ... 44,346 18,768 9,263 10,312 6,249 3,799 927 503 94,167 1985 February ... 49,207 20,538 10,638 11,134 6,908 4,029 975 501 103,930 May ... 50,511 20,293 11,297 10,803 6,906 3,955 999 485 105,249 August ... 50,380 19,560 11,578 10,544 6,948 3,914 1,046 447 104,417 November ... 49,966 19,270 11,772 10,426 6,881 3,858 1,083 403 103,659 1986 February ... 51,610 19,506 12,679 10,727 7,150 3,934 1,191 431 107,228 May ... 50,886 18,785 13,087 10,474 6,964 3,772 1,335 402 105,705 August ... 50,763 18,507 13,770 10,581 7,019 3,808 1,393 397 106,238 November... 49,539 17,682 13,987 10,504 6,893 3,766 1,363 349 104,083 1987 February... 50,003 17,730 15,182 10,810 6,888 3,916 1,364 365 106,258 May... 48,028 16,084 14,925 10,454 6,243 3,704 1,406 357 101,201 August... 45,605 14,585 14,680 10,233 5,762 3,629 1,349 334 96,177 (4) Yes. The increase between August 1983 and August 1987 was 61%. (5), (6) and (7) The answer is at Attachment A (8) INVALID PENSIONERS*: AUSTRALIA (number) 8 April 1983 ... 217,760 30 June 1983 ... 220,289 23 September 1983 ... 225,949 16 December 1983 ... 230,620 6 April 1984 ... 235,630 30 June 1984 ... 240,574 21 September 1984 ... 246 748 14 December 1984 ... 250,751 5 April 1985 ... 255,212 30 June 1985 ... 259,162 20 September 1985 ... 263,112 13 December 1985 ... 266,543 4 April 1986 ... 270,611 30 June 1986 ... 273,810 19 September 1986 ... 277,943 9 January 1987 ... 282,499 3 April 1987 ... 285,993 30 June 1987 ... 289,160 18 September 1987 ... 290,610 * Excludes recipients of wife's pension and carer's pension (a) The increase in numbers between September 1983 and September 1987 was 64,661. (b) The percentage increase over this period was 29%. (c) The reasons for the increases are complex. The Social Security Review will be addressing this issue in papers to be released during 1988. (9) See table below. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS-PERSONS AGED 50 YEARS AND OVER: AUSTRALIA 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 February ... 53,599 60,011 58,851 57,860 59,623 May ... 58,037 57,994 57,203 57,685 58,384 August ... 59,264 57,336 56,047 58,297 57,487 November ... 58,879 57,141 55,552 57,675 (1) (a) (b) and (c) The number of unemployment benefit recipients aged 50 years and over at August 1987 was less than at the corresponding date in 1983. (1) Not yet available. (Question No. 520) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Which other Departments have use of the computer facilities housed in his Department's national computer centre at Deakin, ACT. (2) Is the computerised information of any department other than his own used in order to respond to the Government's social security requirements and other policy requirements; if so, is detailed information supplied including the names and addresses of individuals. (3) What is the total computing capacity of equipment at the Deakin centre and how much of this capacity is being used. (4) When is it expected that the equipment will be used to the maximum of its capacity in maintaining social security files. (5) Are family allowance records maintained at the national computer centre; if so, to what year is the earliest of this information backdated. (6) Is it possible to establish detailed financial and other information on individuals through the mainframe computer; if not, what security measures are adopted to prevent such interchange of information. (7) What action has been taken to ensure the confidentiality of information on individuals and to prevent interchange between various Departments. (8) Was the computer system at the Deakin centre established to fulfil the requirements of the Australia Card legislation. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My department has a computer centre in the Deakin Offices at Deakin in the ACT. It is one of a number of tenants of that building. It provides computing facilities to the Australian Taxation Office to develop and operate the Child Support System; it also provides computing facilities to the Department of Community Services and Health to operate systems that belonged to the former Department of Community Services. This and the Australian Taxation Office function operate in independent technical environments and are not connected to my department's systems. The systems operated by the Department of Community Services and Health are expected to move to a facility operated by that department in 1988. (2) A small number of Commonwealth agencies provide computerised information on magnetic tape to allow cross-checking of the eligibility of persons in receipt of a Social Security pension or benefit. Information includes the names, and in most cases the addresses, of individuals. (3) The equipment comprises two mainframe computers and associated peripheral devices. The processing capacity of mainframe computers is usually expressed in units called `MIPS', being the number of millions of instructions per second that the computer can execute. The processing capacity of one of the mainframes is approximately 33 MIPS and that of the other is approximately 21 MIPS. The amount of the capacity being used varies continuously according to the number of users and the type of work they are undertaking. Both of the mainframes are close to being fully used for much of the typical working day. (4) The equipment is not used for maintaining social security files. The computer centre is used for the following purposes: (i) to develop, maintain and distribute the computer software used to support the Government's income security programs including the payment of pensions, benefits and allowances; (ii) to perform technical work to ensure the stability of the Department's computer systems; (iii) to undertake fraud detection; (iv) to aid policy development and to compile statistics; (v) to operate a facilities management information system which allows my department to manage its computer network; (vi) to provide computing facilities to the Australian Taxation Office to develop and operate the Child Support System; and (vii) to provide computing facilities to the Department of Community Services and Health. The computer centre also provides back-up in case of failure in any of the department's state computer centres where the programs that actually produce payments to clients are run. (5) No. Family Allowance records (as well as records for all other benefits) are maintained at my department's State computer centres. Archival tapes are provided by the State computer centres to the computer centre in Canberra. The oldest of these dates to 1976-77. (6) Current client information is maintained on the Department's State mainframes. It is possible for authorised personnel in my department to access client information kept by DSS on its State mainframes where that access is required for them to carry out their duties. The client information that is kept is required for the Government's social security programs. DSS personnel who would normally use the national computer centre for their work are able to be connected to DSS State mainframes to access client data where this is necessary for them to carry out their duties. (7) My department has implemented a comprehensive data security policy to ensure the security, reliability and integrity of its data and data processing systems. Among the features of this policy are the following: (1) All users of DSS ADP resources require user identification through a logon identification code and a password. Only authorised users are granted an identification code; (2) Access to DSS ADP resources is strictly controlled through security software; (3) The DSS network is not connected to any other network and all communications within the DSS network are made through dedicated lines leased from Telecom. (8) No. (Question No. 528) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What was the original purpose of Stratplan and was it designed to change benefit and pension granting operations from a State base to a national base; if so, has this been achieved. (2) If it has not achieved its objective, why not. (3) Are benefits and pensions still granted on a State basis; if so, has there been a change in the purpose of Stratplan. (4) If benefits and pensions are not granted on a State basis, how are they granted. (5) Is Stratplan a total benefit system. (6) How is Stratplan used by departmental officers. (7) What sum has his department spent on computer hardware each year since 1982 and what proportion of this was for Stratplan. (8) For what was the remainder used. (9) What is the floor space of the Deakin, ACT, office where Stratplan is located. (10) How many floors are there in the office and what is the area of each floor. (11) What area of each floor is used for Stratplan. (12) Does his department use any other part of the building; if so, for what purpose. (13) If his department does not use any other part of the building, is it vacant. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The original purpose of Stratplan was to replace existing and obsolete equipment and outmoded systems and to provide the department with necessary ADP capacity to administer the Government's social security requirements. As a part of this replacement program my department was to set up its own computer centre in Canberra. This was a part of the plan from 1981 as was the need for computer centre accommodation in Canberra. Previously, all computing development work for social security purposes had been carried out on the then Department of Health's facilities in Canberra and, subsequently, on facilities belonging to the CSIRO. Benefit and pension granting operations are conducted in the department's regional offices. The department's computing facilities, pre and post Stratplan, support these operations. (3) See (1). (4) See (1). (5) The continued payment of all social security benefits and support of all the Government's social security requirements has been possible only with the Stratplan re-equipment project. Without the Stratplan project, income security operations would have been in jeopardy several years ago and may have collapsed. (6) The Stratplan equipment is used by a large proportion of departmental officers in conducting their daily work, especially income security operations, but also administrative functions. The equipment is necessary for the conduct of the department's principal responsibilities. (7) The sums spent by my department on computer hardware each year since 1981-82 to 1986-87 have been: 1981-82-$0.3m; 1982-83-$0.5m; 1983-84-$29.3m; 1984-85-$37.8m; 1985-86-$43.4m; 1986-87-$40.4m. The proportion of this expenditure spent on Stratplan equipment approved by the Government in 1983 has been: 1981-82-0%; 1982-83-0%; 1983-84-97%; 1984-85-86% 1985-86-56%; 1986-87-30%. (8) The remaining expenditure has been on (1) equipment needed to keep the pre-Stratplan network operating while the Stratplan network was being phased into operation; (2) a small amount of equipment used to conduct the Stratplan tender evaluations; (3) additional equipment needed to implement the Pensions Assets Test; (4) equipment to meet occupational health and safety requirements identified during Stratplan implementation; (5) expansion of the Stratplan network to equip DSS regional offices opened since Stratplan tenders were finalised; and (6) additional equipment required to support Government initiatives since Stratplan was approved. (9) Stratplan is not a physical entity at a specific location. It is a re-equipment program with aims given above. The project involved acquiring computer equipment for mainframe sites in each capital city and minicomputers for DSS offices throughout the Commonwealth. (See the answer to Question No. 226, 2 November 1987.) My department's computer centre occupies 1622 square metres of the Deakin Offices. I understand that the total net usable office space in the Deakin Offices is approximately 11 500 square metres. (10) I understand that the building comprises a basement, ground and two upper floors. The Deakin Offices are managed by the Department of Administrative Services. (11) Of the portion of the Deakin Offices used by my department, approximately 1300 square metres is used to accommodate computer equipment and approximately 270 square metres is used for office space associated with managing the computer centre. This area is on the ground floor of the building. (12) A further 52 square metres in the basement is used for paper storage for the computer centre. (13) There are other tenants in the building. (Question No. 18) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 5135 (Hansard, 26 March 1987, page 1665), how many copies of the (a) Public Service, (b) General and (c) Purchasing and Disposals issues of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette were forwarded to Post Offices in (i) 1985-86 and (ii) 1986-87, and what were the costs of production of those copies. (2) Is there any legal requirement on the Commonwealth to have each of those issues of the Gazette physically located in every Post Office; if so, what is the legal requirement. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of Gazettes produced by AGPS for forwarding to Post Offices in each of the years mentioned was as follows-(i)(a) 70,100, (i)(b) 53,700, (i)(c) 53,850; (ii)(a) 70,100, (ii)(b) 53,700, (ii)(c) 53,850. The production costs were as follows-(i)(a) $102,957, (i)(b) $57,069, (i)(c) $15,448; (ii)(a) $108,305, (ii)(b) $69,772, (ii)(c) $15,482. (2) No. (Question No. 101) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) Does the US policy of neither confirming nor denying whether US ships are carrying nuclear arms also apply to US planes, including the B52 bombers staged in Darwin. (2) Is he able to confirm or deny that the B52 bombers carry nuclear weapons when in flight across Australian territory. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The US acknowledges that it does not conduct routine training exercises with nuclear weapons. (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 641 published in Senate Hansard on 11 March 1986 on page 829 which outlined the arrangements covering the staging of B52 flights through Australia and why the Australian Government is confident that the B52 aircraft do not carry nuclear weapons. (Question No. 144) Mr Cowan asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 September 1987, as follows: (1) Is it a fact that copies of the ACTU Australia Reconstructed document are on sale at the AGPS bookshop in Brisbane; if so, (a) who published the document, (b) who printed copies, (c) who authorised their publication and printing, (d) what other AGPS bookshops are selling the document and (e) what is happening to the revenue from their sale. (2) If the document is published or printed by the Government, what was the total (a) print run and (b) cost, and why are copies of the document not available free to federal Members of Parliament. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (a) AGPS (b) Canberra Publishing and Printing Co. (c) Hon. John S. Dawkins, M.P., then Minister for Trade (d) All (e) Revenue from the sale of copies of Australia Reconstructed, and other publications sold through AGPS, is paid into the AGPS Trust Account, and is used to offset AGPS operating costs. Any excess revenue at the end of the financial year is paid into consolidated revenue. (2) (a) 8533, including 3250 for sale through AGPS (b) ($65,193, including $14,950 for AGPS sale copies. Copies of the publication have been made available free of charge to Parliamentarians since 7 October 1987. Copies were not initially available because the Bills and Papers Office, Parliament House, placed an embargo on its issue to Parliamentarians on mistaken telephone advice from AGPS that it was an ACTU publication. (Question No. 201) Mr Cobb asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What are the names of all those appointed to the Constitutional Commission and their areas of responsibility. (2) What criteria were used for selection of each appointee to the Commission. (3) What remuneration has been paid to each appointee. (4) What travel costs have been incurred by each appointee. (5) What are the details of other costs incurred by the Commission, including costs of printing bulletins. (6) What is the total cost of the Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following appointments have been made to the Constitutional Commission and the Advisory Committees to the Commission: Constitutional Commission Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C. Former Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth (Chairman) Professor Enid Campbell, O.B.E. Faculty of Law Monash University The Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, K.C.M.G. Former Premier of Victoria The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, A.C., Q.C. Former Prime Minister Professor Leslie Zines Faculty of Law Australian National University The Hon. Mr Justice Toohey, A.O. then a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, was a member of the Commission until 31 December 1986 when he resigned in view of his appointment as a Justice of the High Court of Australia. Executive Government Advisory Committee The Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen, A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., Q.C., Former Governor-General of Australia (Chairman). The Hon. Sir James Killen, K.C.M.G., Former Federal Minister (Deputy Chairman). The Hon. K. E. Beazley (Snr.), A.O., Former Federal Minister (Resigned 10 August 1986). Emeritus Professor D. Horne, A.O., School of Political Science, University of New South Wales. Professor G. G. Winterton, Associate Professor of Law, University of New South Wales. Mr D. Solomon, Barrister, journalist and author. The Hon. J. Wheeldon, Former Federal Minister, presently Associate Editor, The ``Australian''. Ms S. Kenny Barrister. Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee The Hon. Sir John Moore, A.C., Former President, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Chairman). The Hon. H. Storey, Q.C., M.L.C., Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council and Shadow Minister for Education; former Victorian Attorney-General. The Hon. D. A. Dunstan, A.C., Q.C., Former South Australian Premier. Mr G. Polites, A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E., Former Director-General, Confederation of Australian Industry. The Hon. J. Ferguson, A.O., Former Deputy Premier of New South Wales. Mr G. J. Lindell, Reader in Law, Australian National University. Mr P. Munro, Former Secretary, Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (Resigned 12 August 1986). Dr B. Creighton, Legal Officer, ACTU (Appointed 31 October 1986). Trade and National Economic Management Advisory Committee The Hon. M. G. Everett, Former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and President of the Inter-State Commission, former Senator for and Deputy Premier of Tasmania (Chairman). The Hon. Dr. R. A. Patterson, Former Federal Minister. Professor M. Coper, Associated Professor of Law, University of New South Wales. Mr R. D. E. Bakewell, Former South Australian Ombudsman and Permanent Head of the Premier's Department of South Australia. Alderman the Hon. H. G. Percival, O.B.E., M.L.C., Member of Executive, Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Ms P. J. Smith, Policy and Public Affairs Manager, Australian Consumers' Association. Mr. M. Burrows, Principal and Partner of Baring Bros., Halkerston & Partners Ltd, Merchant Bankers. Individual and Democratic Rights Under the Constitution Advisory Committee Mr T. Purcell, Director, New South Wales Law Foundation (Chairman). Dr. P. Totaro, A.M., Chairman, N.S.W. Ethnic Affairs Commission. Mr. A. R. Castan, Q.C., President, Victorian Council for Civil Liberties. Mr P. Garrett, Entertainer. Professor E. P. Willmot, A.M., Chief Executive Officer, ACT Schools Authority; Former Head, School of Education, James Cook University and Deputy Secretary, Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr T. M. Keneally, A.O., F.R.S.L., Author. Mr R. Clarke, Journalist. Ms R. Galbally, Director, Commission for the Future. Australian Judicial System Advisory Committee The Hon. D. F. Jackson, Q.C., Former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Chairman). The Hon. Mr Justice R. McGarvie, Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Hon. Mr Justice W. M. C. Gummow, Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr R. C. Jennings, Q.C., Deputy President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal and former Tasmanian Solicitor-General. The Hon. Mr Justice G. A. Kennedy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Professor J. R. Crawford, Challis Professor of International Law, Sydney University, and member of the Law Reform Commission. (2) The members of the Constitutional Commission and its Advisory Committees were selected because of their prominence in public affairs, their wide ranging experience and their strong links with various sections of the community. People from all walks of life were appointed to the Commission and its Advisory Committees in an attempt to encourage effective communication with the general public and with the particular constituencies with which they have some affinity. (3) The Constitutional Commission has advised that at 30 September 1987 the following remuneration, by way of sitting fees, has been paid to each Commission appointee: (a) Commissioners Sir Maurice Byers Q.C. ... $62,250 Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer ... $17,797 Hon. Mr Gough Whitlam, Q.C. $ 7,282 Prof Leslie Zines ... $11,874 (1) Prof Enid Campbell ... Nil (2) Hon Mr Justice Toohey ... Nil (3, 4) $99,203 (b) Committee members Mr R Bakewell ... $7,755 Hon K Beazley ... $400 (4) Mr M Burrows ... $6,115 Mr R Castan Q.C. ... $7,355 Mr R Clarke ... $4,060 Associate Prof M Coper ... $10,415 Rt Hon Sir Zelman Cowen Q.C. $1,218 Prof J Crawford ... $5,105 Dr B Creighton ... $4,530 Hon Mr D Dunstan Q.C. ... $3,465 Hon M G Everett ... Nil (3) Hon Mr J Ferguson ... $5,715 Ms R Galbally ... Nil (5) Mr P Garrett ... Nil (6) Hon Mr Justice Gummow ... $1,285 (3) (7) Prof D Horne ... $6,795 Hon D Jackson Q.C. ... Nil (3) Mr R Jennings Q.C. ... $8,580 Mr T Keneally ... $5,515 Hon Mr Justice Kennedy ... Nil (3) Ms S Kenny ... Nil (8) Hon Sir James Killen ... $3,275 Mr G Lindell ... $6,735 Hon Mr Justice McGarvie ... Nil (3) Hon Sir John Moore ... $8,785 Mr P Munro ... $1,000 (4) Hon Dr R Patterson ... $9,605 Hon H Percival ... $5,705 Mr G Polites ... $8,790 Mr T Purcell ... $14,985 Ms P Smith ... $5,085 Mr D Solomon ... $6,555 Hon H Storey ... $600 (9) Dr P Totaro ... $4,495 Hon Mr J Wheeldon ... $2,035 Prof Willmot ... $1,625 Associate Prof Winterton ... $6,955 TOTAL B ... $164,538 TOTAL A & B ... $263,741 NOTES: (1) Until 30 April 1987 the Australian National University was reimbursed for Professor Zines' service on a one-third basis (one-third of salary and on-costs) plus 20 hours per week secretarial assistance. For the 15 months ending 30 April 1987 the cost was $38,699.93. Approval has been granted to vary the secondment from one-third to one-half time for the eight months ending December 1987. Professor Zines is paid sitting fees for Commission sitting days only. (2) Prior to 1 July 1986 Monash University was reimbursed for 50% of Professor Campbell's on-costs and 50% of the salary and on-costs of her secretary. Since 1 July 1986 Monash University has been reimbursed for Professor Campbell's services on a half-time basis, 50% of salary and on-costs for her and her secretary. For the 17 months ending on 30 June 1987 the cost was $73,819.61. Professor Campbell does not receive sitting fees. (3) Judges of any jurisdiction are not entitled to sitting fees. (4) Resignations: Mr Justice Toohey-30 December 1986 Mr K. Beazley-10 August 1986 Mr P. Munro-12 August 1986 (5) Ms R. Galbally is not entitled to a fee because she is a Commonwealth public servant. (6) Mr P. Garrett has not claimed sitting fees. (7) Mr Justice Gummow was entitled to sitting fees prior to his appointment to the Federal Court on 24 November 1986. (8) Ms Kenny (who is resident in Oxford, U.K.) has attended only one meeting, for which she had not been paid at 30 September 1987. (9) Mr H. Storey has claimed sitting fees for only three days. (4) The Constitutional Commission has advised that at 30 September 1987 the travel costs paid by the Commission for each Commission appointee (consisting of airfares and travel allowance but excluding car hire) are as follows: (a) Commissioners $ Sir Maurice Byers Q.C. ... 5,525 Hon Sir Rupert Hamer ... 11,312 Hon Mr Gough Whitlam Q.C. 12,277 Prof Leslie Zines ... 4,788 Prof Enid Cambell ... 8,093 Hon Mr Justice Toohey ... 6,923 TOTAL A ... 48,918 (b) Committee members Mr R. Bakewell ... 16,072 Hon Mr K. Beazley ... 3,713 Mr M. Burrows ... 2,312 Mr R. Castan Q.C. ... 12,056 Mr R. Clarke ... 16,391 Associate Prof M. Coper ... 1,310 Rt Hon Sir Zelman Cowen ... 18,701 Prof J. Crawford ... 415 Dr B. Creighton ... 7,973 Hon Mr D. Dunstan Q.C. ... 6,671 Hon M. Everett ... 23,263 Hon Mr J. Ferguson ... 3,639 Ms R. Galbally ... 4,520 Mr P. Garrett ... 1,613 Hon. Mr Justice Gummow ... $270 Prof. D. Horne ... $4,892 Hon. D. Jackson Q.C. ... $7,464 Mr R. Jennings Q.C. ... $16,429 Mr T. Keneally ... $5,578 Hon. Justice Kennedy ... $20,276 Ms S. Kenny ... $5,901 Hon. Sir James Killen ... $1,125 Mr G. Lindell ... $9,061 Hon. Mr Justice McGarvie ... $10,148 Hon. Sir John Moore ... $3,468 Mr P. Munro ... Nil Hon. Dr R. Patterson ... $39,519 Hon. H. Percival ... $1,697 Mr G. Polites ... $14,865 Mr T. Purcell ... $7,673 Ms P. Smith ... $765 Mr D. Solomon ... 17,745 Hon. H. Storey Q.C. ... $8,973 Dr P. Totaro ... $1,242 Hon. Mr J. Wheeldon ... Nil Prof. Willmot ... $7,200 Associate Prof. Winterton ... $9,162 TOTAL B ... $312,102 TOTAL A & B ... $361,020 In addition, the Commission's car hire costs to 30 September 1987 were $56,739.59. These have not been broken down for each appointee as to do so would result in a significant diversion of the Commission's limited resources. (5) The Constitutional Commission has provided the details of its expenditure shown in Table 1. Figures for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years represent actual expenditure, the amount shown for the 1987-88 financial year is the Commission's appropriation. Actual expenditure for the 1987-88 financial year to 30 September 1987 is $486,294, excluding rent. Rent of the Commission's premises ($20,300 per month) is paid by the Department of Administrative Services. Rent totalling $426,300 has been paid for the period February 1986 to October 1987. Included in the abovementioned figures is an amount of $34,806 being the cost of printing Bulletins (No's 1.5). (6) The Constitutional Commission has advised that, excluding rent, the total running costs of the Commission to 30 September 1987 are $3,300,975, with the expected final cost being $5,106,051. A total $588,700 will be paid in rent for the Commission's life over the period February 1986 to June 1988. Table 1 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION EXPENDITURE 1985/86 Expenditure 1985/86 Expenditure* 1987/88 Appropriation* $ $ $ (i) Commissioners' Remuneration ... 13,638 166,300 324,700 (ii) Committee Members' Remuneration ... 20,000 87,800 40,000 (iii) Travel: (a) Commissioners ... 38,200 80,000 Travel: (b) Committee Members ... 320,500 17,500 Travel: (c) Secretariat ... 124,577 103,000 70,000 (iv) Office Requisites ... 207,945 81,300 100,000 (v) Post/Telephones ... 6,221 189,000 200,000 (vi) Office Service ... 9,475 33,400 30,000 (vii) Incidentals: (a) Printing ... 158,500 200,000 Incidentals: (b) Promotion/Advertising ... 299,000 178,300 Incidentals: (c) Other ... 77,657 50,000 46,000 (viii) Computer Services ... 570 38,500 30,000 (ix) Consultants ... 15,100 152,500 287,500 475,183 1,718,000 1,604,000 Salaries ... 60,868 590,000 658,000 536,051 2,308,000 2,262,000 * excluding rent (Question No. 220) Mr Price asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Did he, in announcing his Government's decision to block the Remuneration Tribunal determination in 1984 and 1986 granting an 11.7% increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament, write to the State Premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister seeking to enjoin State parliamentarians in a combined display of federal and State parliamentary restraint; if so, will he make the letters public. (2) If he will not make the letters public, why not. (3) Did the Federal Government make submissions to the State Tribunals concerning parliamentary salaries; if not, why not. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Following significant increases in salaries granted to parliamentarians in some States in January 1984, I wrote to all State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 11 January 1984, drawing attention to the increases and suggesting that the respective governments give urgent consideration to the steps that could be taken to ensure that tribunals determining parliamentary salaries give effect to the decisions of the relevant industrial tribunal in the State or Territory. In the case of States where parliamentary tribunals did not exist, it was suggested that consideration be given to establishing them. For its part, the Federal Government introduced amendments to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 which were passed later in 1984 and which require the Remuneration Tribunal, in the performance of its functions, to have regard to: (a) the principles of wage determination established from time to time by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (b) decisions given by the Commission in National Wage Cases. Below is an example of the telexes that were sent to the Premiers and Chief Minister on 11 January 1984 and which were attached to a media release of that date (there were variations in the wording of the fourth paragraph depending on whether the relevant State had an independent tribunal or not): `Dear Premier As you are aware the issue of the level and method of fixation of parliamentary salaries has once again become a controversial matter in the community. Substantial increases in remuneration have been awarded in recent times. Notwithstanding the particular circumstances justifying those increases, they are not easily reconciled with the much lower increases received by wage and salary earners generally as a result of the last national wage case and the over-riding need for restraint particularly by community leaders. It is clear that much of the current problem arises from the fact that larger than normal increases are being paid after sometimes substantial periods of restraint in parliamentary salaries. However, if parliamentary salaries are to be maintained in a position broadly comparable with existing community standards the need for catch-up increases inevitably arises with familiar political consequences. To my mind the strain this places on the centralised system of wage fixation is regrettable and avoidable. The Commonwealth considers that a system which ensures parliamentary salaries move on a comparable basis to wage and salary earners generally both with respect to quantum and to timing could overcome these difficulties and would be manifestly fair and equitable. I would ask that your Government give urgent consideration as to what steps can be taken to ensure that tribunals determining parliamentary salaries give effect to the decisions and principles of the relevant industrial tribunal in your State. I note that an independent tribunal exists in New South Wales. It would be desirable, however, to ensure that the tribunal in its determinations is required to give effect to the principles and decisions of the relevant State industrial tribunal. For its part the Commonwealth is examining the machinery applying to federal parliamentarians. Yours sincerely R. J. L. Hawke' (3) The Government has not made submissions to State tribunals concerning State parliamentary salaries. My telex to Premiers was considered the most effective way to liaise with the States. (Question No. 314) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) What was the cost of producing stickers advertising the National Highway and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development program. (2) Who authorised production of the stickers. (3) How many have been produced. (4) How and by whom are the stickers used. (5) In what sizes and formats are the stickers produced. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) National Highway stickers: (1) $3,870. (2) The previous Minister for Transport-Mr Peter Morris. (3) 10,000 large and 50,000 small. (4) The stickers inform the community of the Federal Government's efforts to upgrade the nation's road system and in particular the National Highway. They are used in connection with opening ceremonies for Federally funded roads, in media kits, on displays and in other information material. (5) 100mm and 59mm PVC adhesive labels, 34mm x 20mm continuous roll labels. (b) Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program stickers: These were produced during the period of administration of the Fraser Government and no details are available in relation to the quantity produced, the cost and usage. (Question No. 324) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) What action has been taken by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS concerning the control and prevention of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in prisons. (2) Have there been any negotiations between the committee and State Governments; if so (a) when and where were they conducted and (b) what were the results of the negotiations. (3) If there have not been negotiations with State Governments, why not. (4) Has any risk assessment been conducted on prisoners. (5) In terms of Medicare benefits paid, what (a) has been the cost in each year since 1984 and (b) is the projected cost until 1992 for (i) prisoners and (ii) persons in each State who are infected with AIDS. (6) Has his Department assessed the impact of AIDS on Australia's health system; if so, what conclusions and recommendations has it made. (7) If his Department has not assessed the impact of AIDS on Australia's health system, why not. (8) How many prisoners are infected with AIDS. (9) How did they contract the disease. (10) What treatment is available to them, and is it comparable to that available to the general public. (11) If it is not comparable to that available to the general public, why not and how is it different. (12) How many prisoners infected with AIDS have been released in each month since 1984. (13) Have released prisoners been counselled concerning the risk of AIDS; if so, how and by whom have they been counselled. (14) If counselling has not been given, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is very concerned that significant transmission of AIDS may occur through high risk practices which are known to occur in prisons, and I thank the honourable member for highlighting this important issue by his question. I would remind the honourable member that the administration of prisons in Australia falls within the jurisdiction of the States and the Northern Territory, and that some parts of his question should be directed to the relevant State or Territory authorities. (1) The National Advisory Committee on AIDS (NACAIDS) has established a working group on the subject of AIDS in prisons convened by Professor John Dwyer from the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. The group investigated detection and management of AIDS in the Australian prison system and AIDS educaiton strategies. NACAIDS is now considering the final report presented on 8 October 1987, and recommendations from the working group. The Chairwoman of NACAIDS, Miss Ita Buttrose, has arranged a meeting with my colleague, Senator the Hon Michael Tate, the Minister for Justice, in early December to discuss the issue. (2) and (3) There have been no negotiations, as such, between NACAIDS and State Governments. However, as part of its investigation into AIDS in Australian prisons, the NACAIDS working group forwarded a written questionnaire for completion by prison authorities in each State. (4) NACAIDS sees prisons as potential incubators for the AIDS virus. Sexual intercourse and the sharing of needles and syringes for intravenous drug use are known to occur in prisons. These are high risk activities insofar as transmission of the virus is concerned. (5) The information requested is not available as prisoners are ineligible for Medicare benefits. (6) and (7) My Department has commissioned a report on the cost impact of AIDS on the Australian hospital system. The report has not yet been finalised but it is already clear that the care and treatment of people with AIDS will place escalating demands on Australia's health system. (8) The available statistics do not include details of how many prisoners have contracted AIDS. (9) This information is not available. However, NACAIDS believes that intravenous drug problems pose significantly more risk for the spread of AIDS in the prison system than does sexual activity. (10) to (14) These are matters falling within State jurisdictions and should be referred to the relevant State authorities. (Question No. 349) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) Does he propose to announce the formation of a Pathology Services Advisory Committee (PSAC); if so, when. (2) What representation will scientists that work in the pathology industry have on a PSAC. (3) Will professional scientists who are nominees of the National Australian Institute of Medical Laboratory Scientists be members of a PSAC; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I appointed the members of the PSAC on 26 October 1987. I provided membership details in my recent announcement on new pathology fees which were recommended by the Committee. (2) A professional scientist working in the public hospital field has been appointed as one of my three nominees on the PSAC. (3) There is no specific legislative requirement for nominees of the Australian Institute of Medical Laboratory Scientists (AIMLS) or other scientists to be members of the PSAC. The fact that the AIMLS does not have a nominee on the PSAC should not inhibit the Institute from participating in the work of the PSAC. I should mention that the PSAC is required to inform itself on any matter relevant to the performance of its functions in such a manner as it thinks fit. (Question No. 352) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) What agency sets the levels of permissible radiation exposure for Australia. (2) What are the levels of permissible radiation exposure in Australia for (a) those persons subject to radiation at work in a year, (b) those persons subject to radiation at work over their lifetime, (c) a member of the public in a year and (d) a member of the public over their lifetime. (3) For those persons exposed to the maximum permissible level of radiation at work what is the annual risk, per 1000 head of population, of dying from radiation induced cancer. (4) How does the rate referred to in part (3) compare with the crude death rate in Australia. (5) Is he able to say whether the current levels of permissible radiation exposure in Australia differ from those recommended by the US National Academy of Science, if so, by how much. (6) What rules apply in Australia to the use of x-rays on pregnant women. (7) Is he able to say whether the rules referred to in part (6) differ from those which apply in (a) the US and (b) Britian. (8) Have there been any studies on the effects of x-rays on embryos during the first month of pregnancy; if so, what are the conclusions of such studies. (9) What conclusions do studies of the survivors of atomic bomb attacks on Japan reach about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer. (10) Are the levels of permissible radiation exposure in Australia under review. (11) Is he able to say whether the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has made any recommendations on the levels of permissible radiation exposure. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Radiation protection standards in Australia are recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) and are based on current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (2) Maximum permitted exposures to radiation are- (a) For persons classified as radiation workers, 50 millisievert (mSv) in a year. This limit is perceived to define the lower bound of unacceptable practice for individuals and there is an additional constraint for exposures to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors being taken into account. The effect of this constraint is to achieve, in most countries, average levels of less than 1/10 of this limit. In fact, in Australia average annual occupational exposures are about 1mSv per year. (b) No specific lifetime limit is recommended for radiation workers. (c) & (d) For members of the public, 1 mSv per year on average. Occasional exposures of up to 5 mSv per year are permissible provided that over a lifetime an average annual rate of 1 mSv per year is not exceeded (that is a lifetime accumulation of 70 mSv). (3) The estimated upper limit of risk of cancer arising from radiation exposure is the following- For members of the public exposed to 1 mSv, about 1 in 100,000 (or 0.01 per thousand)-for radiation workers with an average exposure of 5 mSv, about 5 in 100,000 (0.05 per thousand)-for radiation workers at the regulatory limit of 50 mSv, about 50 in 100,000 (0.5 per thousand). (4) The crude death rate in Australia in recent years has been a little over 700 per 100,000 (7 per thousand). (5) Levels of permissible radiation exposure in the US are recommended by their National Committee on Radiation Protection and do not differ from those applying in Australia. (6) The NH&MRC has recommended ``that precautions be adopted in radiological procedures involving exposure of the lower abdominal and pelvic regions of women of reproductive capacity to ensure that the radiation dose received is as low as practicable. The Council re-affirms that only urgent examinations of the pelvis and lower abdomen should be carried out during pregnancy and particular care should be taken to avoid irradiation of the foetus wherever practicable.'' (7) The rules referred to in part 6 above are based on the recommendations of the ICRP and, in particular, on their publication 34 (``Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology''). The rules which apply in the US and Britain are based on the same source and are therefore unlikely to differ significantly. (8) The ICRP has reviewed evidence on the effects of X-rays on embryos and has stated- ``The biological information . . . suggests that the risk of maldevelopment as a result of irradition in utero beings about one month after the last menstruation and continues for the next 4-5 months. This information reduces the importance of the Commission's earlier advice to confine to the 10 day period following menstruation any examination that could, if necessary, be postponed for the full duration of the pregnancy. This advice may be unnecessarily restrictive. The Commission will continue to review the need for, and form of, this advice as more information becomes available. After exposure during the second month, detriment may be expressed as malformation of specific organs; after exposure during the third and fourth months, the detriment is mainly in the form of defective development of the forebrain, resulting in mental retardation.'' (9) Studies of the survivors of atomic bomb attacks in Japan have demonstrated that, under conditions of acute exposure (greater than 1000 mSv) there is an increased risk of fatal cancers. The risk estimates presented in part (3) above are based on this sort of data. Very recently, the estimates of dose associated with those atomic explosions have been refined and revised. This revision may lead to a doubling of the risk estimates under conditions of acute exposure in the future. (10) Levels of permissible radiation exposure are kept under continual review and generally incorporate the latest international recommendations as they are published. The most recent change in recommended radiation protection standards was the adoption, in 1986, of the 1mSv limit for members of the public published by ICRP in 1985. (11) Recommendations on levels of permissible radiation exposure are prepared by the Radiation Health Committee, which is a standing committee of the NH&MRC and not by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. (Question No. 354) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: What is the average waiting period for patients seeking treatment at the National Acoustic Laboratories in Western Australia. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The average waiting time for eligible adults seeking treatment from the Department of Community Services and Health Hearing Centres in Western Australia is 13-14 weeks. This represents a substantial improvement from the situation in early 1986 when the average waiting time was 27 weeks. It is anticipated that the additional resources provided by the opening of a new hearing centre at Balcatta will lead to a further reduction in the average waiting time. Persons under 21 years of age receive priority and are examined as soon as practicable, usually within one week of the initial inquiry. (Question No. 361) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) How many Sectional votes lodged in Queensland for the last federal election were (a) lodged, (b) accepted and (c) not accepted. (2) Has further investigation determined that some of the votes referred to in part (1) as not accepted were valid; if so, how many. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised by the Australian Electoral Commission that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total number of section declaration envelopes received in Queensland for the 11 July election was 13,221. The number of section declaration envelopes rejected outright due to formal defects in the declaration and/or non-enrolment in Queensland was 7,580. The total number of section declaration envelopes admitted to further scrutiny was 5,641 (all Queensland Senate ballot papers contained in these envelopes were admitted to the count). A number of House of Representatives ballot papers contained in those envelopes were disallowed on the basis of electors having declared for Divisions in which they were not enrolled. These totalled 2,765, leaving 2,876 ballot papers which were admitted to the House of Representatives ballot. These figures take no account of 17 missing House of Representatives ballot papers and 30 missing Senate ballot papers. (2) Yes, 34. (Question No. 362) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) Did the Electoral Commission investigate instances and complaints of voting irregularities in the last federal election; if so, what irregularities were identified in each Queensland federal seat. (2) Did complaints referred to in part (1) concern (a) the unanimous vote in favour of one candidate from one voting booth in the Division of Leichhardt; and (b) the large incidence of votes in the Division of Capricornia being recorded for deceased electors, and these votes recorded in some cases up to 6 times; if so, what recommendations did the Electoral Commission make in regard to these matters. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Electoral Commissioner has advised: (1) Yes. Irregularities relating to voting were investigated as follows: (a) Divisional staff in the Division of Capricornia identified 23 apparent instances of fraudulent voting in the names of 6 deceased electors. Following investigation by Electoral Commission offficers the matter was referred to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation; this has not yet been finalised. (b) In the Division of Forde the National Party campaign director complained that party workers of the Australian Labor Party had improperly induced residents of the Carramar Nursing Home to apply for postal votes. The Australian Federal Police were asked to investigate possible breaches of the Commonwealth Electoral Act; the investigation has not yet been finalised. (c) The Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Leichhardt received a number of complaints that a National Party scrutineer had intimidated electors at the Wujal Wujal polling booth. The complaint was investigated, and the National Party branch in Cairns has been advised in writing of the complaints and of the rights and responsibilities of scrutineers. (d) In the Division of Leichhardt the Member complained, alleging that a National Party scrutineer had improperly completed ballot-papers at the Yarrabah polling booth. The Australian Federal Police were asked to investigate and have completed their investigations. A summons is to be applied for. (2) No. No complaints were received concerning Boigu Island which is the only polling booth at which all valid votes supported one candidate. No complaints were received concerning the Division of Capricornia where the apparent instances of fraudulent voting were identified by Electoral Commission officers. Voting patterns at Boigu Island at recent Commonwealth and State elections have varied greatly between elections: BOIGU ISLAND Commonwealth NP ALP Other 1980* ... 121 6 2 1983** ... 92 64 0 1984*** ... 8 156 3 1987 ... 0 79 0 * Including Yam Island ** Including Stephen Island and St Paul's Mission *** Including Saibai Island State NP ALP Other 1980 ... 9 41 2 1983 ... 10 79 0 1986 ... 30 88 0 It is considered that local electors' propensity to vote for candidates personally known to them is a sufficient explanation of the results and that no action by the Electoral Commission is required. Consideration will be given to the apparent instances of fraudulent voting in the Division of Capricornia when the Australian Federal Police investigation is completed and, should any prosecution ensue, when that has been finalised. However the Electoral Commission had already initiated a survey of electors who were identified as having died in the period immediately prior to polling day, and the returns received to date show no incidents comparable to those in the Division of Capricornia. (Question No. 370) Mr Hawker asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 3 November 1987: (1) Is it a fact that to be entitled to enrolment under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, British subjects who are not Australian citizens had to be enrolled prior to 25 January 1984. (2) Is it also a fact that, despite the provisions of the Act, British citizens who are not Australian citizens but who were enrolled between 25 January 1984 and 8 October 1986 are still enrolled and, as a consequence, were entitled to vote at the general election on 11 July 1987. (3) How many persons in the category referred to in part (2) were eligible to vote in each electoral division at the general election on 11 July 1987. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2 & 3) As the honourable member is aware from recent representations he has made on behalf of two persons, it is quite possible that British subjects who are not Australian citizens have improperly secured Commonwealth electoral enrolment and that they voted at the 11 July election. In as much as the question seeks details of electors who are improperly enrolled, it is not possible to provide the information sought. As each case of ineligible enrolment is identified, action is taken to remove the name from the roll or to refuse re-enrolment (as was done with the two persons mentioned). By way of background the Electoral Commissioner has provided the following information. When the new nationality criteria came into force on Australia Day 1984 a new electoral enrolment claim was promulgated. This required claimants to declare, inter alia- I am an Australian citizen (OR a British subject who, on 25 January 1984 was on a Commonwealth electoral roll, or at any time between 26 October 1983 and 25 January 1984 inclusive was on a State of Victoria or Commonwealth electoral roll). In accordance with existing practice there was no check on the accuracy of the claim. The Australian Electoral Commission, as did the former Australian Electoral Office, relied on the honesty and integrity of claimants for enrolment and on that of the witnesses to their claims. However, as the Commission stated in a submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, such reliance on honesty and integrity was perhaps unwarranted in some cases and the assumption that the statutory penalties for false claims would keep would-be electors honest was no longer valid: Submission on ``Enrolment and Roll Maintenance,'' July 1985; Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, Report No. 2, December 1986, paragraphs 3.97-3.101 The Australian Electoral Commission redesigned the claim card and thereafter in all States, other than Victoria, claimants were required to make a declaration of Australian citizenship. Declaration of Australian citizenship was accepted and not separately verified. Failure to make that declaration resulted in a check of the rolls as at Australia Day 1984 to see whether the claimant was a British Subject who had been on the rolls at that date. In Victoria, by reason of the particular requirement of the Victorian Chief Electoral Officer, Victorian claimants were required to declare separately Australian citizenship or eligible British subject status. Declarations of Australian citizenship or eligible British subject status were accepted and not separately verified. This soon proved unsatisfactory and now all claims of eligibility other than on grounds of Australian citizenship are verified against the Australia Day 1984 electoral rolls. The reason why the Australian Electoral Commission does not verify all new claims for enrolment, and why it cannot seek to verify previous enrolments since Australia Day 1984, is lack of manpower, and financial and computer resources. However, there is no particular reason to believe that the incidence of British subjects who are not Australian citizens and who were not on the electoral rolls on Australia Day 1984 abusing the electoral system is of any great magnitude. If the number of cases that have come to light to date is any indication of the extent of the problem, it would not warrant the resources required to identify and remove unentitled persons from the roll. (Question No. 386) Mr Downer asked the Attorney-General, 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 Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total amount spent by the Minister's entire portfolio on public opinion polls for the 1986-87 Budget period was $25,004.49. (2) An opinion poll was commissioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology to ascertain ``The Public Attitude to Police'' at a cost of $5,850.00. The Australian Institute of Family Studies commissioned an opinion poll to test public understanding of, and attitudes to, Family Allowance payments, to family tax relief and to priorities concerning family measures in relation to possible expenditure reductions. The cost of the poll was $4,570.00. An opinion poll was commissioned by the Trade Practices Commission (in association with the former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations) to survey consumer opinion in Australia, to provide a measure of the incidence of consumer problems for a wide range of goods and services so as to assist the Commission and others to take appropriate decisions on the basis of firmer information than was previously available. The cost incurred by the Trade Practices Commission for the poll was $8,146.99. A public opinion poll was commissioned by the Constitutional Commission to determine current community awareness and level of understanding of the constitution. The cost of the poll was $6,437.50. (3) McNair Anderson Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake the poll on ``The Public Attitude to Police''. AGB:McNair was commissioned to undertake the poll on behalf of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Kewagama Research Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake the poll on consumer opinion in Australia. Newspoll was commissioned to undertake the poll on the public's understanding of the Constitution by Hill and Knowlton Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of the Constitutional Commission. (4) The results of the poll concerning ``The Public Attitude to Police'' were made available via both the media and the Australian Institute of Criminology's publication ``Trends and Issues''. The results of the poll conducted on behalf of the Australian Institute of Family Studies were publicised in the Institute's Newsletter (No. 18, May 1987) and 1986-87 Annual Report. The results of the poll to survey consumer opinion is available in the publication ``Survey of Consumer Opinion in Australia'' (AGPS cat. No. 8702762). The results of the poll to survey community awareness and level of understanding of the Constitution are publicly available. In addition to this a summary of the main results was published in a media release issued by the Constitutional Commission dated 21 May 1987. (Question No. 403) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What choices of career are offered to enlisted women in the Regular Army after they have completed their basic training. (2) Are women offered the opportunity to undertake apprenticeships, if so, are such opportunities offered routinely. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) After they complete their basic training enlisted women in the Regular Army are allotted, after consideration of their preferences and aptitudes, to one of all Corps in the Army except Armoured, Artillery, Enginners and Infantry. The particular employments open to women are listed below. (2) Women can undertake apprenticeships as Vehicle Mechanics and Electronic Tradespersons. Such apprenticeships are offered routinely. The employments fed by these apprenticeships are: Vehicle Mechanic Mechanic Radar Mechanic Radio Technician Electronic Systems (Ground) Technician Electronic EMPLOYMENTS OPEN TO SERVICEWOMEN Analyst Special Duties Artificer Radar Artificer Telecommunications Artificer Electronic Systems (Ground and Air) Cook Inspector Foodstuffs Instructor Assistant Administrative Assistant Dental Assistant Medical/Nursing Assistant Movement Assistant Health Caterer Clerk Administrative Clerk Technical Controller Air Traffic Driver Dutyman General Duties Examiner Psychological Hygienist Dental Illustrator Reprographic Inspector Health Instructor Physical Training Investigator Military Police Mechanic Radar Mechanic Vehicle Musician Operator Computer Operator Data Processing Steward Mechanic Radio Policeman Military Operator Signals Operator Information Systems Operator Information Systems and Cipher Operator Work Study Photographer Public Relations Projectionist Cinema Quartermaster-sergeant Reporter Rigger Parachute Regimental Sergeant Major Sergeant Major Storeman Technical General (All Corps) Storeman Technical Ordnance Storeman Vehicle Supervisor Army Messes Supervisor Catering Supervisor Information Systems Supervisor Technical-Telecommunications Supervisor Movements Supervisor Transport Supervisor Operator Signals Technician Ammunition Technician Cipher Technician Dental Technician Electronic Technician Operating Theatre Technician Cartographic Technician Laboratory Technician Electronic Systems (Air) Technician Electronic Systems (Ground) (Question No. 407) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5th November 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age, dated 20 August 1987, which discusses difficulties the Canadians are having with their new F-18 fighter planes? (2) Is he able to say whether (a) the Canadian F-18 is suffering from engine and structural problems that would shorten their airworthiness from 20 to 12 years, (b) testing conducted by the Canadian Air Force has shown that both the engine and airframe will not meet the performance standards promised by the manufacturer and (c) Canadian pilots have been ordered to fly the plane with restraint in order to extend their life? (3) Has the RAAF conducted testing of engines and airframes of Austalian F-18 aircraft to confirm their compliance with the manufacturer's performance specifications and are there no engine or structural problems which will shorten their airworthiness? (4) If testing has not been conducted, should restrictions be placed on the use of the aircraft until their complete safety can be assured? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the article appearing in the Age of the 20th August 1987 which discusses Canadian difficulties with the F/A-18. (2) The difficulties being experienced with Canadian CF-18 aircraft are believed to be similar to those encountered by the US Navy and more recently by the RAAF. Although the General Electric F404 engine performed well during initial F/A-18 operations, some engines with relatively high accumulated usage have recently sustained compressor and afterburner problems. In severe cases, failure of these components could cause engine bay fires and can jeopardise flight safety. In the wake of recent engine failures, the US Navy has restricted all FA-18s from further flight with engines having greater than 800 accumulated flying hours until a fire retardant coating is applied to compressor casings. The US Navy has also decided not to accept further deliveries of engines until the fire-retardant coating is introduced in production; this stipulation applies equally to engines being procured by the US Navy on behalf of the the RAAF. Some operational restrictions have been imposed by Canada pending the introduction of modified parts to correct the defects. Canada had also decided not to accept further deliveries of F/A-18s until McDonnell Douglas, as the prime contractor for the Canadian aircraft, had produced technically and contractually acceptable solutions. An agreement has apparently been reached and the Canadians have now recommenced deliveries of the F/A-18. In respect of the F/A-18 structure, the testing program being conducted by McDonnell Douglas has not yet successfully demonstrated that the airframe will conform to specified fatigue requirements. Redesign of a centre fuselage frame and certain components in the fin attachment area has been undertaken to remedy the present shortcomings. However, these solutions have not yet satisfactorily completed fatigue testing. Efforts by McDonnell Douglas to redesign and achieve a fully qualified structure are continuing. Additionally, early Canadian operations indicate that some aircraft are consuming fatigue life at a faster rate than expected such that the structural life in these circumstances could be reduced from a planned 25 years to some fifteen years. Consequently, the Canadians have imposed some restrictions to ensure that the accrual of fatigue damage, or the rate of structural ageing, is reduced and the planned service life is attained. (3) RAAF concerns for the engine and the structural life of the F/A-18 are based, in the main, on the same test results and in service experience that are the cause of the Canadian concern. However, the RAAF circumstances differ to some extent. As our aircraft and engines have flown relatively few hours, the risk of failure is somewhat lower. Secondly, and in contrast to the Canadians' acquisition of F/A-18s on a direct commercial basis, RAAF engines are procured by the US Navy through Foreign Military Sales arrangements. We will obtain the benefits that should be realised through the negotiations that are currently proceeding between the US Navy and General Electric regarding the manufacturer's contractual obligations. In the case of the engine, General Electric is designing and testing improved components and repair schemes to correct the defects. We expect that the modification kits will be supplied and incorporated under warranty on a priority basis. The changes include strengthened components and a fire resistant coating to reduce the risk of fire damage to critical aircraft systems. In respect of the structural problems, McDonnell Douglas is required to produce and incorporate design changes approved by the US Navy in all RAAF aircraft to ensure that the aircraft conforms to specification requirements. RAAF and Aeronautical Research Laboratory specialists have also conducted a detailed analysis of aircraft fatigue from early RAAF operations. Because of the overall concern for the fatigue life of the F/A-18, the RAAF and the Canadian Forces are planning a collaborative follow-on fatigue test program to establish the F/A-18 service life more precisely. (4) Pending the modification of engines, the RAAF has imposed some limits on operations necessary to ensure the airworthiness and safety of operation of the F/A-18. Although Australian engines have a lower average accumulated life than US Navy engines, RAAF usage is slightly more severe. Therefore, the RAAF may have to restrict flight of some engines until the fire retardant coating is applied. As a result of the RAAF study conducted into the fatigue life of the F/A-18, some variations to operating procedures have also been introduced to reduce the rate of fatigue damage accrual. I stress that these variations affect the rate of usage of the F/A-18 and that the aircraft has not been limited in any of its quite outstanding performance characteristics. (Question No. 408) Mr Webster asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: During the 1987 general election, how many instances were recorded of multiple voting in Divisions with voting margins on a 2-party preferred basis of 6% or less. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Electoral Commissioner has advised that in the 20 Divisions in which the voting margins on a two-party preferred basis was 6% or less a total of 5,578 potential cases of multiple voting were identified. Of these 4,696 (or 84.19%) were excluded upon closer inspection of the certified lists and 882 cases (15.81%) are subject to further investigation. The attached table shows the distribution of total cases and the number to be investigated further for each of the 20 Divisions concerned. State/Division Total Potential Cases of multiple voters identified Total No of cases to be investigated further New South Wales Barton ... 363 59 Lowe ... 281 20 644 79 (12.27%) Victoria Ballarat ... 256 73 Bruce... 567 62 Casey ... 231 36 Chisholm ... 179 25 Deakin ... 192 12 Dunkley ... 301 72 Flinders ... 412 67 Isaacs ... 428 15 Streeton ... 357 42 2923 404 (13.82%) Queensland Dawson ... 165 52 Fisher ... 200 12 Forde ... 142 23 Hinkler ... 135 60 Kennedy ... 220 94 Moreton ... 226 41 Petrie ... 176 18 1264 300 (23.73%) South Australia Hawker ... 423 10 (2.36%) Northern Territory... 324 89 (27.47%) TOTALS ... 5578 882 (15.81%) (Question No. 415) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) In each Parliament since the 30th Parliament, what was the value of unused overseas travel entitlements which were not used and were forfeited to the Treasury by (a) Ministers and Presiding Officers and (b) Members and Senators, who (i) continued to be a Member or Senator after a general election; (ii) resigned or died and (iii) did not stand or were defeated at a general election. (2) What is the overall sum relating to all categories of unused travel entitlements forfeited since 18 October 1980. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) UNAVAILED OF OVERSEAS STUDY TRAVEL ENTITLEMENT- 31ST PARLIAMENT TO THE 35TH PARLIAMENT Parliament (i) Unavailed of entitlement of Members and Senators who continued after a General Election Number Amount (ii) Unavailed of entitlement of Members and Senators who resigned or died Number Amount (iii) Unavailed of entitlement of Members and Senators who did not stand or were defeated at a General Election Number Amount $ $ $ 31st Parliament (10 December 1977 to 19 September 1980) (a) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Members and Senators ... 106 49,056.43 1 1,716.80 31 33,242.77 32nd Parliament (18 October 1980 to 4 February 1983) (a) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Members and Senators ... 93 173,969.56 1 6,656.25 26 77,816.16 33rd Parliament (5 March 1983 to 26 October 1984) (a) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Members and Senators ... 105 125,804.18 2 5,631.30 11 19,584.96 34th Parliament (1 December 1984 to 5 June 1987) (a) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Members and Senators ... 127 147,889.13 2 17,698.42 22 69,638.78 35th Parliament (14 September 1987 to present) (a) Ministers/Presiding Officers* ... . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Members and Senators ... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. * By decisions of successive Governments, Ministers and Presiding Officers do not utilise the overseas study travel entitlement during the term of appointment of the relevant Office. There is no forfeiture as funds are not obtained. (2) The overall sum relating to all categories of unused travel entitlements from the commencement of the 31st Parliament is: $ (a) Ministers and Presiding Officers*...- (b) Members and Senators...728,704.74 (Question No. 417) Mr Reith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: What action has the Government taken to fulfil its commitment to install ABC and SBS television translators in the Mount Martha and Safety Beach areas of Victoria by the end of 1987-88. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Planning for the ABC and SBS translators at Arthurs Seat, which will serve Mount Martha and Safety Beach, is now well advanced. The specifications for the translators have been approved and the Commonwealth's construction agent, Telecom, will undertake procurement of the equipment and construction of the facility. Taking into account the normal lead times between the ordering and supply of the equipment, it is anticipated that the translators will be operating towards the end of 1988. (Question No. 427) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many Australian prisoners of war were held prisoner in Japan at the time of the atomic weapon explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and may have been affected by the explosions. (2) What action has the Government taken to assess the possible adverse consequences of exposure on the health of the former prisoners. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In answer to a similar question by the honourable member of my predecessor on 17 September 1985 (Parliamentary Question No. 1858), the Hon. Clyde Holding M.P., as then Minister representing my predecessor provided, in part, the following information (see Hansard, 12 November 1985, p.2599): ``My Department does not know the total number of POWs in Japan who may have been exposed to radiation at the time of the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it is known that at least 27 POWs were in the Nagasaki area and at the time of the explosion were located as follows: 3 at the village of Mura (10 miles to the north) which is considered to be outside the effective range of nuclear weapon radiation. 24 either working in various locations in the city or located at Camp 14 at Fukuoka. One of the latter POWs was in a Camp air-raid shelter at the time of the explosion. It is understood that an unknown number of Australian POWs were repatriated to Australia through Nagasaki some weeks after the explosion, when the danger of exposure to residual radiation is understood to have been minimal. Three surveys have been conducted to determine the effects of exposure to radiation on the 24 ex-POWs in the immediate Nagasaki area. The first was in 1949, the second in 1964, and the most recent comprehensive survey in 1974-75 was conducted by Professor Ilbery, with the support of the Department. In the latest survey, of the total of 27, the 3 ex-POWs who were in Mura were excluded; 5 had died, 1 was untraceable and 1 was unable to participate in the study. The remaining 17 were studied with a control group of 4 ex-POWs (Japan) who were not within the immediate vicinity of the atomic explosion. This study revealed that, apart from some chromosomal damage, which had repaired itself naturally, none of the POWs who had been exposed to radiation had suffered disabilities which could be attributed to that exposure. I would emphasise that these POWs are eligible for disability pension and for treatment for all disabilities irrespective of whether related to service or not. They have the opportunity, therefore, for regular monitoring of their health.'' No further surveys have been carried out since the 1974-75 survey conducted by Professor Ilbery. (Question No. 430) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: What sum was spent in 1986-87 on engaging consultants to the (a) Office of Youth Affairs, (b) Office of the Status of Women and (c) Office of Multicultural Affairs. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) $453,532 (b) $131,867 (c) $9,000 (Question No. 432) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) What sum has been allocated by the Government to Australia's Bicentennial celebrations and what is the program breakdown of the allocation. (2) What sum has been allocated to the official opening of the new Parliament House. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth has allocated $202.4 million for the national Bicentennial program, incorporating the Australian Bicentennial Authority's National Program ($136.8 million) and the Commonwealth-State Bicentennial Commemorative Program ($65.6 million). The amount represents the indexed value of the $166 million allocated to the program by the previous Government in 1982, less reductions made in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 Budgets. The major categories within the Authority's National Program, and the Commonwealth funds allocated to them, are as follows: $m Commmunity Events... 46.2 Australian Bicentennial Exhibition... 32.7 Special Events... 26.1 Arts and Entertainment... 15.3 Tall Ships... 7.8 National Science Centre... 5.5 Other... 3.2 An additional amount of $15.5 million has been included in the 1987-88 estimates for the administrative costs of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The above allocations do not include expenditure on the Australian Bicentennial Roads Development Program, which is funded separately, or programs of Commonwealth Departments and Statutory Authorities which are funded from portfolio allocations. (2) The precise cost of the official opening of the new Parliament House has not yet been determined, but I have instructed my Department, which is responsible for the arrangements, that the amount should not exceed $300,000. (Question No. 433) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many visits by Cabinet Ministers have been made between March 1983 and May 1987 to (a) Fiji, (b) the Solomon Islands, (c) Tonga, (d) Western Samoa, (e) Nauru, (f) Vanuatu, (g) Tuvalu and (h) Kiribati? (2) Which Ministers undertook these visits? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) and (2): (a) Fiji: Prime Minister (2 visits), Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs (2 visits), and Minister for Education. (b) Solomon Islands: Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Transport*, and Minister for Education. (c) Tonga: Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and Minister for Education. (d) Western Samoa: Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs (2 visits), and Minister for Education. (e) Nauru: Minister for Foreign Affairs. (f) Vanuatu: Minister for Foreign Affairs. (g) Tuvalu: Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs. (h) Kiribati: Minister for Foreign Affairs. * Visit undertaken by non-Cabinet Minister. (Question No. 475) Dr Wooldridge asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many voters were enrolled as itinerant voters when the electoral rolls closed prior to the (a) 1984 and (b) 1987 elections. (2) In which 20 electoral divisions were the greatest number of itinerant voters enrolled prior to the (a) 1984 and (b) 1987 federal elections. (3) Which 10 electoral divisions recorded the greatest increase in the number of itinerant voters between the (a) 1983 election and the close of the rolls prior to the 1984 election and (b) 1984 election and the close of the rolls prior to the 1987 election. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised by the Australian Electoral Commission that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 405, (b) 1254. (2) (a) Moore 24; Bendigo 15; Stirling, Wakefield 12; Northern Territory 10; McPherson, Brand, Kalgoorlie, Tangney 9; Deakin, Dunkley, Kennedy, Canning, Lyons 8; New England, Corangamite, Gippsland, Streeton, Cowan 7; Calare, La Trobe, McEwen, Menzies, Forrest, O'Connor, Swan, Barker, Hawker, Fraser 6. (b) Bendigo 46; Forrest 36; Moore 28; Canning 26; La Trobe 25; Gippsland, Hinkler 22; Moncrieff, Tangney 21; Aston, Corangamite, Flinders 20; Barker, Mayo 19; Isaacs, Cowan, Stirling, Wakefield 18; Page, Kalgoorlie 17. (3) (a) Itinerant electors were enabled to secure enrolment by the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which came into effect in 1984. None was enrolled at the 1983 election. (b) Bendigo 31; Forrest 30; La Trobe 19; Aston, Flinders, Moncrieff, Canning 18; Hinkler 17; Mayo 16; Gippsland 15. (Question No. 483) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Is any investigation being undertaken or report being drafted for the Government regarding the provision of Divisional Returning Offices in each Division. (2) Has the Government taken any decision to reduce the number of Divisional Returning Offices, or is any such proposal under consideration. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the enormous problems that would confront electors travelling interstate on polling days if Divisional Returning Offices were established outside specific Divisions. (4) Would a centralisation of Divisional Returning Offices present more difficulties for persons in rural Divisions than in metropolitan Divisions. (5) If such a proposal is under consideration, will the Minister recognise the special needs for Divisional Returning Offices in large rural Divisions. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) An Efficiency Scrutiny is being conducted within the Australian Electoral Commission concerning grouping Divisional Offices into Regional Offices, primarily in metropolitan areas and the largest provincial cities. (2) The Government has taken no decision on the matter and has not yet received the Efficiency Scrutiny report. Should the Efficiency Scrutiny recommend some restructuring of the Electoral Commission with Divisional Offices grouped into Regional Offices and should the Government consider the proposal warrants further consideration, motions referring the subjects to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will be introduced. (3) The needs of electors travelling interstate on polling days are currently met at Divisional Offices and also at Postal Voting Centres. The number of Postal Voting Centres has been increased from 110 in 1984 to 156 in 1987 to provide a better service in this regard. (4) Rural Divisions present special problems in providing services to electors because the Divisional Office is located in a single centre in a large area. The Electoral Commission in nominating regionalisation of Divisional Offices as a subject for an Efficiency Scrutiny was conscious of the need to maintain and if possible improve services available to electors in all classes of Divisions and it is expected that the report will address the needs of rural Divisions. (5) Yes. (Question No. 507) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) What steps has the Government taken to overcome welfare fraud. (2) Was $175m spent by his Department up to 30 June 1987 on computer equipment, including STRATPLAN. (3) How many departmental offices now have been equipped with a full STRATPLAN system and how many remain to be brought on line. (4) When will the entire project be completed. (5) What has been the rate of staff attrition within his Department each year since 1982-83. (6) What is the percentage of total staff who remain for less than (a) 1 year, (b) 2 years, (c) 3 years, (d) 4 years, (e) 5 years. (7) What has been the staff savings to date from the introduction of STRATPLAN. (8) What were the savings anticipated when the Hawke Government approved the project in 1983. (9) What savings are anticipated when the project is fully operational. (10) How many man-days have been lost through strike action by officers of his Department each year since 1982-83. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) This Government has introduced wide ranging initiatives aimed at overcoming welfare fraud. The more important are: the introduction of tighter proof of identity procedures before the granting of a new social security payment; the introduction of the highly successful mobile review teams. These teams are based at a regional office level and conduct intensive reviews in the unemployment benefit and sole parent pension areas; the development of a risk based review strategy whereby the frequency of reviews of a particular client is related to the likelihood of being paid incorrectly; the personal lodgement, of fortnightly income statements for unemployment benefit; the personal lodgement, at 12 weekly intervals, of continuation statements for sole parents; the extension in the May Economic Statement of the Department's powers to gather information; and the development of analytical tools to enable a systematic investigation into fraud risk areas. Many of the Government's initiatives to reduce welfare fraud have been impossible only because of the implementation of the Stratplan re-equipment project. (2) Expenditure on computing equipment by my department from 30 June 1982 to 30 June 1987 was $151.7 million. (3) a comprehensive statement on the dates of implementation of the Stratplan re-equipment for all departmental offices was provided in answer to Question No. 226 on 2 November 1987. (4) See (3). (5) Data are not readily available for most years since 1982-83. A survey in 1983/84 found an attrition rate of 12.3% for permanent staff and statistics published by the Public Service Borad for 1985 show an attrition rate of 11.5%. More recent data indicate an attrition rate of 12.4% in 1986/87. Data for 1987/88 have not yet been compiled. (6) This information is not readily available within the department. Department of Finance systems contain the relevant data but it would take considerable time to extract and analyse. (7) Up to 1987/88, savings due to Stratplan have been approximately 1000 ASl after allowing for staff increases which would otherwise have been required for increased workload. (8) Stratplan's aim was to replace inadequate and obsolete equipment and outmoded systems, to provide the department with necessary capacity to prevent decline in service to pensioners and beneficiaries and to respond adequately to the Government's social security requirements. No commitment to staff savings was made when the Hawke Government approved the project in 1983. (9) In addition to the current savings of 1000 ASL the Government has announced reductions of a further 200 ASL over the years 1987/88 to 1991/92. (10)- Year Total Staff days lost DSS-specific days lost 80/81 8727 81/82 22684 82/83 59 83/84 872 84/85 6177 85/86 1813 1532 86/87 4399 953 `Total staff days lost' are days lost due to all industrial disputes. `DSS-specific days lost' are days lost due to industrial disputes over internal DSS matters, excluding service-wide disputes. Figures for the latter are not available before 1985/86. (Question No. 513) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What is the rationale used for determining the levels of social pensions and benefits. (2) Why is the unemployment benefit lower than other pensions and benefits. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Rates of social security pensions and benefits are determined in the context of overall budgetary and social policy. Under the Social Security Act basic rates are adjusted in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. The Government has foreshadowed its intention to move towards increasing the standard rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and increasing the single adult rate of unemployment benefit to parity with the equivalent pension rate. (Question No. 515) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) How many invalid pensioners are currently receiving benefits from his Department. (2) How does his Department interpret what constitutes 85% incapacity. (3) How many persons receive benefits on that basis. (4) Were Commonwealth Medical Officers (CMOs) asked to assess the 85% incapacity according to Department of Veterans' Affairs tables. (5) How were doctors to quantify physical disability by reference to tables. (6) Have any instructions or guidelines been given to CMOs since the practice of using Department of Veterans' Affairs tables ceased; if so, what are the details of these instructions or guidelines. (7) How many 85% incapacity cases are currently under review by his Department; and for how long have these cases been held pending review. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of persons receiving invalid pension from the Department of Social Security on 13 November 1987 was 291,737. A further 86,979 wives of invalid pensioners were receiving a wife's pension and 4,061 persons caring for invalid pensioners were receiving a carer's pension. (2) The administrative guidelines for assessing the 85% incapacity requirement reflect the intention that the invalid pension is to be paid only to persons who are unable to undertake paid employment on more than a sporadic or part-time basis for medical reasons. In addition to the 85% incapacity provision, the Social Security Act also requires that, to qualify for invalid pension, at least 50% of permanent incapacity must be directly caused by a permanent physical or mental impairment of the person. (3) See (1). (4) Until 1 July 1987, CMOs gave an opinion on both impairment and incapacity. These opinions were not, however, based on any objective or quantitative tests. Following the legislative change, CMOs have not been required to provide any opinion on 85% incapacity. Rather, they provide an impairment rating, expressed in percentage terms, derived from tables developed specifically for that purpose. These tables are not the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) tables, but the DVA tables were used in their development. (5) The medical impairment assessment form used in the invalid pension process provides specific descriptive elements according to specific individual body systems. These describe the functional loss of that body system. By reference to the tables, that functional loss is converted to a whole person impairment rating, each body system being pre-weighted. For example where a person has totally lost the faculty of speech, the 100% loss of that specific function converts to a whole person impairment rating of 35%. (6) The tables referred to in the reply to question (4) are still in use in quantifying impairment. As indicated in (4) they are not DVA tables. (7) When an invalid pension is granted it may be noted for a review at some future date. This is appropriate in cases where there exists the possibility of improvement in the person's condition or the condition is one which may benefit from improvements in medical techniques. Such reviews are noted for whatever period is considered appropriate in a given case, but are not usually conducted within twelve months of the grant of the pension. The numbers of cases noted for review vary. On average, about four percent of the total invalid pension population would be subject to review. In November 1987 this amounted to approximately 11,700 cases. (Question No. 521) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) How many aged pensions are paid and what is the total annual cost of these payments. (2) Is he able to say how many superannuation beneficiaries there are in Australia and what is the total value of these payments each year. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of age pensioners at 13 November 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) was 1,320,006. An additional 21,991 wives of age pensioners were receiving a wife's pension, while 2,926 people caring for age pensioners were receiving a carer's pension. Outlays on age and related wives'/carers' pensions in 1986-87 were $6,257.1 million. It is estimated that these outlays in 1987-88 will be $6,980.5 million. (2) No statistics are kept on the number of superannuation beneficiaries in Australia or the total value of payments made each year. However, a paper titled Occupational Superannuation Arrangements in Australia was produced as part of the Social Security Review. I have arranged for a copy to be forwarded to the honourable member. (Question No. 522) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) How many persons currently are receiving (a) unemployment benefits and (b) some form of social security benefit. (2) Is he able to say how many wage and salary earners there are in Australia. (3) What is the average fortnightly payment of funds to social security beneficiaries. (4) Approximately how many (a) direct bank payments are made and (b) cheques are printed, by his Department each fortnight. (5) What is the average cost of (a) handling direct bank payments and (b) sending cheques to beneficiaries. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 481,236 (b) Sickness and special benefits...96,755 Pensions...2,067,092 Family allowance...1,838,375 Handicapped child's allowance...31,167 Double orphan's pension...4,255 Family income supplement...44,804 The above figures relate to November 1987 (2) An estimated 5,921,800 (August 1987) (3) $653.7m based on 1987-88 expenditure to November 1987. (4) (a) 4,540,000; (b) 257,000. (5) (a) & (b) The information sought would require substantial resources to extract and collate. The Government is not prepared to authorize the expenditure of such resources for this purpose. There are substantial savings in making direct credits to bank and other accounts. (Question No. 526) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What sum has the Government spent on Aborigines each year from 1970-71 to 1986-87 and what sum does it intend to spend in 1987-88. (2) What is the breakdown of the sum allocated for 1987-88. (3) Approximately what percentage of the money allocated (a) is spent on administration charges and (b) reaches the persons for which it was intended. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government, as with State and Territory Governments, finances a range of programs designed to advance the interests of the Aboriginal people. What is important about this expenditure is that it is most effectively utilised, a view accepted and adopted by all State and Territory Governments at the recent meeting held in Perth of Ministers responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. $Million 1970-71 ... 24.505 1971-72 ... 29.019 1972-73 ... 58.474 1973-74 ... 98.165 1974-75 ... 158.918 1975-76 ... 186.135 1976-77 ... 161.537 1977-78 ... 173.838 1978-79 ... 151.557 1979-80 ... 184.691 1980-81 ... 224.383 1981-82 ... 258.761 1982-83 ... 300.431 1983-84 ... 396.633 1984-85 ... 467.194 1985-86 ... 520.166 1986-87 ... 584.297 1987-88 ... 671.600 (estimated) (2) The Allocations of Commonwealth Government finance are set out according to government budgeting requirements in the Departmental Publications ``Aboriginals and the Budget 1987-88'' and this publication is available in the Parliamentary Library. (3) (a) Approximately 8% is spent on administration charges. (b) The remainder, approximately 92%, is spent on Aboriginal Advancement programs. (Question No. 532) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: Are expatriate Australians who return to Australia as visitors after 40 years absence eligible to apply for and obtain a pension and retain it after their return to their country of residence. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is not possible for any person who is only visiting Australia to be granted a pension as he or she would not meet the requirement that a person must be residing in Australia when a pension is claimed. (Question No. 563) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Has the special agreement between the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, for maintenance and improvement to roads within the Kosciusko National Park, recently expired. (2) What action is the Government taking to renew the agreement. (3) What expenditure will the Authority make directly on roads within the area during 1987-88. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The agreement is due to expire on 1 April 1988. (2) With the expiry of the agreement the Authority will have fulfilled its obligations. Accordingly, the Government does not intend taking any action to renew the agreement. (3) In accordance with the formula contained in the agreement, the Authority has budgeted for a contribution of $645,000 to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service during 1987-88. In addition, the Authority estimates that it will spend directly around a further $900,000 during 1987-88 on the maintenance of roads and ancillary services required for the operation of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Such maintenance is not covered by the agreement and responsibility for it will continue to be accepted by the Authority following the expiry of the agreement. (Question No. 573) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice on 10 December 1987: Will he bring up-to-date the information provided in answer to question No. 4332 (Hansard, 8 October 1986, p. 1711). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 (a) On the basis of figures provided in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner's publication ``Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the year ended 30 June 1986'', the updated figures for 1985-86 are: Workers Compensa- tion Compulsory Third Party $m $m Direct Premiums ... 2861.0 1460.4 Benefits (including legal, hospital and medical costs) ... 2001.5 1624.8 Administration expenses and commission ... 326.8 73.7 The following legal and medical costs are estimated using the same method used to answer previous questions on notice on this subject. However, there are some indications that legal and medical costs may have risen at a faster rate than the rise in benefits; if this is so, the following figures may be an under-estimate. Workers Compensa- tion Compulsory Third Party $m $m Legal (exluding solicitor/client costs) ... 182.1 271.3 Hospital and medical ... 364.3 237.2 The percentage increases on premiums between 1984-85 and 1985-86 were: Workers Compensa- tion Compulsory Third Party % % Direct premiums ... 18.68 19.45 Earned premiums ... 28.32 12.46 2. Since October 1986 the following events have occurred: In December 1986 the Victorian Government introduced a no fault transport accident scheme. In June 1987 the New South Wales Government introduced a new workers' compensation scheme (Workcover) and a transport accident compensation scheme (Transcover). Transcover, however, retains the fault principle as a basis for eligibility. The Tasmanian Government plans to introduce a new workers compensation scheme in 1988 which will retain access to common law rights. It is also considering a major report from the Tasmanian Law Reform Commission on compensation for traffic accident victims. The Commonwealth Government is currently undertaking a review of compensation arrangements in respect of its own employees and the residents of the ACT. The Commonwealth has received suggestions from the Victorian and New South Wales Premiers for discussions and the Commonwealth is considering these proposals. (Question No. 575) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) What personal and other data is stored on his Department's Stratplan computerised information system. (2) Could this personal information file be used as the basis of an identification system. (3) What officers of his department have access to this information. (4) Do officers of any other department, authority or instrumentality have access either directly or indirectly to data stored on Stratplan. (5) Does the Stratplan facility interface, link or in any way communicate with any other computer, data storage or information system owned or operated by any other department, instrumentality or authority. (6) What arrangements are in place for the exchange of information between his department and other Government agencies. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Stratplan is not a computerised information system but a re-equipment project the purpose of which was to replace inadequate and obsolete equipment and outmoded systems, to provide the Department with necessary capacity to prevent decline in service to pensioners and beneficiaries and to respond adequately to the Government's social security requirements. Using the equipment provided through the Stratplan project my department operates a large number of applications programs to support income security and administrative processes. It would be impractical to list here the data held on all of these systems. I would be happy for my officers to brief the honourable member personally on this subject. (2) My department holds sufficient personal information about its clients to enable it to identify them and assess their claims to income security assistance. It also holds certain personal information about its staff members which it needs to discharge its duties as an employer. The personal information held could not be used as the basis of an identification system except where current clients or staff of my department form a large proportion of the population to be identified. Many other large public and private organisations would be in a similar position with the data they hold on their clients. (3) Only officers who have been specifically authorised to access this information can do so. In the case of client information this would include a large proportion of officers in the regional offices of the department. To control access to this data my department has implemented a comprehensive data security policy. Among the features of this policy are the following: (1) All users of DSS ADP resources require user identification through a logon identification code and a password. Only authorised users are granted an identification code; (2) Access to DSS ADP resources is strictly controlled through security software; (3) The DSS network is not connected to any other network and all communications within the DSS network are made through dedicated lines leased from Telecom. (4) There is no direct access by officers of any other agency to DSS data. My department provides computing facilities to the Australian Taxation Office to develop and operate the Child Support System and to the Department of Community Services and Health to operate systems that belonged to the former Department of Community Services. Officers of these two agencies would have direct access to the data that their systems store using DSS equipment. These systems operate in independent technical environments and are not connected to my department's systems. Indirect access by officers of other agencies to data stored on DSS computer systems is possible only through the arrangements set out in (6). (5) My department's computers are not connected to any other computers, data storage or other information systems owned or operated by any other agency. The only communication between my department's computer systems and other computer systems is by means of physically transporting data held on magnetic tape. An example of such communications is the production by DSS of magnetic tapes which are provided to banks and similar institutions to permit direct credit of income security payments to clients' accounts with those institutions. (6) My department provides information to other agencies where it is deemed necessary in the public interest to do so. Such action is in accordance with Section 19 of the Social Security Act. My department receives information from other agencies where those bodies are satisfied that to do so will limit or stop overpayments of welfare assistance or are empowered to do so under the law (eg, the Income Tax Assessment Act). Examples of the arrangements are as follows: Department of Employment, Education and Training-information is provided to and received from this agency to limit overpayment of education or social security assistance. Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs-information is provided to and received from this agency to assist in the detection of prohibited non-citizens and to stop payment of social security assistance to them. Australian Taxation Office-information is provided to and received from this agency to facilitate the raising of taxation assessments and collection of taxation revenue and to limit overpayments of social security assistance. (Question No. 577) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations made in the ``Australian Doctor'', dated 18 September 1987, that a departmental officer advised a woman, who had previously been receiving a widow's pension and was forced on to unemployment benefits following the Government's May Statement, to obtain a medical certificate from her doctor to allow her to claim sickness benefits. (2) Are Departmental officers encouraging unemployment beneficiaries to falsely seek medical certificates in order that they may claim sickness benefits. (3) What effect has this practice had in reducing the number of unemployment beneficiaries. (4) What screening process is in place to ensure that medical certificates are bonafide. (5) What action has he taken to ensure that interviews conducted by his Department are carried out in a professional manner and do not threaten clients. (6) Has his attention been drawn to complaints from the public over the conduct of these interviews. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I refer the honourable member to the answer to a question without notice in the Senate (see Senate Hansard 28 October 1987 pages 1386-7). As was pointed out the allegations were wrong. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) A medical certificate from a qualified practitioner is generally acceptable although procedures do provide for the validation of the certificate in circumstances where there is doubt as to its accuracy or authenticity. (5) and (6) Departmental policy and training activities are aimed at achieving a high standard of service to clients. I am confident that this aim is being achieved in most cases. The Department has many staff very experienced in interviewing members of the public who may be under considerable stress. A departmental instruction issued before implementation of this sole parents' initiative set down in detail procedures and practices to be followed in interviewing sole parents affected by the changes in eligibility criteria. Sole parents who attended seminars run in conjuction with the Commonwealth Employment Service and other bodies were in a better position to understand the changes and prepared to look more positively at courses open to them.