Thursday, 18 February 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —In accordance with standing order 28A (f), on behalf of the Standing Committee of Members' Interests I present the report on the operations of the Committee for 1987. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(10.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a technical amendment to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 which will be required as a consequence of the passage of the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. The amendments provided for in the Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth borrowing levy will continue to apply to Australian Airlines and its wholly owned subsidiaries after the airline is converted from a statutory authority to a public company. The Commonwealth borrowing levy is imposed on borrowings by all Commonwealth semi-Government authorities and Government-owned companies, other than those engaged in the business and financial intermediation, such as the Commonwealth Banks and the Australian Industry Development Corporation. `Intermediation' is Treasury's word, not mine. Mr McGauran —It sounds like you, though. Mr BARRY JONES —Indeed not. The Bill will ensure that the revenue raised from the levy, estimated at $1.3m in 1987, will be unaffected by the changed legal structure of Australian Airlines. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Honourable members will be aware that the main activity of the bank, which was established in 1947, is lending to developing countries. In 1984 IBRD governors agreed to implement a $US7 billion special capital increase. Capital increases allow the bank to expand its borrowing on the world capital markets and it is these borrowings which largely finance the bank's activities. Under this special capital increase, Australia was entitled to subscribe to an additional 745 shares. In addition, Australia received a further allocation of 70 shares under the first phase of a related supplementary share allocation designed to allow countries which had suffered a fall in their relative voting power under the special capital increase to maintain their proportionate share of capital stock. Australia has subscribed to these additional shares, and payment authorised under the International Financial Institutions (Share Increase) Act 1986 commenced in December 1986. In May 1986, governors approved a resolution authorising a further share allocation in the final phase of the supplementary share allocation. Australia was one of the countries affected by this resolution. The text of the resolution, including the number of shares to which affected members are entitled to subscribe, is included in the explanatory memorandum to this legislation, which I now table. Australia voted in favour of the resolution authorising the final phase of the supplementary share allocation. Members, including Australia, are entitled, but not obliged, to subscribe to this authorised increase. Even though most of the concerned members are developing countries, they have indicated their willingness to take up in total about two-thirds of the authorised increase of 1,528 shares. Australia is entitled to subscribe to 178 shares. Under this capital increase, 8.75 per cent-$US1.88m-of the subscriptions is to be paid in and the other 91.25 per cent is to remain on call. Of the paid in portion, 10 per cent-$US0.19m-has to be in the form of gold or US dollars, while the balance-$US1.69m-can be in Australian dollars. This $US1.69m can be paid by means of a promissory note which is drawn down over a period of about four years. The initial 10 per cent cash payment would be made by 1 September 1988. Subject to agreement with the bank, the promissory note would be encashed in eight equal biannual instalments of $US0.21m over the four financial years commencing 1988-89. In 1986, following the adoption of a revised standard of value for bank capital, maintenance of value payments were reintroduced by the bank. These payments have the effect of adjusting the value of national currency subscriptions to bank capital to allow for long run changes in the relative value of national currencies and the US dollar. Maintenance of value obligations are calculated annually based on amounts outstanding on national currency subscriptions. A promissory note denominated in Australian dollars would attract significant maintenance of value payments by Australia. It is therefore proposed to utilise a US dollars promissory note which would not be subject to maintenance of value. The callable portion of Australia's subscription to the supplementary share allocation-91.25 per cent valued at $US19.59m-which acts as security for the bank's borrowing, is most unlikely to be called. No calls have ever been made on this part of bank capital. The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and it plays an important role in the South East Asian region. This has been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the bank's establishment. Up to the end of June 1987, the bank had lent about $US120 billion to its member countries. This money was largely borrowed from international financial markets. The cost to taxpayers in member countries in terms of paid in capital subscriptions was only $US7.2 billion. Projects financed covered all the major sectors of economic development with an emphasis on infrastructure facilities in the transport and communications, industry and energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. The World Bank and its soft loan arm, the International Development Association (IDA), have a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system which shows that most bank and IDA projects-85 per cent of those evaluated in 1986, for instance-achieve all or most of their objectives. The estimated average return on projects evaluated in calendar years 1985 and 1986, measured by the flow of net economic benefits over time, was 14.8 per cent. Australia's membership of the IBRD brings substantial commercial benefits. On a cumulative basis Australia has received more from procurement by the IBRD, including IDA, than it has given in contributions to the bank and IDA. I believe it to be in Australia's interests to continue its policy of support of the IBRD by taking up, in full, the increase in our capital subscription to which we are entitled. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(10.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The precincts of the Parliament have never formally been defined. In November 1985, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House saw the relocation of the Parliament in 1988 as an appropriate occasion for the definition of the precincts of the Parliament to be enshrined in legislation. The Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988 reflects the Government's support for this recommendation. It also provides a legislative vehicle for the recognition of the management and control responsibilities of the Presiding Officers within those precincts. Following receipt of the Joint Standing Committee's report, a working party, comprising representatives of the parliamentary departments and interested government departments, was established to co-ordinate a response to it. This Bill represents the level of agreement reached within that working party. It implements the substance of the Joint Standing Committee's major recommendations. I now turn to the provisions of the Bill in more detail. The Bill defines the precincts as the land, buildings, structures and works, within a boundary formed by a circular line drawn from the outer edge of the retaining wall right around the site. This circle will, I understand, be defined by a concrete strip or other discernible markings where there is no wall. While this definition does not accord strictly with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee, I understand that it is acceptable to you, Madam Speaker, and to the President of the Senate. I believe it will be acceptable to all honourable members. The Bill confers on the Presiding Officers overall management and control within the precincts while providing for separate agreements to be reached between the Presiding Officers and the Government with respect to the ministerial wing, the operations of Australian Protective Service officers and the detention of persons in custody and with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the launching of prosecutions. The Bill provides for statutory rules to be made deeming buildings outside the precincts to have the same status as those within when being used for parliamentary purposes. In keeping with the provisions I have already referred to, the Bill also: Provides for the application of the relevant sections of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 within the precincts; Adapts section 15 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 to reflect the declaration of the precincts under the Bill; Amends the Parliament Act 1974 to enlarge the parliamentary zone by including that area between State and Capital Circles not presently in the zone; and Amends the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979 to remove from the Authority responsibility for consenting to the grant of leases and licences within the precincts. The other important effect of this Bill is to empower the Presiding Officers or their delegates to grant leases and licences to commercial operators of business premises within the precincts. This Bill is an important piece of legislation to the Parliament itself. It had its genesis in the 1985 report of the Joint Standing Committee and is the product of extensive consultation between all interested parties. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Last year, the Government responded to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform relating to the operation during the 1984 general election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation and indicated that, due to the exigencies of the legislative program, legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations in the report will be introduced in stages. Honourable members will recall that the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1987 gave effect to those recommendations which were at the time considered essential for the effective conduct of the next general election. That Act created inconsistencies between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. The amendments contained in this Bill will remove those inconsistencies and are therefore considered essential for the conduct of any future referendum. This Bill will bring the referendum Act into line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the following respects; it will ensure that overseas polling officials are subject to the same penalties for neglect of duty as officials in Australia; it will extend from 10 to 13 days the period for the return of all postal votes sent by electors directly to divisional returning officers; it will bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth or the States; it will repeal the requirement that enrolled voters at some time during the three months prior to the poll live within the division in order to vote; it will remove existing time limits on the ability to alter polling day and/or return of the writs; it will enable the Electoral Commission to extend by 48 hours the time in which acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function; and it will repeal the requirement that printers furnish returns of referendum printing. The Bill also gives effect to the Joint Select Committee's three recommendations which are specific to referendums. Those relate to the presentation of the Yes and No cases, the formality of votes and obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish referendum returns. The Bill makes provision for the preparation and distribution of arguments for and against referendum proposals in a form suitable for the visually impaired. Presently the Act specifies that the only money that the Commonwealth may spend on the Yes and No cases is for the preparation, printing and distribution of the pamphlet. This has been taken to preclude the preparation of the Yes and No cases in spoken form suitable for the visually impaired. The Bill provides that only an unequivocal Yes or No answer should be regarded as formal. The Bill removes the obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish returns for a referendum where it is held in conjunction with an election. Where elections and referendums are held at the same time, no meaningful information is available relating to expenditure on the referendum since it is impossible to distinguish between election and referendum expenditure in the returns furnished by broadcasters and publishers. The proposed amendments to the referendum Act are based on recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and conform in substance with provisions already included in the Electoral Act. I wish the new Chairman and Committee every success in their future endeavours. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (a) this Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; (b) an estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; (c) there will be an estimated $71 billion in taxation revenue in 1987-88, a $5.5 billion increase on the previous year's collection; (d) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; and (e) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $83 billion foreign debt strait jacket without further reductions in our standard of living'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1987. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.21) —When debate was interrupted last night, I was pointing out that Australia is not a high-taxing country. In fact, out of the 23 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Australia comes in at about eighteenth. I also pointed out that the Liberal and National parties are always talking about lower taxes, which would mean that the Government by and large would not have the money to spend. I pointed out that, of all OECD countries, Turkey has the lowest collection of taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product. Dr Charlesworth —They want us to be like Turkey. Mr GEAR —As the honourable member points out, if we want Turkey's tax rates, we have to take Turkey's social security provisions. In Australia we collect enough tax adequately to service pensions, education, road building and all the infrastructure that goes together to give us the standard of living that we enjoy in this country. We have been lectured by the Liberal and National parties since they have been in opposition on how we should go about reforming our tax system. One has only to look at their record in government. While they were in government and John Howard was Treasurer, he sat there with a top tax rate of 60c in all the years that he occupied the treasury bench. The bottom tax rate, which affects lower income earners, stood at 30c in the dollar. If pensioners and people on very low incomes paid tax at all, they paid 30c on every dollar rise they received. Under the Labor Government we took the 60c rate down to 49c but, more importantly, we took the 30c rate down to 24c. Every time a pensioner gets a pay rise, less tax is taken out of every dollar of it. The Liberal and National parties in the last election campaign promised to slash taxes. They also said at that time that they intended to slash spending by $6,000m. Recently the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has talked of cutting government spending by $11,000m. Dr Charlesworth —$11,000m to $13,000m. Mr GEAR —By $11,000m to $13,000m, as my colleague rightly points out. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and take the lower figure. Let us say that John Howard would cut government spending by $11,000m. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will describe the Leader of the Opposition by his title. He knows the forms of the House. Mr GEAR —I leave it to the people of Australia to contemplate what a cut in government spending of $11,000m would mean. What would it do to pensions, education, road building and all the other infrastructure that we take for granted in this country? Dr Charlesworth —What about health care? Mr GEAR —As my colleague rightly points out, what about health care? We know the Opposition's policy in that area. The Opposition intends to privatise Medicare and to put the two million people who were without insurance when we came into government in that position again. Medicare, an equitable system, has overcome all those problems. If one is to cut government spending and taxes one can go to Turkish tax rates and Turkish social security provisions. The Bill before us also touches on superannuation and it is very illustrative to have a look at the debate on superannuation in Australia because the New South Wales election has brought this into focus. In yesterday's Australian Financial Review there was an article on superannuation on page 4, written by Louise Boylen and Geoff Kitney. Half way down that article said: The NSW coalition is hoping to use the issue- that is, superannuation- in the election campaign, which is expected to begin on Friday, and believes it can be successfully exploited even though it is a Federal concern. We are now talking about the New South Wales Liberal Party using superannuation as an election issue in New South Wales. The article goes on: `If it's there, we'll kick it', a Coalition spokesman said. Thus, we have the New South Wales Liberal Party using superannuation as an issue in the State election. This really brings home to us in the Federal Parliament that fact that something as important as superannuation-a matter for this Government and this Parliament-should not be used in New South Wales to give the Liberal Party there an opportunity to kick this Government around. Certainly, when one talks about superannuation and retirement incomes, it is illustrative to go back in time. I have some information from 1938 when a conservative Treasurer named Mr Casey told this Parliament that he was greatly concerned about the future cost of pensions. Mr Casey made projections and looked 40 years into the future. He predicted then that there would be 1,280,000 pensioners in 1978. As we now know, the actual figure was 1,380,000-an error of about 2 per cent. So Mr Casey's projections in 1938 were pretty accurate; in fact, he was not far out at all. At that time, Mr Casey also estimated what pensions would cost. In 1938 he estimated that in 1978 values, pensions would cost $476m. As we now know, the actual cost was $3,229m-an error of about 680 per cent. The point I make is that the relationship between the number of pensioners and the cost to revenue is not a linear one-it is exponential. Making predictions about how we fund our pension payouts in the future is certainly a matter of great concern to this Parliament because, as we know, the ageing of the Australian population means that if superannuation does not become the norm or does not increase in size, this Parliament will have to find more tax revenue to pay for more pensions. It is a case where pensions paid in this financial year are from taxes collected in this financial year. We have saved nothing from the past; everything from the past has been spent. The ratio between the aged population and those in the work force is widening and it places on this Parliament the onus to make sure that we bring in laws that enable people to take out superannuation. This Government has a proud record on superannuation. One of the first things we did upon becoming the government was to end double dipping by making sure that lump sum superannuation payments were discouraged. Until that time one paid virtually nothing when one took a lump sum. It was then possible-because we did not have an assets test either-to put one's money into a non-income bearing deposit and still claim the pension. That is what we call double dipping. I bring to the attention of the House an example of one of the executive salary packages. The Liberal Party defended it so much because it favoured the rich-lump sums always have. Back in the Fraser Government days, an executive retirement package of $750,000-and that is a typical executive lump sum payout-would have attracted tax on only 5 per cent of that sum. So one would pay $18,375 on one's three-quarters of a million dollars retirement package-an effective tax rate of 2.45 per cent. That is less than 3 per cent tax on that huge lump sum. Under the current scheme brought in by this Government, instead of paying $18,375 one would pay $216,750. That is the difference. We have gone from something less than $20,000 to something approaching a quarter of a million dollars in tax on that lump sum superannuation. No wonder the Liberal Party fought it. Under our proposal, all its rich mates would have to pay a greater percentage of their lump sum superannuation back in taxation, remembering all the time that they had the tax concessions that went into making up that $750,000 retirement package. The marginal tax rate in the proposals as they stand is 29 per cent. So we have gone from somewhere around 3 per cent to close on 30 per cent. As we have heard nothing from the Opposition except opposition to just about everything we have done, we can assume only that were the Opposition to become the government again it would go back to the old ways. It would go back to giving those people who can retire with $750,000 payouts a marginal tax rate of something less than 3 per cent. Mr Rocher —We are not opposing this legislation. Mr GEAR —I know that the honourable member for Curtin, who interjects, is the next speaker, so maybe he can put our minds at rest by saying, `The Liberal Party recognises the fairness of what the Labor Party has done and we will leave those provisions in place'. Dr Charlesworth —But they have said they would abolish it. Mr GEAR —As the honourable member for Perth rightly points out, the Opposition has said it would abolish those provisions. I hope that the honourable member for Curtin can put our minds at rest by saying, `We recognise that the Labor Party has put fairness into the system and we will not change it'. It does not end there. The other rort in the system was that we did not have an assets test. In fact, pensions were paid to millionaires. How obscene can we get. There are people who rely on the pension as their only source of income yet we had millionaires getting the pension. It was diluting the amount of pension dollars. We had millionaires taking the pension and people who had virtually no other assets taking the pension. We ended that situation, even though the Opposition made a scandalous issue of it in the 1984 election-in fact, it was the only issue it had-by trying to scare pensioners into believing that the assets test was going to affect people on low incomes. The reverse is true. We have been able to take the pension from the 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings at which the Fraser Government left it to over 24 1/2 per cent of average weekly earnings. Every time we have had a cost of living increase we have quarantined the pension from it and have been able to lift the pension rate. There is still a long way to go. As I have said, superannuation is a very topical issue in Australia. By closing off those rorts, this Government has tightened up the superannuation industry. We have also improved portability for those who change jobs; they now can take their superannuation with them. We have improved preservation to ensure that the superannuation system stays intact. We have also seen the introduction of the 3 per cent occupational superannuation benefit. It seems to me that wherever we look, whether it is taxation or superannuation, this Government has introduced fairness into the system. Australians recognised that in 1984 and 1987, and I am sure that the next time we go to the polls they will recognise it and once again throw out those on the other side of the House who lecture us on how we should run a taxation and retirement income system. When they were in government they did nothing about it. In fact, as I have pointed out, they allowed the more affluent a choice as to whether or not they paid tax. We will not listen to what they have to say. We will fight them all the way because we know we are bringing fairness into the system. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.35) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill are further examples of the Government's legislative incompetence. No amount of rhetorical references to so-called tax reforms or so-called fairness can disguise the fact that these measures essentially amend earlier legislation which has shown itself to be faulty. It is faulty because it has failed to achieve what was claimed by the government for it on earlier occasions. The unintended consequences go on and on, it seems. The Minister then responsible, now the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), in his second reading speech, had the good grace to acknowledge that some of the provisions before the House are the consequences of, if you like, unintended consequences. There will be no apology, of course. The arrogance of the Government remains intact and knows no bounds in these matters. There are not even any explanations or reasons given for the inadequacies of the earlier legislation, except some bald statements including scarce reference to unintended consequences. With any government that has found it repeatedly necessary to amend its earlier legislation and sometimes new tax laws, it could be expected that some contrition might have been expressed for the most far-reaching unintended consequence of all. The most far-reaching and harmful unintended consequence of all is that which befalls taxpayers and their professional advisers who cannot, under this procrastinating Government, know their lawful obligations. The income tax Acts and other tax Acts in Australia have become the most convoluted and incomprehensible literature since Caxton invented the means of printing the English language. This has happened as the Government continues with schemes to tax the gullible with impunity. Change upon change of the like we have before us today, and which is typical of tax legislation over the past four years, prevents ready compliance. It creates debilitating uncertainty on a massive scale. Because the Government cannot get it right the first time, or even the second or third times, on far too many occasions, the decision makers in our society, whose productivity and innovation could do more for our sick and ailing economy than any government, have to devote more and more time to discovering their tax obligations and are necessarily diverted from essential productive effort. It is not as if the Government has not had enough experience in fiddling with tax laws. Quite the opposite is true. This Government has proposed more tax Bills than any government in our history-not, as it loudly proclaims, as part of a coherent tax reform package, but in its pursuit of adhockery which, in the end, has created the most complex and incomprehensive tax laws unmatched in any country in the world. So much for the heroic promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) along the lines that tax laws should be capable of being understood by laymen. We have not heard much about that long forgotten undertaking in recent times. Simple or even simplified tax laws went out the window about the same time that promised tax reform was unceremoniously abandoned by the Prime Minister acting alone to undermine his Treasurer (Mr Keating). I said that the Prime Minister acted alone. He did so only in the sense that he did not consult his Treasurer, his Government or his Party. He did, of course, act in collusion with and at the behest of Messrs Crean and Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions who, after the group therapy that was the ill-conceived Tax Summit, gave option C a very definite thumbs down. Since then, mayhem with our tax laws has prevailed. The Government's only objective has been to raise more and more revenue to finance more and more spending. We have witnessed, and the tax paying public has had to grapple with, massive changes over four or five years with no respite. On top of that, and all too often, changes have been announced by Press release to have lawful effect from the date the release is issued but they do not appear in legislative form for as long as 12 months and more after broad measures have first been floated. Some of the measures before the House today have that particular characteristic. Let us take eligible termination payments (ETPs) as an example. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987-I remind the House that it was the fifth such Bill for last year alone-sets out to amend, among other things, the tax treatment of lump sum payments on the death of a superannuant. There is a sinister return to a form of death tax in the amendments to ETPs. The excuse offered by the Minister in the second reading speech was: The Bill will also close a loophole that allowed persons who are not dependants to receive superannuation and other termination payments tax free on the death of a taxpayer. He went on to say: Death benefits paid after 12 January 1987 will be exempt from tax only if paid to dependants. There it is in a nutshell. If a superannuant who is a widow or a widower dies without dependent children, the estate will not benefit from ETP laws. That same superannuant whose spouse predeceased him or her, will have unrealised thrift gobbled up by greater Commonwealth taxes than if he or she had survived. If the spouse has not died before the death of a superannuant he or she will also be deprived in the way proposed. That spouse could be in the work force and not dependent for the time being on the income of the deceased. If that is not a death tax or, in more genteel terms, a new estate duty, I do not know what is. The nature of the amendments-I stress that I am referring to the nature, not the detail-was announced more than a year ago. If the Opposition could be confident that there would not be further unintended consequences to consider in the future, its concerns might be somewhat mollified. But given the Government's record, which is there for all to see, honourable members can be reasonably sure that we will be debating further unintended consequences of these amendments, which, in turn, are due to earlier unintended consequences, for what we hope is the short period that the Government will remain in office. It is reasonable to assume a Blue Hills dimension to ETPs, given what has happened so far. It is easy to do because since this incompetent Government first legislated the tax laws have been amended on five separate occasions to attach entitlements and obligations to ETPs. Those five amending measures have or will have closed 20 loopholes in the original provisions. My advice is that other loopholes remain. The details of the remaining legal loopholes have not been revealed to me, for obvious reasons. However, the remaining difficulties should have been identifiable by the Government, given the resources available to it. Instead, the Government seems to feel the need for cosseting by its immediate advisers in the bureaucracy, and thereby limits the effectiveness of its laws. In so doing, it perpetuates this charade, which masks its outright and almost unbelievable incompetence. Perhaps the bureaucracy lacks the practical experience of those professionals in private practice, and that is natural, but if bureaucrats would only acknowledge their shortcomings they could take the next logical step of hiring professional advice to vet Bills for deficiencies before presenting them to parliament. If honourable members like myself with limited resources can ascertain that law does not match stated intentions, surely the Government can avoid pitfalls that require five amendments to close 20 loopholes, which presently it does not have the wit or intelligence to identify. Perhaps that strange state of affairs can be explained by the Government's, as distinct from the Labor Party's, on-again, off-again flirtation with privatisation. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer mercilessly bagged the word `privatisation' and the philosophical concept of privatisation when it was exclusively Liberal Party policy, but it suddenly became sensible and rational when this demoralised apology for a government came to the conclusion that it could not balance its Budgets without privatisation. As the Hawke-Keating Government becomes tired and even more bereft of ideas it unblushingly adopts more and more the coalition's policies in its attempt to hold government at the expense of the true-blue, if misguided, rank and file members of the Australian Labor Party, not that many of that increasingly rare breed are left in the parliamentary Labor Party. In matters involving fundamental and long term planning for financial security during retirement, uncertainty is heaped upon uncertainty by a succession of avoidable amendments to relevant sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Given the so-called greying of Australia, it would be reasonable to expect any Commonwealth Government to facilitate the ambitions of responsible Australians who do not want to become a burden on taxpayers in their retirement, and who are being hindered by ever-increasing changes in ways that are demonstrated today and have been on previous occasions. But no, not this Government. Its approach is to legislate first and ask fundamental questions about whether it achieves its stated aims later. Shoot from the lip: if at first we do not succeed, try, try, try again. That about sums up the attitude of this Government to tax legislation. It sees no obligation on it to get it right the first time, or even the second or third times. In addition, there is a curious mixture of a cavalier approach to tax laws and, where it might have had an earlier positive effect on our economy, belated action. No better example of the latter can be found than in the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1987. If ever there was a case of not too little but certainly too late, this is it. Three years ago, when it was being urged upon the Government, was the right time; now it is unarguably too late. The Government acknowledges that it is bound to attract business, at no cost to the revenue. The Government, nevertheless, could not accept that truth and make a timely decision; it procrastinated for three whole years. Backdating its effective inception to 1 July 1986 is not much of a consolation either. Without chapter and verse as spelt out in this Bill, more than 18 months of decision making by affected banking institutions has been unnecessarily inhibited. It is all very well for the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Holding), in his second reading speech, to acknowledge now, as he properly does, that: This measure is estimated to have a direct revenue cost of $2m annually, which may be offset by higher company tax collections on off-shore banking business profits. That is undoubtedly the case, but it was also the case three years ago. If that is sufficient justification for the measure today, it was equally justified three years ago. Over those three years the opportunity to encourage taxable activity that offshore banking units would have generated has largely been lost. The most opportune time was when the Treasurer acted to deregulate partially the banking and related finance industries. Now, after the passage of three years, there is a body of opinion that believes it is too late, and I am amongst the people who hold that opinion. Certainly the development of a more international banking system would have been enhanced if the Government had legislated along these lines at that time. However, that circumstance does not fit into the category of an unintended consequence of earlier legislation. It was simply an omission from earlier legislation. It is more a direct consequence of short-sightedness and lethargy on the part of the Treasurer. When we come to the proposition dealing with capital gains roll-over relief, however, we come to the classic example of another unintended consequence of the Hawke-Keating Government's capital gains tax laws. So belated is this measure that the Government backdates the effective commencement to before 20 September 1985. That is more than two years ago and, of course, it coincides, as honourable members will remember, with the inception of capital gains tax. In fact, shares received in exchange for units acquired before 20 September 1985 can also be taken to have been acquired before that date for the purposes of administering this measure. All that amounts to another stark example of this Government's short-sightedness and profound incompetence. The capital gains roll-over relief for unitholders is in itself remarkable because of the years it has taken to correct a glaring defect in the original capital gains tax legislation. Equally interesting is the following statement in the Minister's second reading speech: The nature of this proposal is such that a reliable estimation of the potential revenue effect cannot be made. I would like to know what is new about that. We have read in the Press in recent days that fringe benefit taxes are likely to total in the vicinity of $2,000m next year. When the Government wittingly or unwittingly misled the public about what that tax would yield, it was to be considerably less than $1 billion. Although the nature of the proposal was such that a reliable estimate of the potential revenue effect could not, apparently, then be made, the Treasurer did not hesitate to understate reasonably short term expectations by more than 100 per cent. The same has been true of other contentious tax measures adopted by the Government. The trick seems to be to take the heat out of the argument by using conveniently low estimates, and never mind the truth of the matter. The opposition to the fringe benefits tax would have been even greater had the true imposition and its real effects on the cost of production been known at the time. Even so, the expectation for the fringe benefits tax seems to be a source of satisfaction for the Government. Never mind that almost all of the tax will be added to the cost of goods and services to be either consumed in Australia or exported as part of our trade efforts; never mind that those mainly small businesses that cannot pass on the extra costs in their prices, even if they manage to stay in business, have their taxable income reduced accordingly. I emphasise that those who cannot pass on the costs have their taxable incomes reduced accordingly. They get it a little in advance, but they do not get any more. Never mind that in the case of the fringe benefits tax, a tax on income derived by employees, is to be paid for the first time by employers. Never mind that departure from tax principles. I heard a speaker in this debate last night say that the Treasurer took the hard decision in connection with the fringe benefit tax. The hard decision would have been to impose the tax where the income went, to impose it on the beneficiary. But the Treasurer walked away from that. He picked out business. He knew that business would cop it because it did not have the voices. The moral, and probably the most efficient, way to collect the tax is not through the employer, but from the proceeds that are paid to an employee. Never mind the nonsense about hard decisions made by the Treasurer. The Treasurer has not made a hard decision for a long time now as he aspires to become the leader of this Government. I say `this Government' because it will not survive beyond this term and because we know in turn that the Prime Minister will not see it out. That will be a blessing in disguise. It will give us a chance to expose the Treasurer and his weaknesses before he takes us to the next poll. I support the amendments moved by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I remind the House that the amendments contain admonishment, but they do not indicate opposition to these measures. We do not oppose the measures before the House and I support the remarks of previous speakers from this side. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.55) —I rise to support the legislation before the House today and to make a few comments in relation to taxation in general, as other speakers have done in this debate. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who preceded me, trying to put across a case about the attitudes of this Government to taxation. According to the honourable member, the measures that have been carried out by this Government are not acceptable to the people of Australia. I wish to take some time to run through a lot of those measures and to deal with what the honourable member for Curtin said about them. I shall comment firstly on the honourable member's remarks about superannuation, which is a very topical issue today, with a lot of comment in the newspapers and what have you. The Government is undertaking a review of business taxation and the concessions that are made to business and on investments. It is a major review that is very important as part of ongoing measures for taxation reform in this country that this Government has been working through for five years-measures that we would have expected to have been carried out in the past by the so-called economic parties in this nation. For many years business believed that the Liberal and National parties were those who could give us economic management and that the terrible socialists on this side were the very opposite. I think business and the people of Australia have learned in the last five years that this is not the case. I even heard Mr Elliott saying today in some remarks he made on the radio that people in the Liberal Party have reached the stage where they are eating scones and cream and having a good time, particularly in Victoria. This debate is very important in relation to the perspectives of the two parties, the two approaches to taxation reform, and I am very pleased that the honourable member for Curtin has raised some of those issues. Returning to superannuation, I point out very clearly to the House, and to the people in my electorate who today are ringing my staff about this matter because of the hype on the front pages of the newspapers, that there is no intention at all that any changes will impact adversely on already accrued superannuation benefits. Spokesmen for the Opposition, as soon as a review is undertaken of a wide range of tax measures, pick on an issue to try to frighten the people. It is obvious that some people, when they read the newspapers, will start to believe what is said or will query the situation. I want the people in my electorate and in other parts of Australia to consider whether a Labor government is the type of government that would attack the very people it was elected to look after, whose positions it was elected to improve. I repeat-it has been said often-that, whatever decisions this Government takes regarding taxation, the area of superannuation will always be treated on a concessional basis. We will continue to pursue a consistent and principled approach in our retirement incomes policy. To put a background to that policy, I would like to go over the record of the Government for the last five years. Let us see whether this Government is one that would look at and introduce measures which were to the detriment of the majority of Australians. I refer to tax cuts for a start. It must be remembered that when we came to power the top level of taxation was 66c in the dollar. Small business people, by the time they had paid double taxation, were paying 78c in the dollar. We brought in personal income tax cuts in November 1984, December 1986 and July 1987. As the first step, that is a very good record. The taxation position is vital to the creation of jobs in Australia. We have to be competitive in the world market to create jobs. Under this Government there has been a growth of one million jobs; that is, 200,000 new jobs a year. We have brought unemployment down from 10.5 per cent to 7.8 per cent, in comparison with the record of our opponents, who try to say to the public today, `You can't trust this Government; it is going to do you in on superannuation'. I assure the people in my electorate and those listening to this broadcast that this Government is not about to attack the people in the community who need its support. We will continue to give that support, whether it be in the form of superannuation, job creation or tax cuts. Let us look at wages. There was a 30.5 per cent increase in average weekly earnings from March 1983 to September last year. There has been a 10.2 per cent decrease in real unit labor costs. That real unit labour costs are coming down does not necessarily mean that we have cut people's living standards. We have maintained the social wage and we have introduced, within our tax regime, many measures which have the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement in general to ensure that, where taxation can be cut, it has been cut and that, where the social wage could be adjusted through Medicare, child support and family allowances, it has been. This has all been done as part of the overall package. It should be quite clear to anybody who is worried about the headlines in the papers today -and no doubt there will be a lot more in the next couple of weeks with the New South Wales election coming up-that the Opposition will continue, by picking on one item, to try to put across the message that this Government is neglecting the people of Australia. The evidence points the other way. It points that way in regard to tax cuts, jobs and wages. Let us look at public housing assistance, another area of the social wage. In the five years that this Government has been in power we have spent $5.3 billion on public housing. In the last five years that the Liberals were in power $1.4 billion was spent on public housing. There has been a massive increase in that sector of the community that really needs assistance. In that same period we have provided an additional 70,000 rental dwellings, compared with 40,000 in the previous five years. We have provided home loans to 70,000 low income households, compared with 50,000 in the previous five years. We have 220,000 households accommodated in public housing, as against 165,000 households allocated rental housing under our predecessors. We have set up the first home owners scheme. These issues are all very important to people who are on fixed incomes. We have set up 270,000 new households and we have provided assistance of $1.2 billion since the inception of the scheme. Families can get up to $6,000 in deposit and interest subsidies. Maximum assistance under the Liberals was $3,500 and people had to have a savings record; in other words, people had to have money to get money under the Liberals' philosophy. Child care is another very important measure for families in Australia. As at December 1987 there were 110,000 approved child care places and in 1986-87 we spent $175m in that area. In June 1982 there were only 42,000 places. The Fraser Government spent only $65m in this area in its last year in office. Education is probably the greatest asset that we are giving to Australian families to support the working people of Australia and the small business people of Australia, many of whom are not in a position to spend vast sums of money on higher education. This year the high school retention rate to year 12 is 50 per cent. Under the Fraser-Howard regime the rate was 36 per cent. This is a major improvement in the social structure of Australia, paid for by Australians, but being distributed in areas where it assists the social wage of families. We have provided 42,600 tertiary places since 1983, 1,000 of which have been funded through administrative changes. The taxation measures which we are using and the revamping of taxation methods have made available money that can be re-allocated. One of the areas we are concentrating on in Australia is training. We have adult training programs, youth training programs, and the Australian traineeship system, which is working very effectively now. It was a different program to get off the ground but it is working exceptionally well, particularly in McMillan, where a wide range of people are going into traineeships. The reform of apprenticeships and career paths is in train-all because we have been able to reform the tax system and the economic base of Australia and put in place measures which are assisting Australians in general. A lot of pensioners have been in Canberra over the last day or two. This Government has increased pensions by 8.1 per cent in real terms. As an average of weekly earnings the age pension has been lifted to 24.5 per cent, as against the level of 22.7 per cent in March 1983-something which no other government has been able to achieve. Have we achieved all these measures and adjustments by willy-nilly spending, or have we achieved it by being good economic managers? I think the evidence is quite clear in that regard. In five years we have gone from having massive Budget deficits to a stage where we will have a surplus in our Budget spending this year. As far as economic management is concerned, nobody in Australia today, least of all some of the people in the business sector, would turn to the Liberals and say that they could be better economic managers at the State or Federal level than the managers in charge of the treasury bench at present. We are hearing a lot of hoo-ha from the Opposition about the Australian Labor Party. John Howard has said that the Labor Party is not looking after its traditional base. How could people possibly believe that a John Howard-led government would in any way-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member might refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title. Mr CUNNINGHAM —How people could possibly believe that a government led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) could do anything for ordinary people in Australia is beyond me. Referring to the remarks made by the honourable member for Curtin, clearly he was talking about tax reform on the basis of the fringe benefits tax. There we have a clear indication of the difference between the two governments. Every few months we seem to have an enormous outcry in the media over some issue in this tax reform package. I can clearly remember that last year the fringe benefits tax was at the forefront. Week after week and day after day, we had an enormous outcry from sectors of the community trying to frighten people into believing that this Government was not looking after its traditional base; that this Government did not care about small business; that this Government was destroying the economy. All the evidence now clearly shows that those taxation measures which were put in place have been of great benefit to Australia. Business people have said to me quite clearly-I am sure that this has been indicated in many debates in this place-that, while the fringe benefits tax is certainly bringing in higher revenue than anybody expected, it is the clear choice of businesses today whether to pay their employees by way of cash and deduct income tax or, if it suits their economic rationale to have a fringe benefits tax structure; they have a free choice, as the rates are the same. There is no such thing as a 60 per cent higher rate of income tax with people getting away with having a lower rate through the fringe benefits tax or no tax at all. People will pay the top rate of 49c in fringe benefits tax and they will pay the rate of 49c in capital gains tax. This restructuring in Australia-and this legislation does the same-is part of a package which is giving the economic base of this nation a position in which, when people make decisions on an economic measure, they make them fairly and squarely on their benefit. They will build a factory today if it is economically viable to do so, not because there is a tax-free capital gain to be made. They will build the factory on the basis of what it can earn and what rent it will bring in and, if they are to get a capital gain on it, the tax is taken into consideration. If they are paying wages to somebody in a higher position in business, they can now make a clear decision as to whether it is better for them, as an organisation, to provide an employee with a cash payment and ask him to get his own motor car or-and they can decide freely; it is a free nation-whether they will provide the car and pay the fringe benefits tax. In the tax regime which we have put in place in Australia the law is not forcing anybody to do anything that is economically irrational. It is creating a climate where people will make their own economic decisions based on what is best for them and the company they work for at present. This is what we have to work towards. The review of company tax that we are looking at now must go down that same path. Whilst I understand the concerns of a lot of people today about superannuation-and the noises that are being made are intended to frighten them-I can assure those people in my electorate who have been ringing my office and those who have been listening to this debate that this Government will not bring in measures which will impact adversely on accrued superannuation benefits. By that I mean that people who have money in superannuation funds at present will not be impacted adversely by any changes made by this Government. For instance, people in the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, the Metropolitan Board of Works, or any of those areas where people are getting $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 on retirement, can be reassured that no measures of the Government will impact upon any of that superannuation. Anybody who believes that they will is only putting across propaganda on behalf of the Liberal Party as part of a campaign to frighten people before the New South Wales election. I have pleasure in supporting the legislation before the House. I believe that we will continue to put into place in Australia a very solid basis for economic management that will be accepted, and will continue to be accepted, by all sectors of Australians. Spokespersons on the other side do not appear to have any policy positions. This is quite obvious from the remarks this morning of their leader, Mr Elliott, who said that Liberal Party meetings are more like social gatherings than political operations. It is understandable that the people of Australia, at the worker level, the mid-management level and the small business level, have a clear understanding that this is a government of competence, that it has economic management under control and that it will not shy away from issues which need to be addressed. We have proved that we are willing to do this by the tough measures we have taken in respect of the fringe benefits tax. We have proved it by holding our ground in regard to the assets test. We have taken all the steps that need to be put in place to enable us to restructure, to allow us to put money where it is needed-in family allowance packages, training and Austudy. All of the measures which will make Australia a better place to live in in the future are fully supported by this Government. It gives me pleasure to support this legislation. Mr BURR(Lyons)(11.12) —The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has just dutifully trotted out all of those nice sounding cliches that I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be very proud to hear. They will congratulate him on his speech because he has done and said all of the things they like to hear. But I doubt very much that any of his constituents in the electorate of McMillan or, for that matter, any of the other people throughout Australia, would believe what has just been said by the honourable member for McMillan or, for that matter, the cliches that we often hear trotted out by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Regardless of what the honourable member for McMillan, the Prime Minister or the Treasurer might try to say, the plain fact is that this Government is taxing the heart out of Australia. Nothing that is contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987 and the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1987 will reverse that trend. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister say that these Bills contain taxation reforms and that they seek to close off loopholes. They say that the Bills contain technical amendments, that they are machinery measures. How often have we heard such statements made by the Treasurer or the Prime Minister? The plain fact is that when we hear such comments we can bet out bottom dollar that the Government is about to tighten the screws just a little further. That is exactly what the Government is doing with these Bills. The legislation before us has nothing to do with taxation reform. The Government is using the legislation in an attempt to screw a little more money out of Australian taxpayers. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) said during his speech that he felt that some of the Opposition's propositions were obscene. How obscene is it for a government to be totally misleading the people of Australia? How obscene is it right now for the Prime Minister to be flagging tax cuts because a New South Wales State election is coming up? How can he convince the people of Australia that he is serious and fair dinkum about tax cuts when the workers and business people of Australia know darn well that every move that is made in the taxation field by this Government means that the people of Australia are going to pay more in tax. I can well understand the cynicism of the people of Australia towards this Government. There is no doubt that this is the highest taxing government since the postwar years. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in part states: this Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; And true enough it is. People all around this country are complaining like mad that they are paying more and more tax. They simply cannot wear the burden of the tax that is being imposed on them at the moment. Let us consider what has happened in respect of the revenues that have been raised by the public sector of Australia since Federation. When this country became federated the public sector of Australia consumed 23 per cent of our gross domestic product. So roughly three-quarters of the economy of this country was in the private sector and the other quarter belonged to the government or public sector. By 1972, when the McMahon Government went out of office, the size of the public sector had risen to 28 per cent. But we still had roughly the proportion of three-quarters private sector and one-quarter public sector. In 72 years the government take had gone up by 5 per cent. Then we saw the advent of the Whitlam Labor Government. During the three years of that Government the public sector figure went up to 35 per cent thanks to the heavy spending Labor Ministers. That figure levelled off during the Fraser years. If there is any criticism of the Fraser Government, it is that it did not reduce the government take. But the Fraser Government certainly did not increase the take, which levelled off during its term of office. The Hawke Government came to power in 1983 and that figure has now gone up to 42 per cent. So the plain fact is that in 72 years the government take from the Australian economy went up by 5 per cent but since 1972 it has gone up by 14 per cent. Mr Downer —Disgraceful. Mr BURR —That is why the people of Australia are feeling the squeeze. As my colleague says, what this Government is doing is disgraceful. I remind the people that in the years from 1983 to 1987 that figure has gone from 35 per cent to 42 per cent. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister and other speakers on the Government side stand up and proudly say that they have a program of tax reform. The unavoidable fact is that their program of tax reform means that people will pay more to the Government. That is the bottom line of their tax reform. I heard just a minute ago the honourable member for McMillan make the claim that this Government is going to reduce taxes to wage and salary earners. Reduce taxes, my eye! He did not mention fiscal creep, which means that because of inflation people are moving into higher and higher tax brackets. Regardless of what this Government might say, people out there in the community-ordinary workers and small business people-know darn well that the bottom line is that they are paying more out of their earnings to the Government and no amount of nice sounding cliches from the Treasurer or the Prime Minister will convince them otherwise. I ask honourable members to think about some of the things that are happening even now. The Prime Minister asks us to trust him. I am darned if I will trust him. He has a very poor record yet he asks the Australian people to give him that sort of confidence. Let us remember what happened in 1983 when the Prime Minister made his most outspoken claim that there will be no capital gains tax. I am sure that everybody in the country can still remember the banners and the headlines proclaiming the Prime Minister's promise, `There will be no capital gains tax'. Who can believe him now? Is the Government trying to tell us that there is no capital gains tax? Of course there is. The Government brought in that measure despite the unequivocal promises that it had made during the election campaign. What do we see happening now? Mr Unsworth in New South Wales is getting terribly jittery about superannuation. He is saying to the Prime Minister, `Please, please, do not do anything about superannuation'. The Prime Minister says, `No, you are okay, Barrie. We will not do anything about superannuation'. But should we believe the Prime Minister? On what basis should we believe him when we look at his track record and see how unreliable his past promises have been. I certainly do not believe him. A lot of constituents in my electorate are coming to me and saying, `How safe is my superannuation? What is going to happen to the retirement plans that I have made for myself and my family? Is the Government going to tax my lump sum superannuation?'. The honourable member for McMillan made the rather spurious claim that present superannuation recipients would not be affected by any changes that might be introduced. Present recipients are already receiving superannuation. But what about those thousands of Australians who have been saving by way of superannuation for years and years of their working life, planning their retirement on the basis of their superannuation, and who now are in great jeopardy of having those retirement plans thrown to the wind? They simply do not know what this Government is likely to do next. Some very apprehensive people in my electorate have contacted me and said, `Please, what is going to happen?'. I can only respond by saying `I do not know', because I do not know what this Government is likely to do next. The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers to the fact that this Government is most unlikely to be able to reduce taxes because of the high rate of commitments it has to servicing the debts run up by the present Hawke Government. This is a concern felt by all Australians. Many people are very apprehensive about the way in which the Hawke Government has spent money and the debts that have been run up. People are concerned that their children and grandchildren will still be paying off these debts and will still be required to service them. I remind people that when the Hawke Government came to power in 1983 it not only increased the levels of taxation, as I pointed out earlier, but also found a new way of spending and committing money to make big men out of themselves in the proposals, prop- ositions and schemes which they brought forward. That was to borrow money-not just to take money from the people in taxes, but to borrow money so that future generations of taxpayers would be required to pay for the excesses that this Government is running up. This matter has now reached very serious proportions not only in the government sector in regard to its borrowings, but also in that this Government allowed almost open slather to borrowings by the private sector. The most obscene part of that borrowing by the private sector was the way in which this Government gave open slather to the mates of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to borrow for their takeover propositions. Australia now has to face the problem of servicing that debt. Since the war-I am sure that this was in the mind of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in moving his amendment-the interest on our overseas borrowings had been maintained at a steady rate of about 5 per cent of export earnings. That is the amount of interest we have to pay on all our overseas borrowings, government and private. Since 1981 the interest that we have been paying represents 20 per cent of all our export earnings. That sum now goes just to pay the interest on our overseas borrowings. It does not reduce the amount that we owe to foreign banks; it is just to pay the interest. Dr Harry Edwards —One gets up to 50 and 60 per cent when one includes other elements. Mr BURR —As my colleague says, that figure is rising dramatically. It will continue to rise because, even with the high taxing regime under this Government, we are not reducing the amount of the debts. All we are doing is paying the interest on those debts, and that interest bill is rising most dramatically. When a loan becomes due for repayment, we are borrowing more money to repay the loan that we took out some years earlier. That is in the area of the never-never. That is banana country-the banana republic to which the Treasurer referred some years ago. Let me put the matter in closer perspective. The interest bill in this financial year of the Federal Government alone is $7.8 billion. The Budget Papers show that our total defence bill for all our defence forces, for the purchase of new equipment and everything else related to our defence, is $7.4 billion. We are spending more just on interest alone than we are spending on defence. As I said earlier, that interest bill is rising dramatically. Little wonder that the people of Australia are becoming very concerned about where they are likely to be in the future and, more particularly, about where their children will be in the future. The honourable member for Canning accused the Opposition of being obscene because, he claimed, the Opposition was trying to protect tax avoiders. Can there be anything more obscene than that a government would overcommit itself in order to gain some kudos and, in the process, effectively mortgage the earning capacity of our children, our grandchildren and perhaps even our great grandchildren? That is what this Government has done. It has mortgaged the earnings of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Even if we do not borrow any more money from this day on, our grandchildren will still be paying off these debts. I cannot think of anything more obscene from any public administration. Yet Labor Government spokesmen have the gall to stand up in this place and in other forums and claim credit for their economic management of this country. They should hang their heads in shame. Is it any wonder that Mr Unsworth in New South Wales has the jitters because of what this Government is doing? It is not just Mr Unsworth. He is concerned about his election, but people right across the nation have the jitters about what this Government is doing. They are looking at the problems of the debts that have been run up and the repayments that will be made for generations to come. That is why they have the jitters. They do not know what will happen to them in their retirement; they do not know how many imposts this Government will put upon them. I suspect that at the first opportunity this Government will be voted out of office, and rightly so. It worries me that, regardless of who is responsible for government administration, it will take many years to sort out the mess and repay the debts which have been run up in these few short years of Labor administration. In one of the parables in the Bible, Christ was asked whether taxes should be paid and he responded by saying: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. The Treasurer, or the Prime Minister perhaps, might well put himself in the place of Caesar. It is not a matter of paying taxes. The real question is: What is fair and reasonable; how much does Caesar want? I do not think that this Government, with the present Caesar we have in power in Australia, will see an end to this process. He is asking for an endless cheque from the Australian people, and I do not think any measure will satisfy this Government because it continues to run up public debts. One of the worst obscenities, apart from the disgraceful untruths that have been told about tax, was the introduction of indexation. Indexation is a new measure. Every time people go to the petrol bowser to fill up their cars with petrol and every time they go down to the pub to have a beer, they find that for some strange reason it is a little dearer than it used to be. The reason is automatic indexation every six months. The Government does not have to pass legislation, it does not have to do anything; the price just rises and more money goes to the Government. Could there be anything more obscene than that? Why should the Government hide behind such disgraceful legislation and tactics? I ask the people of Australia to think carefully not only about the fact that this Government has been claiming to do all the nice things to which the honourable member for McMillan referred, but also about where the money is coming from to pay for the programs mentioned by the honourable member. I remind the people of Australia that the money is coming from two sources-the taxpayer and borrowings. Ultimately it will be the taxpayer in the future who will have to repay those borrowings. That is the only source of funds. So we have a Government here that is effectively taxing the heart out of Australia so that it can claim credit for things it has done. I accuse the Government not only of taxing the heart but also of taxing the soul out of this country. The sooner it is removed from office and replaced by a government of compassion and competence, the better. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.30) —I will give the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), a sufficiently charitable response to his contribution by suggesting that either he does not really understand some of the matters to which he drew attention or someone has misrepresented those circumstances to him because his contribution was not only a serious misrepresentation of this Government's attitude and approach to the question of taxation and taxation reform, but it also contained some very serious misrepresentations about the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) and about particular aspects of this Government's fiscal approach. Let me give the House some examples. The honourable member for Lyons began and ended his contribution with the expression that the Hawke Government was taxing the heart out of Australia. I think the Australian people are aware that one of the fundamental reasons for giving the Hawke Government that significant mandate originally in March 1983 was that they had become sick and tired of the impositions placed on them-ordinary Australians-by a government which lacked the compassion and economic management skills to which the honourable member made unsound reference. As a result of that the people decided that they had had enough. They were sick and tired of being ripped off by those people who were protected and nurtured by that previous Government. The genuine, honest Australians decided that they had had enough of the people in the community who were contributing, in their own way, towards that $7,000m rip-off. So they swept that Government from office in March 1983 and on two subsequent occasions they have reaffirmed the original firm, sound judgment that they made. The honourable member also said that tax reform on the part of the Hawke Government meant that the community would pay more to the Government. I said I would be sufficiently charitable and believe that the honourable member had either been misinformed or did not understand. No one can deny that the total tax package of this Government represented tax cuts for the Australian people equal to $4,500m. Never before in the history of this Commonwealth has any government introduced taxation reform which had the effect, in real or nominal terms, of handing back to taxpayers amounts of taxation of that dimension. Never before has it happened. The increased tax revenue associated with that total tax package represented about $1 billion which means that the net benefit to the Australian taxpayers was $3,500m. How is it possible for people such as the honourable member for Lyons to come into this chamber and say to the Australian people, the Australian community as a whole, that what is the case has not been the case. I believe he is sufficiently intelligent, understanding and well informed to know that what I have said is right. Why does he make such incorrect assertions if it is not simply an attempt to misrepresent the position of this Government? We have become a little impatient and intolerant of such assertions. I believe that the Australian people have also become a little impatient and intolerant of those assertions. The Australian people are not the mugs that the Opposition believes them to be. They are too sophisticated, too well informed, too well educated and too perceptive to be hoodwinked and fooled by conservative politicians in Australia. Those days are over. It reflects little credit on conservative politicians in Australia that they believe that the Australian people are sufficiently foolish to listen to and accept the sorts of claims that they make. The honourable member for Lyons said one other thing in his contribution. He made the assertion that this Government was running up deficits as a result of spending more money than it was receiving. Let us examine the reality. In the last three years of the Fraser Government the Commonwealth Budget deficit went from $500m to $1,500m in the following year and to $4,500m in the year after that. Everyone knows our fiscal inheritance when we came into office-we faced a Budget deficit of $10 billion. Mr Goodluck —I'm glad you didn't get in the Ministry. Mr Moore —This is the same speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN —This embarrasses Opposition members. We hear the interjections. It embarrasses them-as it should. The next contributor to this debate is a former professor of economics. I am interested to hear what the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) says in connection with that matter. Mr Smith —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We have heard this speech I do not know how many times. It is not relevant. It is the same old speech. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members opposite do not like these comments because they go not only to the very heart of these questions but also to the heart and the conscience of the Opposition. When they attempt to take some of my time it becomes increasingly apparent that my words are having their effect-as they should have some effect. I said that our fiscal inheritance was a prospective deficit of almost $10,000m as a result of the appalling economic management of those people on the Opposition side who present themselves to the Australian people as magnificent economic managers. They are nothing of the kind. The accountants over there are failed bookkeepers; the pillars of industry are corner shopkeepers and the great developers may have run real estate agencies. The real pillars of Australian industry are people outside, such as John Elliott, the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, who criticises the Opposition for its lack of substance and who says that Opposition members spend their time standing around sipping cups of tea and eating cake when they should be applying their time and talents to preparing policies in order to provide some sort of alternative government-something they have failed to do. In four years we have reduced a prospective Budget deficit of $10,000m to nothing. We have balanced the Budget. So that was another misrepresentation from the honourable member for Lyons. We also hear from our opponents on the Opposition benches about the great Australian foreign debt-a net debt of about $85,000m. It is always presented to the public as though the Hawke Government were responsible and all that debt has been accumulated by the Hawke Government's profligate spending. Mr Moore —Hear, hear! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Oh John! Your understanding is better than that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Charlton will refer to the honourable member for Ryan. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am provoked into responding because I have more respect for the honourable member's understanding of this matter. When I heard the interjection I looked around and thought it came from the honourable member for Ryan, but I did not believe it. I thought it might have come from someone else; not from the honourable member for Ryan. Mr Goodluck —You thought it was me; I know. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I did, too. Two-thirds of the net national foreign debt of about $85,000m belongs to the private sector. The honourable member for Ryan knows that; he nods in agreement. Two-thirds of that foreign debt is private sector debt; it is not government debt at all. It is not public sector debt. It is not at local level; it is not at State level; it is not at Commonwealth level. It is not public enterprise debt; it is private sector debt. Do honourable members know why much of that money has been brought into Australia to build up our foreign debt? It has been brought in by the takeover merchants-people who are contributing nothing new to Australia's economic and industrial capacity, people who are bringing money into Australia simply to take over existing businesses. In doing so they run up these debts. Two-thirds of the debt belongs to mates of the Opposition. Mr Moore —They're all mates of Bob's now. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Well, they used to be your mates. Mr Smith —You'll never go forward now. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Members of the Opposition are becoming tediously repetitious with their interjections. Will they kindly cease. Mr ROBERT BROWN —That is a very perceptive judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are tediously repetitious indeed. But what is new? The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) made another misrepresentation in connection with all these items of legislation. He said that the Government had claimed, quite correctly, that part of the purpose of this legislation was to remove some of the unintended consequences of the taxation reform measures this Government had introduced. He attempted to give the impression that that was some sort of sin. If in the process of reviewing the adequacy of tax reform measures we identify deficiencies and there are unintended consequences, is the suggestion that we should not correct them, that we should not remove them? This Government has not only been responsible for some of the most progressive, balanced and effective programs that have ever been introduced in Australia, but it has also been a government of review. We have been intent on examining all the policies and programs that have been introduced, all the funding arrangements, all the ways in which funds are being disbursed, to ensure that we achieve the objectives that we have undertaken to the Australian people we will seek to achieve. If we find inadequacies we will correct them and we will make no apologies for that, nor will we accept criticism for that. We are in the process, in part, with this package of legislation of achieving those objectives. One of the reasons why it is necessary to review programs and to correct any inadequacies is that there has never been an occasion since Federation when a more comprehensive approach to taxation reform has been undertaken. I said that the total benefit to the Australian taxpayers of that total taxation package was $4,500m. That was the gross benefit. The revenue from the additional revenue measures of that package was about $1,000m, which means that the net benefit to all Australian taxpayers has been about $3,500m. That benefit has gone to honest Australians, the Australians who, under the previous Government, were locked into meeting their taxation commitments. Those people got sick and tired of the fact that while they were paying their tax, all the smart alecs around the place were ripping of the system and not paying any tax. All the tax commentators and analysts were making the point that taxation, under the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition, had become a voluntary affair, not for wage and salary earners, who were locked into the pay as you earn tax system, but for everyone else in the community. And did they rip us off. They took $40 a week for every family in Australia to make up the difference for the sharks. That $40 was taken every week out of their pockets and out of their household budgets to make up the difference for the sharks. Honourable members opposite do not like the fact that when we came into office we ripped out all of those inequities; we ripped out all of those anomalies; we ripped out all of those injustices, and we restored a little bit of respect, dignity, honesty, justice and equity into the taxation system as it had never been done before. That is what honourable members opposite do not like. Why then would they not attempt to misrepresent our position? Where is the greatest current misrepresentation taking place? It is taking place in connection with superannuation. I think Australians need to be aware that there is never a government anywhere, at any level, worth its salt which does not keep under constant review all of its programs. I do not know to what extent politics in Australia has deteriorated when the Opposition is of the opinion, apparently, that all it has to do is to ask the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or a spokesman for the Government whether the Government is in the process of reviewing some particular program. When the Prime Minister or the spokesman responds that the Government is in the process of reviewing a program the Opposition starts a fear campaign such as the one being pushed around Australia at present. Not only is that fear campaign based on premises of that kind, but the Opposition did not listen when the honourable member for McMillan made it abundantly clear, in explicit terms, that those people who are employed and who are still making contributions to superannuation funds-not the retired people, as the honourable member for Lyons tried to make out-can be absolutely and unqualifiedly assured that their accumulated benefits will not be affected by any changes this Government introduces. Why did the honourable member for Lyons not listen to what the honourable member for McMillan said? If he did listen, why did he misrepresent what was said? The Opposition has set the rabbits running in Australia on this issue and it is prepared to be as cynical as is absolutely necessary to make any degree of mileage that may be available to it. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that any changes in the taxation arrangements for superannuation will not be retrospective. He has made it perfectly clear that any changes to those arrangements will not eliminate concessional arrangements in the superannuation system. I am disappointed because until this period there has generally been a bipartisan attitude to the question of superannuation. Successive governments have allowed to remain in place all those taxation concessions that were designed to encourage people to contribute towards superannuation funds in order to provide for their own retirement income, to reduce the burden on the public purse. If these are the sorts of tactics that the Opposition will be adopting in the future, it augurs poorly for the bipartisan approach which has existed until recently. People are concerned. When we talk about concessional treatment for superannuation funds, let us be perfectly clear about it. It costs Australian taxpayers in general about $3,500m every year for those concessions. The Government has made it perfectly clear, the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear, and the Treasurer has made it perfectly clear that concessional arrangements for superannuation will continue. We say this in the face of these realities: of all those people earning less than $120 a week, only about 3 per cent benefit from superannuation, but of those people earning over $520 a week, over 70 per cent benefit from the concessional arrangements for superannuation. So who are the people in the community who are getting the greatest benefit out of the concessions worth $3,500m a year? They are the highest income earners. We have assured them that concessional arrangements will continue. We have assured them that their accumulated benefits to the present will not be affected or diminished. I conclude with these remarks and comments: if it becomes necessary for a government to continue to defend itself by correcting misrepresentations, it augurs poorly for the future of politics in Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.51) —The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who preceded me, ended on the very note on which he began his speech. He talked about misrepresentation from this side of the House. We have just heard a whole 20 minutes of misrepresentation from the other side of the House. I refer specifically to the honourable member's claim that my colleague was wrong in arguing that the Hawke Government is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. The honourable member went on to say that the Government had given more back to taxpayers than ever before, or words to that effect. If anything was given back, it related in a very peculiar sense to the treatment of what is referred to as bracket creep or fiscal drag, terms which mean that, as taxpayers' incomes and wages increase in the inflationary situation, with an unchanged tax scale they move into higher tax brackets and start to pay more. When one moves beyond the $19,500 level of income, one goes from paying 29c in the additional dollar to 40c in the dollar. That has a massive impact when taken over all Australians. In 1987-88 the Hawke Labor Government projects additional income tax by individuals of $3,086m which is roughly $3.1 billion-that appears in the Budget statements at page 312 of Budget Paper No. 1-and a total increase in taxation of all forms of $5.5 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent. What the honourable member referred to as `giving back' is additional tax that people would have had to pay, over and above what I have just referred to, if the Government had made no changes to the tax rate system to bring it more in line with inflation. Do not talk to us about handing back taxation. The figures on the increase taking place this year keep the Hawke Government well out in front as the biggest taxing government in this country's history. In addressing the measure before the House, which proposes certain changes to the tax system, I want to refer briefly to the overriding consideration in all debates on economic matters; that is, our vast current account deficit problem and crippling overseas debt. The crippling overseas debt is another matter which the honourable member for Charlton shrugged off. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, the debt is at such a level that it requires 64 per cent, or nearly two-thirds, of our export earnings to service the interest and capital repayments on it. What an enormous constraint on what we and succeeding generations can do when there is that first call on our export income. Earlier this week the Australian Bureau of Statistics put out an encouraging figure on January's balance of payments-but it was not all good news. I remind the honourable member for Charlton that there was still a fall in the vital exports that are so important but an even larger fall, which contributed to the improvement in the balance of trade, in imports. That fall in imports occurred mainly in machinery, particularly machinery not made in Australia, and transport equipment, which underscores the continuing weakness in investment which is so vital to coming to grips with our economic position. The problem continues. In the 1987 calendar year the total deficit in the balance of payments was $12 billion. We are going into hock to the extent of about $30m every day-from this time yesterday until this time today. There was a measure of relief in January, but the elements to which I have drawn attention make it clear that the long term outlook remains threatening. Australians' standards of living and real incomes depend very heavily on continued large scale borrowing from foreigners, which makes us very dependent and very vulnerable. Even the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when commenting on those figures, said that the situation was unsustainable. The essence of the way back is that, as a nation, we must produce more and produce it more efficiently, and for a period consume less. In effect, we have to produce more for foreigners to make up for the profligate, excessive calling on their resources under this Hawke Labor Government, which the build-up in the debt reflects. I will not take up further time by answering some incorrect statements made by the honourable member for Charlton in that area. To produce more, there must be more incentive. Mr Robert Brown —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the word `incorrect' in connection with statements and assertions that I made is a parliamentary term. If it is not, I would appreciate it if the honourable member for Berowra withdrew the expression `incorrect'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —It is not unparliamentary. It is casting personal reflections on the honourable member, and I ask the honourable member for Berowra to withdraw it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I will certainly withdraw it. As I do not have time now to substantiate the accusation, I will do so on another occasion. To produce more, which is the imperative, there must be more incentive-that is where we come to the legislation before the House dealing with personal and company taxation-there must be more investment, particularly in export and import replacing industries. Since investment is, to a significant extent, encouraged by after-tax profits-tax again is relevant, though not the only factor. There must be more production in export and import replacing industries. For that we must be more competitive. That involves a variety of factors: increased productivity, the containing of money wages, freeing up the labour market and pursuing other reforms of a micro-economic character. I say we must have additional investment and export and import replacing production. To make economic `room' for that there must be, at least in part, less domestic consumption for Australian purposes, both private and government. Thus it is important to rein back government spending. I have tried to set all that out to illustrate how the tax system dovetails into the overriding national economic objective-nay, imperative-that we achieve an increase in production but ourselves consume less. I move from there to the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill. In relation to investment I have said that a reduced rate of company taxation is important. The Bill makes provision for withholding tax exemption for interest paid to non-residents by off-shore banking businesses in Australia, with the purpose of encouraging the development of this export service industry. I suspect that the actual change will be small in its effect and that the real disincentive, the primary reason why Australia has not emerged as a major off-shore banking centre, is its high rate of company taxation-49 per cent. It was actually increased in this so-called reform process from 46 per cent last year, in the context of a rate of 34 per cent in the United States of America and a projected rate of 28 per cent in New Zealand. The rate is 18 per cent in Singapore and 33 per cent in Hong Kong and with no interest withholding tax in this off-shore banking business area. There is actually a concessional rate of 10 per cent in Singapore on offshore banking activity earnings. As my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) said last night, what is contained in this Bill for offshore banking activities is too little and too late. The more general point is that the reduction of the company rate from 49 per cent is a very high priority, particularly, as I have said, in the context of achieving the investment that is so essential. Not only was there an increase in the company tax rate but also in the process of reform the Government implemented the fringe benefits tax, an additional impost to be paid by companies. It then introduced a capital gains tax. I do not need to recall the Prime Minister's categorical assurance that there would not be a capital gains tax; honourable members will be aware of that. There is a capital gains tax and part of this Bill is concerned with tidying up the roll-over and other aspects of the capital gains tax, adding many further pages to the Act in attending to the unintended consequences of the original legislation. It amounts to nearly 1,000 pages since the reform process began on top of the original 1,000 pages of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I express the view that the Government's capital gains tax must go. I say that because of the key role that new, small innovative and often high technology businesses play in fostering a robust and dynamic growing economy. I am aware that many economists would actually favour a capital gains tax on a variety of grounds. But I would say that most of them have never risked a quid in their lives investing in productive activities. The capital gains tax should go, in order to protect and encourage the building up of new businesses-to protect and encourage long term investment by, in particular, small businesses, farmers and others. The incentive to take up shares in very small, risky companies that may not pay dividends for many years is heavily blunted by the present capital gains tax regime. I recognise, however, that it is important in the context of the abolition of the capital gains tax that speculative windfall gains and the contrived conversion of income into capital gains should not be free from tax. I am also convinced that there is an urgent need for other specific measures to assist and encourage the new small business. Those businesses may be small now but some will be the big businesses of the future. I said that other measures may well need to be implemented to encourage new, small, entrepreneurial businesses, but that is a topic for another time. I return to the point that I was making in relation to the honourable member for Charlton, namely, that a very significant increase in personal income tax of the order of $3.1 billion is projected this year and that total taxation, as referred to in the amendment of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), is projected to increase by $5.5 billion. In the case of personal income tax, this increase largely represents the effect of so-called tax creep, not offset by the Government's rate changes. The effect is that taxpayers on average are paying substantially more now, despite the changes in marginal rates, than they were when the Hawke Government came to power. I would not be so churlish though as not to acknowledge that the top rate of 49c in the dollar, or 50.25c with the addition of the Medicare levy, is a welcome improvement on the top rate of taxation of 60 or 61.25c that preceded it some years ago, but it is still too high. It is still an exploitative rate that invites avoidance and evasion and is inimical to incentive for the increased effort and productivity to which I referred and which is so essential. I recall from the report of the National Tax Summit that in 1954-55 the maximum rate of taxation came in at a level of income of $400,000 in today's terms. As recently as 1972 the top rate came in at a level of income of $100,000 in equivalent terms. Today the maximum rate of around 50c in the dollar comes in at the not high level of income of $35,000. It is simply not good enough. In Britain one would not pay a 49c marginal tax rate until one reached an equivalent income level of $60,000. In Japan the equivalent income level is $200,000. One never pays a marginal rate of 49 or 50c in the dollar in America, nor will one under the New Zealand regime. It is imperative, by proper restraint of excessive and wasteful government expenditure, that those marginal tax rates be brought down to levels comparable with those overseas. Turning again to the Budget estimates of tax, I refer to indirect taxes, which are projected to increase significantly. Since the Tax Summit they have increased by the order of 33% and upwards. I put it to the House that the Australian people would have been a lot better off paying a properly structured, broad-based indirect tax-a consumption tax was proposed at the Tax Summit- of some sort in the context of which there would be compensation provisions for low-income groups. They were certainly advocated at that time. I suggest that the proposal of a broad-based indirect tax-there have been ex cathedra pronouncements from various quarters `dead-agin-it'-must be seriously considered. It would not be an additional new tax. It would be a tax replacing the wholesale tax, for instance, and hopefully, in negotiation with the States, it would replace payroll tax as well. It would be a tax with many other benefits. I mention just two: its importance in countering tax evasion and avoidance; and its importance and great superiority over an entry tax at airports, in tourists being made to pay some share of the cost of provision of services, and so on. I conclude on this note: In respect of the changes in the tax system to which I have been referring, to achieve a system conducive to the dynamic growth and expanding production which is necessary to come to grips with our vast trade and frightening overseas debts, I suggest to the Australian people, `Do not hold your breath for anything to happen soon under this Government'. The Prime Minister had much to say last weekend about tax cuts to come under his Government, but we will not see anything very soon. That is something that has been said, of course, for the benefit of the New South Wales State election. One can be pretty sure that any further changes to the tax structure will be in the context of the run-up to the next Federal election towards the end of 1989. It is all expedient electioneering. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(12.11) —I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I shall leave it to those who either read Hansard or have listened to the debate to make their own determination as to the efficacy of the contributions. I am concerned only to address a number of points that have been raised which may produce some concern or anxiety in the community and to clarify those points, so that at least all honourable members will be in a position to understand the implications of this legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), suggested that the roll-over conditions being imposed on annuities by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987 do not fully accord with the terms of the 12 January 1987 statement in which the proposed measure was announced. Apart from mentioning so-called `variable annuities', it is not clear from the honourable member's suggestion precisely what the nature of the shortcoming in the Bill is thought to be. The conditions in the Bill are in three broad categories: firstly, they set limits on the size of concessionally taxed capital payments that can be made on termination of an annuity contract; secondly, they require deferred annuities to become immediate, that is, taxable annuities, by the time the annuitant reaches the age of 65 years; and, thirdly, they set out rules to control the extent to which annuity income, and therefore tax, can be deferred. All of these new requirements were foreshadowed in the 12 January 1987 statement. The question whether a particular financial product meets the conditions or whether, on general principles of law which are not the subject of this Bill, the product is an annuity at all, can be answered only upon a consideration of all of the terms of the relevant contract. The answer is not, for example, dependent on a shorthand description that the marketplace gives to a particular product. The description `variable annuity' covers a wide range of products, which may or may not meet the conditions. It is simply not possible to say whether one or another such product is ineligible under the new rules without considering all the facts. Equally, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) suggested that the amendment that will tax lump sum death benefits paid to non-dependants could apply to tax payments to a working spouse. That is not the case. A spouse, or a de facto spouse, and any minor children of a taxpayer are specifically deemed to be dependants even if they are not financially dependent. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— 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.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. 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.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Kerr, D. J. C. Halverson, R. G.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Morris, Peter White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 December 1987, on motion by Mr Holding: 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 Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 September 1987, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.25) —This debate will be interrupted shortly, so my remarks will be finished later in the day. This debate is about uranium. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 was introduced into this House on 18 September 1987 by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). The Bill makes amendments to the Patents Act. Interestingly, the amendments to the Patents Act have had a long gestation period. A reference for a review of the patents system in this country was undertaken in 1979, and we are still waiting for the Government to make major recommendations and bring forward legislation in this House. I hope that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, if he responds to this debate, will respond to that point as well. More specifically, the amendments to the Patents Act made by the Bill we are debating today are to set up procedures for handling patent applications that contain information relating to nuclear technology. This is the first opportunity the Parliament has had to debate nuclear issues. This Bill, whilst it is narrow in its focus, because it mentions such things as the enrichment of nuclear material, the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material, the production of heavy water or nuclear weapons and so on-as I will relate in a moment-will provide the opportunity for honourable members to have some discussion about nuclear issues. One can see from the speakers list that on the Labor side at least there is a whole range of speakers who have held quite strong views on nuclear matters. So the debate will be very interesting as it proceeds. The main purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act and the Patents Act operate in a complementary and harmonious fashion. The new procedures introduced by the Bill relate to patent applications which contain information defined as `associated technology'. This includes information from a document, photograph, model or other thing from which the information may be obtained, that pertains to the enrichment of nuclear material, the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material, the production of heavy water or nuclear weapons, and nuclear information that is covered by a international agreement and is declared by the Minister to be information for the purposes of this definition. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act provides that associated technology is not to be processed or communicated without the relevant permit or authority from the Australian Safeguards Office. Publicly available information is excluded from the definition. In effect, the Bill enables the Commissioner for Patents to refer a specification which contains associated information to the Director of Safeguards, who can then send a certificate to that effect to the Commissioner, who can take steps on the basis of the Director's advice to prohibit or restrict publication of the information contained in such a specification. Other minor amendments relate to matters such as the lapse of patent application and its restoration and confidentiality. We support the legislation as it is minor in its focus although important in its general intent. As I mentioned, we have not addressed the patents review problem in this country for some time. A reference was made as long ago as 1979 from the then Minister for Productivity, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), and we are still waiting on the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, who responded to the resulting report back in 1984. Unfortunately, nothing has happened. As I mentioned, I hope that that Minister, if he responds to this debate, will give some clear indication as to when the Government might finally act on making some major and substantial amendments to the patents system. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, which this Bill amends, was passed in February 1987. It gave legislative effect to Australia's obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The Act also established a system of permits for the possession and transport of nuclear material. In the case of Australia, nuclear material is currently limited to that used for scientific and medical purposes. The Act also created the Australian Safeguards Office as a statutory authority to oversee the permit system and ensure compliance with the Act. In the second reading debate in the House of Representatives in February 1987 my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) made some observations which I think are worth reiterating. He said that the coalition parties supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill which, it should be noted, implemented policies developed by previous Liberal governments as well as by this Government. So there is a strong degree of bipartisanship about the need and the meaning of safeguards. We are also committed to the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which signatory non-nuclear weapons nations undertake not to develop nuclear weapons and to prevent the diversion of nuclear material from use for peaceful purposes to the development of nuclear weapons. As I have said, we also agreed to safeguards. Safeguards limit the export of Australia's uranium oxide to the civil nuclear fuel cycle-I will have more to say about that later-which means that Australia can account at all times for that uranium. What then are the safeguards? What is meant by the word `safeguards'? Basically, it refers to a system of auditing and accounting specifically designed to detect any unauthorised use of nuclear materials. All nuclear installations under the International Atomic Energy Agency must give detailed reports showing all movements and production of nuclear material. On-site verification is carried out by the Agency team of inspectors. Sophisticated surveillance equipment monitors movements in and out of a plant. When a country joins the NPT, which was established in 1968, it declares that it will not make or assist to make nuclear weapons and opens its nuclear activities to international inspection. The safeguards agreements are the precise legal documents spelling out the obligations of the Agency and signatory nations. Several countries have nuclear facilities but are not NPT members. However, only five of these-Argentina, India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel-do not allow safeguards inspections of all their nuclear facilities. Despite these exceptions, it should be remembered that 98 per cent of all nuclear facilities and installations are inspected under the safeguards agreements; 124 non-weapons countries have entered into safeguards agreements. There is no documented evidence that nuclear material subject to international safeguards is being used to make weapons. So to this time the safeguards system has been successful. I come now to nuclear related issues, which is one of the more sensitive parts of what will be an interesting discussion today before the Parliament because of this legislation. As I have said, it provides an opportunity for the Parliament to debate these issues. The issues can be summarised broadly into four categories: the Government's policy on uranium, which I believe has cost Australia dearly; the feasibility of value added uranium enrichment industries; the possibility of Australia hosting an international facility to store high level nuclear waste; and the nuclear power alternative to fossil fuels. Let us look at the first of those issues-the Government's policy which limits the mining and export of uranium. There is a limit to what is known as the three-mine policy. It is clear, as we know from late last year, that the current Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is really concerned as to whether he should lead a debate to try to change that policy. The lifting of contracts so that uranium could be exported to France drew an excited and virulent response from many in his own Party. He has kept his head down and we are yet to hear what he will say about it. Primarily, only three mines are operating at present: Energy Resources of Australia Ltd's Ranger mine east of Darwin; Western Mining's Roxby Downs at Olympic Dam; and the Queensland Mines Ltd Nabarlek operation. Despite the economic imperative to redress the flagging balance of payments, which will become much worse as our oil reserves dry up-and I had plenty to say about that in the Parliament last year-Australia is losing over half a billion dollars as our uranium remains in the ground. In an export market which Australia has the ability to dominate it has lost the initiative to Canada, South Africa, the United States of America, Central Africa and Namibia. Lost uranium exports over the past 10 years are estimated at $4.5 billion. If Australia maintains its current three-mine policy it is likely to account for only 12 per cent of the world market for uranium in the next financial year, rising to only 18 per cent by 1994. The Federal Government has indeed locked Australia into a position of controlling less than 20 per cent of the market over the next five years-the time it takes to bring known resources on line-and beyond. If we make comparisons with Canada the story is amply told. Australia and Canada together are endowed with nearly half of the world's low cost uranium resources, with 530,000 and 320,000 tonnes of uranium respectively. Back in 1974 Australia had an eight-year start on Canada in which it could develop its uranium mining industry. Since then Canada's uranium exploration and mining have surged ahead while Australia has squandered several development opportunities. By 1985 Australia supplied 10 per cent of the fuel for the world's 350 operating nuclear power stations. Canada supplied 31 per cent. The Australian dollar value of exports was $400m. Canada earned $1,100m. The Government has now given the go ahead to Energy Resources of Australia to ship uranium to France. This change of heart is no doubt influenced by the forecasts that demand will outstrip supply by the mid-1990s and by the figures I quoted earlier. However, the ideological stance taken by some in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and some lobby groups has polarised and confused the debate on uranium mining. An interesting editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 15 January 1988 stated: . . . the Labor Party, elected to govern for the benefit of the people as a whole, still allows itself to be intimidated by this pathetic rump of Neanderthal pretenders to a power base that no longer exists. It will be interesting to see whether any of the neanderthal pretenders are in this chamber today, or whether the Government will enjoy the support of all its members in trying to come to a realistic position on uranium. The majority support uranium exports. The miners are mining it, the transport workers are moving it and the waterside workers are loading it. With Aboriginal affairs high on the agenda this year it is interesting to look at the benefits of uranium to that group. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), who I know will be speaking today, well knows the benefits. It was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 22 September 1987 that he said that he would back a review of the ALP's uranium policy. I would like to hear what he has to say today. Some Aboriginal groups are happy to accept mining in return for the very substantial financial benefits. These have not been insignificant. Up until June 1986 royalty payments from uranium mining into Aboriginal benefit trust accounts were approximately $62m. In addition, Ranger paid an initial $13m and pays $200,000 per year to the Northern Land Council in the form of rent. Queensland Mines paid $735,000 initially and pays an annual rental of $500,000 to the Northern Land Council. Over the past 12 months land councils have reached agreements for mining exploration with companies on four separate sites which will bring in additional revenue. My point is this: the dilemma for people in the ALP is to decide whether the plight of the Aborigines represents a higher morality than the continued need to block any expansion of the uranium industry. Mr Chynoweth —No, it is not. Mr SMITH —Yes, it is, and honourable members opposite will have to answer it. The coalition urges an assessment of the feasibility of establishing a uranium enrichment industry. About 90 per cent of the 500 or so commercial nuclear reactors operating or under construction in the world today require enriched uranium for fuel. The first step in this process is the production of yellowcake from the mined ore. This is as far as the process goes in Australia. The second step in the process is conversion. The third step is enrichment. This is where the patents law in this country becomes particularly important because, until we can sort out exactly what we are able to do with regard to the patents law if we are to go down this route of enrichment, we must ensure that that ties in with the safeguards law; and primarily that is what this legislation is about as well. Honourable members will be well aware of the Slatyer report-the Australian Science and Technology Council was requested to report on the nuclear fuel cycle-and of its recommendations. I know that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is at the table, has read them. I remind the House of what Slatyer said: Australia should actively encourage the concept that sensitive facilities, particularly enrichment and reprocessing plants should be located in as few countries as possible. At the same time Australia should encourage the concept of joint ownership and supervision of such facilities, both in a global and regional context and the application to them of the most stringent safeguards. Australian participation in stages of the nuclear fuel cycle should be permitted, where such participation promotes and strengthens the non-proliferation regime. Unfortunately, this Government has disregarded the role that Australia could play in the responsible development of the nuclear fuel cycle. Australia's decision not to set up a full uranium industry has cost us a marvellous opportunity not only to isolate a quarter of the world's uranium from the nuclear arms race but also to benefit from the financial gains that would be attracted to us. One of the major issues is the question of waste. Although Australia plays a modest role in nuclear research, it is a front-runner in this vital area. Of course, patents are particularly important in this area. As a consequence of the development of synroc, the possibility of Australia hosting an international facility to store high level nuclear waste should be, I believe, publicly debated. Synroc, a synthetic rock developed in Australia, can immobilise high level nuclear wastes for the long periods needed for their radioactivity to decay to safe levels. It has been shown that when high level waste is combined with synroc virtually no detriment should accrue to the environment over geological periods. The point is that this method of radioactive waste management has the potential to be environmentally safe and to prevent the use of nuclear materials for non-peaceful use. I now refer to the advantages of nuclear industries. An integrated Australian nuclear industry would mean that uranium and its products would be off-shore only for the time they spent producing electricity and cooling down. We would put ourselves in the position where we could control the whole cycle. The spent fuel would never be in a form suitable for extraction of plutonium; no weapons technology would be involved; and radioactive waste products would not reach the biosphere. That is particularly important. It is the point that Slatyer wanted to make and that others have made. We have to put ourselves in the position where we can be in control of the whole cycle. The estimate of income from simply caring for the waste generated only from Australian uranium is some $800m. This not insubstantial figure ought to be considered in the development of arguments when looking at the feasibility of such a proposal. The overall scheme would generate thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of ancillary jobs. An international facility to store high level waste would mean that Australia could, in concert with the International Atomic Energy Agency, have de facto control over much of the world's nuclear fuel cycle. That is not an insignificant point. I think it is important for members on the other side of the House to respond to that in a meaningful way, rather than an emotional way. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas Heights has also brought to bear a great deal of technology, particularly in the synroc area. I am sure that all members of the House would congratulate ANSTO in what it has been able to do in this area. That work has been particularly significant and it gives Australia a chance to be ahead in a leading edge technology. We must be doing more to support the Organisation, rather than putting fetters on it as the Government has done. It is interesting to note that the HIFAR reactor, which is about 1959 technology, will at some stage in the future require to be replaced. We are yet to have the Government make a full decision on that. I note that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) released details recently of a review that said it will not need to be replaced. I believe that this is an interesting decision to have come to. I wonder whether that is in the best interests of the future development of an Australian nuclear industry, relying as it does on the peaceful use of nuclear technology. We have the scientists and we ought to be supporting them. They have delivered synroc, which puts us right in front in this area. It gives us a great opportunity. We ought to capitalise on that benefit, rather than stand back and let others come in and take it from us. In my view nuclear power is here to stay, despite Chernobyl. Because of Chernobyl, improved nuclear safety is more likely to occur and all of us would welcome that. Sir Frederick Warner, a member and former Chairman of the Royal Society's Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, believes that nuclear energy looks increasingly like the best environmental option for electricity production as evidence mounts about the greenhouse effect. It is an unfortunate fact that about one-quarter of the world's oil production is still being burnt for electricity generation, although known reserves of oil will be exhausted in about 35 years time if the current rate of consumption is maintained. Coal is expected to become predominant after the year 2000. Improved living standards, particularly in the Third World, and world population growth will be the major factors leading to substantially higher world energy requirements. While Australia has its huge coal reserves, it is unlikely to opt for nuclear power. However, other countries are committed. The question that should be addressed is what role, if any, Australia will play in the energy scenario of the future. It is interesting to have a brief look at what the Government is saying. There seems to be a great deal of confusion. In January, a newspaper article quoted what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had said about uranium. It stated: Is it moral for Australia to take a course of action which not only prejudices Australia in economic terms but in the broader sense makes the nuclear fuel cycle less safe?' Mr Hawke asked. If that is supposed to be moral, I want a new definition of morality. What happened the day after the new Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) was appointed? He admitted, the day after his elevation to the Ministry, that he faced a potential moral dilemma over the issue. He refused to back down from his previous hardline stand on uranium, saying that his opposition to the mining of Australian uranium and its export to France was on the record and well known. So what is going to happen? We have the new Minister for Resources in conflict with the Prime Minister. The Government does not know in which direction it is going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —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. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.45) —I move: That this House congratulates the Government on developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated program of care for aged people which enables older people in the community to maintain the best possible quality of life, and in particular through the- (1) Home and Community Care Program which enables the aged to remain in their own homes rather than prematurely seeking admission to an institution; (2) Government's emphasis on providing a greater range of residential options whereby the aged can now receive the level and type of care most appropriate to their needs, and (3) development of quality of care standards for nursing homes, whereby aged people requiring nursing home care will be assured of high quality treatment. This motion is proposed as part of the continuing dialogue between the Government and the aged community. Representatives of pensioner groups-local, State and national-and retired union members organisations are visiting us in Parliament House this week and next week and talking to Government committees, Ministers and backbenchers. I daresay they have a few words for the Opposition people, too. They have a great deal indeed to discuss with us. Understanding the needs of pensioners better than any committee of the Parliament, their claims range from pension adjustments and taxation, which have of course the most immediate effect on living standards, through all areas relating to the quality of life, such as housing, health, residential care and the consultative processes that are needed, right through to general budgetary issues, such as the demand for an increase in tax revenue from the corporate sector, a proposal that I heartily endorse. Those of us supporting this motion today are taking part in the dialogue, listening to the claims put to us, trying to gain a greater understanding of the needs of the aged community and determined to work towards the proposed goals, particularly, as I said and I fervently hope, in the area of taxation. We take this opportunity to outline the progress already made, as the motion says, on developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated program of care for aged people, particularly in those areas such as the home and community care program (HACC) which are so strongly supported by pensioner organisations. As the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) said in concluding the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, this is the first government in the history of the country that has had an integrated approach to the needs of the aged. Not only have we maintained the nursing homes sector but also we have supplemented it with a major expansion of hospital provisions, and we have created the home and community care program. For the first time in this country we are offering old people and their relatives the choice of accommodation and support that most suits their emotional, medical and social needs. Of course, we have a long way to go, but it is the first government in this country's history that has not had a piecemeal approach. Since 1973 numerous reports and investigations have demanded a fairer and more efficient aged care system. This Government is the first to act on these reports and to embark on a program of major reform of the aged care program. The major critical reports included two by parliamentary committees, notably the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, known as the Giles report, and the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee report, known as the McLeay report. Mr McLeay, the honourable member for Grayndler, will be following me later in this debate. There was also the Auditor-General's efficiency audit on the Commonwealth administration of nursing home programs. These reports reached a common view about the inadequacies of the program, including lack of a service planning mechanism, with the resultant poor distribution of services, lack of incentives for efficiency in service-providing organisations, rapid growth in costs, interstate and inter-home inequities in funding levels, poor quality care in many facilities and inappropriate match of services to the needs of individual clients; in particular, a lack of balance in residential and community care provision, resulting in undue emphasis on nursing home care. Australia had in fact established more nursing home beds per capita than any other country in the world, but one of the lowest coverages of home care in the Western world. Shutting away our elderly in a nursing home was seen as the only response to aged care, completely ignoring the fact that most would prefer to stay at home. Not all elderly people have the same medical, social and emotional needs. It is not surprising that elderly people had not been able to get the sorts of care they needed. The problems left behind by the Liberals also included poor co-ordination between the States and the Commonwealth, especially on standards, a funding system which discourage efficiency, and government intervention in aged care which always tended to be unseen, unplanned and unco-ordinated. On top of this disarray demographic factors projected a rate of growth in the aged population of more than one and half times that of the population as a whole, and the rate of increase in the very old population of more than three and a half times that of the total population. We, in government, recognised the difficult task ahead; the need to plan for change carefully; to develop policies which would be appropriate for the 1990s. Our Government's first step was to sit down and consult with our partners in the caring community, service providers, State and local governments and the elderly themselves. An Office for the Aged was established to advise on consumer perspectives and to help to co-ordinate all Commonwealth programs that affect the aged. The record of our achievement to date, Mr Deputy Speaker, in developing an integrated program of care is pretty impressive. In 1985 the Government introduced the home and community care program in recognition of the importance of developing new and expanded community care services, to achieve a more appropriate balance between resources provided to community services and residential care so that more elderly people can continue to live at home where most really want to be. My colleague the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) will discuss the HACC program in some detail. Then, in relation to residential care, as far as hostel subsidies went, we extended the range of hostel subsidies to increase choice for the elderly in our very first Budget. Since then we have significantly increased the subsidy rates and have agreed to annual indexation and to a further real increase of 68 per cent in the personal care subsidy over the next four years. In nursing home subsidies, ongoing funding for nursing homes continues to be an important element of the Government's aged care strategy and bed subsidies are increased annually. Expenditure has increased from $734m in 1982-83 to an estimated $1,122m in 1987-88. The new nursing home funding arrangements began on 1 July 1987. As to capital funding, by 1989 we will have more than doubled the number of hostel places available when we came to office. Another major expansion is under way this year and next year. It will mean 12,197 more beds, mostly hostel places. We have introduced an assessment program to help elderly people to find the best care to suit their needs, doing away with the mismatching that went on for years. Unlike the previous Government we are committed to setting standards to improve the quality of life and care in nursing homes. New standards on quality of life for residents in nursing homes came into effect on 1 July 1987. As far as special needs go, of particular interest to the aged, people who are disabled, members of the ethnic and Aboriginal groups, those living in isolated or rural areas and people suffering dementia are now treated as priority groups for funding. Little or nothing was provided for these purposes when we came to office. Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have related in reference to residential care is all part of a broad strategy announced in 1986 to reform the Commonwealth's aged care residential program. The strategy involves a combination of funding and legislative and policy changes with significant effects on all elements of the aged care industry. The strategy is underpinned by four basic philosophical points and here consultation with the aged community, with the pensioner groups and so on is obvious: Firstly, that aged and disabled people should, as far as possible, be supported in their own homes in their own communities; secondly, that aged and disabled people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs; thirdly, that services should be provided in an atmosphere and using processes which promote, as far as possible, rehabilitation and restoration of independent functioning; and fourthly, that services should be based on a recognition that for many people discharge to a less supported residential service or to a community based support service will be a possible and desirable outcome. The Government recognised that it would not be prudent or appropriate to attempt to bring about overnight the major changes proposed. Transforming broad policy objectives into detailed program implementation is a complex task which cannot be undertaken without the close involvement and co-operation of service providers, consumer and professional bodies. And, to avoid jeopardising the well-being of the 110,000 frail aged people in various forms of residential care, the changes have to be gradual and timing must reflect the long lead times involved in industry adjustment, major capital works, staff re-training, and so on. The program of reform to implement the strategy, therefore, is comprised of eight stages up to 1996 and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident that my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler, the author of the report referred to earlier, will give greater detail of that strategy. I would like to refer now to our partners in this continuing dialogue-the pensioner groups who are here this week. While supporting the reforms aimed at better standards for residents in residential care, they point to the absence still of an effective complaint system. The Australian Pensioners Federation is calling on the Government for a commitment to fund a pilot project, a proposal that was developed by a working party for an 18-month trial, employing an independent consultant to establish a complaints office and an evaluation committee to monitor and assist. The Australian Pensioners Association has not only my strong endorsement of this proposal but also that of many of my colleagues and I am very hopeful indeed that it will be implemented and funded by the Government in the very near future. In relation to health care, the pensioner groups who are here-and health care of course is crucial to the quality of life of aged people-this week and next week also have a great deal to say. The Australian Pensioners Federation points out that it is pensioners who have been the major victims in the campaigns against Medicare waged by recalcitrant doctors and specialists which has led to the current situation of over 40 per cent of older people taking out private health insurance. In fact, as the Pensioners Federation has said, a number of people have in fact been conned; many pensioners have been persuaded or conned into believing that private health insurance will give them immediate access to treatment and quality care. It is disgraceful that people should be so misled and in fact the Australian Pensioners Federation urges the Federal Government to ensure that the health system is not held to ransom or suffer budget cuts. They point out that it is time to build the health system again, not to further weaken its base. Not only have we been attempting to build and endorse the public health system ever since we came into government with the establishment of Medicare; we will continue to endorse the public hospital system and the public health system and to ensure a comprehensive insurance system through Medicare. On the contrary, the Liberals-the Opposition-have been doing their best to destroy Medicare and are pledged to end bulk billing. I could not agree with the pensioner groups more in their putting a priority on the continued support for Medicare. I would remind them and the Opposition of the information that was brought to light last year, that the Opposition actually had a plan for its first 100 days in government providing for $2 billion worth of spending cuts in the first week in government and $5 billion within the three months after that. Of course that meant that there was going to be heavy pruning in social welfare, health and housing programs. The Opposition's secret agenda included cutting pensions and tightening eligibility, certainly cutting the Medicare rebate and ending bulk billing, and increasing charges for pharmaceutical benefits. So much for the Opposition's concern for the quality of life of the aged community in Australia. I might say, of course, that the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), denied that any of these moves would affect pensioners or the underprivileged. That, in fact, was despite comments by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, who, in fact had to refuse to give a guarantee that spending on programs for the aged and the disadvantaged would not be cut under a Howard government. Returning to the people who are advising us all this week and next week, the representatives of the pensioner organisations are also very aware of the fact that an information campaign is needed on the status of the health system and particularly on waiting lists. They say that honest and straightforward information, for example, can help to restore confidence in public hospitals, confidence that has been undermined by the attacks from the Opposition and from the doctors organisations. Again, I heartily endorse this proposal and I am sure the Government would be very happy, as the Australian Pensioners Federation says, actively to promote the public hospital system and inform people of the choices that they have within that system. Mr Deputy Speaker, the pensioner groups are also very strongly putting to us the importance of their being consulted, of their views being taken into consideration. I think this very motion serves to remind the community and certainly those opposite that we have listened to representatives of the aged community ever since we have been in government. The pensioner organisations, while asking for even further consultation, certainly endorse the important policy changes that have occurred in the areas of home and community care, community health, the residential programs, hostels, nursing homes, et cetera, and disability services during the period of our Government. They are now, as the pensioner groups say, at important stages of implementation and the Australian Pensioners Federation asks for continued consultation in the implementation of these programs. I can assure the Pensioners Federation that that will occur. We have depended on it in the past and we still do. The policies of this Government on the care of the elderly will set the scene for changing the existing balance between providing intensive care through nursing homes and providing appropriate community services and hostel options. The process of change is gradual and it is essential that all through that program it will be monitored. We have committed ourselves now to providing the significant additional resources needed to achieve a better match between the needs and wishes of aged people through action now to expand alternative residential and community services. The Government has listened to the community in developing its framework. It will continue to do so. The end result will be a very different approach from the way aged care is provided, from the approach which has been adopted in the past and the better programs are beginning to be implemented now. This approach will provide greater choice to meet the needs of individual aged people throughout the Australian community. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is what this motion is all about-a recognition of our goals, our achievements to date and our determination to work with the aged community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Ms Fatin —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(1.04) —This motion before the House today is typical of the Hawke Government. It is irrelevant; it is sanctimonious; it is self-congratulatory and it is out of touch because it does not deal with the reality of the issues that concern aged people, retired people and people about to retire in the Australian community today. It is for that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we move an amendment to that motion to permit members of this House to debate issues which are of genuine and current concern to those people in the Australian community who have retired or who are contemplating their retirement. I move: That all the words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: This House condemns the Hawke Labor Government's discriminatory attacks on people who have retired or are about to retire from the Australian work force, for its failure to develop a comprehensive retirement incomes policy, and for causing insecurity and uncertainty amongst nursing home residents and for its autocratic approach to the implementation of changed nursing home funding arrangements.' That amendment to this motion will be seconded by my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and he will speak to it later in the debate. It could well have been seconded by Barrie Unsworth, the embattled and doomed Premier of New South Wales because what is really important to the Australian people, particular by the people of New South Wales right now, is what this Government intends to do about superannuation. They are not interested in hearing pious platitudes about schemes and programs that have been introduced and that have not worked. We heard the home and community care (HAAC) program referred to. It has been introduced; it is a good program; it was supported by those of us on this side of the House. But what happened? The New South Wales Labor Government robbed the funding out of it and spent it on public hospitals and not home and community care. The issue today that is burning in the minds of people about to retire, who are contemplating retirement, is what the Hawke Labor Government is planning to do about superannuation; whether they can afford to retire, whether they can afford to live their lives with some sort of security and some reasonable standard of living, whether they will be charged to live in a nursing home, and whether there will be a means test on it. Let me go through the history of this Government on superannuation and retirement income. It is a disgraceful history. In 1983 at an economic summit, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave Mr MacBean, who is President of the Labor Council in New South Wales, an undertaking: `We are not going to tax superannuation'. What immediately happened after that? The Hawke Labor Government introduced a lump sum superannuation tax. Perhaps that is why Mr Unsworth, who is a colleague of Mr MacBean and had his job previously, is aware that you cannot rely on one word that comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth. I think the Prime Minister in Question Time yesterday made it abundantly clear that he does not really give two hoots or a fig for Mr Unsworth or the consequences of his Government's decisions for retired people. Yesterday in Question Time the Prime Minister said in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about the Government's intentions on superannuation: `The Treasurer and I have repeatedly stated that in comprehensively reviewing business taxation the question of the treatment of superannuation simply must arise'. He went on to say that there will be a review of superannuation concessions and the Government announced that at Budget time. He then said: `I am obviously not prepared to rule in or to rule out of our review any aspect of the business tax system'. It is abundantly clear that this Government has its greedy eyes on and cotton-picking hands around the necks of Australians' superannuation savings. It has had these plans for some considerable time. It is not a recent thought; it has been planning it for some time. In fact, there has been an interdepartmental committee looking at superannuation funds and ways they could be taxed. One of the options that have been considered and are pretty high on the agenda is a retrospective tax on lump sum superannuation payouts. One can imagine what that is going to do to people's retirement plans. They have been working for 35 years or more, paying in weekly or monthly to a superannuation scheme, doing without things as they work to save for their retirement, and Paul Keating and Bob Hawke-the Treasurer and the Prime Minister-intend to introduce a new tax on lump sums. They promised Mr MacBean in 1983 that they would not do it. They did it then and, let me tell you, they probably have every intention of doing it again. They are also planning a tax on superannuation fund income. So that honourable members will have some understanding of how significant that is, I remind them that there is about sixty billion dollars of Australians' money in superannuation funds. It is not Government money; it is money that belongs to the average Australian worker. And what is this Government proposing to do? To tax the earnings. What that really means is that the payout that those funds can pay to the people who have been paying in over the years will be significantly reduced, and if the earnings are taxed at, say, 48c or 35c, the payout is that much less-48 per cent less or 35 per cent less. Think what that is going to do to the retirement plans of an Australian. We are talking about an estimated income of about 12 billion dollars for superannuation funds on an Australia-wide basis. If the Government grabs, say, a third of that, what is it getting? It is getting an extra four billion dollars a year to fund its wasteful expenditure programs. It is no wonder the Premier of New South Wales recognises that the move to tax people's retirement savings is his political death knell. Of course, there are other plans that are under consideration by this Government in terms of retirement income. It is talking about completely blocking access to lump sum payments. That is an ideological move because what the Government really does not want is for any Australian to have access to any capital, because it does not believe in it-this is a socialist government. Let me tell you that I believe that this country would be a lot better off if we had a large number of small investors; if the country was not run by the cronies of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer; if our capital markets were actually based upon the medium-sized investments of hundreds of thousands of Australians, who saved during their working lives and were able to invest it after they retired. I am not particularly sanguine about the prospect of Australia being run by the cronies of the Prime Minister because that is what we are rapidly heading towards. We have seen it in the media; we have seen it in just about every other industry; and now under this Government's plans we are determined to make sure that small people in Australia never have the opportunity to be rich once in their life. People who work for 35 or 45 years and save on a weekly basis have an entitlement to get the money they have put aside, to use it for their own purposes and to benefit from having that capital security; but not according to the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party says, `We are considering blocking access to lump sum payouts totally'. That is an option that is being considered and when that happens all the money will have to be put in the hands of the large insurance companies, concentrating the control of capital in the hands of a few large investors so that our capital markets are again run by a small number of extremely large companies, some of which, if not most of which, have got significant overseas shareholding. I think-I have said it before, and I am sure most people on this side of the House believe-that the average Australian is entitled to keep his own money; he is entitled to invest it as he sees fit; he is entitled to benefit from it; and he is entitled to put his money back into Australia. We do not want to hand it to big insurance companies that are probably run out of Zurich, or somewhere else in Europe or out of America. The Government is also considering tighter income tests and tighter assets tests to discourage people from taking lump sum superannuation. It is considering removing the employer deductions for contributions to superannuation funds. One can imagine what that will do to the preparedness of industry to support superannuation planning. Blind Freddy knows that we have a problem building in this country. Our demography is such that by about 2005 the number of people who will be retiring and looking for retirement income will be quite significant. Our social security system cannot cope with it. Our only hope is to have a genuine, privately-based superannuation scheme operating right throughout this country. If the incentive from employers to sponsor and promote this superannuation is removed, what hope have we got of coping with the increasing greying of the Australian population. This mob on the other side of the House knows what the demography is but for short term, politically expedient reasons, they are considering taxing super funds because the chickens will not come home to roost for 10 or 15 years. By then the Treasurer will be living in the South of France, collecting clocks, and the Prime Minister will probably be running the International Labour Organisation. It will just be the people left in Australia who will have to cope with the consequences of their short-sighted and expedient policies. But of course the damage will have been done and it will be almost impossible to recoup and regroup from that situation. The Government is talking about including superannuation as part of its fringe benefit tax arrangements. The net consequence of all of this is that there will be less superannuation, less private retirement planning and more pressure on social security and more pressure on the tax system and the tax rates will go up. That is the sort of government we are talking about. Barrie Unsworth knows it. If he was not facing an election he would be quiet. John MacBean knows that you cannot rely on what the Prime Minister has said. He was told one thing in 1983, and what happened in 1984? The Australian aged population, the retired population, knows exactly what happens. They planned their retirement on no assets test and they copped an assets test. They planned their retirement on no lump sum superannuation tax; we have a lump sum superannuation tax. The Prime Minister has had an interdepartmental committee working for years, working out how he can get a few more dollars here and there, how he can rip it out of the savings of Australians, people who really do not have that much time left in the work force to save. Government supporters will come in here and rant and rave about airline pilots and big payouts, but we are not talking about that; we are talking about the average Australian, people who belong to union schemes. They are not the best schemes in the world but they do provide something for retirement. We are talking about people who are in the Public Service, people who are in private industry, earning modest incomes and looking forward to modest payouts. And what is this Government going to do? It is going to fund its profligate expenditure, its failure to come to grips with the need for expenditure control by taxes and more taxes-17 new taxes in five and a bit years. And we are looking down the barrel of the grandaddy of all taxes, a tax on one's retirement income. The consequences of that are horrific and that is why Barrie Unsworth is running scared and that is why this Government ought to be ashamed about what it is planning. Earlier in this debate we heard the sponsor of this motion talk about the Government's proud record in terms of retirement care for Australians. It is an absolute disgrace; it is being autocratic and bureaucratic. The Government proposes financial changes for July of this year which are going to have a dramatic impact on the nursing home industry. It has decided that bureaucrats in Canberra can determine what it costs to keep an Australian in nursing home care, irrespective of the State, the climate, the type of institution and the person's state of health, how frail he or she is. This is to be foisted on the industry on day one and we are going to see what happens. It is going to be chaotic and the industry is quite concerned about it. I have a proposition to put to the Government today and it is a reasonable proposition. If it does not accept it I would like to know why. Why do we not do a field trial? Why do we not do a one-off trial in a government-owned and controlled nursing home before it implements this for the entire industry? There is a particular nursing home here in Canberra that is government-owned, government-run and government-staffed. Why do we not apply the Government's new funding arrangements to that nursing home before the rest of the industry has to work under it and see how it operates? Let us do it from 1 March through to 30 June, a three-month trial and see whether it works. If it works the industry will have more confidence in what is proposed. If it does not work, the Government has the opportunity to recover and to change the scheme without causing chaos from Townsville to Perth. It is a simple request, it could be easily done, it is not going to cost a lot of money and it is the sort of thing the Government should be doing before it implements such radical changes Australia-wide. We have seen the insecurity that has been caused in Victoria as a result of fairly dramatic changes, decisions taken in Canberra and implemented in Victoria with nursing homes going broke. To save its political neck down there, the Labor State Government had to step in and underwrite nursing homes because of the consequences of decisions taken by this Government here in Canberra. What we are about to see on 1 July is a far more widespread proposal for change in funding arrangements than the Victorian changes. What we really should have is a bit of practical experience about those changes before we foist them on the entire Australian community. I think it is quite a reasonable request; if it works, well and good. If it does not work, we have the chance to change it before we cause trauma and suffering for a lot of people living in nursing homes. It is important, Mr Deputy Speaker, to recognise that people who are in nursing homes do not have the capacity to cope with change the way you or I or other members of this House do. It causes great insecurity, concern and worry for them. It puts stress and perhaps extra financial burden on their families. It is quite a reasonable request and I would hope seriously that the Government would consider it and implement it. I am quite happy to co-operate. I do not want to score political points. It is a genuine request and it would be of considerable benefit to the industry. It might repair some of the damage in terms of image and public relations that has been done by the Department throughout the industry. We are not just talking about the private industry; we are talking about the voluntary industry, the church-run homes as well, because the entire industry, without exception, is extremely concerned at the changed financial arrangements that are proposed and the way they are being brought in. There has been precious little consultation. There is a need to review the way that nursing homes are funded, but let us make sure that when we review it we review it properly and the changes will work. Let us do a trial. It is a reasonable way to do it; if this was a commercial enterprise we would have a trial run first. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Goodluck —I second the amendment. Ms FATIN(Brand)(1.19) —We have just heard an absolute nonsense from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) on the opposite side of this House. Today we heard him bring in his amendment to this House in part of which he suggested that it is we, on this side of the House, who are causing insecurity and uncertainty amongst nursing home residents and the aged people in Australia. It seems to be a practice of the conservative parties in this country to go out there and frighten our aged people whenever they feel that there is political capital to be gained. I am sure that people in this House and elsewhere will remember the example of the assets test. Now with the New South Wales election looming we have again this practice of scaring aged people. I find that absolutely intolerable and I would like to think that many members of this House would also feel that way. The honourable member suggested that this is an irrelevant Government motion and that we are out of touch. I would suggest that this is not the case, taking first the home and community care (HACC) program itself, the one that I wish to address today. I believe that the aged people in Australia, and their relatives, need to be reassured about this program. It has been operating since 1985 and thousands of people in Australia are being assisted by the program. But I believe, as a person who has worked in the field of caring for the aged, that we still have to reassure the families of frail and aged people that their mothers and fathers and other relatives can, in fact, remain in the community with the support of this program. I have for a long time taken an interest in the development of a program such as this because for many years now I have spent time in the community, caring for the aged. It was one of the sad parts of my life that many people went into nursing homes far too early and could, with a little bit of assistance, have stayed in the community and not gone into institutional care. I would have thought that the Opposition might have felt that this debate was worthy of their interest, rather than bringing in a political point-scoring amendment to this motion. I want now to address myself further to the home and community care program. In Australia up to now institutional care has provided most of the solutions for people who are old and becoming frail, or people who are young and are either intellectually or physically disabled. The HACC program, as it is known, and other program initiatives such as the Disability Services Act 1986, introduced by this Government, have changed the pattern of service delivery and the options for the aged or disabled people in this country. As our proceedings are being broadcast today, I would like to make it known to the people who are listening that this program is a cost-shared program of financial assistance for recurrent or capital purposes to assist community organisations and local State or Territory governments to provide services to support those people living at home who are frail or at risk of going into nursing homes and also to support younger disabled persons and their carers. As I said earlier, the HACC program was established in 1985 in response to a variety of reports over several years which recommended a change in the balance between institutional and community-based services for aged persons and persons with disabilities. These reports had been shaped by accumulated evidence provided by service providers and user groups and identified the need to improve the planning and delivery of community-based services if they were to be effective in supporting people to remain in the community. It really was terrible to see the number of the people who were leaving A-class hospitals and who were unable to go home, Mr Deputy Speaker, because they did not have anybody who was in their home to actually care for them. Often the level of care required was quite basic. A number of these people would have to be placed in institutions and in following up these people we often found that they were not then able to leave those institutions and return to their homes because their families or legal advisers had to make provisions for the care of those homes. Often they lost their homes and were not able to return to them. I was delighted to see that the Hawke Government was prepared to develop and implement a program such as the HACC program and negotiate with the States so that they would join us in delivering this service to people all around Australia. While progress might not always be as rapid as one might hope, HACC was established with objectives which were applauded, as the honourable member for Richmond said, by all sides of this House when the program was introduced. It was also supported by all States. The aim was to offer a wider range of living options to frail, aged and disabled people and to avoid, as I have said, unnecessary and costly institutional care admissions. Amongst the aged there are probably two main target groups. The first is those aged people, mainly women, who have lost the partner and the security that goes with having someone to do the heavy housework or gardening and minor repairs and house maintenance. These people can seek help through HACC to stay in the community if they wish, with only an intermittent although regular need for HACC's services. The second group is mostly those aged people over 80, again largely women, who have become frail and have an increasing need for a range of HACC's services, including home nursing and personal care, shopping and transport, if they are to be maintained in their homes and avoid the need for nursing home care. It is these people who represent a challenge because population projections in Australia show that a 75 per cent increase in the 80-plus population will occur over the next 10 years and it is absolutely imperative that we not only support the HACC program as it is now but also develop it even further and encourage people in the community to recognise that there is not the need to go into nursing homes because no government is going to be able to afford to maintain the growth as it has occurred over recent years. It is certainly this Government's intention to do just that, to maintain support for these people at home. Amongst the younger disabled, again few people have had options in the past other than institutional care and HACC potentially offers assistance both to these people and to their carers to help them to stay in the community and avoid institutional solutions. Respite care, personal care and other support services are available to assist and there are, of course, other Commonwealth and State programs which assist this target group. There are still a number of challenges, however. The HACC program brought together four pieces of pre-existing legislation, all variously cost shared with State governments and most administered by different State government departments. This has meant that there are many competing objectives for the use of HACC funds and often different planning regions used for the delivery of different service elements. In my own electorate in Western Australia in recent weeks I have had constituents approach me about the cutbacks in the area of home help. One of the reasons is that as numbers of people stay at home and as numbers of people are discharged from hospital, there is a greater demand for this service and with people being discharged these days earlier from hospital than they used to be, often they require two or three services so that they cannot be required actually to look after their own homes. Most people who are frail, aged or disabled need a package of services to meet their needs. They may need regular home help or personal care services, home nursing and delivered meals and they need all of these guaranteed in a package if they are to avoid the need for institutional care. This is not easy to achieve. Home nursing is mostly run by State health departments on a particular geographic basis and home help, perhaps by State welfare departments on another geographic basis. Delivered meals and transport and other services may be run by other instrumentalities all with different priorities and different areas. In the past this did not present any problems as most services provided to the aged people at home were needed to meet a crisis and were for short periods only associated with hospital admissions or respite for regular carers. I would like to acknowledge here the contributions towards this type of care that service groups in Australia have delivered. They have spent many hours in many regions in Australia helping people who are at home and who require assistance at one time or another. But it was found that they were not able to deliver a regular enough service and this wide range of services, although some of the service groups are still involved. Of course many of the meals on wheels that are delivered to frail people in their homes are delivered by volunteers. There is still a high level of volunteer commitment in the home and community care program. The competing demands on HACC for resources are hard to resolve and the need to establish who is being assisted and who is missing out is vital if a more equitable spread of services is to be established in the future. The rush to provide alternatives to institutional care by both the Federal and State governments must be tempered with planning and a need to ensure a balance between community and institutional solutions. Issues for resolution include how to package services and how to meet the competing demands for scarce resources under HACC from different types of groups. These include people needing care at home on leaving hospital or care at home for the dying and those whom the program is now expected to target, because both those groups that I have just mentioned were not going to be the recipients of this type of care. But it is very difficult indeed when you are delivering a service on the ground to exclude, for instance, an 85-year-old person who is to be discharged from hospital and who may require only a few days of home help from the person in the community who had been considering going into a nursing home. Those distinctions have been very difficult and I understand that in some areas in Australia they have not yet been able to be resolved. The frail, aged and younger disabled need ongoing care to stay at home and they need to be kept out of institutions also. The pressure on our hospital systems and on our nursing home programs is growing and so are the needs and demands of members of our community for a wider array of choices. These are matters that the HACC review, now being undertaken with the States, will undoubtedly address over the next six months. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said when I began my few remarks, I totally endorse and am very pleased to second this motion moved by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) and, as I have also said, my personal interest in this area has been long. I am proud to see that this program has been put in place and I would like to assure the aged people in Australia that there is now a program which enables them to plan their lives at home for far longer than they might otherwise have done. Many of us have had experiences where we have heard 50-year-olds talking about selling their homes and preparing to enter age villages, preparing their way into nursing homes. We hope that this will not be necessary in the future and that people will be able to feel confident in staying in their own homes well into their 80s and even their 90s. With the assistance that this program can give them with meals, with home help, with shopping, with transport to and from towns to see doctors and visit hospitals, they will be able to feel confident, as will their relatives, that they are able to remain in their homes if they wish and this will make for a far healthier and happier community. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(1.34 p.m.) —I will try to be nice and calm and not let my blood pressure get up. They tell me that this is being broadcast tomorrow night so that is a chance, is it not? One can argue about assistance to the aged and argue politically but I do not think we would win many Brownie points out of it because the aged really know the people who care for them. They really know the politicians, I think, who assist them. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) is very well intentioned, no doubt. I have no axe to grind with her or with the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) except that sometimes they say that it is only the Labor Party that cares for the aged, the frail and the sick. It is never any conservative and I suppose I am a conservative, am I not? It is never any conservative, because they do not care. In 12 years as a politician, in an electorate, one spends a lot of time really as a very high-paid social worker. With most of the work that we do we may not get on the world stage to talk about uranium, we may not get on the world stage to talk about the greenies and saving the forests and the trees, et cetera, et cetera, but we do a lot of work within our electorates trying to help the aged and the infirm of this country. They know it, and if they listen to this speech tomorrow night in Hobart, they will know the ones who really care for them and that we do our best, within a very small framework, to develop possible help and assistance to them. I hear all this talk about keeping the aged in their own homes. I wonder who is going to look after them. I read in the Melbourne Age that there is a certain section of Victoria where the organisers cannot even get people to help with meals on wheels. Sometimes I think that we are a rotten, selfish lot. If we can tip our elderly parents out-I have not got any-as easily as we can without any fuss and bother, we will do it. There are a lot of people in Australia who should be able to look after their elderly parents, but they do not. There are a lot of others, I know-and I get attacked about this every time I mention it-who, because of circumstances, cannot look after them. But I think collectively, if we all got together, we could make it even better for our elderly citizens of Australia. We are an ageing population and we have to face it, and there have been many editorials written about it over the last couple of years. Incidentally, I am going to cut my speech short today by five minutes to give my colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge) a go. He is a doctor and I will be very interested to listen to what he has to say. I am quite prepared to give five minutes of my valuable time, because I will have plenty of other times to get on to this subject, as we all know. Mr Duncan —Do you mean that he will not? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I will. I will be back. You had better look after your aged in-laws in Tasmania, too. They tell me they are very nice people. Mr Duncan —Yes, they are. They are coming to stay on Tuesday. Mr GOODLUCK —That is good. Talking about aged in-laws and talking about people, people are different, and elderly people are different. Some get very old early, we all know that; some do not. My mother-in-law, for example, is 92. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who is at the table, my friend, would understand why I make mention of this. Her name is Mrs Counsel. She is 92 years of age and lives by herself at St Helens, which is a lovely little town, 165 miles from Hobart. She looks after her own home; she does the gardening, rides a pushbike to collect the mail and sees to the other necessities of life, but she does not want anybody else to look after her up there. She does not want any domiciliary care. She believes that they come and they have to do only certain things. They have certain requirements, and I can understand that; they are not allowed to lift the mats and sweep under them, they are not allowed to do this and not allowed to do that. So the point that I make is that if we are going to give reassurance to the elderly of Australia, to say `Stay in your own homes and you will be looked after', there could be a few flaws with that and there could be problems, because we just have not got the army of people who could stay in their own homes and look after the elderly people of Australia. So, of course, people are different. There we have one woman, aged 92, with good health, and the drive that she wants to stay there. She lost her husband up there and she wants to stay. There are others who, of course, at 92, are well past it, if I may term it that way. They need help and attention. So we cannot just use an example across the board and say: `Everybody stay in your own homes. You know you will be looked after'. It just does not work that way. So I think we have some critical problems in the area of the aged and we need to look at them and we need to take up the challenge. I know that the Government will say that it is doing the best. Probably it is, too. There were 200 pensioners out there yesterday complaining. I do not know who they are. They say that they have an axe to grind, on superannuation most probably. Governments do not understand that everybody is not the same, that there are a lot of elderly people who have saved a few dollars and they want to be independent. There are others who, because of circumstances, and because sometimes of their own circumstances, might have led a life of drink; they might have gone to the races, et cetera, et cetera and have no money, so they want governments to prop them up. They are in a different category-and I do not like to categorise-so you have to be very careful when you start saying to the elderly of Australia, `Look, I am sorry, we are going to take your little bit of pension that you have stored away', because they are all different. Of course, you have people going crook at you at a certain time. The honourable member for Chisholm will not be able to speak in this debate and I am sorry about that but he will have plenty of other opportunities. He is going to be a very good member, that is for sure, and I know that he has care and dedication for the elderly of Australia. He should not take it from the Labor Party when it says that we do not care, because there are many of us who care passionately about the elderly of Australia and we say it at every opportunity. We have also introduced many things that have assisted the elderly of Australia, so the honourable member for Phillip should not say consistently that it is all, all, all the Labor Party. Mr Leo McLeay —Name 10 things that you did. Mr GOODLUCK —I could name you 50, Leo, and you know it. Mr Leo McLeay —Just name ten. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I have not time to waste on that. I have done plenty myself; I could name a hundred. As to the challenge in the ageing population in recent years, Australia, along with most parts of the Western world, has been undergoing a slow but steady ageing of its population, the implications of which have only just begun to be recognised. In fact, the greying of Australia poses a significant challenge for governments and the community in general, and, like the post-war baby booms, will involve new forms of social planning and policy. Before the end of the century, one in every seven people will be 65 years or more, a substantial increase in the present figure of one in every 10. This transition will be more dramatic, involving as it does a modification to the popular theme of a young person's world which, since the end of World War II, has been a dominant force in the Western culture. Indeed, changing the community's perception of the aged will be an important part of meeting the social revolution now in progress. The aged have not always been encouraged to take an active part. I have said that their lobby sometimes is not very sophisticated. Of course, a few will come forward and look after them and say certain things about them but the lobbying of the conservation movement and the uranium movement is always very sophisticated and upfront. I noted that it has been indicated that we as Liberals should start getting into bed with the greenies. No way will I be getting into bed with the greenies; no way will I give way to them in Tasmania because they believe in only one thing-save the trees, save the dams, save the dogs and save the cats, but never save the people. I believe that as a Liberal Party, if we move closer to the average, ordinary person, we will succeed. The Labor Party, particularly in Tasmania, has lost touch because some of its members-not all of them-seem to think it is sophisticated, it is great to get involved with the greenies, to get involved with the conservationists, the anti-uranium miners. They seem to think that they are going to win out in the end but there are a lot of people starting to realise that we must stick to the grass roots, support the sick, support the elderly, and look after those poor workers who are never talked about in Tasmania by the Bob Browns and the Norm Sanderses who continually get on the Australian stage as being people who care. Tell me what they care for? They care for just that one singular thing: What they believe in; save the dam, save the trees, save the cats and dogs. I will not go on with it, because the honourable member for Braddon knows exactly what I am saying. If we start to make that thrust towards caring for these other groups of people, we will win out. I just issue a note of warning to my Party: Do not try to force me into bed with a greenie, because I will not go in. Indeed, changing the community perception of the aged will be an important part of meeting the social revolution now in progress. The aged have not always been encouraged to take an active part in the community after their formal retirement and have not had suggestions to them that they are not old when they retire. It should be painted as a new life, that they can get involved in certain things and I think that is what we need to develop. I would like to see a couple of programs initiated. Let us face it, women live a lot longer than men, so there are many women who, because of the sudden death of their husbands, are left by themselves. They have led a life of being in the kitchen and being a mother. You very rarely hear the feminists talk about this particular area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duncan) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr GOODLUCK —We never hear the feminists talking about the lady who has been at home looking after the children and has never had an opportunity to go to work and, all of a sudden, loses her husband. Then the difficulties start to occur in looking after the house, looking after the garden, et cetera, et cetera. So there is a problem area there. We should not just start talking about those women who have been career women. Let us start talking about those types of women who need special care and attention. Then because of, regrettably, the high marriage breakup rate in Australia, many men are marrying again. They are getting older and getting married and having children. They cannot cope with that situation. So I think there is another area there. Mr Leo McLeay —Are they not marrying women? Mr GOODLUCK —Of course they are. We should start to look at these sorts of things rather than keep continually talking about these radical groups that make me weep because they get all the attention, they get all the media play, they get everything. But the ordinary Australian couples and families get very little attention. The honourable member for Braddon knows about the workers down the Huon Valley. The poor devils might lose their jobs because they are not going to cut down trees. They may lose their jobs and those greenies and conservationists continually get all the byplay, they get every bit of the airwaves in Australia, and in Tasmania particularly, but nobody cares about the workers. The point that I make is that we as politicians should start listening to those silent minority groups; for example, the ageing of Australia, who do not have the sophisticated lobbies. We should start listening to those people a little more and then we will be far better off in this country. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(1.48) —The debate that we have heard for the last hour in this House has been on the motion put forward by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) relating to the home and community care program and the Government's emphasis on providing a range of residential options for the aged and the development of quality standards of care for the aged in nursing homes. This debate and the contributions we have heard from the Opposition, I suppose, highlight the absolute paucity of policy there is in the Opposition ranks as it relates to the way government ought to be run in Australia. We heard a few moments ago from the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who seemed to speak about everything except the matter before the House at present. We heard him talk about marriage breakups, which is a matter which should be discussed by the Parliament, but not today. We heard him talk about the environment, which is a matter which should be discussed by the Parliament, but not today. We heard him talk about nearly everything except anything that would enhance the situation of elderly Australians. It just goes to show, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, what contempt the Liberal Party has for elderly Australians that it would put up the member for Franklin with that rather air-fairy contribution he made as its contribution to what we should be saying about elderly Australians. Prior to him we heard from the man who specialises in the policies of envy and fear, one of the Opposition's front bench spokesmen, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). The honourable member for Richmond also showed in his contribution of 15 minutes not a scintilla of policy; nothing about what the Opposition might do for the elderly folk in Australia. There was no policy, just fear, trying to scare old people into what he thought might happen. It shows again that all the National Party can troop out at any time is the sort of hillbilly League of Rights stuff that comes from the back blocks of the honourable member for Richmond's electorate. I thought it was a rather sick joke, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear the honourable member for Richmond talking about a tax system, and how the tax system mighty harm the elderly, remembering that his party endorsed the proposition of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, in the last election. It is a party that really has an $11 billion tax credibility gap and to hear the Opposition spokesman stand up here in an aged care debate and try to talk about tax matters really stretches the imagination a little bit too far. In this debate I want to join with the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) and the honourable member for Phillip in outlining a few of the very very decent things that the Hawke Government has done in the aged care area. The Hawke Government has a good story to tell about our achievements in the aged care area. Compared with the record of the previous Fraser Government, in which the present Opposition Leader was the Treasurer, our progress has been outstanding. In aged care, the Hawke Government has provided for people. For the first time in many, many years in Australia elderly Australians have a choice about whether they should stay at home to live out their years in the peace and security which they would like, or to go into an institution. Under the previous Liberal Government the only option was institutionalisation. If there was anything that damned the previous Liberal Government in its approach to the aged care system in Australia, it was the fact that for 10 long years it did nothing about overcoming the institutionalisation which has crept into the area. Before talking about the home and community care (HAAC) scheme, I would just like to reiterate a little about the pension system because in the amendment that was moved by the honourable member for Richmond he raised the question of financial considerations for people in retirement. I believe that one of the strongest planks in Labor's platform, and our most consistent election promise, has been the maintenance of living standards for Australia's two million pensioners. I am pleased to say that the Government has matched with actual hard cash the rhetoric of our statements in the past, when we said that we intended to bring pensions up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In June 1987, the pension rate equalled 24.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. Labor has wiped out the callous legacy of disregard for pension incomes under the previous Liberal Government. The pension rate was as low as 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings when we came into government. It is important to remember those sorts of things, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under the Liberal and National Party Government pensions were as low as 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. They are now up to 24.8 per cent. The Labor Party will have added $38.85 to the standard pension, which I think is a very laudable situation. Substantial allocation of funds has been needed to achieve those goals. In this financial year indexation increases in the pension alone will add over one billion dollars to government outlays. I must say that the Labor Government is quite happy to spend that billion dollars in securing retirement incomes for elderly Australians. More than one billion dollars more is to go into the pockets of pensioners at a time when there has been continuing restraint in government spending and community incomes. Compare that with the mean years of the Fraser Government. Let us not forget that Mr Howard, when he was the Treasurer, dropped indexation for a year. There was no pension rise from November 1978 to November 1979. The honourable member for Bennelong, when he was the Treasurer in the Fraser Government, let pensions drop in real terms by 2.4 per cent. But today the Opposition sends in the honourable member for Franklin to tell us about the trees in Tasmania, and other things, and the honourable member for Richmond to trot out a lot of financial tripe; when this Government, rather than getting up and knocking, the way the Opposition has been doing, has delivered the goods in aged persons funding. We have delivered the goods. We have done away with poverty traps in the retirement incomes system. There has been a significant lift in the free areas of income that people can earn and indeed recently we have come up with an earnings credit scheme which will allow people to earn $250 a week over short periods and not affect their pension entitlements. That was something that the Opposition when in Government never looked at. During the period the Labor Government has been in office, there has been an increase in pensions in real terms of 5.7 per cent and further assistance has been provided with the doing away of the poverty traps. That is something that we can be very proud of, and it is something that we, as a government, have done positively for retired Australians, compared with the rhetoric and the knocking of the Opposition. The only thing that I found of any real significance in the contribution of the honourable member for Franklin was that he was trying to draw to the attention of the House in his own rather whimsical way that there is a blow-out in the demographic trends in Australia at present. Between 1986 and 2021 the proportion of Australia's population aged over 65 is projected to increase from 10.5 per cent to 15.6 per cent. The fastest rate of growth will not occur until about 2011 when the post war baby boom turns 65. One of the ways of coping in the past with those changes in demography has been to speed up immigration programs. But we hear the Opposition knocking even that nowadays. I think the most important thing for the House to consider when looking at programs for the aged is the home and community care program that the Hawke Government has introduced. It indeed is a jewel in the crown of our programs for elderly Australians. Mr McGauran —Margaret Guilfoyle said that years ago. Mr LEO McLEAY —It is important to have a look at what the home and community care program says. In fact, if the ignorant honourable member for Gippsland, who has not been here long enough to remember too many things-in fact some people suggest that he has forgotten more things than he remembers-actually looked up the history books he would find that while Margaret Guilfoyle may have wanted to introduce something like the home and community care program the philistines in the Government in those days under Malcolm Fraser would never give her the money. Margaret Guilfoyle had her heart in the right place but the hard-headed and cold-handed people who had their hands on the Treasury operation in that day-to wit, the honourable member for Bennelong-were not willing to put the money into it. So the honourable member should not go telling me what he thought his Government might want to do for aged care because it did nothing. Under the Labor Government we have seen a very substantial improvement in facilities available for elderly Australians. We have seen community respite programs being brought in where people can help their elderly relations to stay at home with them. We have seen day care programs being brought in. We have seen community nursing programs expanded. We have seen home maintenance programs improved. Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that under the Labor Government elderly Australians have had income security improved; under the Labor Government elderly Australians have found that they can have a real choice in what happens with the rest of their lives. Under the Liberal Party when in Government the choice was either to get ill or go into a nursing home. There was absolutely no other choice that people had. The Labor Government has indeed significantly improved substantially the quality of life of elderly Australians and has put billions of dollars into improving that quality of life. We can stand here in this House today proud of the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has done many, many good things for elderly Australians. Not only have we ensured that pensions kept pace with inflation; but indeed, pensioners have found that they are in a better position than people in the work force. We have found that people have a choice about hostels, about living in their own homes and about what they want to do with the rest of their lives. Compare that with the empty rhetoric of the two people opposite who participated in this debate, the honourable member for Richmond, with his hillbilly approach to what should happen, and the honourable member for Franklin, with his whimsical approach to what should happen. The only choice is what the Hawke Labor Government has done-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! We have a point of order. Mr Goodluck —We would like to know what `whimsical' means. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104 as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. The honourable member for Grayndler will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that other than through dipping into his own exchequer, the New South Wales Premier has no capacity to reduce or negate any adverse taxation changes which this Government might make affecting people living in New South Wales who receive superannuation benefits? Mr HAWKE —This is an entirely hypothetical question. In regard to any changes that we make or might make, those announcements will be made at an appropriate time. I refuse to answer the hypothetical question. Mr JOHNS —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware of claims that the Federal Government is discriminating against the State of Queensland in the provision of funds for tertiary education, and that this is the reason why thousands of young Queenslanders have missed out on placement in higher education institutions this year? Will the Minister advise the House whether such claims are correct and, if they are, what is the true position? Mr DAWKINS —In recent times a campaign has been developed in Queensland which attempts to lay responsibility at the feet of the Commonwealth for the alleged under-provision of places in higher education in Queensland. In order properly to understand the situation, it is necessary to go back to the period before 1974 when the Commonwealth assumed the total responsibility for funding for universities and colleges. During that period in the lead-up to 1974 there was a massive under-expenditure by Queensland governments in relation to the provision of higher education opportunities in that State. Since that time successive Commonwealth governments have been doing what they can to try to redress the balance. Indeed, there has been a 23 per cent increase in Queensland since this Government was elected compared with an 18 per cent increase across Australia as a whole. Over the period since 1974 there has been a more rapid expansion of the Queensland higher education system than anywhere else in Australia. Let us look at another area that is also relevant to educational opportunities for young people, and that is the technical and further education (TAFE) sector, which was primarily the responsibility of the Queensland Government before 1974 and indeed is now. Rather than taking my word for it, one has only to refer to the words of the new Liberal leader in Queensland, who says that the Minister for Education in Queensland, Mr Littleproud, is concentrating his efforts on criticising us in relation to universities and colleges simply in order to divert attention from the poor performance of the Queensland Government in relation to TAFE. He says that in TAFE, which is a clear State responsibility, there is an underprovision in Queensland compared with the rest of Australia. This is an important issue. What the Commonwealth is keen to do in a co-operative sense with the Queensland Government is to overcome deficiencies in that system as fast as we can, but it cannot be done by us alone. it has to be done, particularly in TAFE, co-operatively. We would be much more likely to work co-operatively if the Minister for Education in Queensland were, first, to be accurate in the way in which he describes the situation, and if he were also inclined to be a little less belligerent. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the answer he gave to my first question. I remind him that yesterday he confirmed that a review of taxation arrangements on superannuation was under way and that he would not rule in or out any changes. I also remind him that the New South Wales Premier has asserted that he, the Premier of New South Wales, would protect superannuants in New South Wales from any adverse Federal taxation changes. In those circumstances will the Prime Minister please explain to me why my first question was hypothetical? Mr HAWKE —For the very simple reason that I have made it clear that there is a general review of the business tax system under way. I have made it clear, both inside and outside this House, that there could not be a review of the general business tax system without looking at the question of superannuation. Opposition members-Ah! Mr HAWKE —You are pathetic. I said, inside this House and outside it, that there are no proposals before this Government. Therefore, I hope that even the Leader of the Opposition will understand that his question is hypothetical. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. What is the Cairns group, the group of nations looking at trade, doing to promote progress in the Uruguay round of negotiations on agriculture? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member's question is timely, as I will be departing on Saturday for Bariloche, Argentina, to chair a ministerial meeting of the Cairns group. The group last met at a ministerial level in Ottawa last May, and since then there have been some very important developments in the negotiations taking place, particularly in Geneva. All the major participants-the European Community, Japan, the United States of America and the Cairns group-have tabled proposals for agriculture in this round. But there are important differences in the positions of the major parties. For example, the United States captured considerable publicity when it tabled a very ambitious proposal for all subsidies and access barriers to be eliminated by the year 2000. Unfortunately, that proposal fails to address the need for specific measures to bring early relief to problems in the agricultural area confronting trade in this sector. The European Community's proposal has yet to define the extent to which it sees agricultural supports being reduced over the longer term. It addresses short term actions, including emergency measures in commodity-specific areas. The proposal by Japan reflects its position as a net food importer and makes a strong attack on export subsidies, but it is weak in addressing the need for market-opening measures. It is true to say that the Cairns group proposal is the most comprehensive submitted. It covers measures aimed at bringing early relief and a progressive reform for achieving liberalised agricultural trade and strengthening the rules and disciplines in the longer term. We in the Cairns group want decisions taken about lifting trade barriers this year and there is consensus that a ministerial level mid-term review of the progress of the round will be held later this year, probably in Montreal in December. The task facing the Cairns group is to ensure that momentum in the Geneva negotiations is maintained during 1988 so that agriculture can be included in any early package of agreements reached by the time of the mid-term review. It is tremendously important that it is included in that mid-term review and the group will need to play a role in bridging the movement in the positions of the majors. The objective and strategy for achieving this will be at the forefront of the discussions and considerations in Argentina. It is not very often that one gets an opportunity to pay some compliment to someone in this House but the importance of the Cairns group is now recognised in the whole of the negotiations in this year's Uruguay Round. In chairing the meeting in Argentina, I must stress that the role played by my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education and Training in the Cairns group is appreciated not only here but also within the whole group. Mr REITH —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement on Tuesday last that he had not seen the document made available to me and his statement yesterday that the Minister for Justice did in fact pass him the material provided to the Minister by the Australian Federal Police including the two relevant paragraphs. I ask: On what date, at what time and by what means was the document passed to the Prime Minister? Does the existence of a police report of 15 June 1987 which notes, first, that `the operator (Federal Hotels) is run by a friend of PM-Mr Haddad' and, secondly, that the investigation should not be tied down to a date because `there are so many unknowns', in any way cause the Prime Minister to reconsider his endorsement of Senator Tate's claim that the Australian Federal Police had never had reservations about Dr Ho's involvement with Federal Hotels? Mr HAWKE —On the last part of the honourable member's question as to whether the existence of a police report leads me to reconsider-the answer is no. On the first part of the honourable member's question, as is confirmed by a transcript of a Press conference in Adelaide on 3 February, it can be seen that I had spoken to Senator Tate that morning and might be seeing some later material on this. But, from my conversation with him and from my reading of the report-that is, Steketee's report-what seems to have happened is that in fact I saw the material that day, 3 February. Mr Reith —Prior to that statement? Mr HAWKE —I saw the material that day. My colleagues travelling with me had had the material faxed to them and they had an opportunity to give their summary of it to me. I looked at it immediately after that and my position is, as I have said, that I saw the material on 3 February. On the basis of anything that has happened since then, I have no reasons to change the statements I have made inside this House and elsewhere in regard to the position of Senator Tate-none at all. Mr SCIACCA —Has the attention of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel been drawn to the report in Tuesday's Brisbane Courier-Mail indicating that the Queensland Government has finally seen the light and announced a change on the question of pay for reservists employed by the State Government? Is this move a part of the State Government's new found vision of excellence after the demise of the former Premier, as suggested by the article, or has some other factor contributed to its changed attitude on this matter? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Since when has this Minister been able to speak on the intentions or otherwise of the Queensland State Government? I do not mind what she prattles on about, but the honourable member should get his question right. It is a question to the Minister on the activities of the Queensland Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mrs KELLY —As of today I have had no official notification-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on the point of order. Could the Minister resume her seat? There can only be one person standing while I am around. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honour- able member for O'Connor has been asked to resume his seat. I now ask the Minister to continue with her answer. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. My further point of order is that there has been no ruling on this question and the question is clearly out of order. It relates to the activities of a Minister of the State Parliament of Queensland and is beyond the competence of this particular Minister. Madam SPEAKER —I expect that the Minister will be able to clear that up when she gives her answer. Opposition members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —Madam Speaker, I can see how little concern there is for this major issue of reservists' pay. I would have thought this was an issue of major concern to this Parliament, as it definitely is to this Government. At this stage the Government has received no official notification that the Queensland Government has changed its policy in relation to pay for reservists while in training. However, I understand that the Minister referred to has issued a Press release. I must inform the House that when I first heard of the Queensland Government's action I was very disturbed, not only because it undermined the nation's defence effort but also particularly because of the flow-on effect to the private sector. When I heard of the Queensland Government's action, I immediately asked the Prime Minister to intervene. I very much appreciate his prompt response. I will inform the House of the action of the Prime Minister. He wrote to the Premier of Queensland and advised him that no other State government had any intention of varying the conditions of service applying to its employees while undertaking full-time Reserve service. He pointed out to the Premier of Queensland how important the reservists are to the defence of this nation. I thank him very much for his prompt action in relation to this issue. Australia's Reserve force has been growing very strongly; morale and retention are very good, particularly since the reservists have found a new purpose and direction from the Defence White Paper. I appreciate the interest of the honourable member for Bowman. If the reports are correct I appreciate that the Queensland Government has changed its position and is prepared to support the defence of this nation. Mr REITH —I refer the Attorney-General to the two Australian Federal Police papers that he tabled in the House yesterday concerning the Tina Wong case. I ask: What are the specific allegations disclosed by Miss Wong's statement and referred to in Assistant Commissioner Lamb's report to the Attorney-General, dated 17 February 1988? What investigations were conducted into the allegations? What persons were interviewed? Did the investigations include interviewing Peter Anderson and his mother and, if not, why not? In the event that the Andersons and others were not interviewed, how were the senior investigating officers able to form the view, as indicated in Assistant Commissioner Lamb's report, that the allegations were unsubstantiated? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I welcome the question. The matters were tabled yesterday, on the basis, of course, that the information cannot be published; it is privileged to the members of this House. Yet I noticed that it was published in the Press and that the person responsible for the alleged political interference was the then Police Minister of New South Wales, Mr Peter Anderson. Mr Howard —He named himself. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He did not name himself at all. I make it very clear that the information was issued to the Press as a result of what was tabled here yesterday. That information further stated-and this is the reasonable part of the honourable member's question-that the alleged political interference was not confirmed. Because I thought the honourable member might ask this question, today I asked Mr Lamb to tell me what action was taken. I am now able to report this position, in view of the fact that it has now been said that Peter Anderson might have done something wrong which would amount to political interference. Mr Lamb told me that on either 1 or 2 May 1984, the investigating officer at that time, Detective Sergeant B. Healy, now Senior Constable-the man who has made the report-contacted the central police cells in Sydney and asked a police officer on duty whether Mr Anderson had visited Wong in the cells. He was told that no one had visited her. I am surprised that that information was not put in the constable's first report. I was surprised when I got the report yesterday that it did not refer to that matter, because it completely exonerates the Minister in New South Wales. Mr COURTICE —Is the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business aware of concern in sugarcane areas, particularly in my Federal division, about tariffs being placed on Angus irrigation hoses? Does the Minister know that this decision poses serious financial implications? What can farmers do about the decision? Mr BARRY JONES —I am well aware that in the area of the honourable member for Hinkler and some of the other sugarcane areas there is concern about this issue. I thank him for raising the question in the Parliament. Late in 1987 a number of broadly-framed tariff concessions were revoked because they permitted concessional entry of goods which competed directly with those of local manufacturers. A number of applications for concessions are presently under consideration for hoses which fall outside the range of local manufacture. One of these applications is being published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette for public comment. The remainder are still under consideration and all these applications for tariff concessions, if successful, will be made retrospective to late 1987. Mr PORTER —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Why were nearly all copies of a March 1986 government report dealing with fraud of $4 billion against the Commonwealth Government and the involvement of organised crime in government administration withdrawn and destroyed? What were the roles in the suppression of this report of former Minister Young and Senator Tate as responsible Ministers? Will the Attorney-General table the report? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will have inquiries made. The report was made to some other Minister and not to me. I have no recollection of what the honourable member is saying about destruction of the report. A report was made, as I understand it, from heads of departments. We will have a look at that to see what has happened. Whilst the report indicated that there were allegations of fraud within government departments, which at the time was running into a sizable amount of money, it also made very clear that there was no need for additional police resources but that there needed to be a tidying up of administrative procedures within departments. As the honourable member knows, it has been announced that the Government now has a task force with the various departments that is dealing with the matter of how to set up better procedures to prevent the continuation of fraud. Mr Howard —Will you table it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will table the report if I have it. I do not think it was given to me. Mr Howard —No; but could you get it from the other Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What Minister does the Leader of the Opposition have in mind? Mr LEE —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. What progress has been made towards the Government's 1984 commitment to create 20,000 child-care places? What contribution has been made by State governments? Dr BLEWETT —I point out first of all that, as with the other expanding social policies of this Government such as the family allowance supplement and the expanding home and community care program, our child care commitment is on target, despite the difficult economic circumstances in which we have to develop these programs. In 1984 the Prime Minister made a commitment that we would provide 20,000 child-care places by the end of 1988. I am happy to say that some 19,000 of those new places have been approved and should be operational by the end of this year. This will represent a major achievement in increasing the amount of affordable, quality child-care to those who need it. I should like to point out that this substantial achievement would not have been possible without the help of State and local governments and the community. I also note-I am sure the honourable member for Dobell would like it noted-that it is particularly important to acknowledge the very commendable and outstanding effort that has been made by the New South Wales Government towards the development of child-care. Indeed, its capital contributions have been outstanding. This partly explains the fact that 160 new child-care centres have been opened or approved in New South Wales since 1983. Of course, all States have made very significant contributions to the capital cost of child-care centres, but only New South Wales has provided the full capital cost for those centres earmarked for co-operative development with the Commonwealth. The New South Wales contribution in capital cost to child-care in the past three years has been more than $15m. The commitment of the New South Wales Government to child-care is further demonstrated by its very generous contribution to recurrent funding, which amounts now to approximately $6m a year. Mr IAN CAMERON —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Following his commitment at Question Time yesterday that there will be no time charging for local telephone calls, will he immediately instruct Telecom Australia to stop inflicting time charging for local calls in the present Countrywide Calling zones as these subscribers represent one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia, and that includes most of Maranoa? The Prime Minister will be aware that his failure to do so will signal to the people of Australia that he does not intend to stick to his commitment that no Australian will be time charged for local calls. Mr HAWKE —I do not issue instructions to Telecom. What I will do is to make clear not only to electors in the electorate of the honourable member for Maranoa but also to electors in all rural areas that they should be vigilant in ensuring that this Government continues in office. There is only one source from which they stand in any danger of having the existing subsidisation of country users under the Telecom system removed, and that is in the extraordinary, unlikely and unforeseeable event that that collection on the other side of the House should come into government. It would be only in those circumstances that the existing very considerable cross-subsidisation benefit which exists for country users would be removed. We are now talking about a hypothetical situation, but let us, for the sake of entertaining ourselves, think about it. Should there be a situation in which there were a coalition government I know that the honourable member would fight very strongly for the retention of the cross-subsidisation which gives benefits to country consumers. But let me tell the honourable member that he would be undermined, overcome, by the Liberals, as he knows, and they would have as a very firm ally the bloke they do not like having in their own Party, Senator Stone, who would be totally committed to the removal of that subsidy. Mr MILTON —Has the Attorney-General seen a report in yesterday's Age newspaper that the new Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Peter McAulay, has advocated the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism? Does he agree that it was most improper for the Federal Police Commissioner to advocate capital punishment when it is specifically excluded as an element of the Government's criminal law policies? Does he agree that, if the death penalty had been in operation at the time of the Sydney Hilton bombing, members of the Ananda Marga sect who were convicted of the crime but, years later, reprieved could now be dead if such a penalty had been in operation at the time of conviction? Will he ensure that the Commissioner is made aware of Government policy and instructed not to advocate, in the future, measures which are not part of Government policy? Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Twice in his question the honourable member for La Trobe used the words `Does he agree'. I refer you to standing order 144 which states: Questions should not ask Ministers . . . for an expression of opinion; Clearly, that part of the question relates to seeking an expression of opinion. Madam SPEAKER —The Attorney-General will exclude a personal opinion from his answer. Questioners might get their questions in order in future. Mr Spender —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: on two occasions the honourable member asked whether the Attorney-General agreed that it was improper for something to have been said by an individual outside this House. In my submission, the Attorney-General is not called upon to make judgments on the propriety of-- Madam SPEAKER —I agree. The Attorney-General will not make judgments either when answering the question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate everybody's advice. The thing that seems to have been overlooked is that the question was answered in the Senate yesterday. What I would like to say from the point of view of Government policy, which is after all what I am able to talk about, is that it is contrary to Government policy that we would in any way reintroduce the death penalty. Let me say, in fairness to the Commissioner, that these are reported remarks. In my view, he is entitled to say whatever he likes in that sense. Let me address my remarks to the terms of the report. I do not know the accuracy of them, but it is alleged that, in dealing with the difficult question of terrorism, he said that there might be a need to reassess our position. I make it clear that the Government has no intention of reassessing its position. It is quite convinced that the death penalty is in no way a deterrent for any crime, including terrorism. The only way we can ever deal with terrorism is to have adequate intelligence and other counter terrorist measures in place where terrorism is usually dealt with there and then. That is the difficulty of the problem facing not only all governments but also private institutions. It should also be made a matter of record that that is not just my view; it is the view of all those involved in looking at crime and deterrents. It has been well known for many years that murder is usually a crime of passion related to people who have a close association with each other. Terrorism, of course, is in another area altogether. Therefore, governments have a responsibility to give adequate protection to their citizens, which, as I say, they do by counterintelligence and other countermeasures. It should be made very clear that I am also convinced that when our Government introduced the abolition of the death penalty in 1973 it was acting in accordance with worldwide opinion which showed that there was a trend against capital punishment, which in no way could be proved was a deterrent to the homicide that inevitably took place in earlier years and regrettably since then. The Australian Institute of Criminology, in its report entitled Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice-Capital Punishment, published in February 1987, suggested that the preponderance of evidence then available said that the abolition of capital punishment had in no way resulted in any significant increase in crime. As the honourable member said in his question, if we were to have capital punishment for matters such as the Hilton bombing, we could well put people in the position of facing the death penalty when subsequent inquiry exonerated them from any guilt whatsoever. The Government does not propose to introduce capital punishment and it does not consider that it is justified in any way, because the community's interests are protected adequately, as best they can be, and in no way is it a deterrent to counter terrorism, as is alleged to have been the view expressed by the Police Commissioner. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the United States of America received a relatively more generous six-month beef quota compared with Australia's pending the finalisation of a new four-year Japanese beef import agreement? Is he aware that President Reagan was advised of this arrangement weeks before the Australian Government was advised? How does the Prime Minister reconcile this beneficial arrangement for the United States when he assured us after his discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister that `Japan would not resolve these issues non-commercially at the expense of Australia'? What action is the Prime Minister planning to head off the increasing likelihood of a special bilateral four-year deal between the United States and Japan? Will the Prime Minister move immediately to protect the interests of the Australian beef industry by countering the political pressure being applied by the United States, involving his own intervention and the dispatching of senior Ministers to Tokyo to ensure that the Australian beef industry is not disadvantaged any further by top level political intervention from the United States? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously I cannot speak with any authority about the date of knowledge of the President of the United States about the issue which is the subject of the honourable member's question, but I give him an undertaking that, in the light of the question, I will discuss this issue immediately with my Minister. If it becomes clear from those discussions that what has transpired does involve a repudiation on the part of the Japanese of the undertaking that they have given not only to me but also to other Ministers, as I think the honourable gentleman knows, that there would not be a resolution of the bilateral trading difficulties between the United States and Japan by resort to non-commercial deals, I will certainly not only make the strongest possible representations myself but also ensure that the matter is pursued. I think that the honourable gentleman would like me to enlarge briefly by making the point that I think there is absolute agreement across the floor between Government and Opposition members on the principles involved. We all recognise that there is a substantial imbalance in the trading relationship between the United States and Japan and that that is a matter of very considerable concern to both parties, particularly the United States, and it is proper that it be addressed by them. What is totally improper is that, in seeking to resolve that imbalance, there should be a resort to any arrangements of any kind which are on a non-commercial basis. Not only could that affect Australia adversely in the area to which the honourable gentleman has referred properly-that is, beef-but there could also be similar implications in the area of coal. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I undertake to him that I will have discussions with the Minister on this issue immediately. Mr SCHOLES —I ask the Prime Minister: In order to protect the excellent family allowance supplement scheme which is designed to alleviate poverty for children, will he seek agreement from all governments that the additional moneys paid by the Commonwealth for that purpose will not be reduced by the reduction by governments of existing benefits paid in other forms, particularly rent relief? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. This matter has been raised in a number of forums. I understand that the Minister for Social Security will be making representations to the States. It would be singularly unfortunate if what I think is now almost universally recognised as one of the outstanding initiatives taken by any government directed towards trying to ensure that there shall be no avoidable child poverty in this country should in any significant way be diminished by actions of State governments, particularly in the area of rental for public housing accommodation. The honourable member properly raised a question of considerable concern, and I give him an undertaking that the Minister will have discussions, and has probably already initiated discussions, with the States on this matter. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the undertaking he gave at his Press briefing today that the Federal Government is not contemplating changes which `would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation end benefits'. Can the Prime Minister clarify this commitment? Does it mean that the changes now being contemplated by the Government will not have any retrospective element? Mr HAWKE —I shall elaborate for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition on what I said and go more particularly to the part of the question involving superannuation and taxation. At the Press conference today I repeated what I have said in this House, namely, that in any general review of the business tax system, the question of treatment of superannuation must and does arise. I said then, as I said to him in answer to his two questions earlier today, that there are no proposals before the Government on this matter or on any areas of business tax review. In those circumstances, I was not prepared to rule in or out aspects of the business tax system from the review, but I did say that I wanted to make three obvious and direct points. The first was that we would never contemplate changes that would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation end benefits. Second, I said that, whatever decisions the Government takes regarding taxation, superannuation will continue to be treated on a concessional basis and, third, I said that the matter of whether or not people can take lump sums is not at issue and the Government is not proposing any changes that would stop people from taking lump sums. Having said that, it is not the mark of this Government that it will continue to give a running and detailed commentary on major policy issue reviews and progress. It is that type of ad hoc policy making on the run that the Government is quite happy to leave to the coalition parties in this place. It is in that sense that I made the point yesterday and today that we will not rule in or rule out aspects of the business tax system from the review. I add that, because the review, by definition, is still in progress, the Government has no proposals before it regarding superannuation or anything else, but one matter that is not and will not be at issue is whether lump sum superannuation payments will continue to be available for superannuation fund members. That matter is entirely separate from the business tax review. We will not be proposing any changes that would stop people from taking lump sums. As to the question regarding taxation of superannuation, it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive nature of our review if I or the Treasurer were forced every day to go down any list of elements of the tax system, ticking and crossing individual items. Therefore, neither I nor for that matter the Treasurer have any intention of doing so regarding these issues, particularly having given the reassurances that I have given today. Mr HOLLIS —Can the Minister for Housing and Aged Care inform the House of the situ- ation confronting beneficiaries under the first home owners scheme and the responses that are required to ensure continuation of assistance under the scheme? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for Throsby for his question. The first home owners scheme requires recipients to lodge an annual declaration indicating that they still own and occupy their own homes. At this stage approximately 5,000 current beneficiaries have not lodged those statements and they risk losing their entitlement at the end of the month. That is about 15 per cent of the current beneficiaries under the first home owners scheme. It is obvious that many people either do not know or have simply forgotten about the requirement. The basis of the first home owners scheme, as many honourable members know, having actively and assiduously promoted it in their own electorates, is to provide assistance to low-income and medium-income families and individuals who own and occupy their first home. At this stage, about 270,000 Australian families and individuals have benefited from this direct Government grant. People must own and occupy their own homes for five years to qualify for assistance. If people fail to submit a declaration it does not mean they will lose the benefit, but the procedure will be held up and extra costs will be borne by the taxpayer. Unfortunately, that presents a muck-up to the system, so I encourage people to ensure that they submit their declarations in the next couple of weeks. What is important about the first home owners scheme is that it provides support for people. Despite the warm welcome from the Opposition's housing spokesman, he was having a go at the Government's commitment to housing. I thank him for his warm welcome to my new portfolio but for someone from the Opposition to put out a statement criticising the Government for its record on housing in any area, whether it be public or private housing, is really quite a joke. From 1975 to 1983, under the Opposition's policies and expenditures, housing expenditure was cut by 35 per cent in real terms, which went right to the heart of the people about whom we are expressing concern. However, despite difficult economic circumstances this Government made available a total of $1,114m to the States and Territories for public housing in the most recent Budget. That is a real increase, not just a nominal increase, of 40 per cent on the total allocation to housing under the Howard Government of 1982-83. That is just the tip of the iceberg; it gets worse than that. When the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, in their last five years in government, were wreaking havoc in the housing portfolio, a total of only $3 billion was provided for housing. In five years of this Government's Commonwealth commitment to public housing, more than $6 billion has been invested in real terms in housing assistance and special programs. The facts speak for themselves. In New South Wales, 67,000 people have benefited to the tune of $300m under the first home owners scheme. It is no wonder that the people of Australia have no regard for the call that goes out from the Opposition suggesting that this Government has lost touch with its electorate and its base when they see those figures and the despicable, puny Opposition record on housing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It is my intention to issue a writ on Friday, 19 February 1988, for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Port Adelaide in the State of South Australia in the place of the Hon. Michael Jerome Young. The dates in connection with the election will be fixed as follows: issue of the writ-Friday, 19 February 1988; close of rolls-Friday, 26 February 1988; date of nomination-Friday, 4 March 1988; date of polling-Saturday, 26 March 1988; date of return of writ-on or before Sunday, 29 May 1988. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —In accordance with the resolution of the House, papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- *1. Aboriginal Hotels Limited-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report. *2. Department of Science-annual report 1986-87-section 25(8) of the Public Service Act 1922. *3. Foreign Investment Review Board-annual report 1986-87. #4. Australian Dairy Corporation-annual report 1986-87-section 123 of the Dairy Produce Act 1986. * Not available prior to tabling # Circulated during the Parliamentary adjournment Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Dr WOODS(Lowe) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr WOODS —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please go ahead. Dr WOODS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the West Australian newspaper on Saturday, 13 February an article entitled `Citizenship bar traps senator' related to the difficulties Senator Wood was having in another place. Alongside that article was a photograph of me. I want to make it quite clear, first of all, that I am an Australian citizen. I would also like to make it absolutely clear that, although I am flattered that it should be thought possible for me to hold positions in two Houses at the same time, I did, in fact, make a deliberate choice to enter this place rather than the more tranquil pastures of the other place. Although Senator Wood and I may share a love of peace, I believe that the similarity probably does end there. I have never been tempted to wear earrings. I have never been tempted to launch a Kamikaze attack on the United States Navy, and I have no plans to do so. I can understand, of course, how, if Senator Wood did see the photograph, he must have thought he could not see the Wood for the Woods. More importantly, although I do not appreciate being confused with people with the same surname, I suppose that I should be grateful that I have not been confused with somebody with the same christian name of Bob because I could do severe damage to my reputation. I could actually be asked to stand clear of the New South Wales election because I might be a liability, for example, or I might be accused of factional wheeling and dealing or of somersaults in policies. I really should be grateful that I am not being accused of looking after my mates. I ask the West Australian newspaper to publish a clarification of this matter. Mr FREE(Lindsay) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr FREE —I do claim to have been misrepresented in of all places the sporting pages of the Sydney Daily Mirror. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr FREE —An article by the soccer writer, Tom Anderson, in the Sydney Daily Mirror of Thursday, 11 February 1988, refers to the case of the Nix family and bears the headline `Thrown out of Australia: English family get a raw deal from Immigration'. The article says: Former English professional, Peter Nix and his family have been unceremoniously kicked out of Australia by the Immigration Department. And it has all come about by what seems to be a glaring bureaucratic bungle! Further down the article says: When Peter and Karen arrived here they were given two-year visas with the promise of permanent residency to follow. And before the two years expired, they applied for permanent residency through the Federal Member for Lindsay, Mr Ross Free. `Mr Free sent our application to the Parramatta Office of the Immigration Department, who turned us down flat,' Nix said today. `Then on September 24 we went to the MP's Penrith office and lodged an appeal. We found out our application had not been submitted to the Immigration Department before our visas ran out, leaving us no grounds for appeal. `The late lodging meant we had been illegal immigrants for two days and we were then told we were being kicked out of the country!' Madam Speaker, the article is incorrect and misrepresents my actions in two ways. First, the documents given to me on 24 September 1985 were not appeals. They were applications for resident status and they were given to me six days before the expiry of these two-year visitors visas. I had prepared supporting material and forwarded the applications to the Parramatta office of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs on 26 September, four days before the date of expiry of the visas. The proposition implicit in the article that I was negligent is, therefore, false. Secondly, the suggestion that the alleged late lodgment led to a raw deal from Immigration is also incorrect. Admittedly, there is a grey area. As I said, I sent the applications on 26 September. The area director acknowledged receipt of the applications on 3 October. Therefore, for two days, technically, these people were prohibited non-citizens. Despite this technical breach, the Nixes continued to be given every consideration by the Department and every attention by me. In November 1985 the Department requested further documentation which the applicant provided 3 1/2 months later. Following the rejection of the applications in July 1986, Mr and Mrs Nix were invited to submit an application for review. Despite the fact that they were technically not entitled to such a review, the then Minister ordered an internal departmental review of the case in January 1987. This review was a proper review-it was not a peremptory affair-and it lasted 10 months. In conclusion, I indicate that I feel sorry for Mr and Mrs Nix, but any suggestion that I have been negligent in looking after their interests is untrue. I am also sorry that the author of that article, Mr Tom Anderson, did not take the trouble to approach me to check the facts. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KERIN —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr KERIN —In today's Tamworth edition of the Northern Daily Leader there is a story with the headline `Kerin has a dig at State government'. The article goes on to say: The failure of the State Government to apply coal rescue plan freight cuts to Gunnedah colliery has been attacked as discriminatory by Federal Energy Minister John Kerin. The rescue plan involves $40 million of both State and Federal money. Then in quotes attributed to me it says: `The exemption of Gunnedah coal mines is nothing less than political discrimination of the worst type'. The article goes on: Mr Kerin said Gwydir member Ralph Hunt should call on the NSW Government to review its decision in the interest of the Gunnedah mineworkers and natural justice. Neither I nor my staff has spoken to the Northern Daily Leader on this topic. I have not said to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) what is attributed to me in this article. The story is concocted and I will be taking suitable action following the seeking of legal advice. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —by leave-This is the first opportunity I have had during our bicentenary to provide honourable members with a progress report on a significant bicentennial project-the new Parliament House. I am pleased to report that the project is on schedule for the official opening by Her Majesty the Queen on 9 May 1988. The first in a series of major handovers of parts of the building took place, as planned, on 18 January when significant areas of the northern and central zones were consigned to the care and custody of the Parliament. Together they represent about one-third of the total floorspace and include the Foyer, the Great Hall, the Members' Hall, the Queen's Terrace, some parliamentary offices on the ground floor, the public circulation areas, some members' suites and the main kitchens and security accommodation. At the same time as the handover, tests started on lighting around the entrance and along the curved and sloping walls at the northern end of the building. Work on the project is proceeding in accordance with the timetable for the handover of other areas from early March. As in the past I will also provide a budget update for the project for the three months period from June to August 1987. The revised building budget for the three months to August 1987 now stands at $879.22m, with another $168.58m for non-building items. The total project budget is therefore increased from $1,026.9m at May 1987 prices to $1,047.8m at August 1987 prices. This updating includes $7.91m for the effects of inflation in the three-month period. Additional components have been an allowance to cover the cost of industrial disputes, insolvencies of contractors and reinstatement of previously deferred or deleted works such as landscaping-costs outside the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority, that is, $4.05m, $1.74m and $7.2m respectively, a total of $12.99m. I mentioned in my previous report to the House that we are looking to unions and contractors for their full co-operation and commitment to achieve substantial completion on target for the May opening by Her Majesty and for the building to be operational in time for the August Budget and the Budget session. As honourable members can see from my report, some eleven short weeks before Her Majesty opens the new Parliament House, there can be no doubt about its readiness for the event. This could have happened only with the co-operation and commitment that I have asked for from the Parliament House Construction Authority, the construction manager and all the workers on site, and that co-operation has so obviously been given. I present the following paper: New Parliament House: Progress Report and Budget Update to August 1987-Ministerial Statement, 18 February 1988. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the Government's announcement that the construction of the new Parliament House is on schedule, but we ask the Government: At what cost? The original 1978 estimate for the building budget for the new Parliament House was $220m and the original 1981 estimate for the non-building budget was $82m, a total of $302m. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has now told us that the final figure will be $1,047m, representing an increase of 350 per cent. We accept that the new Parliament House is a massive undertaking and that there has been a tremendous and concerted effort by the building authority and the builders to finalise the project on schedule. Nevertheless, it is a cause of real concern that the cost blow-out under this Government has been so massive. Last year the Minister informed the House that, as at May 1987, an additional $66m over budget had been allocated to cover the costs of industrial disputes, contractor insolvency and exchange rate variations. The Minister has now informed us that the cost of industrial disputes alone in the following three months, June, July and August of last year, was $4.05m-$4m in three months. If the rate of disputation were to continue we would be looking at an annual payout of some $16m. The fact that the average family has to pay between $4 and $5 a year to cover the cost of disputes on this one building site, which is totally under the control of the Government, highlights the bankrupt nature of the Government's industrial relations policy. So much for the myth of this Government's special relationship with the unions. The expenditure of $16m a year on industrial disputation on one building site brings into very sharp focus the outrageous cost to the community of industrial disputes under this Government. No wonder even people such as Barrie Unsworth are saying that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has lost touch with the community. The Australian community wants action. It is sick to death of paying the costs of this Government's support for an outdated and outmoded industrial relations system. It wants the power of the unions curbed. Instead of removing the no work, no pay provisions in the Public Service, the Government should not only re-enact them but enforce them. What justification is there for the no ticket, no start rules in the building industry? The unions' power under this Government, especially in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where this construction has taken place, is totally over the top. Recently, a constituent of mine approached me because he had been told by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) that there was a vacancy at the new Parliament House site for plumbers and sprinkler system fitters. He had the qualifications and applied for the job. He was given the job. The CES approved a relocation grant. But what happened? Could he get the job? The Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union in the ACT said, `No, he can't have the job'. Why? Because the union's policy was not to allow outsiders into the ACT. Yet the CES had said that there were no qualified people in the ACT to do the job. We are so used to blackmail and corruption in the union movement under this Government. It is time action was taken, but this Government seems unable to address these basic issues. It is quite clear that the community will have to continue to carry the enormous cost of the Hawke Government's failure to act until the Government is removed at the next election. The Opposition is concerned not only about the blow-out in the capital cost but also about the excessive ongoing costs in the new Parliament House. These were highlighted in the Auditor-General's report tabled last year. I mention just one such reference. The Auditor-General concluded: . . . although the approved design Brief called for economy in future operating and maintenance costs of the building, there was insufficient evidence that the Authority-- that is the New Parliament House Authority- had pursued this aspect adequately. The time to achieve economy in these costs was not on completion of the building but in the design and construction stages. Those stages have passed, and the Joint House Department will be faced with difficulties and the need to make changes to the building when it takes responsibility for it. Clearly, that is a matter for deep concern. It is not a matter of a one-off capital payment; we are now talking about the annual costs of running the new building. The Auditor-General has noted that, since the total capital cost of the new building is around $1,000m, the cost to clean on the basis of normal calculations used in this industry would be $50m to $100m per annum. That is just the cleaning bill. Audit is saying that proper building procedures were not undertaken to ensure that on-going operational costs were kept to a minimum. The Opposition is concerned about the blow-out in the original capital cost under this Government. Specifically, we are very concerned that this Government continues to support union action which is resulting, on this one building site, in a payout by the taxpayer of $16m a year to cover the cost of industrial disputation. We are concerned about the costs which will be incurred, as the Auditor-General has pointed out, as a result of the failure to plan the building properly to take into account ongoing administrative costs. We welcome the Government's statement that the new Parliament House will be completed on time but, as I said: At what cost? Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.09) —I move: That the House take note of the paper. In doing so, I would like to answer very briefly some of the points that have been made by the previous speaker in reply to my statement. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Both statements were made by leave and a motion has not been moved, save the one that the Minister moved. He is now saying, `I moved a motion and I now speak to the motion'. My submission to you is that he cannot do that. We cannot get into the sort of imbroglio that we were in yesterday. Having had his bit, he should be satisfied with it and go back to his office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member is out of order. The Minister is in order. Mr WEST —I want to make several points briefly in reply, because I cannot let go these unsubstantiated claims about this great national project, which was commenced by the previous Government, without responding to them. It is common knowledge that, when the former Fraser Government first undertook this great national project seven or eight years ago, unlike any major building project in this country no contingency allowance was made for its costing. Following the approval of the design, only 10 very short days were given to costing. Opposition members have come up with a figure for construction and non-building items, which were very much under-costed if for no reason other than they did not include the normal contingency item. I pointed this out to Opposition members in my last report. Increases with regard to the new Parliament House project relate basically to inflation, to industrial disputation, which I will address in a moment, to major additions to the actual design-for instance, to cater for increased numbers in the House of Representatives and so on-to the contingency item, and to the insolvency of some contractors. It has been a very complex operation. But Opposition members should always remember, when they are attempting to criticise what will be seen in posterity as a great achievement, that back in 1979-80 it was said that this great national project would be completed during the bicentennial year. Not many projects of this nature, or much smaller than this, have been completed within such a time scale, on time and substantially within the projected budget, allowing for the legitimate increases which naturally occur in the categories that I have set out. Mr Porter —Oh, come off it. Mr WEST —It is a great achievement. The previous Government said in 1979, `We will be opening this building in May 1988'. After five years of this Government, I am proud to be the Minister who will ensure that that date is met. I will be critical when I need to be critical, but I want to pay tribute to the work of the Parliament House Construction Authority, the construction manager, all the contractors and subcontractors and the unnamed men and women who have worked on that site over the last seven, eight or nine years during the design, planning and construction stages. Criticise when it is right to criticise, but at least have the decency to give credit when it is due. I want now to address the question of industrial relations. It was said that the fact that the industrial relations costing was just short of $4m over this quarter was appalling. The project's progress towards the major milestone could be jeopardised easily by industrial action. I have warned against that and, as I said in my speech, basically my warning has been accepted. The situation has been relatively quiet over the past six months under my administration, with the number of assessed days lost averaging two to three days per month compared with an eight-day average in the first half of 1987. So the workers on the site have heeded what I had to say back in September with regard to industrial relations. There has been some degree of criticism both in this House and in the Press on the issue that we addressed yesterday-that is, the non-use of rainforest timber in furniture for the new Parliament House. There has been a great deal of exaggeration by members of the Opposition about the cost of that decision and there has been a great deal of exaggeration regarding the level of imports which may have been consequential upon that decision. Only 7 per cent of timber used for furniture in the New Parliament House will be imported timber, which I think is a good achievement, as we were asked to maximise the use of Australian timber. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This is one of the matters listed for inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament. It is the matter of the Auditor-General's report into the Parliament House Construction Authority, and the Committee is to take evidence from the Authority and from the Auditor-General. In a sense, it is really sub judice. If the Minister has some views he ought to take the responsible course of making a proper and detailed submission to the Public Accounts Committee so that the matters can be considered in a detailed and proper way. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It has never been a decision that matters before parliamentary committees are sub judice. There is no point of order. Mr WEST —Opposition members snipe at members of the Authority and workers at the site-- Mr Braithwaite —Why didn't you bring it up in your original statement? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting from out of his seat. Mr WEST —Opposition members snipe at these people who, in the main, have been responsible for bringing to fruition a great national achievement. If they want to attack people whom I consider I represent, I will answer their attacks in this place to the best of my capacity under the Standing Orders. Honourable members opposite can snipe as much as the like, but I will answer what has been said. As soon as the final cost of the rainforest timber decision is known I will bring it to the attention of this House. Whatever it is, whether it is $500,000, $900,000 or $1m, we should seriously consider that a subjective cost is involved which ought to be offset against the final cost of the decision. That is, a decision not to make a decision would have involved further delays and costs. As I said in the House yesterday, the subcontractor in north Queensland refused to supply the main contractor with the timber once we made the decision to nominate for the World Heritage listing and the main contractor refused to nominate which area the rainforest timber had come from so that we could see whether it was in line with the contract clauses. As far as the decision on the use of rainforest timber in furniture in the new Parliament House is concerned-- Mr Braithwaite —How many dozens of clerks have you had to check that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Dawson. Mr WEST —As far as the furniture in the new Parliament House is concerned, it was the right decision environmentally and it was the right decision contractually. In conclusion, I am pleased and proud to be the Minister who will take to fruition this great national project which was commenced by our predecessors but which the current Opposition seems to find great joy in attacking and in refusing to give credit where it is due. Therefore, I am quite proud to be able to say, as the Minister who is privileged to take to fruition this great national project, that it will be concluded on time, opened by Her Majesty on 9 May and available for occupation by members and staff in the August Budget session of the Parliament this year. Honourable members opposite ought to give credit where it is due. Mr FIFE(Hume)(3.19) —The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) making a statement, by leave, the Opposition spokesman on administrative services, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) making a statement, again by leave, and the Minister then moving that the House take note of the paper is breaking with convention. I would just like to make it clear very briefly that the Opposition will not allow itself to be gagged, nor will it allow the Government to dictate what an Opposition member will say in response to a statement by a Minister. To facilitate the work of the House this afternoon, it is my intention in a moment to move that this debate be adjourned, but I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not be intimidated by the Government in any manner, shape or form. We deplore the Minister's action on this occasion in seeking to respond to the Opposition speaker merely by moving that the House take note of the paper after he had spoken. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Macphee and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Brumby and Mr Courtice. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth 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 Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- We 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 often the only contact relatives can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. The inordinate time span which elapses between connection to a business premises and speaking, as the caller holds the line or is transferred between departments, would also disadvantage subscribers who can ill afford it. Your petitioners therefore pray that Telecom abandons the proposal to time charge local telephone calls as we believe that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. by Mrs Darling and Mr Shack. 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 Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the Parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shack. 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 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. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher 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 Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. 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 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: Legislate to allow police to control violent and offensive behaviour. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by underage persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly support the establishment of a Social Security office in the Adelaide Hills area. We believe the establishment of such an office will provide a much needed service to residents in the Adelaide Hills, many of whom do not have access to STA transport and find it extremely difficult and costly to meet the requirement of lodging the Continuation of Unemployment Benefit Forms in person. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, take every possible step to ensure that this service is provided. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to the callous treatment of the survivors, widows and next of kin of HMAS Voyager and all other service personnel injured in peacetime. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take action to rectify the matter. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that we, the undersigned, believing that Parliament should investigate: (1) The anguish caused to the general public in relation to timed local calls (2) The illogic of timed local calls in regard to general ``pleasantries'' involved in conversation (3) The public will pay for poor business management, or extension call delays, when calls are channelled through various sources (4) The trauma that the house-bound and invalids will suffer through the loss of phone contact (5) The number of suicides that may increase because Life-line calls will be ``out of reach'' (6) The indignity caused to pensioners and lower income groups who are fighting a losing battle against rising costs (7) Voluntary organisations and honorary office holders on committees will be penalised (8) The users of facsimile machines and similar services should be the ones to pay for these services Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the Government give regard to these eight reasons why timed local charge calls should not be introduced and rescind any decision to introduce timed local calls by Telecom Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that the Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, eg, petitions by some action, eg, referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned with the proposed introduction of time cost in the use of telephones which will result in the following: 1. Extra unfair cost to the private user in general-particularly the elderly who use this means of communication as a necessity of life! 2. Unjust restrictions on those who may be handicapped or lack mobility. 3. Untimely delays when obtaining information or contact with Government Departments and or businesses with the subsequent ``hold on'' or transfer time. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will take necessary measures to ensure that the Australian community-dependent on telephone communications-is in no way disadvantaged by any changes to Telecom's pricing system. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Time-charging for the business sector is also unfair and unreasonable as any charge increase to business will be borne by consumers in the end. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent both Australian people and Australian business from being seriously disadvantaged by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Corangamite respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Australia shows: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage the sick, elderly and disabled people as well as counselling and community services, particularly Lifeline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will reject the present proposal by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls as being an unfair cost burden on private individuals. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage elderly and disabled people, families and business, adding significantly to the cost of living. Your humble petitioners pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will urge the Government to: Reject any plans by Telecom Australia to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty-bound will ever pray. by Mr Prosser. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject plans by Telecom to time charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That we totally reject the proposed time local telephone charges, by Telecom Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Vote against any future legislation which would support such a proposal. 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 respectively showeth: That nursing home facilities are urgently needed at the Joseph Cook Hostel, Houtmans Street, Rossmoyne, Western Australia so that residents who become in need of such care are not forced to move to nursing homes which are remote from their partners and friends. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government make available the funding and approvals necessary for the establishment of such a nursing home. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia oppose the granting of certain areas of land in connection with the Jawoyn (Katherine Area) land claim. Specifically, petitioners request that the following lands not be granted. (a) That part of the Katherine Gorge National Park comprising the Katherine Gorge system and adjacent development areas and all areas to the north thereof, including Edith Falls; (b) The whole catchment areas of those sites under consideration for utilisation as future water supply for the Katherine township and, in particular, the catchments of McAddens and Dorothy Creeks. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not make a land grant, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, as recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report of 6th October 1987, but that he heeds the desire of the undersigned citizens of Australia, thereby excluding from grant the areas defined above. by Mr Snowdon. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: We object to Telecom's past decisions to alter the time period for cheaper rates for STD telephone calls and to introduce a fee for local call inquiries. We further oppose any proposal to introduce a time charge on local telephone calls. These changes in Telecom's charging policy seriously disadvantage the elderly, poor, disabled, and distressed persons in our community as well as unfairly increasing costs to telephone counselling services. They place further cost burdens on already tight family budgets. Your petitioners therefore humbly seek your consideration of the serious consequences of these changes and humbly pray that you use your influence to reverse such decisions. by Mr Webster. 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 we strenuously object to the proposal to deny Western Districts Health Fund Medicare agency rights in the Blue Mountains and to deny Springwood the availability of a Medicare agency altogether. The agency has provided an important service to a community characterised by its large number of young families and aged persons and by its public transport difficulties. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the termination of the Medicare agency rights for Western Districts Health Fund and the withdrawal of Medicare services in Springwood in particular. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the House that citizens of the said Territory are being discriminated against in that the said Territory has sub-standard Food Legislation compared to the States of Australia. Your petitioners therefore request that the 1986 National Health and Medical Research Council Model Food Act and The Food Standards Code as set forth in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. P 27 dated 27th August 1987, be adopted as a matter of urgency. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament, we the residents of the Division of Dobell draw to the attention of the House the fact that recipients of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs pensions are required to pay income tax once non-pension income exceeds $3.72 per week. Your petitioners request that Parliament increase the Income Tax Pensioner Rebate for Social Security and Veteran's Affairs Pensioners. by Mr Lee. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Growing community concern resulting in an escalation in early retirements due to the Government's failure to clarify its intention regarding superannuation changes. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.25) —Never before have we seen a better example of the collapse and decay of the Hawke Government than the manner in which over the last three days of evasion and prevarication this Government has attempted to ignore one of the most fundamental issues facing 2 1/2 million Australians. What is the Government's policy towards superannuation? Ever since May 1983 we have been living in a situation where literally by the year there has been change upon change in the policy affecting the people of Australia in the very area where it is absolutely essential that there be consistency and continuity of policy. We are not making decisions for a mere number of years. We are making decisions that affect people's retirement-people who have planned and saved for 20, 30 and even 40 years so that they can be independent of government. Yet we have here a government today that, through its policies, quite clearly is doing its best to undermine, to undercut and to make those people incapable of protecting their interests in retirement. In the last three days not only has the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to face the facts, but also today he reached the height of duplicity and arrogance when, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), he said, `There are no programs or proposals before this Government'. Yet he knew, as we found out later in his final answer to a question, that merely one hour before he had had a Press conference in a vain attempt to lay to rest some of the extraordinary problems that he has created, not only for himself but also for Barrie Unsworth, the Mona Lisa of Australian politics, the man with the elusive smile who now has nothing whatsoever to smile about because he has been unceremoniously dumped by the Hawke Labor Government within the so-called fraternal Labor Party. Why did this take place? There is a very simple reason. Last weekend when the Federal Labor Party started examining its surveys of the electorates, to its horror it was confronted with the fact that the superannuation issue had begun to bite. In fact, it had begun to bite so deeply that, when added to the results of early polling on the prospects facing the Unsworth Government, it became quite clear that the Government was facing one horrible choice-either it dumped sad Barrie or it gave up its tax cuts. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put forward his initial proposal for tax cuts, he talked about corporate tax cuts. After the Government lost the by-election in Adelaide, we suddenly found the Prime Minister talking about individual tax cuts. Nobody bothered to do the sums. I will tell the House where the tax cuts are coming from. They are coming from the income earned by superannuation funds, from the 200,000 funds throughout Australia which take in the contributions of ordinary men and women-not just the fat cats whom this Government enjoys attacking so much, but the ordinary white and blue collar workers, the people who believe in independence and who seriously think it is their responsibility to society to make a contribution for their retirement so that they will be less of a cost to the state. Yet, in the Government's vain attempt to meet a commitment that it had not even worked out in the first place, it was prepared to sacrifice the very heartland of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. Now the Government is prepared to sacrifice 2.5 million Australians who have done nothing wrong but follow the regulations that have been determined by successive governments over the years. These are the same people who, since May 1983, have been living in the expectation that there will be some stability in the basis of superannuation policy, especially at a time when, obviously, with high inflation and the overall problems that we are facing, they need stability in policy. I cannot emphasise too strongly the significance and the impact over recent weeks of the refusal of this Government, until today, to come clean in any sense and at least to tell people what it is not going to do if it finds it impossible to tell them what it is going to do. Last week I conducted a survey of manufacturing industry, transport, communications-a whole range of industries across Australia. To my horror, the response I got was total. People are voting with their feet. Middle management, people in their fifties in particular, are saying, `Any change that this Government brings in'-A government which I no longer trust and which the Australian people no longer trust, as demonstrated in Adelaide recently-`will mean that we must take our money and leave, because we do not know what will happen to our lump sums at the end of the day'. What happened today? We had the Prime Minister going off and doing his `mea culpa, mea maxima culpa' act before a Press conference. As usual, he did not do it in this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has given him, in three days of simple straightforward questions, the opportunity to put on the record precisely what the Government's intentions are. The most important thing is that in all this activity, especially in the Press conference today, not once did the Prime Minister use the word `retrospective'. I wonder why he was able to make his comments without using that word? I put this point to honourable members opposite, as I note that there is no Minister present in the House and that no Minister will be leading in this debate. The debate is being left to the Government backbench. This is yet another example of this Government's duplicity and arrogance on this subject. Let us look at the facts. The Government will be taxing the income generated by superannuation funds, because that is all it has left. The Prime Minister has effectively knocked out all the other options that we have seen floated publicly and privately over the last few months. If Labor intends to tax the income of superannuation funds, I say to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who I understand will be leading for the Government, that there is no way he can say that that tax will not be retrospective. All the income that has been earned on capital raisings, on investments, on the purchase of Government paper, bonds and so forth in the past contributes to the ultimate take home lump sums of the 2.5 million Australians to whom I referred earlier. But Labor members have the audacity to come into this House and say, as did their Prime Minister at Question Time today, that people's already accrued superannuation benefits would not be touched. Well, what about future accrued superannuation benefits? Are we to be left to assume for another two or three months that something else will happen? The fact is that people who are not about to retire clearly will be those who will be most affected by the changes that the Government is planning. To put the matter quite simply, the efforts made by the Government today to overcome the clear panic that one is now finding throughout the commercial sector are unsatisfactory. In my survey the other day I spoke to a number of companies, and people should be aware of the impact. Qantas Airways Ltd, for example, told me that there was major concern among its superannuants and, as we are well aware, 20 pilots have already resigned. One airline said, `If the Government does not clarify the position, we will not have an airline at all'. The impact is not unique to the aviation industry. The Westpac Banking Corporation said the same thing; it is losing middle management. A number of manufacturing companies said to me that they had great disquiet as people approach retirement because of their inability to plan for the future. Above all, the point that came through time and again is that business and individuals are fed up with legislation by Press release. Ever since May 1983 the Treasurer has time after time put out Press releases on this incredibly complex subject. Yet later we have legislation before this House which is not consistent with earlier Press releases. Fund managers were told, `You will plan your superannuation arrangements on the basis of these Press releases-or look out'. Never before in recent history have the Australian people in such a crucial area of policy had to depend on the vagaries of Press release policy which changes time after time without any prior warning whatsoever. To add to this extraordinary state of chaos, for the last six months the Government has allowed a public private debate to be conducted, with virtually every editorial writer in this country saying that the Government's policy is not good enough. They have emphasised that the Government has no effective retirement incomes policy whatsoever. In May 1983 this Government used superannuation merely as a milch cow. Now it intends to do so again in May 1988. What has happened over the last five years? Why is the Government so incompetent? Although the Treasurer called himself the world's greatest treasurer, he found it impossible back in May 1983 to put together a reasonable set of policies which would have overcome what the Government apparently now sees as major problems. Why has the Government taken five years to find out that, suddenly, it cannot meet its tax commitments because it has not the revenue? Why is it that the New Zealand changes announced recently, such as the fringe benefits tax of 24 per cent on superannuation contributions and a 25 per cent tax on superannuation fund incomes, have had such a massive impact on public awareness? Let me tell the Government why. It is because the people do not trust this Government. The Australian people know that those are precisely the sorts of taxes the Government is now planning to impose on the 2.5 million Australians who have done nothing wrong other than make the fundamental error of trusting a Hawke Labor Government. That is their mistake. It is a mistake that the people of Adelaide demonstrated so clearly that they now wish to undo. It is an admission which we will find across Australia month after month. More and more Australians will say, `Enough, be gone! We have had enough of you. You have broken enough promises. You have let us down'. Honourable members saw the pensioners who were out on the front lawn of Parliament House yesterday booing the Prime Minister. The honourable member for Canning should get used to it, as should all honourable members opposite. They are going to find a similar attitude in their electorates right across this land. I turn to the impact of the superannuation proposals. I turn to my colleagues and ask, `Have any of you not received letters from your constituents demonstrating concern?'. Opposition members-Hundreds. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, they have had hundreds. I have had 2,000 such letters in the last two weeks. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition has had about 5,000. There would not be a member on this side of the House who has not had hundreds of letters. I have not the slightest doubt that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have received thousands. If that is not a matter to be taken seriously, what is? In politics we know that when one letter is received it can be multiplied by 100. That is a demonstration of the compassion and concern that the Government has for the Australian people. In three days of parliamentary activity, the Government has done its damnedest to say nothing. During six months of public debate it has said nothing. We have a Prime Minister who says nothing, and a Treasurer who does not even attend the House, who will not take his own legislation and who will not come before the House on a matter of public importance. This legislation relating to superannuation is the prime responsibility of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is not the responsibility of Mr Unsworth, the honourable member for Canning, or any other Government member. Yet where is the Minister? Why is he not standing up before the Australian people and giving an account of his stewardship? What right has he to say to those 2.5 million people, `You can ring up your members of Parliament, you can ask them for advice as to what you should do', leaving both Government and Opposition members in the invidious position of having to say, `I am sorry, Mr and Mrs Constituent, I cannot help you, as I am as ignorant of the facts as you are'? Ignorance is not bliss and it certainly has no virtue at present. Let us look at the macro impact of a proposal to tax superannuation fund income. In the post-crash economy, industry cannot afford to experience the current uncertainty and confusion which is going to be caused by the Government's further inaction. Since the October crash the value of fund portfolios has dropped by 27 per cent. Whatever the figures that may have been taken out prior to October by the boffins in the Treasury committee-which, as I said on television last night, has been in almost constant session since 1980-the fact is that the incomes are now cut significantly. Although the aggregate cut may be 27 per cent, the sad fact is that many smaller funds have been reduced by as much as 50 per cent. Yet out of those funds we shall lose what? Will it be another 47c in the dollar, another 30c in the dollar, another 25c in the dollar? Who knows? I do not know, because the Government will not say. Yet the managers of those schemes are still expected on a daily basis to say to their constituent members, who now want to pull out in panic, `I'm sorry, we cannot give you the money. There is not enough to go around, because we do not know the Government's intentions'. When one manages a superannuation fund it is on the basis of policy as one understands it and plans for the future. What future is there for the 200,000 individual superannuation schemes in Australia today when the Government chops and changes its policy all the time as it has consistently over the last five years? The pre-crash non-dividend investment income, which, no doubt, the Government found attractive at that stage, was $11.25 billion-indeed, a very lucrative base for taxation. The post-crash figure is $4.9 billion and the Government wants to rip another 30 per cent out of that. What will happen if it does that? Suppose a person has contributed $1,000 a year for 25 years to a fund that earns 15 per cent. When previously no tax was levied on the fund that person could have expected a final pay-out of $244,712. Taxed at 31.5 per cent that sum would drop to $74,788-a loss to the individual of $169,924 at a tax rate of 49 per cent. No Australian will thank the Government for that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Fife —Mr Deputy Speaker, before you call the next honourable member, I seek your indulgence to ascertain from the Minister in the House whether the Government proposes that a Minister should take part in this debate to outline the Government's position or whether it proposes running for cover? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is only within the purview of the Chair to call whoever rises. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.42) —On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), I would have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had answered questions on this matter quite adequately. On the matter of public importance, it has been left to the competence of the back bench of this Government to match the front bench of that Opposition and it will do so any time. We must ask ourselves why the Opposition is talking about superannuation at this time. In all the matters of public importance the Opposition raised last year, it never talked about superannuation, even though the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the Budget last September that there would be a business tax review. Since then, Opposition members have not raised this matter. If honourable members want to know why we are talking about superannuation today they only have to look at yesterday's Australian Financial Review. On page 4 there was an article on superannu- ation which contained this little gem. It said: The NSW coalition is hoping to use the issue- the issue is superannuation- in the election campaign, which is expected to begin on Friday, and believes it can be successfully exploited even though it is a Federal concern. Here is a quote from a coalition spokesman in New South Wales in that same article. On the superannuation issue he said: `If it's there, we'll kick it'. So there we have it-a New South Wales coalition spokesman talking about the very important subject of superannuation just as a sideline in the New South Wales State election. Let there be no mistake that when we talk about the superannuation issue in this House today it is a direct result of the sordid tactics of the coalition in New South Wales. When the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposed this matter of public importance he said that there was growing community concern. I listened to his contribution and I did not hear him prove that there was growing community concern. I can honestly say that I have not received any letters in my office from constituents expressing growing community concern. When the honourable member turned around and asked his flock of sheep behind him whether they had any-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. If we cannot have a Minister present the Government needs some assistance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. (Quorum formed) Mr GEAR —One real advantage of a quorum is that it keeps out all the dopes and brings in people of real talent. As I said before, when the honourable member for Bradfield turned around and asked his sheep whether they had received any letters from people about superannuation, they all jumped and said `Yes'. The reason they get letters is that the people of Australia know that the Opposition is nothing more than populist. It ran this country for 30 years by listening to all the jelly backs. It does the same thing, even in opposition. It does not surprise me that Opposition members receive expressions of interest because they are the only ones who will ever listen to them. The Opposition has never made a tough decision in its life and the honourable member for Bradfield just proved it by asking all his mates behind him. Let us look at some of the points the honourable member made. He referred to the Adelaide by-election. We all know the reasons for the result of the Adelaide by-election-it did not come from any grand vision the Opposition put to the Adelaide people. The Liberal Party did not go out there and say, `Here's our you beaut retirement scheme', such as the one which was not outlined by the honourable member for Bradfield. I never heard him talk about what he would do at all. But if we look at what the Opposition did we know why it was thrown out of office. There was nothing in the Adelaide by-election about its `you beaut' taxation scheme. Does the Opposition think that the people of Adelaide actually voted for it because of what it did, because of any talent or any policy it might have had? It had no grand vision, no policies, no nothing-just a fear campaign, which is all it is good for. It ran a fear campaign on Telecom Australia's proposal for timed local calls and that was its one policy. Let me tell honourable members opposite that the next time they go to an election, if they run on that one again or on the assets test again, they will get the same result as they got in 1983, 1984 and 1987. In fact, we will increase our majority, and I am looking forward to it. I notice that the new honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) has been put close to the door-that was a good move because he will not be here for long. Before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) knew the Adelaide by-election was on he spoke of cutting government spending by $11,000m. He ducked that one in the Adelaide campaign. I did not hear him say where he would cut spending. He fudged it all the way through the by-election campaign because he knew that if he used that rhetoric in Adelaide, the Liberal Party would get done. So let us not have any talk here about the Adelaide by-election and what a great swing it was for the Liberal Party. The simple fact was that it never put up a policy; all it did was run a fear campaign, which is all it is good for. It seems to me, from the superannuation debate and the comment in yesterday's Australian Financial Review, that that is what it will do in New South Wales-and it talks about our losing touch with the community! The Prime Minister has outlined, in this place and in Caucus the other day, some of the things we have done for the common people in this country. We got rid of the free lunches. There is no more taking the Mrs out for a free lunch and booking it up to the taxpayer-that is gone. There are no more fringe benefits; no more booking up Mercedes Benzes to the taxpayer-that is gone. There is no more giving Qantas Airways Ltd pilots and people of substantial wealth, those huge, virtually tax free lump sums-that is gone. Those opposite have more front than a double-decker bus in bringing up this issue. In all the time they were in government they did nothing about retirement incomes. They did not have a policy on it while they were in government and they do not have one now they are in opposition. We have never heard them do anything but whinge about the changes we have made to the taxation system and to the retirement system in order to put some decency into them. To give the House an example of just one change we have made, let me refer to an executive, or even a Qantas pilot, who retires with an amount of $750,000, which is a typical payment. Mr Martin —How much? Mr GEAR —An amount of $750,000. That is typical of the lump sum given to highly paid executives in this country. Under the policy of the Liberal Party-we can take it from their silence that they would do it again-somebody retiring on $750,000 would pay in tax a grand total of $18,750. My colleagues stare in disbelief, and no wonder. Under the Liberals' policy such a payment would attract tax of $18,750, or 2.45 per cent, which is less than 3c in the dollar on three quarters of a million dollars. That is the sort of retirement policy that the honourable member for Bradfield supported when he was in government, and from his silence and the silence of his Leader we can take it that if they got back into government they would bring it back in. This Government has changed that, and the tax now payable on $750,000 has moved from something less than $20,000 to $216,750. We are approaching a quarter of a million dollars from $20,000. That is the difference. That is a clear example of what this Government has done to retirement incomes; we have put a bit of decency back into the situation. Even at the new rate a person retiring on $750,000 will pay only 29c in the dollar tax-and the Opposition has the gall to lecture us on superannuation. There is no doubt that when the Treasurer announced that there would be a review of business taxes in the Budget this year he meant that we were going to review all the taxes and all the concessions available to business. We were not going to rule any out. It does not take an Einstein to realise that one of the concessions we give to business is a tax deduction for superannuation. The Opposition leads us to believe that we should rule that out-that is, we can have a review of all the business taxes and all the business concessions except that one. If we accepted that one, next week it would be another one. In fact, that is the way the Opposition parties ran this country for 30 years. No wonder it was left in the mess it was in 1983. As soon as there was a little pressure from the community, it buckled. Not only did the Opposition parties buckle in government, they are buckling in opposition. We saw them all jump up when the honourable member for Bradfield asked us whether they had had any letters. They all said, `Yes, we have had letters. Yes, we are concerned'. But the hard thing in government is doing the things that are right, listening to the concerns, getting out there and explaining to the people that while something may be unpopular and maybe we do not like doing it, in the best interests of the country we believe we should do it. We did that with the assets test. We all remember how the Opposition opposed that measure all the way through. Mr O'Keefe —They were scaremongering. Mr GEAR —As my colleague the honourable member for Burke points out, the Opposition conducted another scare campaign. With the Opposition it is `Don't do the hard things; don't come up with policies, don't get out there and actually cost the policies; don't talk about the hard things that have to be done'. (Quorum formed) I can understand the apprehension of the Opposition. It is upset that one of our Ministers is not making this speech instead of a backbencher. As I said before, any backbencher on this side would lick any frontbencher on the other side, and that is why I am making the speech. All the Liberal Party is good for at election time is a good old fear campaign. We will always remember Adelaide. We remember the 1984 election when the Opposition ran on a single issue-the assets test. What we were talking about then is central to this argument today. It was retirement incomes. It was about taking away pensions from millionaires. The Opposition fought it all the way. There is absolutely no decency on the other side of the House when it comes to talking about taxes, when it comes to talking about retirement incomes. The people of Australia, especially the people of New South Wales, should know that this Government above all others has been the one that has taken the hard decisions. It has not gone weak at the knees, as the Opposition does every time it gets half a dozen letters from constituents. The hard thing in government is to do what is right. We have always done that and that is why we will keep on being re-elected. The Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales might bring up the issue of superannuation because he thinks there might be a few miles in it, but we are not going to buckle. As the Prime Minister said today, we are not going to rule out anything. We will go through and consider everything. It speaks volumes for the Opposition that the only time it will raise the issue of superannuation or any other issue is close to an election. Just because there is an election in New South Wales coming up-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.58) —Is there anyone who heard that contribution from the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) who believes now that this Government will not increase taxes on superannuation? He spent the full 15 minutes talking about the hard things to do, saying that the Government will not buckle under the hard decisions. The hard thing to do is to cut government expenditure: the easy thing to do is to raise taxes, by way of Telecom Australia through timed local calls, or by way of new taxes on superannuation. If there were any doubts that this Government would not raise taxes on superannuation they have been thrown aside by the previous contribution. How authoritative is that contribution? Nothing can demonstrate more poignantly the fear of the Government on this issue than its refusal to allow a Minister-forget about a Cabinet Minister-not even one of the several new junior Ministers, to represent it in this debate. The Government is terrified that a slip of the tongue by a Minister will be highlighted in the media in the same way that this whole issue, created largely by Barrie Unsworth himself, will spread like wildfire. We have all seen today's news- papers. The issue dominates every front page not only of today's newspapers but also of yesterday's: `Super storm splits Labor'; `War on Hawke in Super Tax Row'; `PM won't rule out `super' tax slug'; `PM defiant on super'. There is no doubt at all that by its demonstrations in the Parliament in the last two days the Government has cut off Unsworth. It has kissed goodbye to the New South Wales election because the Premier of New South Wales elevated this issue to one of major national importance. It has become a test case for his influence over the affairs of his own State. There must have been a time when Premier Barrie Unsworth had a smile on his face. It would have been, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would know, late January after the royal visit and the bicentennial events. Mr Howard —27 January. Mr McGAURAN —Yes, 27 January. Australia Day was very short-lived. Now it has all gone so terribly wrong. We have had Telecom's proposal for timed local calls, the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd corruption issue, the Adelaide result and the accusations by the Premier himself that the Hawke Government is losing touch. Do those opposite know who I feel sorry for in all of this? I kid them not; I feel really sorry for Laurie Brereton. I should not feel too sorry for him; he has a big grin on his face now. He was thrown aside. His ministerial career-in fact, his parliamentary career-was cut off at the socks for the survival of the Unsworth Government. Mr Howard —He was better value. Mr McGAURAN —Frankly, I think that he is not the most unpopular man in New South Wales now; it is Unsworth himself. That gives honourable members an idea of the desperation of the Unsworth Government. Mr O'Keefe —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the honourable member for Gippsland cannot even spell `superannuation', let alone speak about it. He has not said anything about it at all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —That is an indication of the quality of the Labor back bench. The way the Government is going he will end up a Minister. That sort of quality is a criterion for ministerial office in this Labor Government. Mr Chynoweth —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the honourable member for Gippsland to take his feet off the furniture? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is a point of order in this instance. I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to continue. Mr McGAURAN —I will not spend time trivialising such a trivial point of order. Since 27 January the situation has changed drastically. We now have the pitiful sight of a Premier of a decaying government, shortly to be removed from office, clinging at any piece of refuge as he sinks. There is no doubt at all that he is desperate. So what did he decide to do? He decided to establish his macho credentials in the tradition of the New South Wales Labor Right. Bill Hayden once told us, `If you enjoy pulling wings off butterflies, Barrie's your man'. Barrie thought that it was time he lived up to that macho image and showed that he was in control of the destiny of his own State. He thought that he would knock the Federal Government around the head-especially Bob Hawke's-to show how tough he was. He did those things to the Prime Minister-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. Mr McGAURAN —All Unsworth did was immerse himself even more deeply in the mire, and it is pathetic to see. He sought assurances that superannuation savings would not be taxed by the Hawke Government. Of course, he never received such assurances. Instead, when we look at the Prime Minister's answers to our questions over the last couple of days, we realise-if we can work our way through the qualifications and the equivocal smokescreen that he put up-that the simple fact is that there will be new taxes on superannuation. However well the Government tries to dress it up, taxes are on their way. The honourable member for Canning confirmed that better than anyone when he beat his chest in that macho theatrical air that the Government tries to adopt. Mr Cunningham —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: in view of the call for quorums in the previous speaker's time, can the Clerk check the House to see whether there is a quorum present to hear the honourable member for Gippsland? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. Does the honourable member wish to call a quorum? Mr Cunningham —I ask for a check of the numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Checks cannot be made. Does anyone in this House call for a quorum? As a quorum is not required, I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN —People must understand that the Labor Government will tax superannuation. It will tax the superannuation funds-that is, the profits that are made-and, therefore, decrease the return to those on annuities. It will again tax superannuation funds in the hands of recipients. Let us make no mistake about that. When the Prime Minister sought in some way to evade the Leader of the Opposition's direct question as to whether or not the new taxes will be retrospective, he spoke only along the lines that previous entitlements will not be interfered with. That is so wishy-washy as to represent a non-answer. The fact is that the taxes will be retrospective as well as prospective. All the Prime Minister has to say is that there will be no retrospective taxes. This Opposition will declare unashamedly here and now that there will be no retrospective taxes. Mr Cunningham —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. A quorum having been called and the bells being rung-- Mr Connolly —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure you would agree that it is the responsibility of the Government to keep the House, which it has failed to do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair does not have to agree. We are waiting for a quorum in accordance with Standing Orders. (Quorum formed) Mr McGAURAN —The Government is rattled. The unprecedented action of a Government Whip calling a quorum to try to gag an Opposition member is an undeniable measure of the Government's desperation. It is frightened to the very core of its existence. It has kissed goodbye to Unsworth and turned its back on him, making him out to be the pygmy that he really is, and now it is discrediting itself. Is it really that terrorised by-- Mr Cleeland —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: is it appropriate for an honourable member to refute a Prime Minister's clear and unequivocal statement in debate? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —The Government is rattled beyond its own control. It has lost charge of this House and it will lose the New South Wales election. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.08) —Today we find ourselves debating a matter of public importance called on by honourable members on the other side of the House, yet they cannot even get support from within their own numbers to come into the chamber and listen to the drivel from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). The reason is that the matter concerns superannuation. The honourable member for Gippsland comes from `down farm' country. He does not even know how to spell `super', let alone anything about superannuation. He came in here and talked about superannuation. We have heard nothing about superannuation from the other side of the House for the past three years. All of a sudden this week it gets whipped up as a big issue. Why? Because Opposition members are on the same election scaremongering stuff which traditionally they come forward with-not policies, just scaremongering stuff. The Government's position on the superannuation issue is this: the Hawke Labor Government came to power in 1983 with a mandate to attempt to reform rorts that existed right across the finance and tax system in this country, rorts that were put in place and condoned by those opposite. This Government was elected with a mandate to review and reform a distorted and exploited tax system, including superannuation. The reform has been substantial in a number of areas of immense disparity. I refer, for instance, to the assets test, which has a very direct application to retirement income and the well-being of people who retire from the work force. Opposition members went around deliberately scaring pensioners about the assets test, telling pensioners to hide their money in tins under their beds and to take their money out of the bank. They scared pensioners witless. The net result of the assets test was that 97.5 per cent of pensioners kept their pensions. The assets test was directed at 2.5 per cent of pensioners, and they were the wealthy pensioners like the former Liberal Prime Minister, Billy McMahon, who wanted to take their lump sums of half a million dollars, sock them away in capital investment funds and get full pensions from the social security system. It was immoral and disgraceful and it was condoned by Opposition members. They went out screaming and scaremongering about the Government's attempts to revert to a fairer system. I make no apology for the steps that have been taken by the Government, particularly by my colleague, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who was chairman of the economic policy committee when these events took place. I make no apology for the fact that over the past three years the Government has consistently brought back into fairness a system that the former Liberal Government left rorted and distorted. What did honourable members hear about the fringe benefits tax, the very money that has contributed to this year's record surplus in the Budget? After inheriting a $9m deficit, the Government is now able to turn around the country with a balanced Budget. Opposition members went out scaring every Australian about what would happen with the fringe benefits tax. Farmers in my electorate were told by Opposition members that they would finish up paying the fringe benefits tax on the chops and eggs they provided for their shearers. That sort of nonsense was peddled day by day by members on the Opposition benches. The same applied with the capital gains tax, and on and on it went. I shall look directly at the question of superannuation. In 1983 superannuation in this country was basically the prerogative of white collar workers and management. Although ordinary people battled to make provision for themselves or to find ways to get a pension, superannuation was the prerogative of the privileged. That is the legacy of a massive error made in this country in the late 1940s when the concept of putting in place a national superannuation fund was abandoned. Mr Chynoweth —Who took all their money? It was Menzies who took all their money. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley correctly points out, it was the Liberal Menzies Government that let that opportunity slip through the hands of Australians. Over a number of years we have reverted to a situation where the privileged are able to provide for themselves and the others are left to go their own way. Since 1983 the Government has commenced a positive program to make superannuation available to everyone in the community, to all workers. It has been a consistent path. First, the Government removed the rorts. It was pledged to remove the rorts, and it did so. It then went down the track of legislative changes to encourage people to provide for themselves by contributing to superannuation. Despite all the nonsense being talked about now, everything in the Government's policy, its legislation and its current thinking encourages workers to take the option of a lump sum or a continuing retirement pension. Nothing in the provisions that will come forth in the future will change that arrangement. The Government has actively supported changes in the wage system, including the 3 per cent productivity push to broaden the availability of superannuation to everyone in the work force, and it will continue to do that. The matter of public importance brought on today refers to the encouragement of early retirements, and suggests that people are running away from the work force because they are uncertain about superannuation. What absolute rubbish! The reason that a number of people in the work force are now taking early retirement is that the Government has created the conditions whereby they can do so. It is encouraging people to use the latter halves of their lives to make more of their leisure opportunities. Everyone in the country is talking about creating opportunities for younger people in the work force. The Government is calling on the Australian economy and Australian business to reform its thinking, to restructure and to take new directions, and if that means encouraging redundancy and lump sum payments to help bring about that change in old thinking, that must be part of the work force process. However, for honourable members to purport, as the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) did, that people such as Qantas pilots are fleeing their jobs because of potential changes in the lump sum superannuation structure is absolute rubbish. I shall say one other thing about superannuation policy. Of course there will be pressure from the Government on superannuation funds, and there ought to be. I shall tell the House the kind of pressure it will be. It will be pressure to invest their funds in Australia, to start following programs such as those that have been laid out in Australia Reconstructed and to use those funds to redevelop this nation. I turn to the question of investment in Australia. Where does the Federal president of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, sit on this? He has demanded changes to tax policy and has said that if the Government does not do it his way he will take his money out of Australia. That is where the Liberal Party sits. Its policies are designed to undermine Australia's economy and national effort. The attitude is to take the money off-shore because that is where investors get a tax break. I cannot let this opportunity go past without referring to the front page of the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 23 March last year. This is not some rag; it is supposed to be Australia's foremost financial newspaper. It reported the leaked secret Liberal agenda, which showed what the Liberals planned to do. What were the Liberal Party members who bleat about their care for ordinary people going to do for them? What is still their secret agenda? It is to cut pensions and tighten eligibility; abolish the fringe benefits tax for the high fliers; increase the eligibility age for female pensions to age 65; cut the Medicare rate and abolish bulkbilling; and so on. No denial of any of those policies has ever been uttered by any Liberal Party member since that agenda was published. There has been not one denial; it is still the Liberal Party's policy. Liberal Party members should not come into the House purporting to care about ordinary people. They represent the high fliers and let them set up a system of rorts and rip-offs. Over the past five years the Government has consistently set out to clean up the system and make it fairer. The New South Wales Government has done the same. It supports what the Federal Government is on about, and Opposition members should not forget that for one minute. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. The discussion is concluded. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I seek a ruling from you on the circumstances of the rising in this House of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) on the first occasion requesting that a count be made of members in the House and the subsequent events. I draw your attention to page 294 of House of Representative Practice, which states: A member is entitled at any time to draw the Chair's attention to the state of the House although it is out of order to debate the situation or to draw attention while the Speaker is in the process of putting a question. Once a quorum has been called there can be no withdrawals and the House must be counted. There are two general principles to be observed by the Chair in respect of a quorum: it is not the duty of the Chair to count the House until attention has been drawn by a member to the state of the House, and when attention is drawn, the Chair is obliged to make a count. I put it to you, firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in asking that you count the number of people in the House, the Government Whip showed an ignorance of this section. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, once he drew it to your attention, you were obliged to conduct the count, and you failed to do so. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor is incorrect in this instance. According to the Standing Orders a member of this House actually has to require a quorum; a quorum is not a count. A count is counting members. A quorum is having 50 members present in the House. I specifically clarified the situation by asking whether any member of this House wished to call a quorum. No member responded and I rule, therefore, that you are out of order. Mr LEO MCLEAY(Grayndler) —In accordance with sessional order 28D (b), on behalf of the Selection Committee I present a report on the proposed general principles relating to the selection of private members' business. The report read as follows- The Selection Committee submits its report to the House on the proposed general principles relating to the selection of private Members' business, and recommends its adoption. In accordance with sessional order 28D (b) the Selection Committee has resolved that the general principles should be as follows: General principles relating to the selection of private Members' business (1) In formulating the priority to be given to items of private Members' business the Selection Committee shall have regard to: (a) the importance of the subject; (b) the current level of interest in the subject; (c) the extent of the current discussion on the subject both in the Parliament and elsewhere; (d) the extent to which the subject concerns the administrative responsibilities of a Minister or could come within the scope of ministerial action; (e) the probability of the subject being brought before the House by other means within a reasonable time; and (f) whether the subject is the same, or substantially the same, as another item of business which has been debated or on which the House has already made a decision in the same period of sittings and, if so, whether new circumstances exist. 2. The Committee shall accord priority to private Members' business- (a) with regard to the numbers of Members affiliated with each party in the House; (b) in a way which ensures that a particular Member or the Members who comprise the Opposition Executive do not predominate as the movers of the items selected; and (c) in a way which seeks to ensure balance is achieved over each period of sittings. 3. Priority shall not be accorded to any item of private Members' business, the subject of which can be considered by the House in another, more appropriate, way. 4. When a private Member will have the responsibility for the carriage of a Bill transmitted from the Senate for concurrence, the Bill shall be accorded priority in the same way as a private Member's Bill originating in the House is accorded priority by sessional order 104A. 5. The general principles set out above shall be observed generally by the Selection Committee but nothing in the general principles shall be taken to prevent the Selection Committee departing from those general principles in order to meet circumstances, which, in its opinion, are unusual or special. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-Honourable members will be aware that the House adopted new and revised Sessional Orders last December which are to take effect from 15 March 1988. The new Orders established the Selection Committee and made significant changes to the way in which the House will deal with items of business proposed by private members. The Selection Committee now has a key role in determining the items of private members' business to be selected for debate, the order in which the items will be debated and the amount of debating time to be given to each item. New sessional order 28d requires the Committee to undertake this role in accordance with general principles that have been adopted by the House following a report from the Committee. The report I have just presented recommends principles to the House for its approval. The House should note that in giving priority to private members' business items, the Committee proposes to have regard to the numbers of members affiliated with each party in the House and to ensure a proper balance is achieved between the parties over each period of sittings. The Committee also proposes to ensure no particular member, or the members who comprise the Opposition Executive, predominate as the movers of items selected. These guidelines were first enunciated by the Procedure Committee in its reports that led to the adoption of the new sessional orders. A major defect of the old arrangements for debating general business items has been that, to ensure a matter was debated in the course of a session of the Parliament, the matter had to be lodged in the form of a notice of motion on the first sitting day of a session. In most cases, matters were debated, if they were debated at all, months after they were first lodged. The new arrangements will enable matters debated during private members' business time to be far more topical and relevant. The Committee hopes, as a result of the new arrangements, it will be possible for topics that hitherto have had little chance of being discussed in a specific debate on the subject in the House to have a far better chance of being debated. The Committee invites all members to consider submitting notices for discussion on matters which will not only be of interest to them but which will generate a lively discussion and draw more members into the chamber on Thursday mornings. Members should be aware that the Sessional Orders give a priority to notices of intention to present Bills over notices of motion. I remind honourable members of sessional order 104b which provides that any item of private members' business not called on or not re-accorded priority by the Selection Committee will be removed from the Notice Paper after eight sitting Thursdays. The Committee intends to meet each week and, as envisaged by the Procedure Committee, it intends to invite members sponsoring business to appear before it in those instances where it has difficulty in selecting items to be accorded priority. So that honourable members may take full advantage of the changes and not be caught unawares by some of the limitations and restrictions in the new arrangements, I suggest they read, or read again, the Procedure Committee's report on improved opportunities for private members. I commend the proposed general principles relating to the selection of private members' business contained in the Selection Committee's report to the House. Mr FIFE(Hume) —by leave-The Opposition supports the proposals. Indeed, on a previous occasion we indicated that the revised Sessional Orders will provide additional opportunities both in time and a better order of proceedings for private members of this Parliament. Unfortunately, because of the tremendous amount of business governments have to transact in this day and age, the amount of time available to private members is strictly limited. When these Sessional Orders were introduced, I indicated that they had our general support. But obviously the Opposition will continue to monitor very closely the operation of the new Sessional Orders so far as private members' time is concerned. We will not hesitate to bring to the attention of the Parliament any deficiencies that we note or any improvements that we believe can be effected. I acknowledge that there is goodwill on both sides of the House in relation to this matter, and I thank the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) for the report that he has presented on behalf of the Committee. The Committee, of course, is a most important part of the new Sessional Orders. Without the Committee and without goodwill on the part of all members of the Committee, of course, the Sessional Orders will not work. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish the Committee well and I thank the honourable member for his report. Debate resumed. Mr SMITH(Bass)(4.26) —I am resuming my remarks on this Bill, the debate on which commenced before lunch. I have a few moments to conclude my remarks before other speakers make their contribution. As I was saying, the Opposition supports this Bill and will join with the Government in ensuring that it has a speedy passage. The Bill relates to a very important area of patents in ensuring that the patents laws are on all fours with the safeguards proposals. What I was saying earlier was this: the issue that we really need to be addressing in the broader sense in respect of patents and safeguards for nuclear energy is that we must make up our minds in this country whether we want to be full participants in that nuclear industry. It is interesting to look at what people in other countries have said about the importance of the uranium that we have in Australia. One person who came to Australia some years ago, John Madden, who is a prestigious editor of one of the leading science journals in the world, Nature, told the National Press Club in Canberra in June 1985 that if Australia wanted influence or control over nuclear proliferation it needed a full uranium enrichment and reprocessing industry. This would, he said, give Australia control of the uranium through all stages of its production and use. The key point he was making concerns the question of control. We have a reserve of major proportions in world terms in this country, and we have to make up our minds whether we will allow the industry to develop. We have a very restrictive three-mine policy in this country at present which, as I understand from Press reports, does not enjoy the full support of the Minister who is charged with administering that policy, and I shall say a little bit about that in a moment. Another person in Australia has had something to say about it, and he really encapsulates the broader moral issues. Some people on the other side will have the opportunity to expand upon their moral position because many do have strong convictions about this issue, and one can appreciate that. A man who has succinctly encapsulated the arguments that we should be addressing is Professor Ringwood, who would be well known to those who follow the nuclear debate. I would like to quote to the House what he said: Australia, alone, cannot prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but we can take some positive actions which would contribute towards the security of the world. In particular, the continued mining and export of our uranium would actually lead to a reduction in the potential for proliferation. On the other hand, a moratorium on the mining and export of Australian uranium will have absolutely no deterrent effect on the capacity of other countries to produce nuclear weapons. It is entirely proper that the broader ethical implications of mining and export of uranium should be at the forefront of the debate. The large number of Australians whose opposition to uranium mining is sincerely based on moral grounds should re-examine their positions in the light of these basic realities. Indeed, it is interesting to see, in reflecting on that quote, what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had to say about the uranium issue. He is reported as saying that there was no way that even a `milligram' of the new shipment, approved only last week, would find its way into the nuclear weapons cycle. That, of course, is the shipment going to France. He asked: Is it moral for Australia to take a course of action which not only prejudices Australia in economic terms but in the broader sense makes the nuclear full cycle less safe? If that is supposed to be moral, I want a new definition of morality. There is a dilemma there for the Australian Labor Party. On the one side, many of its members are saying it is immoral to be involved with the uranium industry yet their Leader is saying, `Yes, we have to have a new definition of ``morality'' because we cannot deny ourselves the opportunity to have, as Ringwood says, control and, at the same time, if we are to get the economic benefits which all of us, I am sure, would welcome'. The new junior Minister under Minister Kerin, the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, admitted the day after he took up his new position that he was morally opposed to uranium mining. He refused to back down from his previous hard-line stand on uranium, saying that his opposition to the mining of Australian uranium and its export to France were `on the record and well known'. He went on to say: My position on the matter, now that I'm a Minister, is that I am bound by the decisions of the Government, but able to express my views in the appropriate forums. I would like to know how the Minister will deal with his conscience and with the administration of his Department. It will indeed be interesting to see what other members on the other side of the House have to say. One can see from the speakers list that a variety of views will come out this afternoon from the ALP. Not the most interesting speaker, of course, but one we will all be wanting to listen to is the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), a left wing member who stated prior to Christmas that he was prepared to review his own position with regard to uranium mining. As I said earlier in the day, the moral dilemma for members of the ALP is that they have to make up their minds whether the morality of wanting to help the Aborigines, who benefit largely from the proceeds of mineral royalties paid to them, has a higher priority or is a higher moral commitment for them than leaving uranium in the ground. I will be interested to see what the honourable member has to say. It is also interesting to go back to September last year to see what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy had to say. In an article in the Australian Financial Review headed `Kerin hints at uranium changes' he is quoted as having said: `I won't be leading (moves to change the three uranium mines policy) because it is an intensely ideological debate'. What worries me is that if people are putting up arguments against (uranium) mining for purely ideological reasons, at the end of the day I am going to have to take a very pro-mining policy'. The Minister also has to make up his mind. Is he going to lead? That is what the people of this country elected him for. That is what he has been put in the Ministry for and that is why he is in the inner Cabinet. He is there to give some direction. He knows the economic imperatives that we could gain by being fully involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, yet he says that he cannot make up his mind. One might ask why that is. All has been revealed. The left wing of the Labor Party has been exerting pressure on the Government. All was revealed in the Weekend Australian recently when it was made clear that a background paper had been prepared by the Left. It totally contradicts a report based on International Atomic Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency studies forecasting a uranium shortfall in the 1990s. In fact, the Left has gone completely in the opposite direction. It is totally confused as to where it wants to go. As the Australian Financial Review and other newspapers have described it, the neanderthal Left, which has a voice far out of proportion to its numbers, seems to be dictating to the Government and everyone is running scared. It is time for commonsense to prevail. Unless we have a little commonsense in the uranium debate in this country we will lose economically. We will lose out to countries such as Canada and we will not get the full benefits that we ought to get. Safeguards are important, and the ability to patent those safeguards is what this Bill is all about. We have made great strides in waste disposal technology such as synroc, and we could continue to make great strides if the industry were allowed to develop. It is interesting to note that there is no Minister at the table-- Mrs Kelly —Yes, there is. Mr SMITH —There is; I apologise. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel was at the back of the chamber, but she is coming forward. That is good. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a graph which indicates the extent of the nuclear power industry and the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the world. It is in 1986 figures, but it tells the story very adequately as to how many countries are relying on the nuclear industry for their power sources-their lights and so on. That is the type of industry we are talking about. We are talking about Australia providing uranium, the basic raw material, for countries that are relying on nuclear energy for their basic power sources. I refer to countries such as Belgium, which in 1986 had 67 per cent of its power provided by nuclear energy, and France, which had nearly 70 per cent provided by nuclear energy. Since then other countries, notably Japan, have been growing rapidly. Mr Chynoweth —And the USSR? Mr SMITH —I note that the honourable member is listed as the next speaker. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has gone ahead with a new plan ever since Chernobyl. I am saying that we cannot ignore reality. We must deal with the commonsense issues that are before us. If we deny ourselves the opportunity to be involved, we will suffer financially and perhaps at some stage down the track, because we have chosen to ignore the needs of the rest of the world, some other country will come and help itself. That is a possibility that we ought not to ignore totally. We can either participate in the nuclear industry and try to get control; we can acquiesce and do what we are doing now-that is, nothing; or we can protest. We have plenty of protesters and I dare say we will hear from many of them this afternoon. My point is that we need to take control. We have the opportunity to have control and we need to take it. We can do it positively and in recognition of the nuclear arms proliferation treaties and all the safeguards proposals that the Liberal Party puts together. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was the one who negotiated all those safeguards agreements some years ago and they have bipartisan support. We can and ought to participate positively and, if we do not, this nation will be the poorer for it. It is time to take our heads out of the sand and to apply a little commonsense. It is time for Ministers such as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to stand up and say what they think rather than hide behind funny little quotes from newspapers that say nothing and leave the matter for the national convention in Hobart. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable member for Bass sought leave to have a table incorporated. As the table is according to the guidelines and approval has been given, it will be incorporated in Hansard. The table read as follows- WORLD SURVEY Nuclear power reactors in operation, under construction and planned at the end of 1986 Country In operation Units MWe Under construction Units MWe Planned Units MWe Nuclear electricity supplies in 1986 TWh % of total Argentina 2 935 1 692 1 or 2 700 *5.4 *11.3 Belgium ... 8 5 486 - - - - 37.1 67.0 Brazil ... 1 626 1 1 245 1 1 245 0.1 0.1 Bulgaria ... 4 1 632 4 3 826 2 1 906 11.2 30.0 Canada ... 18 11 249 5 4 361 - - 67.2 14.7 China ... - - 1 288 2 1 800 - - Cuba ... - - 2 816 1 ? - - Czechoslovakia ... 7 2 799 9 5 508 6 5 484 *16.2 *21.0 Egypt ... - - - - 2 2 000 - - Finland ... 4 2 310 - - - - 18.0 38.4 France ... 49 44 693 14 17 809 1 1 450 241.4 69.8 German DR ... 5 1 694 6 3 432 4 1 632 *12.2 *11.6 Germany FR ... 21 18 947 4 4 052 10 12 621 112.1 29.4 Hungary ... 3 1 235 1 410 5 4 750 7.0 18.3 India ... 6 1 154 4 880 4 880 4.5 2.7 Iran ... - - 2 2 400 - - - - Italy ... 3 1 273 3 1 999 2 1 900 8.2 4.5 Japan ... 35 25 821 10 8 431 7 6 785 166.5 24.7 Korea RP ... 7 5 380 2 1 800 2 1 800 26.6 43.6 Mexico ... - - 2 1 308 - - - - Netherlands ... 2 507 - - 2 2 000 4.0 6.2 Pakistan ... 1 125 - - 1 900 0.5 *1.8 Poland ... - - 2 880 6 4 680 - - Romania ... - - 5 3 145 1 408 - - South Africa ... 2 1 842 - - - - 8.8 6.8 Spain ... 8 5 599 2 1 920 4 3 780 35.9 29.4 Sweden ... 12 9 455 - - - - 67.0 50.3 Switzerland ... 5 2 932 - - 2 2 140 21.3 39.2 Taiwan ... 6 4 918 - - 4 4 120 *25.8 *43.8 Turkey ... - - - - 1 - - - UK ... 38 10 222 4 2 520 1 1 175 51.8 18.4 USA ... 99 84 592 21 23 301 - - 414.0 16.6 USSR ... 50 27 657 33 30 660 36 36 163 *148.0 *10.6 Yugoslavia ... 1 632 - - 1 1 000 3.8 5.4 Total ... 397 273 715 141 123 663 109 or 110 101 319 1 514.6 * IAEA estimates. Source: International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System, apart from Comecon countries. Mr Smith — I thank the House. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(4.37) —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for allowing me to speak at this time. As the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) has pointed out, the subject of this debate is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. He pointed out that the Bill basically brings the Patents Act into line with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 in regard to matters that affect that Act. As the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech, the Bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Patents Act 1952. Most of them are to set up procedures for handling patent applications relating to nuclear technology. He also said that the procedures were needed to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act of 1987, which was passed earlier last year. The new procedures introduced by the Bill relate to patent applications which contain information of a kind referred to in the definition of `associated technology' in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act. That Act provides that associated technology is not to be processed or communicated without the relevant permit or authority from the Australian Safeguards Office. The world of patents is an intriguing one, to say the least, and the area of new technology is a tangled web indeed. As we know, patents are a system designed to protect the inventor from having his ideas commercially exploited without his permission. Therefore, it follows that the main purpose of the patent is to prevent others from copying the idea. But because a patent gives a kind of monopoly right, there are certain conditions attached to it. One of these conditions is that the details of the invention are published by the Patent Office so that the information enters the public domain and anyone is allowed to make use of it provided that the patent is not infringed. Because of the rapid advances in technology and the somewhat arcane system of patents, there is obviously a need to make sure that the system can cope with the need for the protection of certain information from general release. Horrifying as it may seem, it is possible to obtain patents and blueprints that show how to go about the construction of an atomic or nuclear bomb. In a world where terrorism has sometimes meant the loss of innocent people's lives, it is clear that, if some areas of nuclear technology were patented and therefore freely available, they may fall into the hands of those who would use them to their own advantage. Indeed, there are already well documented cases in the United States of America where some people have gone as far as producing their own nuclear weapon designs using information that is freely available from the public domain. As with any aspect of the nuclear industry, we cannot afford in any way to be complacent about the enormous responsibility that every country has, no matter how small its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Australia must be totally diligent in its protection of nuclear industry technology. Any less a commitment may result in technological secrets falling into inappropriate hands. I should like to illustrate how sometimes the publishing of patents has been used to advantage in the past. An advantage was gained by British bomb disposal squads-the good guys in this instance-during the Second World War. During the bombing of London, some bombs failed to explode and disposal squads were used to make them safe. Disposal, although risky, was proceeding until the British noted that the Germans had developed a new form of electrical fuse. In the early raids, the bombs had been carried in the German aircraft in a safe condition and as they left the bomb bay a vital capacitor in the fuse mechanism was automatically charged. To defuse such a bomb, it was necessary only to discharge the capacitor in the fuse mechanism. But with the new type of fuse, the bomb could still explode after the fuse capacitor had been discharged. A bomb disposal expert with a knowledge of patents had an idea after noticing that the name Rheinmental was stamped on the bomb-fuse housing. He went to the Patents Office, which was fortunately still standing, and found a string of patents in the name of Rheinmental that the German company had diligently filed in the early 1930s. One of these patents explained in meticulous detail how the new fuses worked and, armed with this information, bomb disposal again became a lot more attractive as a job prospect during those grim days. I am indebted to the New Scientist magazine for that anecdote concerning the use of patented material, and I believe that it clearly illustrates the type of problems that there are with patents. Given the sophisticated technology that is used in the nuclear industry, and the frightening implications this has, I believe that the amendment is a good piece of legislative housekeeping by the Government and I am pleased to see that it is totally supported by the Opposition. As is stated in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, the new procedures will require the Commissioner of Patents to refer to the Director of Safeguards patent applications that appear to the Commissioner to contain information of a kind referred to in the definition of `associated technology' in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. The new procedure will also allow the Director of Safeguards to certify that an application does not contain such information and direct that the application shall lapse or not be treated as an international application as the case requires; or notify the Commissioner that the publication or communication of information about the application should be prohibited or restricted. Importantly, it will also provide rights of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions by the Director or the Commissioner. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business stated in his second reading speech: Under the Safeguards Act, associated technology means a document containing information that is primarily applicable to enrichment of nuclear material, reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material, production of heavy water or nuclear weapons, or nuclear information that is covered by an international agreement and is declared by the Minister to be information for the purposes of this definition. I was particularly pleased to note that the Minister also made it clear that decisions taken in regard to this matter that affect people's rights are taken in a fair and open manner. Whilst recognising the need for caution in all matters associated with nuclear technology, this Government is always considerate of the Australian people's democratic rights. I just remind the honourable member for Bass that, whilst he may be enthusiastic about the prospect of a nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing industry in Australia, it is not on this Government's agenda. The current Australian Labor Party (ALP) policy on which this Government bases decisions acknowledges the problems associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, stresses the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, limits the number of mines to Ranger, Nabarlek and Roxby Downs and lays down specific conditions under which mining and exports will occur. The underlying premise in this policy for the continuation of uranium mining is the belief that further involvement by Australia under stringent nuclear safeguards conditions will enhance and promote the ALP's stated commitment to the prevention of nuclear proliferation. The current policy, as adopted at the 1986 conference, has as its central premise the belief that Australia can contribute to nuclear non-proliferation by allowing the export of uranium under stringent safeguards. A series of proscriptions are provided to ensure that, if countries breach the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or are not parties to Australian security conditions, or adopt policies inimical to further advancing the cause of nuclear non-proliferation, Australian uranium will not be supplied. I encourage the honourable member for Bass to take cognisance of that policy because it has had a lot of discussion and debate, not only in the ALP but also in the wider community. I also suggest to him to be very careful about suggesting that demand for nuclear commodities or uranium will increase over time. The honourable member mentioned in his speech the question of nuclear reactors, and specifically the Soviet Union. He might be aware that the Soviet authorities have abandoned construction of a nuclear power plant near Krasnodar. I quote from the Australian Financial Review dated 29 January 1988 in which it was reported that the Soviet authorities admitted: . . . all of the 20 operating nuclear power plants in the country, and most of those under construction, were bitterly opposed by local residents. The Swedish Government is currently phasing out its nuclear power program, the Italians have decided to limit the industry and orders for four reactors in West Germany were recently cancelled. A recent poll in France revealed that 52 per cent of French people were opposed to the construction of more nuclear power plants. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.45) —In speaking to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill I see that it concerns adjusting amendments to the Patents Act 1952 to set up procedures for handling patent applications which relate to nuclear technology. The Opposition welcomes the tacit recognition in this Bill that nuclear technology and energy are here to stay. Australia has a valuable role to play in the development of new inventions and processes and these are to be welcomed and recognised instead of spurned and despised as they have been in the recent past. There are many areas where this sort of technology touches our lives. It is used in medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of a number of diseases. If we lived in a developed country overseas we would probably have at least a portion of our electricity generated by nuclear power. I think eventually we will see in Australia irradiated food being sold on our shelves because it is useful in reducing wastage, in prolonging shelf life, in reducing the use of pesticides, which we are trying to get away from, in preventing sprouting in some cases, and even in reducing insect infestation, which will open up new export markets for us. Most advanced countries have long recognised the benefits of nuclear technology although Australia has dragged behind except in areas such as medical diagnosis. I think most of us are familiar with the radio isotopes that are used for the diagnosis of certain diseases, particularly cancer, and also with radioactive material used for the treatment of cancer. However, much paranoia still exists in this country which holds us back. I saw a typical example of this in the Labor Council-controlled City of Orange which I was driving through the other day where there are signs stating, `This is a nuclear free zone'. This was in a city that has a hospital that practices nuclear medicine, which the State member of parliament, Garry West, has done a great deal to facilitate. If the Labor councillors had as many neurones in their skulls as there are signs around the city, they would realise the nonsense implicit in these signs, which serve as little more than beacons to the ignorance and immaturity of those who ordered their erection. Notwithstanding these pockets of backwardness, the overwhelming weight of evidence coming through of the relative safety of nuclear energy, especially when compared with alternative energy sources, is rapidly turning opinion around. Australia has two nuclear reactors, both located at Lucas Heights in south-west Sydney. These are used for research. The Hi-Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR), the larger of the two, has been in full power for 27 years. It cost about $4m to build in the 1950s and to replace it today would cost about $100m. It is only a small to medium-sized reactor and contains about 6 kilograms of fuel, but it is concerned with research into radiation chemistry, the physics of fission, radioactive materials, and so on. One of the important things it does is produce radio isotopes which are worth about $3m a year to this country. Of course, they are used in nuclear medicine in hospitals such as the one in the City of Orange that I have already mentioned. The main purpose of the reactor is to generate neutrons, but heat is also produced which is dispersed into the atmosphere. It produces only about 10 megawatts of heat, which could be converted into only three megawatts of electricity, if that is what we wanted to do with it. This reactor can also make products for the electrical power industry, it can detect trace elements in air pollution samples and it can analyse samples for uranium, aluminium, platinoids and rare earths in ore deposits, which is important in trying to discover new metals and minerals in this country. It can be used for crime detection through its ability to match samples. It can also be used in neutron radiography. An example of this would be the inspection of jet engine turbine blades which, of course, is an important procedure in terms of jet aircraft safety. So many opportunities exist for industry-not only government industry but also private industry perhaps-to utilise and develop inventions that have every day practical applications, such as protecting health and the environment, and which can earn several million dollars of income for this country. Regrettably, in recent years nuclear science and technology courses have been curtailed in Australian universities. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-ANSTO-has been taken off research into nuclear power. We should contrast this with what is happening in the case of our Asian neighbours. Indonesia has a nuclear program twice the size of ours. It has four centres conducting nuclear research. Even Malaysia has a small nuclear reactor. Korea, Japan and Taiwan already have several nuclear power plants operating. China and India have developed nuclear industries. Even Bangladesh, for heaven's sake, and Vietnam are developing nuclear power facilities. Pakistan is a nuclear power and is developing enrichment facilities. While all this is going on Australia is languishing behind in an area in which we should be at the forefront, especially as far as middle power countries are concerned. Australia now has most of the non-communist world's uranium resources in the ground that are recoverable under about $80 a kilogram. Yet, in the five years that this Government has been in power, we have less capacity to develop uranium processing than when the coalition was last in power. I think Australia has 29.1 per cent of the non-communist world's reserves. Next down the list is Niger on 18.7 per cent, South Africa on 14.3 per cent and Canada on 10.6 per cent. Those four countries alone, of which we are one, have over 70 per cent of the non-communist world's supplies. Next down the list is Brazil on 7.1 per cent and Namibia and the United States of America on 5.4 per cent. Present world production of uranium is running at about 40,000 tonnes a year and, if no new mines open up, this is projected to start falling after about 1990. Australia, despite her lavish reserves, supplies only a small fraction of that amount-I think about 10 per cent. We have to bear in mind that the requirements for uranium are projected to rise steadily each year to over 60,000 tonnes by the year 2000. I believe that Australia is best placed of all countries to meet that shortfall which will approach about 30,000 tonnes. To do this we must open up new mines. We have to get rid of the silly policies that we have that it is okay to mine uranium in one area and not in another. I have never understood the logic of that. Australia would be foolish to neglect the rebuilding of a nuclear technology infrastructure in this country so that we can participate in the many options that will arise in the future. We are impoverishing this country by many millions of dollars by banning the processing of the virtually raw uranium that we export. I believe that processing could increase the export value of uranium by 250 per cent. As we exported something like 4,164 tonnes of uranium in 1986 for a return of $372m, we can see that this country is foregoing a value-added potential of $925m because of the restrictive policies we are forced to adhere to in this one area alone. That is quite a substantial amount of money. Mr Hicks —We must be a wealthy country. Mr COBB —One would think we would be, but our standard of living is falling. I know that the Government agonises nightly over whether we should or should not export. But having decided to do so, surely it is logical to conclude that there is no moral difference between selling processed uranium and selling unprocessed uranium. It could even be argued that if our uranium were converted into fuel rods, we could export it as such on the condition that the same spent fuel rods be returned to this country, so giving us the ultimate guarantee, for those who want it, that this uranium was not being diverted into weapons. I often wonder why we have the hang-ups that we do about the nuclear industry and radiation. I wonder whether the anti-nukes realise that all of us are exposed to a great variety of unavoidable background radiation? Levels vary according to where one lives and the methods of measurement used. But I see the latest studies by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement show that the average American receives an annual dose rate of 360 millirems-that is, 3.6 millisieverts in terms of metric measurements. About 55 per cent of this is from the natural gas, radon, which is present in all soil. Added to this is cosmic radiation from outer space, other terrestrial radiation from rocks and soil, and internal radiation from the human body. An 11 stone or 70 kilogram man has about 100 grams of weakly radioactive potassium inside him. This potassium shoots out something like 2,000 gammarays a second into our bodies, each of which could damage at least one body cell, which could start off a cancer or cause a mutation in a reproductive cell. Another 1,000 gamma rays a second escape from our bodies so that each of us becomes a source of radiation to those around us. Even you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are firing 1,000 gamma rays a second at me, as I am at you. To settle your mind down, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hasten to add that we have evolved excellent body repair systems to this damage or other damage inflicted by beta or gamma rays. Man made radiation accounts for about 18 per cent of background radiation. This is made up of medical x-rays, which contribute about 11 per cent; nuclear diagnostic procedures, which contribute 4 per cent; television sets which contribute about 3 per cent; and, if one lives in the Unites States of America, nuclear power stations which contribute 0.1 per cent. In other words, a television set in a house gives off about 30 times the amount of radiation that the average individual receives from all the nuclear power stations in the United States of America put together. So let us keep things in perspective. What I have just said leads me on to say something about nuclear power stations. I believe that nuclear power stations have been unfairly criticised. Since 1973 alone the 400 nuclear power stations around the world-there are none in Australia yet-have allowed countries to displace the burning of 11 billion barrels of oil and about one billion tonnes of coal. If we think about that, we realise that this has saved an enormous amount of pollution damage. As early as the 1970s thousands of lakes died biologically in Sweden as a result of acid rain caused by burning of oil and coal. The electricity produced now from nuclear energy is roughly equal to the United States of America's coal production or Saudi Arabia's oil production in 1982. With energy demands increasing worldwide, it is apparent that the only two sources that can be used to increase significantly energy output are coal and uranium. Coal, of course, is relatively dirty when compared with uranium. The 18 largest countries in western Europe will spend about $34 billion on controls and equipment to reduce the amount of acid rain and other airborne pollutants over the next 10 years. The cost of anti-pollutant devices will represent about one-third of the total cost to the consumer in some instances. That is a horrifying figure. Coal and oil plants belch out sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides which cause the acid rains which are damaging lakes and destroying large areas of forests in Europe and North America. On top of this, they also punch out a lot of carbon dioxide which contributes to the greenhouse effect which could warm up the atmosphere by between 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 degrees centigrade over the next 70 years. Of course, carbon dioxide cannot be eliminated from the emissions. Let us take the example of a 700 megawatt coal fired plant with a life span of 30 to 40 years which would supply a city of about 700,000 people. If this plant were equipped with filters that could purify exhaust emissions to the extent of about 80 per cent, which is rather good, it would still belch out in that time about 70,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the air. As well as that five million tonnes of desulphurisation products would be left on the ground, and also one million tonnes of ashes which contain heavy metals, some of which are radioactive and have to be disposed of. These give off radioactive emissions, some have half-lives of 4,500 years, and they emit the gas radon. If one compares that with a 700-megawatt nuclear plant that we may have to think about getting in Australia one day, in that time it would put out about 300 cubic metres of short-lived, low level waste each year; there would be about 20 tonnes of spent fuel, which could be reprocessed into about three to eight cubic metres of highly active glass; and gas and liquid emissions from the plant would be negligible. This low-level waste, even if covered by only two metres of clay, would send out less radioactivity to someone standing on top of this clay than the person would receive from another person standing 20 metres away. The ash, even from a coal fire in a house, would emit the same dose rate as properly buried intermediate level waste; or this same house coal fire would emit a massive 10,000 times more radiation than would low-level waste buried under only two metres of clay. People, particularly in Australia, have been misled about nuclear safety. Up to April 1986 the nuclear industry had logged almost 4,000 reactor years without a single death reported from radiation and without any major radioactive release into the environment. Mr Chynoweth —What about Chernobyl? Mr COBB —I will come to Chernobyl. I said `up to April 1986', if the honourable member was listening to what I was saying. The Three Mile Island incident in 1979 resulted in a partial core melt, but even though the episode was a financial disaster for the owner, no-one had his health harmed either inside or outside the plant. Even the Chernobyl accident, which was raised by the member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), although very serious, was overrated. It occurred because of design errors and stupid breaches of rules and procedures. Mr Chynoweth —That is always going to happen. Mr COBB —It has happened once, and I shall be surprised if it happens again. The explosion and graphite fire that resulted transported some fission material into the atmosphere. Two people died immediately, and another 29, mainly operating and fire fighting staff, died later; that is, 31 people died. Two hundred people were taken to hospital with radiation syndrome, but all have since been released. As well, 135,000 people were evacuated within a 30-kilometre radius of the plant. Most of this area has since been decontaminated. Let us keep the figures in perspective. One dam incident in Morvi in India in 1979 caused about 15,000 deaths-I mention that dam incident because hydro power is an alternative. Another dam failure in Vaiont in Italy in 1963 killed 3,000. The Bhopal disaster in India, which none of us will forget, resulted in about 2,500 dreadful deaths and 150,000 people were injured, not to mention the long term health effects. And, of course coalmine accidents and deaths from coal dust inflicted lung diseases occur almost daily. Chernobyl, as dreadful as it was, killed only 30-odd people. Naturally, there was radioactive fallout from the cloud emitted from the plant and this resulted in some `hot spots' where it coincided with local rainfalls. However, the fallout story should also be kept in perspective. The highest average dose of radiation to people in a western European country was reported in Austria at 92 millirems for the year. That is only about a quarter of the normal background radiation that everybody receives all the time anyhow. In fact, a person who lives in the granite area of northern Austria, as opposed to Vienna, would already be receiving that dose rate anyhow from normal radiation, because granite punches out quite a bit of normal radiation. Even the maximum first year dose of radiation received by individuals in western Europe was only 600 millirems a year. This is about one-tenth of what an X-ray nurse is allowed under standard regulations to receive in one year. This is not to underestimate the seriousness or magnitude of the incident or indeed the gross incompetence that caused it, but merely highlights the relative safety of the worst this industry can offer when compared with energy sources from alternative industries. Of course Australia, with plentiful coal supplies near to population centres, need not move towards nuclear power generation now. However, we must be careful not to get left behind with this technology, and especially with related nuclear technology. The day will come, perhaps sooner than later, when we need nuclear submarines for our navy and other things and I hope that the Government will look in this direction. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.05) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill. It saddens me to hear the honourable members for Bass (Mr Smith) and Parkes (Mr Cobb) support the mining and processing of uranium. I believe that not all Opposition members support this premise. I believe that some of them support me in the views that I hold against the processing of uranium and so on. I am always accused of opposing everything in the nuclear industry. Well, I do not oppose nuclear power. I oppose what it leaves at the end of the process-nuclear waste. No process has been devised as yet to make certain that it is safe. Some countries are leaving a legacy for children of the future. I speak not just of an accident that may happen, as in the case mentioned by the member for Parkes where 20,000 people, or whatever the figure was, were killed instantly when a dam burst. This problem will go on for hundreds of years. The effects of Chernobyl will not be felt straightaway. In the next 50 years people will still be dying from the effects of what happened at that power station, and I will come back to that later. It saddens me that all these people can think of is how many dollars they can make from the sale of what happens to be in the ground. Let us keep it there for a while; it is building up a bank. In the future we will have fusion power. We may not need uranium for that-probably we will not, because it is a clean process. At present we do not know how to handle the by-products-not only the waste products but also the nuclear weapons that are built from the nuclear industry. This Bill is an element of one of the most important and yet assiduous debates ever to have touched the shores of this great Australian nation or the lives of its citizens. Interestingly, the protagonists in this great debate provide an amazing contrast. The proponents of nuclear weapons seek power and monetary reward whilst the opponents of world holocaust desire only to enjoy forever the riches, the unspoiled beauty of this earth. The `arms race', `nuclear weapons', `mutually assured destruction', `nuclear winter', and `atomic testing' are not the colourful phraseology of an adventurer's handbook. Sadly, they are the bellicose terminology of a mankind that balances precariously on the frontier of oblivion. Similarly, `peace marches', `nuclear disarmament', `nuclear free zones', and `test ban treaties', are not the strained language of a disciplinarian. Fortunately, they are the dulcet tones of mankind working to preserve the future. Depending on the outcome of the debate, either we will all be winners or there will be no winners. Clearly, this Bill may warrant little recognition in the community beyond the nuclear industry. Its endeavour to allow minor amendments to the Patents Act in order to facilitate the patenting of nuclear technology in Australia is not particularly exciting or newsworthy to the people in the many quarters who have to pay any attention to the weapons of destruction and the path of damage they may bring upon society. A recent uranium information centre newsletter is typical of this. The newsletter reports the preliminary assessment of the effects of the Chernobyl accident on the European population. The study, carried out by the United Kingdom National Radiological Protection Board, has found that the theoretical number of extra cancers predicted due to the accident is of the order of 1,000. It is tragic that even one person, let alone 1,000 people, should die as a result of the accident. Nonetheless, the Uranium Information Centre newsletter dismisses these 1,000 deaths as `insignificant' and `not detectable' amongst the 30 million people in the European Community who will die of natural cancers over the next 50 years. Such ignorance and disdain has created a juggernaut that regularly explodes into the atmosphere of the South Pacific, detonates itself under the ground of the Nevada Desert, tests itself within the earth of Eastern Kazakhstan, manifests itself at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and generally threatens the very existence of life as we know it. I have no time for pleasant syntax and eloquent semantics on this subject. At the same time, let me assure honourable members that I derive no absurd pleasure from standing here and alluding to macabre tales of death and destruction. Recently, it was my privilege to launch a new book for a man who also does not gain pleasure or joy from tales of starvation, disease and chaos. The book, Beyond Darkness: Nuclear Winter in Australia and New Zealand, is the work of Dr Barrie Pittock, an internationally renowned research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The subject of his book, the newest nuclear scenario for Australia and New Zealand, is a relatively new contingency with an unpleasant diagnosis. The book serves to offer an important lesson for the prospect of a nuclear winter which presents an absolute imperative for an end to nuclear weaponry and the thinking that supports it. Beyond Darkness develops a terrible scenario that should set the alarm bells ringing. It presents a challenge to all to read it. Patently, it offers a message that cannot be ignored. Obviously, it relates to our future. Sadly, it is literature that too few are able, or wish, to comprehend and then act upon. To tolerate such ignorance in Australia and, indeed, the world community is unacceptable, and, at the same time, very frustrating. For years now the disarmament movement has toiled and crusaded to herald the dangers and still many citizens do not believe what could happen. Peace is a basic human need, but it is not guaranteed. Therefore, Australia has a unique and important role to play because of its high standing amongst other nations on this planet. We are in a position to put forward ideas and proposals which will be acceptable to the people of the world. We are seen as an honest broker. Such a credential must be used to assure the success of our mission of peace. Therefore, it is very important to evaluate the contribution that Australia makes in the overall scheme of world disarmament. Our peace movement has had some impact in getting the nuclear issue raised and debated. However, it has been unable to break through to the largely conservative electorate with the same success as the environment movement. However, we will keep trying. As the Soviet Union and the United States appear to be heading towards a new era of detente, I take this opportunity, on behalf of the constituents of Dunkley, to publicly thank the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and the General Secretary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mikhael Gorbachev, for the signing of an agreement bringing about a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. I also thank the many negotiators and advisers who were involved. I realise that only a small number of weapons is to be removed, but it is a first step along a very long road which will lead eventually towards real disarmament. With the presidential campaign well under way in the United States I trust that the next President will continue vigorously to pursue the great issue of disarmament. The two superpower leaders have set the example and I trust that those who follow will build on their initiative. Often scientists, governments and organisations become totally absorbed in a project as they strive to achieve their goals. They exist in an environment that, from a humanistic point of view, hampers most thought of the possible consequences of their inventions. Clearly, they believe that someone else will assume the responsibility for the side effects and future directions. The fact is that no one will unless we, the people, question the future problems that may arise and bring them to the notice of all. Without a doubt we must remain responsible, optimistic and positive in all our endeavours. Human beings are creatures of habit who have evolved from a process of nature that extends across millions of years. It must be mankind's hope that this process is not halted in a matter of minutes. Of course, the only deterrent of nuclear weapons is not to have them at all. The question of limited arsenals should never be contemplated. Our resolve will be satisfied only when there are no arsenals. Australia must investigate the merits of the establishment of a national academy of peace. I recognise that one of the hardest tasks in life, and in any nation regardless of its age, is the changing of old institutions and the creation of new ones. However, the institutions of our society must advance to keep pace with the times. I have already alluded to the shameful fact that peace, as a basic human need, is not guaranteed. It is my hope and, no doubt the hope of many millions, that the establishment of a national peace academy would be a major step to securing peace as a basic right. The establishment of a peace research centre at the Australian National University has been a great cause for optimism. But why can Australia not have a peace office on a government level equal to that of the Department of Defence? Since my election to this House in 1983 many events have served as a catalyst to the urgency of the nuclear debate-MX missiles, Chernobyl, the Rainbow Warrior, atomic testing, the ban on warships in New Zealand and the intermediate-range nuclear force treaty. It is my hope that the Nuclear Non-proliferation (Safeguards) Amendment Bill, together with notions of an Australian peace institute, will sanction debate and allow it to enter a new phase by elevating to the Government agenda the need to consider how best to prevent nuclear war and sue for peace. In November of last year I travelled to New York and took part in a forum at the United Nations sponsored by Parliamentarians for Global Action. It was an excellent forum bringing together parliamentary representatives from all over the world. There were 79 participants from 32 countries. Some of the speakers were: Dr Carl Sagan, Dr Robert Johansen, Director Graduate of Studies and Senior Fellow, Institute of International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University, Dr William Ury, Nuclear Negotiations Project Officer at Harvard Law School, Sir Shridath Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Dr Betty Lall, Director of Arms Control and Verification Projects and Brigadier Michael Harbottle, former Commander of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces in Cyprus. We all agreed that there should be a change to the United Nations and we should make it more relevant to today's world. Parliamentarians for Global Action offers this suggestion for consideration. The United Nations Charter was signed in a very different world. It was a world without nuclear weapons or jet engines. Whole regions were still colonised. It was a world at war. War has continued, but other things have changed. Fifty thousand atomic bombs have been assembled with a destructive power beyond the imagination of the diplomats in early 1945. A hundred new states have joined the international community, countries which had no voice in San Francisco. Each year the world has grown smaller, linked together into a single community by aeroplanes and satellites, by an interdependent world economy and a shared global environment. Just as the world institutions of 1919 were inadequate to prevent the Second World War, so the institutions of 1945 are proving inadequate to protect an increasingly global civilisation today. Nowhere is this more true than on the problem of war and peace. Only by building stronger common institutions can nations regain their sovereignty over decisions about whether their own people will live or die. Today, even for the most powerful nations, those decisions are finally taken by men and machines in cities far from their own borders. The time has come to begin creating a third generation of world institutions for the twenty-first century. There is widespread awareness of this problem, but no-one knows how to begin. As a member of Parliamentarians for Global Action I would like to suggest three steps. First, there should be a continuing process by which informal discussions and brainstormings could be launched. These should include parliamentarians, government officials and leading experts from around the world, together with creative individuals from international organisations and from private corporations. Second, proposals should be developed to establish, in embryonic form, some of the elements of a global security system. These elements could include an international verification agency, a standing UN peace force and arrangements to ensure a smooth transition from military to peaceful production. Proposals should be refined in co-operation with officials from selected governments and put forward if possible at heads of government level. Third, a negotiating forum should be created in which governments themselves could at least begin the task of preparing an integrated program for disarmament and international security. Such a negotiating conference would not produce results quickly. At present, governments are not even thinking about the long range problems of preventing World War III. This has to change before progress can be achieved. It is possible that a parallel negotiating forum at the parliamentary level could help to inject creativity into the governmental talks. Steps such as this must be undertaken to achieve peace between nations. If we set a goal to be reached by the year 2000 we will obtain for future generations what past generations could not, that is, lasting peace. It is now time to revisit Dumbarton Oaks. It is time to change the United Nations. It is time for a worldwide institution that commands the respect of all nations. I have said before that Australia has a very important role to play in bringing this about. Our government has been involved in initiating many proposals in the area of nuclear and chemical weaponry. Every Australian has a responsibility to preserve and encourage the future. Every person has a role to play in the quest for peace. It is a victory that can be obtained only by perseverance and persistence. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.23) —In speaking to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill, it is important to take note of what the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) has said. I suggest to him that it is the expression of opinions such as his that mean we will never come to a consensus on what I think is a pretty vital matter. Might I say that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see and there are none so blind as those who develop tunnel vision and cannot accept the facts that have been placed before them. I place on the other side of the ledger the point that he regards as fact some very important aspects of security in a social sense as well as in an economic sense. The opinions of the honourable member for Dunkley followed a speech made by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), who I believe has researched this matter well. He threw up many facts which have a moral implication and which are not recognised on the other side of the platform by those who just do not want to see. It is very important that on occasions such as this we try to ascertain basically what we are about. The first question we have to ask is: What is safe? What degree of safety is there? What degree of safety is every person guaranteed on birth in this country and in this world? I suggest that, in spite of the assurances that government and commercial people provide, there is no assurance against every catastrophe. I instance the aspect of safety in the development of the nuclear industry over a period, and a few deaths that have occurred in the peaceful use of nuclear power, compared with the numbers of deaths that have occurred in the conventional coal industry. We could probably number in the tens of thousands the deaths that have occurred directly from producing coal power. I suggest, as did the honourable member for Parkes, that deaths from the side effects of producing coal would number in the millions. This Bill makes minor amendments to the Patents Act 1952 to establish procedures for handling patent applications that contain information relating to nuclear material. It imposes restrictions which may result in fines or imprisonment of people making public certain nuclear information without being so requested. Obviously, nuclear information which is publicly available is not included. This means that it is imposing greater safeguards on the processing of patent applications which may contain nuclear material that is not meant for public knowledge. This is mainly applicable to, firstly, the enrichment of nuclear material; secondly, the reprocessing of nuclear material; thirdly, the production of heavy water or nuclear weapons; and, fourthly, nuclear information that is covered by international agreements and declared by the Minister as such. The Commissioner of Patents must let the Director of Safeguards know whether a patent contains such information and the Director must issue a certificate to that effect. The Bill also makes minor technical amendments to the recognition of certain documents lodged in connection with an international application made under a patent co-operation treaty and the conferral of priority dates in relation to an international application. It also makes broader provision for the exemption of people from the patent attorney's examination. Dr Hans Blix, who is the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, delivered a speech at a seminar on managing environmental risks in Salzburg, Austria, on 26 March 1987. It is interesting that the speech addressed environmental risks and that it is a fairly recent publication. Dr Blix made three points: firstly, that the world will need more energy-not the least electric energy; secondly, that the choice of energy mixes is one of the important factors deciding what future environmental risk and damage we shall live with; and thirdly, that nuclear power offers one of the most environmentally benign sources of energy generation. As early as the 1970s, thousands of lakes died biologically in Sweden as a result of acid rains, largely cause by the burning of oil and coal. Nuclear power is at present use mainly to produce electricity and this will remain the chief application. Significant possibilities exist to produce low temperature heat for the district heating of cities. The Soviet Union and China are looking in this direction. Dr Blix in his speech nominated certain countries that were involved in the production of nuclear power. So the issue we are debating is not new. The risks are known, and there are environmental risks, but nuclear power is being used extensively by many of the major countries throughout the world. I shall mention a few. There are 19 nations that use nuclear power for 10 per cent or more of their energy requirements. Three countries-France, Belgium and Sweden-use nuclear power for over 50 per cent of their energy. Seven countries, including the three I have mentioned, use nuclear power for over one-third of their electricity requirements. The interesting point is that Canada, France, Belgium, Sweden, South Korea, Bulgaria, West Germany, Japan, Taiwan and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics are using nuclear power. This is significant in another sense. If we look at the list of countries that are using this power for peaceful purposes we see that their economies are much stronger than ours and they are progressing much faster than we are. I mention Canada as an example. I do not think that any honourable member can say that Canada is more enlightened than is Australia, yet Canada has gone out of its way to service its people with nuclear power. I have had the benefit of going through one of its nuclear power plants. It might be said that Canada is more enlightened in the way it approaches the nuclear industry than is Australia. It has been able to take advantage of markets on the world scene where we have not. For instance, Canada, with all the availability of hydro-electric power, still uses nuclear power to generate 14.7 per cent of its electricity requirements. We are talking about advanced and civilised nations which know the risks and are prepared to take them, and their economies are advancing as a result. As economic and social development demands continue in the future, likewise the demand for electricity will rise, as has been shown in those countries. We have seen the concern of environmentalists over the Franklin Dam in Tasmania when we looked to hydro-electric projects. Only today the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) predicted a $4.7 billion oil import bill by the year 2000. When he launched a report he said that Australia faced hard options in energy policy in the years to 2000. A newspaper report of his remarks said: The new report anticipated that unless major new reserves were discovered, the oil import bill would rise to about $3 billion by 1990-91 and to $4.7 billion by 1999-2000. Mr Kerin said production in the US, USSR, Europe and some other areas had peaked- that is, oil production- or was about to peak, with a return to increased dependence on uncertain Middle East supplies. That is one caution which we have been given. The Australian coal industry is probably the most strike ridden of any industry in Australia or, in fact, the world. Only yesterday I heard that a Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd mine had closed down for 24 hours in another strike, lessening production, because the management had asked that work practices, particularly the incidence of sickies, be considered. As a protest, workers staged a strike. There will be a growing dependence on alternative fuels, and I suggest that nuclear fuel is one of those. France and Sweden, through nuclear energy, have helped to stabilise the electric energy price at a low level, thereby facilitating industrial development. Nuclear power is the obvious energy source to be exploited for present and future economic and social development demands. While there are risks in nuclear power, we must also look at the alternative risks from using some other source of power. With the introduction of this Bill, we are acting rationally in regard to nuclear safety. I believe that we have always acted rationally in connection with the supply to markets to ensure that they observe international safeguard standards. Australia possesses great quantities of uranium just sitting in the ground. Nuclear science has resulted in benefits in medicine, industry, science, commerce and agriculture. We could be taking an important role in meeting world energy requirements. Yet we are not truly fulfilling that role. We could be utilising this resource more effectively for our own country instead of having only a limited-export policy. This refers to both our export potential and the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. We have always supported the mining and milling of uranium, subject to stringent Australian health and safety standards, and we would remove the veto on the development of new uranium deposits, provided there is compliance with world standards. At present, three mines are allowed to mine and export uranium. They are Nabarlek, which I visited late last year and which will close because the resource has been mined; Ranger, which is also in the Northern Territory; and, lastly, Roxby Downs in South Australia. There are also two deposits awaiting Commonwealth Government export licence approval before development may proceed-Jabiluka, which is extremely rich, and Koongarra. They are also within my responsibility for the Northern Territory. The concern is that, whereas the Northern Territory has a two-mine capacity, with the close of Nabarlek the industry will wind down. The infuriating part of this is that, as I understand it, the residual power as far as uranium is concerned still remains with the Commonwealth. Yet the Commonwealth is trying to insist that the Northern Territory become economically independent. How can it become economically independent if its resources are to be held in the ground and it is not allowed to match what was there, before Nabarlek was in full production, with the opening of yet another mine? I believe that that has a great potential for difficulty in the Northern Territory as well as for our economic balance of trade figures. There is a potential for the Australian uranium industry to be a major force on international markets and also to provide an enormous economic boost to the Northern Territory. Nearly all the Northern Territory's uranium occurs in the Alligator Rivers Region. The value of existing Northern Territory uranium is about $30,000m, according to the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. The Northern Territory wishes to develop a facility for storing low level nuclear waste. One of the industry's major problems is the disposal of waste, but the Government is restricting progress in that area also. I mention again a Bill which was introduced in this House, I think yesterday, and which provides for an increase in the export duty on uranium. That means that the industry will have to face a further cost. In preference to giving the Territory a more open cheque on that amount, the Government is imposing further restrictions. The Opposition believes that Australia should be actively involved in the development of a nuclear fuel cycle which could be used for peaceful purposes such as power generation. I believe that at Ranger there is enough production in one year to provide the electric requirements for the whole of Australia. The Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy has provided the following figures: Australia's low cost uranium resources total 530,000 tonnes, of which the Northern Territory possesses 344,000 tonnes. Australia and Canada together are endowed with nearly one-half of the world's low cost uranium resources. In 1974 Australia had an eight year start on Canada in which it could develop its uranium mining industry. Since then, Canadian uranium exploration and mining have surged ahead while Australia has squandered several development opportunities. We have been able to freeze our best deposits and give a head start to Canada in return. According to the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, in 1986 Australia supplied about 11 per cent of the fuel for the world's 397 operating nuclear power stations. Canada supplied 31 per cent. As I have said, Australia's low-cost uranium resources total 530,000 tonnes. Canada possesses 320,000 tonnes. Canada has developed its own nuclear power reactor system-CANDU. Seven of those have been exported. Canada undertakes uranium refining and fuel fabrication while Australia does not. Australia employs more than 1,000 people in uranium and nuclear industries while Canada employs 38,000 people. Australia is being denied the opportunity of redressing its gradual economic demise, as calculated by the value of our dollar, our overseas debt and our expanding balance of trade deficit, while Canada is encouraged and has benefited from our stupidity. In the north of Australia we have a world class mineral area. Yet it still remains relatively unexplored. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill ensures that, in a small way, we are planning for Australia's future whereby nuclear energy must play an increasingly important role. We should welcome safety regulations. We believe that the safety of Australians is of the utmost importance. Under such highly regulated safety procedures, it is time that we developed this industry to its fullest potential. Doctor Blix made an important comment about uranium. I think that all Australians should look at the impact of the nuclear energy industry. Dr Blix said: It must be realised that it is only out of the concern for the world environment that the nuclear energy cycle should be encouraged. Compared to the environmental risks from conventional sources, this risk, on its use, is minimal. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.40) —I rise to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill. The Bill, despite its complicated title, implements minor amendments to the Patents Act. It establishes procedures to handle patent applications that involve nuclear technology. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act ensures that nuclear technology cannot be obtained or passed on to another party without the approval of the Australian Safeguards Office. Nuclear technology is defined as being any of the following: information on the enrichment of nuclear material; information on the reprocessing of irradiated material; or the production of heavy water or nuclear weapons. Uranium, in its natural state, has a very low proportion of the heavier uranium isotope. If this is concentrated it can be used in nuclear weapons. Some nuclear weapons are made from plutonium and plutonium can be obtained from the waste from nuclear power stations, so it is important that nuclear technology be defined to include information on enrichment and reprocessing. This Bill, which bans unauthorised patents on nuclear technology, in many ways brings to fruition the efforts of one of the world's greatest physicists, Leo Szilard. I wish to spend a few minutes explaining what Leo Szilard sought to do in the 1940s. I shall quote from a book by Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, based on an excellent Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) series. David Hill, the General Manager of the ABC, is coming to speak to the Labor Party Caucus communications committee next week and I shall seek to encourage Mr Hill to arrange for that excellent series to be replayed in the near future. Leo Szilard was born in Hungary and studied in Germany in the 1930s. He was forced, along with many other German scientists, to flee Nazi Germany. He ended up studying in Great Britain. The book states: He was walking to work at Bart's Hospital, and as he came to Southampton Row he was stopped by a red light. . . . before the light turned green, he had realised that if you hit an atom with one neutron, and it happens to break and release two, then you would have a chain reaction. He wrote a specification for a patent which contains the word `chain reaction' which was filed in 1934. And now we come to a part of Szilard's personality which was characteristic of scientists at that time, but which he expressed most clearly and loudly. He wanted to keep the patent secret. He wanted to prevent science from being misused. And, in fact, he assigned the patent to the British Admiralty, so that it was not published until after the war. But meanwhile war was becoming more and more threatening. The march of progress in nuclear physics and the march of Hitler went step by step, pace by pace, in a way that we forget today now. Early in 1939 Szilard wrote to Juliot Curie asking him if one could make a prohibition on publication. He tried to get Fermi not to publish. But finally, in August of 1939, he wrote a letter which Einstein signed and sent to President Roosevelt, saying (roughly) `Nuclear energy is here. War is inevitable. It is for the President to decide what scientists should do about it'. But Szilard did not stop. When in 1945 the European war had been won and he realised that the bomb was now about to be made and used on the Japanese, Szilard marshalled protest everywhere he could. He wrote memorandum after memorandum. One memorandum to President Roosevelt only failed because Roosevelt died during the very days Szilard was transmitting it to him. Always, Szilard wanted the bomb to be tested openly before the Japanese and an international audience, so that the Japanese should know its power and should surrender before people died. As you know, Szilard failed, and with him the community of scientists failed. He did what a man of integrity could do. He gave up physics and turned to biology-that is how he came to the Salk Institute. He went to to become a great biologist. I read that quote from The Ascent of Man because, in many ways, the Bill implements something that Szilard tried to do. The Bill will actually prohibit people from passing on information that could be used to create nuclear weapons, which is to be commended. Australia's great contribution to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is the fact that it has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty, which was first signed in 1971, provides that the signatories of the treaty which had nuclear weapons were obliged not to assist any other country to acquire nuclear weapons. Non-nuclear signatories agreed not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons in the future. At the moment, 137 countries have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am sure it is the wish of every member of this House that one day every country will sign that Treaty. The Treaty provides for the International Atomic Energy Agency to develop and apply international safeguards and also to ensure that on-site inspections are carried out to verify that the various Treaty countries are complying with the Treaty itself. In addition, the Treaty seeks to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses of nuclear energy, such as power stations to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. In addition, the Treaty calls on the superpowers to pursue negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race. Like the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) I hope that the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty recently negotiated between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev will be ratified by the United States Congress. It is disappointing to see so many Republican candidates for the United States presidency seeking to distance themselves from President Reagan on that point and it is perhaps pleasing that Vice President Bush, the only Republican candidate to support the INF treaty, had a win yesterday. I hope that he, along with all the Democrats, will continue to support the great advances that have been made with the INF treaty. Nuclear warfare poses the greatest threat to life on this planet, be it human or otherwise. Throughout my life the world has lived with the chance that at any time a human being or computer could make a mistake resulting in the annihilation of life on earth. The superpowers have the power to obliterate human civilisation, and it is distressing that some people in our country believe that in some way we can be isolated from any possible nuclear warfare. As the honourable member for Dunkley pointed out, the research that has been done on the nuclear winter theory demonstrates that Australia cannot escape the consequences of all out nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere. I have always believed that the most likely scenario involving the use of nuclear weapons is not a nuclear war between the superpowers but a small country outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty developing and using its own nuclear weapons. That is why this Bill, which seeks to prohibit the passing on of sensitive nuclear information, deserves our full support. If the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons increases, so does the threat and the chance that nuclear war will one day result. I was greatly concerned that in researching this speech I was able to come across so many newspaper clippings demonstrating that a number of countries, some of which are in the Asian region, appear to be close to developing the ability, or have already developed the ability, to manufacture nuclear bombs. I shall quickly refer to those newspaper articles. On 15 January 1987 the Age ran an article with the headline `South Africa's other explosive situation'. It states: Military scientists are still puzzling over an intense double burst of energy that for a fraction of a second in September 1979 lit up a vast area of ocean between South Africa and Antarctica. There is much concern that South Africa was perhaps testing a nuclear weapon on that occasion in 1979. In the Times on Sunday, 26 April 1987, an article by John Cushman appeared. Although I do not wish to suggest that every article that appears in the Times on Sunday is reliable, this article actually came from the New York Times, so I am prepared to quote it in the House today. The headline is `A deadly Third World mating game'. It states: In South America, Argentina and Brazil are to be the proud new owners of ballistic missiles. On the subcontinent, India leads Pakistan in the race to obtain powerful missiles. Asian nations that rim the Pacific-the Koreas, Taiwan, Indonesia-are climbing the technical ladder toward mastery of missile technology. In the Middle East, count Israel, Egypt and Syria among the missile states. In every case, the missiles and the technologies to build them were bought, either wholly or in part, from more advanced nations. And in every case, the nations involved either have or might some day develop the capacity to build atomic weapons. In the Age of 29 April 1987 an article under the headline `India reviews its nuclear arms ban' stated: India's Defence Minister, Krishna Chandra Pant, said yesterday that India might drop its ban on military uses of nuclear power because Pakistan was an `emerging nuclear threat'. In the Australian of 24 July 1987 and article under the headline `Pakistan on verge of nuclear arms' stated: The Assistant Secretary of State for the Near and Middle East, Mr Richard Murphy, said yesterday that the recent arrest in Philadelphia of a Pakistani in connection with an alleged plot illegally to export materials that could be used to develop a Pakistani nuclear bomb `raises issues with very significant foreign policy implications'. `Despite our best efforts, Pakistan has proceeded to the threshold of nuclear weapons possession. India remains similarly poised at the brink. This is a critical moment for south Asia and indeed for our vital interest in non-proliferation,' Mr Murphy said. Perhaps the most frightening of all is an article which appeared in the Age of 4 November 1987 with the headline `Gaddafi wants meeting to discuss Arab atomic bomb' and which stated: Jana, the Libyan newsagency, reported that Colonel Gaddafi said: `I will call for a summit that might have on the agenda combating America, boycotting France, the liberation of Palestine, the creation of an Arab federation . . . and building an Arab atomic bomb.' The threat of the spread of nuclear technology which would allow countries such as Libya to manufacture nuclear weapons is quite frightening. I believe the solution is for the 137 countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty to continue to exert pressure on the non-signatory nations to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That will ensure that there will be on site inspections of any nuclear reactors in those countries and that they have to account for all nuclear material. I now turn to some of the comments made by some Opposition members in this debate. First of all, I congratulate them for at least supporting the Bill, despite their different views on nuclear issues. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) referred to the greenhouse effect. He said that he believed there was a danger that the temperature of the atmosphere of the planet was increasing because of the greater concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that, like the panes of glass in a greenhouse, this might reflect the world's heat back towards the earth's surface. Some of my colleagues believe this is already showing up in-- Mr Chynoweth —Changes in the weather. Mr LEE —Changes in the weather and the fact that large icebergs have recently been sighted drifting away from Antarctica. Hopefully we do not have anything to worry about in that way. While coal fired power stations might in fact increase the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is also true, for better or worse, that they emit particular pollution into the atmosphere. I suspect that people underestimate the effect that that has in reflecting sunlight and heat from the world's atmosphere and, in a way, counterbalancing the effect of higher carbon dioxide concentrations. The claim by the honourable member for Bass that nuclear power is the best environmental option can be demonstrated to be simply wrong. One only has to look back at the history of troubles with nuclear power stations to know that that is the case. The worst case, of course, is Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, where I admit that nuclear power station might have had safety standards which were not the equal of nuclear power stations in the West. Nevertheless, there was a major accident at Chernobyl which resulted in radioactive material being spread not only around the immediate area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power station and around the Soviet Union, but also to other countries in Europe. I cannot think of a better case to demonstrate the fact that when something does go wrong at nuclear power stations, it can result in massive consequences for human beings and the entire environment. If there is an accident at one of the coal fired power stations in my electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, at worst up to a dozen people might be killed. I am afraid to say that it is not unusual for people who work in the underground coal mines in my electorate to be injured or killed because of cave-ins and other accidents in underground coal mines. I do not deny the fact that people died as a result of coal fired power stations operating. But if there is an accident in a coal fired power station, it does not result in the deaths of up to tens of thousands of people which can occur if there is a major accident in a nuclear power station. In addition, we do not yet have an accurate costing, for either the owner of the nuclear power station or the government that has encouraged the power station to develop, of dismantling the nuclear power station and the radioactive core of a nuclear power station which has been taken out of service. We are all aware of the great problems at Three Mile Island in seeking to repair the nuclear reactor which got into difficulty in recent times. Recently the Bunnerong coal fired power station in Sydney, in the electorate of the very able Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), was able to be dismantled by putting a few sticks of dynamite in the appropriate places in the building and detonating them. The building simply fell to the ground and it was cleared away. That cannot be done with a radioactive nuclear core in a power station once it reaches the end of its life. It will cost a great deal of money to dismantle safely a nuclear power station that has reached the end of its life. My own view is that in the long run economics will limit the spread of nuclear power and nuclear power stations, because every time there is an accident, a near accident or an incident, the people and governments will require that those who operate nuclear power stations install more effective protection equipment which will probably result in greater periods of down time for maintenance and safety checks. In addition, every time that there is an accident, a near accident or an incident, the delays and length of time involved in giving approval for the siting of nuclear power stations will grow in geometric progression. Of course, in the United States it is very rare these days to hear of any new orders for nuclear power stations because it takes so long for a power company to get the approval of the environmental authorities in the states to build a nuclear power station. I am pleased to support the aims of this Bill which seek to ensure that nuclear technology which might be in this country stays in this country and is not passed on to countries which this Parliament would not wish to receive it. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.58) —I listened to the remarks of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) with some interest and particularly to his quotes from The Ascent of Man at the beginning of his speech and his references to the dropping of the bombs on Japan. I assume that he sympathises with the view that this was an abhorrent event in the history of mankind. It often reminds me of discussions I had with my father about these events who, at the time of those bombings, was a prisoner of war of the Japanese and had been for around three years. Naturally enough, he was none too happy in that situation. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was one of his colleagues in that prisoner of war camp. My father used to argue that if it had not been for those two bombs being dropped on Japan, he would not have survived the war. That is relevant to me because I would never have been born. Doubtless that would be approved of by the Australian Labor Party but would be much disapproved of by my wife and, above all, my children. So I look at that issue perhaps in that rather personal way but in a sense in an important way. However, this debate is not about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although it is not irrelevant to the debate. Mr Barry Jones —Everything else has been brought in-why exclude that? Mr DOWNER —Yes, everything else has been brought in, and I shall certainly bring in a lot more things. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill is about the restrictions that will be imposed, as the honourable member for Dobell pointed out, on the passing of certain kinds of technologies to other countries-technologies relating to things such as enrichment and reprocessing, the production of heavy water and even, indeed, nuclear weapons. Whenever we debate these nuclear issues, both inside and outside the Parliament, it is important to start from an intelligent premise. That premise has to be that nuclear technology and nuclear industries exist in different parts of the world and that we simply cannot uninvent that technology. I know that many people dislike, fear or despise that technology, but even they must accept that the technology is there. As intelligent human beings, to use a phrase that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) likes to use, we should try to turn that technology to our advantage and ensure that the massive disadvantages that can obviously flow from it never come to fruition. When we look at the nuclear industry from a selfish point of view as Australians-it is an industry that we need to look at on a broader basis than that-we can put two arguments. The first is that it strengthens our domestic economy. That should not be a major argument but it is not an irrelevant one. The second is that it gives Australia the opportunity of contributing to global and regional security and stability. I feel under some obligation to talk first of all about the importance of the industry to the domestic economy, particularly at a time when we are going through fairly severe economic difficulties. It is often argued by the industry that uranium mining and export, which is effectively what this country's nuclear industry is, is worth about $400m per annum to Australia, it is a source of investment in our economy, and as a consequence, a source of jobs, and it makes a surprisingly significant contribution to our balance of payments. It also gives us some opportunity to develop our research and development capabilities. We do that to some extent through Lucas Heights, although at a very limited level compared with many other countries. On top of these economic arguments is the central role that our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, be it just through uranium mining and exporting, gives us in the whole process of disarmament and non-proliferation. We can use this country's uranium resources to influence world events. It always surprises me that those who are on what is often described as the left of politics, who are quite sincerely strong advocates of disarmament and peace-I imagine that that would apply to all sides of politics-and who are very vocal on these issues are totally opposed to the mining and export of uranium by Australia. I think those people are abdicating any responsibility on the part of Australia for contributing to greater security, particularly from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The security aspect of the uranium industry can itself be divided into two sub-categories. It can be divided into the purely economic role and the disarmament role to which I have briefly alluded. In referring to the economic role, I am talking about the global energy problem and its relevance to security considerations. Most people in this House would agree that through history, particularly during the twentieth century, energy shortages have been a major source of political instability in different parts of the world. It is argued that energy shortages caused by blockades and so on constituted one of the spurs that forced Japan to adopt an aggressive posture and enter World War II in 1941. I think that argument has some substance, although, of course, the blockades and so on were introduced because of Japan's aggressive approach in China. One of the reasons the Middle East is such a tumultuous and vastly important part of global politics is the enormous oil resources that emanate from that region. It is perfectly clear from just those two examples that any energy shortages, or the possibility of any energy shortages, can have a very real bearing on the level of political stability in a region and even throughout the world. When we talk about energy shortages in the nuclear industry, we have to ask ourselves: Is the nuclear energy issue relevant to the issue of energy shortages? For a variety of reasons, it has become extremely relevant as more and more countries around the world, particularly within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have come to depend on nuclear energy as a source of electricity. The following figures have often been quoted by other people, but France, for example, generates some 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power stations; Belgium, 67 per cent; and Sweden, 50 per cent. To move away from Europe, in South Korea the figure is over 43 per cent. Those are April 1987 figures. At that time there were 397 nuclear power stations around the world in 26 different countries. It is interesting to note that nearly 22 per cent of all the electricity generated in OECD countries is generated by nuclear power stations. Globally-I took some time to find this figure but it is a quite interesting one-one-sixth of all the electricity generated around the world is generated from nuclear power stations. That is the way the world is. It may not be the way that everybody would like to see the world, but it is a fact of life. I do not think the proposition that we as Australians should be leading the way in cutting off that source of electricity overnight-no pun intended-is an intelligent one. I do not think that is an intelligent approach. If all other uranium-producing countries followed that lead and the nuclear industry simply closed down, it would lead to a massive escalation in oil and coal prices, which would cause enormous problems, particularly for energy-importing developing countries. It would lead to a significant global recession, perhaps even a global depression, and all sorts of very negative security consequences could emanate from that. All this is terribly important to Australia because, it is estimated, we have something like 28 per cent of the world's recoverable uranium resources-at least, recoverable at a reasonable cost. Interestingly, however, we sell only some 10 per cent of the all the uranium that is sold on the world market. I think that is disappointing. As an Australian and as somebody who has confidence in the integrity, goodwill and responsibility of my fellow country men and women, I would like us to sell a bigger proportion of the world's uranium than we are. The present Government has its so called three-mines policy, and it is because of that policy that we export a relatively small proportion of the uranium that is sold around the world. It is argued by people in the uranium industry that our three-mines policy has economic consequences. They argue-it is an argument that seems to me to have some prima facie substance-that over the next 10 years we will lose something like $4,500m worth of export revenue because we are restricting ourselves to just three mines. In other words, we will miss enormous opportunities to restore our balance of payments. Instead of Australia exporting uranium, other countries have been doing so in our place-some of them highly responsible countries with effective safeguards policies, such as Canada and the United States of America; others a little or perhaps a lot more dubious, such as South Africa and the western African country of Niger. Australia is now exporting something like 10 per cent of all the uranium used in the world and Canada is exporting about 31 per cent. In 1985 Australia earned $400m from uranium exports and Canada earned something like $1,100m. In the first place, it does not make a great deal of sense for us to be missing out on those economic opportunities, but I remind the House that we are also turning our backs on an opportunity to have a still greater influence and a still greater say on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. I know only too well that some Ministers within the Government, not least the Minister responsible for this portfolio, know how stupid the three mines policy is. Those people need little persuasion. When this Government was first elected it set up the Slatyer inquiry. Professor Slatyer headed the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) inquiry into the Australian uranium industry, which reported in 1984. One of its recommendations was that exports of Australian uranium should not be limited-a recommendation that, clearly, many people within the Government would privately accept. We all know that they will not turn that into policy because the left wing of the Party would create great havoc as a consequence. In fact, the three mines policy, is intellectually incoherent. Either we have a no mines policy which at least is intellectually coherent, although obviously it is not a policy I would agree with, or we have a policy, as recommended by ASTEC, that does not have government limitations on the number of mines that are able to be developed. To use an old cliche, having a three mines policy is like being partially pregnant. As far as my State is concerned, the consequence has been to close the Honeymoon and Beverley mines. In the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) it has meant the end of the Yeelirrie uranium mine. All this has had economic consequences for Australia. We have lost about $1 billion worth of investment, 3,000 jobs and so on. I have made it perfectly clear all along that economics is not everything in this argument and I would not want to be misrepresented as saying that the economic advantages that flow from uranium mining in and export from Australia are really what the argument is all about. I also do not want to be cast in the role of somebody who does not recognise that there are risks involved with the nuclear industry. We all know that very substantial risks are involved. The honourable member for Dobell and, I think, other speakers have referred to Chernobyl. Of course, that is a stark reminder of what the risks can be. Unfortunately, any realistic alternative provides real risks as well. The honourable member for Dobell referred to the risks that come from coalmining. He referred to the fact that in his electorate people have been killed and injured in coalmining disasters. That has happened throughout the coalmining regions of Australia with very sad regularity; it has happened in a large number of other countries as well. Some of the environmental consequences that come from coal-fired power stations are also very serious. We have heard a little about the greenhouse effect. As I understand it, that is not largely caused by coal-fired power stations; that is caused by other factors which are not relevant to this debate. But one of the other real consequences of coal-fired power stations outside Australia has been the creation of the very regrettable phenomenon of acid rain. As I said in a previous debate, once more I implore the Europeans to do something more about that than they are doing. One thing the Thatcher Government has not done very effectively is to address that issue of acid rain. It has done many other good things but that is one thing on which it has been disappointing. We can see then quite clearly that this whole issue of whether uranium is less safe or whether the risks of the nuclear industry are greater than risks in other industries is not a straightforward issue at all. Very real risks and very real dangers are involved in the coal industry as well. The importance of uranium exports from Australia's point of view in the whole area of non-proliferation is really an overwhelming issue. We introduced a series of safeguards which were very much influenced by the Canadian Government's safeguards and those safeguards have led to our selling uranium only to countries who are signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or to nuclear weapons states provided they agree to a bilateral safeguards agreement. That means that Australian origin nuclear material cannot, under any circumstances, be used for military or explosive purposes. It is interesting to contrast our policies with the policies of some other countries. As I have mentioned before, Canada and the United States of America have policies similar to ours, but countries such as South Africa and Niger impose practically no restrictions at all. As I understand the South African policy, it simply asks the importing country to sign a declaration that the uranium will not be used for military purposes, but no follow-up tracking procedure is carried out by the South African Government to ensure that that commitment is adhered to. That is not the way we go; we do a lot more than that. We follow the course of Australian uranium once it leaves Australia. If we are to abandon uranium exports from Australia, as many people argue, particularly in the Left of the Australian Labor Party, it is clear that the countries that use nuclear fuel-I mentioned before 26 of those countries-will continue to seek to import uranium from countries which have much less stringent safeguards than Australia. I agree again with the honourable member for Dobell that one of the greatest nuclear threats to the world comes not from the superpowers but from minor countries which are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Libya is an example that is often given. There is some concern that Libya might either have or be developing nuclear technology. Some other countries are doing the same thing but I specifically mention Libya in this context for one reason or another. The simple fact is that countries like that are restricted in their access to uranium if the uranium market is dominated by countries such as Canada, Australia and the United States which impose strict safeguards on the way that that uranium is used. I wish now to make a few comments about the issue of the sales of uranium to France. Of course, this issue has split the Australian Labor Party right down the middle. I am not sure how the proportions and factions break up on the issue of sales to France, but clearly the Government and the New South Wales Right faction support those sales. I have to say that it is a position that I also support. Why is it that the Left of the Australian Labor Party goes along with the three mines policy-in other words, the safeguards provisions? It goes along, reluctantly I admit, with sales to the United Kingdom, the United States-which buys some uranium from Australia-and countries such as South Korea, but it says no to sales to France. The answer is Mururoa. The Left does not think we should sell to France because it conducts tests at Mururoa. Make no mistake, I am opposed to French testing of nuclear weapons at Mururoa, but I point out that they are not atmospheric tests and that Mururoa is some 6,000 kilometres from Australia. Underground tests are also carried out in Arizona, which is next to the State of New Mexico and very close to major United States cities. I suppose that that, too, suggests some degree of risk, although it is a very small risk, to the people of New Mexico. Are people in the Left of the Labor Party saying, `We will allow sales to the United States because the people of New Mexico are less important than the people of the Pacific islands'? It is an argument that does not make sense. Either one is totally opposed to the sales or one is not opposed to them, but to single out France reminds me of the old Anglo-Saxon francophobia that dominated British foreign policy for generations, and probably still does, and there is some hint that that exists in Australia. In conclusion, I repeat that the nuclear world exists. We have to turn it to our advantage; we cannot get rid of it. I think our safeguards policy and our policy of mining and exporting uranium are responsible policies designed to turn that world to our advantage and not to abrogate our responsibilities. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(6.18) —In speaking to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill I congratulate the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, as his second reading speech was entirely relevant to the Bill. Very little else that has been said has been relevant, with the possible exception of the remarks made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). I listened to the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) trying to be rational. Rationality does not suit the honourable member; he simply does not look the part and it does not have that ring of truth. This Bill is an attempt to reconcile our being a signatory to the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons with our patents legislation. I think the Bill does this admirably. It is a very sensible piece of legislation and that is why I think it has the support of honourable members on both sides of the House. We need to keep some of our patents information secret for as long as possible. I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory gave a good example of that when he spoke about the British being able quickly to defuse the complicated dipole capacitor electrical detonators that the Germans put into their bombs, and that is exactly what this Bill is proposing to do. It is extremely good legislation and that is about all one can say about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, having said that, I intend to range wide in my remarks. I must say that the debate that has taken place so far has been about as far from the issue as Venus is from Mars. To be more specific, debate has ranged as far from nuclear weapons as is the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Having regard to the implicit criticism of the Chair, I had in mind asking the honourable member to be relevant to the debate. Mr CAMPBELL —With all respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not being critical of the Chair in any way at all. I merely thought that you were asleep. But in view of what you have said, I will be relevant. I thank you very much for the caution. My very good friend, the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), gave a very statesmanlike speech. I find myself quite touched by what he said. I commend to the honourable member the definition of a statesman that I heard at the Rural Outlook Conference-that is, a statesman is a dead politician. The honourable member talked about setting up a chair of peace at a university and the establishment of a national institute of peace. I put it to the honourable member that in reality we would do much more for peace in the world if we could achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. Some of the countries that would undoubtedly be called upon to fund a chair of peace should be prepared instead to pay a reasonable price for commodities that Third World countries are locked into producing. That, of course, would be more expensive than a chair of peace, although infinitely more useful. Of course, such an initiative does not give the warm inner glow to people who go in for those sorts of things. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) spoke with a mixture of mixed metaphors-that is quite a mouthful; I am into alliteration these days. I thought the honourable member started off wide of the mark. He proceeded to get wider and wider. Mr Cobb —Like you. Mr CAMPBELL —But at least I know where I am going. It is possible that one day all members on the other side will catch up. I want to say to the honourable member for Mayo, who talked about the Australian Labor Party's three-mine policy, that there are some of us who are in two minds about the three-mine policy. The honourable member need have no fear about the supply of uranium because one of those three mines is Roxby Downs which is by far the largest uranium mine in the world and has the potential to supply the demand. In 1976 I was one of those people in the Labor Party who campaigned to change the policy on uranium. We were successful. I think I played a substantial part in getting that policy changed. The 1976 policy was a wicked policy that said we should mine, process and reprocess uranium. This policy was the jewel of the left wing. They were the people who were responsible for having it written into the policy. As time passed and things evolved, as the left wing got more middle class, the policy was changed. As I said, I campaigned very vigorously to get the policy changed. Being a person of missionary zeal, I went to France at my own expense to campaign against nuclear energy. I wanted to tell the French all about this wicked material. I remember standing up in theatres all over France and speaking to the French. I harangued them on the evils of uranium. I had to use my wife as a translator because, the French, coming from a rather backward nation, had not yet mastered English. As my wife is bilingual, I am sure that her translation was accurate. While I was in France I had the opportunity to look at the other side of the story and to see the facts. I changed my mind. I was quite clearly wrong. What I was saying was nonsense; it was stupid. I have found that when one is wrong, it is best to change one's mind. This is a habit that I have got into. I came back to Australia convinced that we really had to rethink our policies. I think it is relevant to say that this legislation helps in the sense that we can now get down to exploiting the technology which Australia is best at. We have the best technology in the world for the storage of high level waste. I refer, of course, to the synroc technology. Mr Milton —Not true. Mr CAMPBELL —Despite what the honourable member for La Trobe says, it is proven and, undoubtedly, it is a very safe product. It is probably a thousand times or more safer than borosilicate glass. That is not to say that French borosilicate glass is not safe; I believe it is. But Synroc is certainly a lot safer. It is a technology that we should be developing for the benefit of the world. There is a great moral issue involved that I, with my left wing views, am very concerned about. I believe that Australia has a moral responsibility to store the waste which is contained in the uranium itself. If we are prepared to sell the world our uranium, I think we have a responsibility to take back and store the amount of waste that is contained in that uranium. We are going to have to face up to that fundamental moral obligation. I am sure that a lot of my colleagues from the Left will be looking at the moral implications of this dilemma. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) gave us a little gem. He put forward the view that pollution is good for us. He told us about the nasties that come out of coal power stations which reflect heat away from the earth. I am not sure technically whether that is absolutely true. But I do like the ring of his claim that, `pollution is good for you'. I think this is the sort of thing that the honourable member could probably sell to Senator Richardson in his new found position as Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I think only people from New South Wales would be capable of understanding the merits of that argument. I am concerned that we are not taking the many initiatives that we could take to lessen our dependence on polluting fuels, whether they be uranium or coal. I am rather interested in liquid metal magnetohydrodynamics. This technology, which has tremendous applications, is relatively more efficient than the present systems of power generation. As everyone knows, this is basically a method of generating electricity by heating up lead, and using steam to whiz it round in a circle. Mr Barry Jones —That's right; very interesting. Mr CAMPBELL —The Minister at the table is one of the people in the Parliament and in Australia who understand this technology. It has tremendous application to Australia because, while generating electricity, water can also be distilled. Salt water can be used in this process. We have the chance to get control of this technology. However, it is very hard to find in Australia people who are prepared to invest in these sorts of things despite their obvious applications. Amorphous silicon technology will take over in the direct production of electricity from sunlight. We have the opportunity in Australia to get into this market and to serve this part of the world. The company involved in this technology is finding it extremely hard to attract capital because it is looking at a program which will not be profitable until the fourth year of operation. The people of Australia tend to think in much shorter timeframes. I think a lot of the half-baked environmentalists should look at this sort of thing. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in some vague way has some relevance to what we are talking about here today. The Treaty is a problem. I agree with those speakers who have said that the real problem lies not with the major powers but with the smaller powers. It is possible that the Israelis, unwittingly, did the world a great service when, through pure self-interest, they blasted the Iraqi nuclear plant. I believe that if Iraq had a bomb now, it would use it. I also believe that if the Iranians had a bomb, they would use it. I am personally grateful that this has not happened. I am very concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. I believe that the Americans must ask themselves some very fundamental questions because they, as signatories to this treaty, are obviously making it possible for Pakistan to proceed with its nuclear program. The Americans have altered, or appear to be about to alter, their longstanding policy not to supply military aid to countries which have embarked on a nuclear program. I think that the situation is extremely dangerous. It is one to which we must give very grave consideration. With the irrationality that exists in respect of the border dispute between India and Pakistan, I think there is very fertile ground for one side or the other-probably it will be the losing side-to chuck a bomb. Similarly, when I was in Lebanon in 1982 I was told by a very affable Israeli colonel-although only a part time soldier, he was a nuclear scientist who was well up on what was happening-that the Israelis had in fact supplied technology to the South Africans who have exploded a bomb. I am a little apprehensive that I will suddenly be kidnapped by the Israelis and carted off to Israel to stand trial for having said that. But undoubtedly what he said is absolutely true. When I was in South Africa I put it to fairly senior military people that they did have bombs and tactical weapons. They certainly did not deny it; at best they were rather coy. But the fact that South Africa has that capacity throws a different light on the situation in South Africa. I get concerned about the fundamentalist views that we take. No one takes into account when considering South Africa the effects of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is endemic in southern Africa, and nuclear weapons. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.00) —In speaking in support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987, I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a number of concerns I have about the nuclear industry. Before I go into those concerns, I wish to comment on the contributions made by some of the honourable members who have preceded me in this debate. I refer to the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). It was rather sad to hear the honourable member for Kalgoorlie criticising the honourable member for Dunkley and the honourable member for Dobell on their contributions, which I thought were very good. The honourable member for Dunkley mentioned the chair of peace, and I cannot see why anybody would want to criticise such an idea, particularly in these days when there are so many wars around the world, so many millions of people are being killed and so much money is being wasted on the arms race. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was not very much in favour of such a chair. Also the honourable member for Kalgoorlie criticised the honourable member for Dobell, who talked about the problems of nuclear reactors and the faults that have occurred throughout the world. I shall be making some comments on that subject later in my remarks. We heard a rather mixed up speech from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. He said that he was concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons; he referred to Iran, Iraq, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan and India. It is almost as though the honourable member for Kalgoorlie wants to have it both ways. He wants to sell our uranium overseas, yet he abhors the fact that uranium is finding its way into nuclear weapons. His remarks were rather mixed up and perhaps if he were to reflect on these matters he might like to think again about his unqualified support for the nuclear fuel industry. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie also mentioned synroc. I interjected during his speech, not because I am opposed to synroc as a development of a material which can be used to encapsulate high level nuclear waste. I am in favour of that, and I know that synroc has been proved in an experimental way to be successful; but synroc has not yet been developed commercially. That was what I meant when I interjected during the remarks of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. In my view, his proposal that we should take back radioactive waste into this country is plainly ridiculous and the Australian population would be totally and utterly opposed to it. If people who buy uranium use it and it produces waste, then as with all other products they should find a way of encapsulating and paying for the encapsulation of that waste. Having mentioned the contributions by honourable members on this side of the House, I wish to turn to the speech of the honourable member for Mayo. He spoke of the great need for nuclear power for the world's electricity needs. It struck me that the honourable member does not really understand the supply and demand situation for uranium. He spoke of more uranium being sold in this country, without apparently being aware that there is an oversupply of uranium throughout the world. I shall mention this a little later in my speech, because I produced a paper jointly with a research worker in which we showed quite conclusively that there is an oversupply of uranium in the world. Mr Lee —It is very detailed and informative. Mr MILTON —I thank my colleague for that comment. Mr Lee —A lot of work went into it. Mr MILTON —Yes, a lot of work went into that report. It makes clear that it will be very difficult for the existing mines in this country to operate and to be able to sell their uranium on the world market. The honourable member for Mayo should look again at the economics of uranium mining before he comes into this House and makes the sorts of extravagant claims he made in support of the nuclear fuel industry. The other aspect of his speech, too, which I regretted was that he seemed to ignore the grave danger arising from radioactive wastes and did not seem to appreciate the fact that we need to restrict the energy demands of nations around the world. If all the underdeveloped countries used electricity as prodigiously as do the developed countries, the position would become absolutely impossible and the whole world would become polluted in one way or another. Having made those comments, I wish to deal with the present Bill. The debate has been very wide-ranging and I know, Madam Speaker, that you will not ask me to be specific. Mr Nehl —Is that right? Madam SPEAKER —I might tell the honourable member for La Trobe that I was not here for the earlier part of the debate. However, I am listening to him with interest. Mr MILTON —Thank you. What I meant to say, Madam Speaker, was that I shall not be talking about the details of patent applications, but I shall be referring in my speech to various aspects of the legislation. The Bill contains information relating to associated nuclear technology which involves the enrichment of nuclear material, the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material and the production of heavy water for nuclear weapons. Therefore, in a sense the Bill covers a wide range of matters and I should like to draw attention to some of those. In his second reading speech the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) gave a precise definition, and I know that people who are interested in this subject will be examining that second reading speech. In my speech I wish to make some general comments about nuclear technology and matters which cause me concern. The first matter relates to the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 26 April 1986. In an article in The Economist of 30 January, Dr J. Gould, a Fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington who is a distinguished statistician, points out that 35,000 to 40,000 more people than usual dropped dead in the United States in the summer of 1986. I quote from the article: The seasonal pattern of mortality in America is pretty stable. Over the 80 years before 1986, 31.7% of each year's deaths occurred, on average, during the four summer months of May to August. In 1986 that percentage rose to 33.1%-the highest this century, and 1.1 percentage points above the 1983-85 average of 32%. Dr Gould calculates that the odds against such an increase happening by chance are more than 1m to one. So what happened? Well, what happened was the Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion. The resulting radioactive cloud took about 11 days to reach the United States. When the radioactivity arrived, rainwater samples in the north-west of the United States rose from 46 picocuries to 6,620 picocuries per litre. In milk supplies the concentration of radioactive iodine-131 rose from 7 picocuries to 130 picocuries per litre. However, because the levels were between 100 and 1,000 times lower than those recorded in Europe after the disaster, no action was taken. Some scientists argue that exposure to such low levels of radioactive fallout is harmless. I quote again from the article: Such claims ignore research into indirect effects of low-level radiation, according to Dr Ernest Sternglass, emeritus professor of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh. Instantaneous bursts of high-level radiation-such as medical X-rays-are relatively harmless to normal adults. That is mainly because such ``external'' radiation does not concentrate itself in crucial organs. Ingested or inhaled fission products behave rather differently. Once inside the body, they seek out various organs according to their chemical characteristics. Iodine-131 heads for the thyroid; strontium-90, strontium-89 and barium-140-which chemically resemble calcium-head for the bone marrow. Then they sit there, emitting radiation. Dr Gould made a number of analyses of the radioactivity levels indicated in the 1986 data. He does not believe that the worrying correlations with death rates is a coincidence. I wish I had time in this speech to point to the other disturbing facts which Dr Gould's study produced, but I can only recommend to all honourable members that they read the article. For those members who support the nuclear fuel industry, I can only ask them to re-examine their position. Australia is a major exporter of uranium which could be used in nuclear reactors and finally end up either as life-threatening radioactive wastes or as a life-threatening radioactive cloud from a disabled reactor. This leads me to my next concern regarding nuclear technology to which our uranium exports are a necessary raw product. In a recent background paper entitled `Uranium Mining: Market Prospects and Environmental Consequences' produced by one of my research assistants, Mr Chas Collision, and me, we have established that statistics taken from papers produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), raise serious doubts about Australia's ability to expand uranium sales in the face of declining world demand and the discovery of considerable uranium reserves in other countries which are recoverable at costs very competitive with Australian production. When consideration is given to the current and potential purchasers of Australian uranium, it is puzzling how anybody, such as the honourable member for Mayo, can be optimistic about the future market prospects. In that paper I have written about the current and potential purchasers of Australian uranium. The paper states: At best the United States nuclear power industry faces an uncertain future. A secret General Electric Report written in 1975 in the name of GE's top scientist, Dr Charles Reed, came to light in a Cincinnati courthouse in May 1987. In the report, Dr Reed cautioned that GE's commercial reactor design `does not constitute a quality product'. It is now reported that virtually all of the 40 GE reactors operating or nearing completion are plagued by the problems identified in the Reed Report. It seems to me that in the aftermath of the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear reactor disasters and the release of the secret Reed report detailing quality control inadequacies of United States nuclear reactor design, projected uranium requirements to the year 2000 will fall far below the OECD and the IAEA estimates. Already the estimates show that between 1973 and 1986 the projected uranium requirements for the year 2000 have been revised downwards by a massive 78.5 per cent. In these circumstances it can be seen why Energy Resources of Australia is so pleased to have negotiated a long-term contract to sell Australian uranium to the French electricity corporation, Electricite de France. I find it more difficult, however, to accept that the Government has given approval to such a contract when France is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and refuses to accept any legal restraints on its nuclear weapons program. The honourable member for Mayo seemed to be entirely ignorant of these facts. The French nuclear tests in the South Pacific should be sufficient proof of the complete disregard of the almost unanimous objections to such tests by all the South Pacific nations, including Australia. As was pointed out in the paper to which I was a joint contributor: On present knowledge it cannot be proved that Australian uranium sold to France is being used for the production of nuclear weapons or that it is ending up in other countries after processing. However, as Senator Gareth Evans pointed out when he was Minister for Resources and Energy, (not) `every single atom and molecule that goes in with an Australian flag sticking on it like a toothpick in an olive is the same atom or molecule that actually comes out again. The principle of equivalence does apply'. Senator Evans's remarks were quoted from the Senate Hansard. The joint paper makes very clear that the international market for uranium does not justify the opening of any new mines in Australia. It is possible that there is a market for uranium sales to countries for the purpose of expanding their nuclear weapons stockpile and France is such a market. In my view, and the view of many other members in this Parliament, the Australian people do not wish to be associated with the French market. Those people who support an expansion of uranium mining in Australia to areas such as the proposed mine in Rudall River National Park or the proposed Jabiluka mine adjacent to the wetlands in Kakadu National Park must be challenged to give details of the new export markets which justify such an expansion. They should also be challenged to supply details of the export price involved, as I strongly suspect that such contracts will indicate a price which is well below the present floor price of $US31 per pound. In other words, it seems that Australia could very well be dumping its uranium on the world's markets. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.16) —in reply-This could fairly be described as a wide ranging debate. While there was bipartisan support for the legislation, the subject of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill was barely mentioned, that is, the need to set up appropriate procedures for handling patent applications relating to nuclear technology. The new procedures introduced by the Bill relate to patent applications which contain information of the kind referred to in the definition of `associated technology' in the Safeguards Act. The Safeguards Act provides that associated technology is not to be possessed or communicated without the relevant permit or authority from the Safeguards Office. However, we have in fact had an interesting discussion about the future of certain nuclear technologies with the exception of medical technology in which the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is performing such valuable work. I will comment on what was said by a number of the honourable members who contributed to the debate. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who led the debate for the Opposition as shadow Minister for Science and who is not gracing us with his presence tonight, commented on the review of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee (IPAC) of the Australian patent system. He accused me of being inactive since, I think, 1984 in connection with IPAC's report. The honourable member is occasionally guilty of overkill in his enthusiasm to remain on the front bench. I state the facts of the chronology for the benefit of the honourable member. IPAC's review was commissioned in 1979 by the then Minister for Productivity, Ian Macphee, now the honourable member for Goldstein. IPAC reported to me after a mere five years in 1984. There then followed a process which I think can be described as full and careful study of its recommendations because the recommendations then had to go back to the participants for their further comment. The preview then had to grind very slowly through the bureaucratic procedures and the Government's response-of which the honourable member for Bass does not appear to be aware-was tabled here on 28 November 1986. It is a matter of some disappointment to me that because of the heavy legislative program we had in 1987, we were unable to get the appropriate priority for the legislation that needs to come in after the IPAC report. But it is now receiving a high priority and we hope that if it is not introduced in this session, it will be introduced in the spring session. In fact, this Bill includes the first amendment even though that is not immediately obvious. Clause 8 is needed to support the making of regulations necessary to implement IPAC's recommendation 39 (3) changing provisions for exemption from examination subjects which need to be passed to gain registration as a patent attorney. So it is a small foot in the door. The honourable member for Bass also implied a connection between this Bill and the patenting of inventions in technology such as enrichment and waste disposal. This Bill establishes the procedures necessary for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act and the Patents Act to operate in harmony. If a person breaches the safeguards Act by virtue of making a patent application it is reasonable that the processing of the application be interrupted until the default under the safeguards Act is made good. It would be wrong to grant a patent or to publish information in a patent specification where the making of the application or the publication of information constituted a breach of the safeguards Act. Since I am on my feet and Ministers often have material in front of them which is prepared by the department I seize this opportunity to say a few words of my own. I think there has to be some caution about the extent of the future growth of the uranium industry. There is no doubt that fears and concerns were expressed on both sides of the House. We have to be careful not to enlarge the range of the debate too much and make exaggerated claims for or against. I want to draw attention to certain factors. First, I think it is undoubtedly correct-I do not think there would be too much disagreement and I certainly do not think that my friend the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) would disagree-that in the post-Chernobyl era there is a great deal of anxiety about safety factors, some of which is rational and some of which is not. Mr Smith —I am here. Mr BARRY JONES —It is too late. But politically, the nuclear option is going to be much more difficult to sell. It is true, as the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) pointed out, that there are countries such as France, Belgium and Sweden where a very high proportion of electricity in the grid is generated by nuclear power, but they are atypically high and I do not think that trend will be adopted elsewhere. Politically the nuclear option will be much more difficult to sell. Second, the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants is proving to be far higher than expected, which raises serious questions about how the cost is to be met. Presumably the cost will be met by loading it on to future consumers. The additional cost raises factors which make the economic argument a good deal more difficult. Third, as we enter into an era of resource parsimony, industry's proportion of power use in total is likely to fall, as it has already done in Great Britain. In Great Britain until the 1970s the per capita electricity usage increased regularly by 7 1/2 per cent per annum. That is to say, every 14 years there was a doubling of the use of electricity in the grid. There was an assumption that that was going to go on forever. It just has not happened. In Great Britain now, the per capita energy usage is lower, fractionally, than it was a decade ago. That is a quite significant shift. Third, we have new materials, higher engineering efficiency and the use of recycling. For example, in the United States of America an increasing proportion of aluminium products is coming from recycling rather than going through the process of aluminium smelting with which we are so familiar. We also have the use of technology such as micro-electronics. Something that once needed to be powered by the equivalent of a locomotive can now be powered by a few small batteries. This means that there is a very significant shift in the use of energy in manufacturing. In the United States I think there has been about a 40 per cent decrease in the total amount of electricity used towards the manufacture of a motor car. It does not matter whether it is for the production of the paint, the metal, the glass or the engine parts, it is a very significant change. So we cannot assume that that pattern of increase will go on forever. The honourable member for Mayo appeared to accept the increase as inevitable. I doubt very much whether that is the case. Further, if superconductivity takes off, as I think is increasingly likely-I hope we will be on that particular cart-then the use of a given amount of coal or water power or uranium will produce a far higher proportion of usable energy at the other end of the transmission line. So we need to be a little cautious, whatever our doctrinal position, happens to be on the uranium industry. The greenhouse effect, referred to by the honourable member for Bass and the honourable member Dobell (Mr Lee), is potentially, if not already, a very serious issue and, of course, it could be used as a major argument against the use of coal and oil and for nuclear power. It has to be looked at. It deserves much closer examination, as does the phenomenon of acid rain, which was mentioned by a number of honourable members. There are other interesting technological developments that need to be looked at. I was reminded of what was said by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about this remarkable development by Professor Branover, who is a refusenik from Russia now at the Ben-Gurion University in Israel. Essentially, it is ideal for the generation of electricity in isolated areas, and I think a plant is being built in the electorate of the honourable member Kalgoorlie. Coal is used in order to heat lead. The lead goes into a molten state, it is aerated into particles which then fall down a pipe placed between two magnets. This movement generates electricity. That is the classic description of the dynamo as worked out by Faraday. There is a high generation of electricity through the use of the lead, which is simply used over and over again. The side effect is that distilled water can be generated, which is very important in the outback. The efficiency of the coal-and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie will correct me if I am wrong-is claimed to be in the order of 57 per cent of the thermal value of the coal. That is a fantastic proportion and a fantastic new development. It is something that we need to talk about when we are talking about energy alternatives. Another energy alternative that needs to be looked at in the long term, I believe, is tidal power. It has been estimated by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organisation Division of Oceanography that if we had a tidal dam, as it were, on the west coast of Tasmania we would be able to generate not only all of Tasmania's electricity needs but virtually the entire national electricity needs. There are a whole number of areas that have not really been looked at, and I think honourable members are a little narrow in saying that there is only one alternative. I do not believe that that is the case. I also take the point made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the honourable member for Latrobe (Mr Milton) about synroc. I think synroc is a great achievement. Professor Ted Ringwood, who devised it, deserves our highest praise for his contribution and we hope that it will be possible to develop a product that could be the basis of a very important international industry for us-not incidentally just for nuclear products but possibly for some other forms of intractable waste as well, which is a problem of increasing difficulty. Fourth, I heartily endorse the point made by the honourable member for La Trobe, which follows what I was saying about resource parsimony. He did not use these figures, but I think I am correct when I say that the United States with 6 per cent of world population uses 30 per cent of the world's supply of non-renewable resources each year. That is not a model that can be commended to the rest of the world. We cannot say to China or to India or to Brazil or to Indonesia, `That is an excellent model for you to follow and we think you should all operate at the same level'. There is always a danger of great hypocrisy if countries with a high level of resource use say, `It is all right for us. It is no good for you but it is splendid for us'. If we are going to keep our tiny planet in good order and repair, these are factors we have to think about very seriously. The debate has been quite enjoyable. I have enjoyed the description by the honourable member for Dobell of Dr Leo Szilard and that memorable moment outside the British Museum when the principle of nuclear chain reaction came to him. We had a quite interesting discussion about the results of the New Hampshire primary election. In fact, it is hard to imagine-- Mr Smith —It was a new idea. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, Socrates would have enjoyed the debate because he always said, `Nothing human is alien to me'. A pretty wide gamut of human experience was dealt with in this debate. Despite all that, I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 February, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(8.31) —The Opposition supports the Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill. The debate provides us with an opportunity to canvass some of the very important issues and policies in the legal aid area. Anybody interested in legal aid could do no better than to turn to the coalition's policy on legal aid, which is available for those who are interested in the subject, if they would like to contact me. Let me refer to some of the issues to which that policy adverts. It starts off by saying: All should have equal access to and proper representation before the courts. It goes on to say: Ideally there should be sufficient funds to provide legal aid for all in need. However, budgetary constraints and increases in legal costs are such that this ideal cannot presently be met. Hence, the pressing need to allocate available funds carefully and fairly and with a clear set of priorities. Point 3 of the policy states: There are significant defects in the administration of legal aid funds provided by the Federal Government which must be overcome. Point 4 states: As a general rule Commonwealth legal aid funds should be applied only to assist in civil or criminal matters involving Commonwealth laws. Point 5 states: Commonwealth funded legal aid should be administered throughout Australia in accordance with guidelines set by the Attorney-General. Point 6 states: Those granted legal aid should not by virtue of being legally aided be placed in a position of advantage over opponents who are not legally aided. Point 7 states: Legally aided litigants who are unsuccessful should have the same liability as ordinary litigants to pay the costs of the successful party. That forms a very useful starting point for a consideration of legal aid. When going to the issue of legal aid and the policies arising therefrom, one is naturally drawn to the views of the legal profession. That is appropriate because the private legal profession in Australia plays a major role in the provision of legal aid to the public. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to those members of the profession who give up their time, in a community-minded approach, to their community. I pay tribute to those who take on board the voluntary spirit which is so strong in Australia and, as I said, give up their time, free of charge, to give legal advice and to help people who are disadvantaged. That effort never reaches the statistics; one never hears about it. However, it does go on. I also pay tribute to those people in practice who take on legal aid funded work. Often they take a discount on their fees and, in many situations, have to wait an inordinately long time to be paid. If people have some doubts about that, let me say that when one is running a private practice one's cash flow is important and a late or slow payment by a government agency is simply an additional cost factor. I also pay tribute to those involved in things such as the referral systems which have sprung up around Australia since the early 1970s. They have been a feature of the voluntary efforts of thousands of people in the legal profession. I had my first taste of them in St Kilda. On a couple of nights when I was a student I went along to help out and provide that sort of service and advice. When I lived at a small place called Phillip Island I had set up, at my initiative, the San Remo and District Legal Aid Referral Service. The solicitors, and there were not many of us, used to get together every few months-it was an excuse for an annual meeting of sorts-in the local pub. We had a rostered system whereby we would go along to the local district health centre and advertise. Thousands of lawyers-mainly solicitors, but also many barristers-do that sort of work regularly. Their contribution should be properly recognised. The policy of the Law Council of Australia is well worth reading. I will not read it all into the Hansard tonight, but I will pick out some of the more salient points because I think they are very relevant and useful in any study of legal aid policy. It starts off with a very good opening paragraph. Point No. 1 states: The foundation of a civilised society is equal access to the law. Legal aid seeks to eliminate inequality of access between rich and poor. I think that that statement would find bipartisan support in this chamber. No. 2 states: It is fundamental that every person has the right to choose his or her own lawyer. Accordingly, the economically disadvantaged must have the same ability to choose an acceptable and competent lawyer as other persons, and must be clearly informed of that right. The provider of legal aid should be obliged to inform legally aided persons of that right. Point No. 3 refers to equality of access and says: Equality of access, regardless of financial circumstances of the person concerned, requires that: (a) those who cannot reasonably provide for the cost of legal advice and representation should be granted aid for that purpose; (b) those who can reasonably provide for that cost should not be granted aid; (c) those who can reasonably meet part of the cost should contribute; (d) those who, as a result of successful legal representation, are able reasonably to provide for or contribute to the cost of representation, should be obliged to meet or contribute to the cost; (e) legally aided clients receive legal advice and representation of the same quality as that received by other litigants; (f) they should not however by virtue of being legally aided be placed in a position which disadvantages their opponents who are not legally aided. That final paragraph follows the coalition's policy. In point No. 4 the Law Council's policy refers to the principle of equality of access to the law being just as much the right of the middle income earner as the rich or indeed the poor. It says: In fact the involvement of the middle income earner in employment and in the society in which he lives can result in his having to exercise his rights under the law more often than others. Being neither rich nor entitled to legal aid, the middle income earner is distinctly disadvantaged in the event that he seeks to exercise his rights against bodies such as the Government . . . It goes on to mention others. I draw that pertinent factor to the attention of honourable members opposite because in their term in government, for example, they have whacked on a great application fee of $240 for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government has put that Tribunal, which comprises four people, beyond the reach of many people who have grievances in regard to government decisions as a result of the implementation of that very high application fee. Point No. 5 states: The responsibility for funding legal aid from public funds should be accepted by the community. I paraphrase point No. 6: Governments should be obliged to account separately and in explicit terms for the money spent and received by legal aid officers. No. 7 deals with a number of points and says: Legally aided legal work should never become, nor should it appear to be, of a second-class standard. It is the right of the legally aided person to be represented by a practitioner who has the necessary experience and expertise to represent him. . . . . The fees paid for legal aid services should be set by reference to the fees which would normally be paid for those services. That is a reasonable and sensible proposition. It continues: Efforts must be made to make legal aid funds go further by tackling the problems which presently cause delays, inefficiencies and increased costs in litigation. That is a sensible proposition, to which I shall return later. Point 9 refers to the private profession continuing to bear the greater part of the responsibility, but recognising the role played by lawyers employed by legal aid agencies, commissions and other bodies. Point 10 refers to the fact that community legal centres fulfil a significant and innovative role which should be encouraged by the private profession and which should be adequately funded from government and other sources. I endorse that point as well. I was recently at Springvale, which has an association with Monash University's law school. Students were interviewing people coming in for legal advice, which is a quick way for law students to pick up various parts of the law and to get a feeling for the law. It serves a two-way purpose: it is good for the students and good for people seeking legal advice. Someone with very considerable experience supervises the operations. It is a tight operation and there is no sense of people being guinea pigs. People receive good legal advice. I commend the efforts of those people and place particular emphasis on the role played by community legal centres which serve a dual purpose in the education area. The policy is not just empty words. When the coalition was in government its legal aid policy had a good record. The policy I have enunciated tonight is backed by a solid record in government. People like Peter Durack and Bob Ellicott were not like the drum beaters on the Government side of the House. I am not referring to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) but to some of his predecessors. People like Durack and Ellicott got on with the job. They were quiet achievers by some standards but they were real achievers. The contribution they made should be recognised. The Fraser Government laid the framework for a one-stop-shop scheme. In the implementation of that Government's policy, we saw co-operative federalism. People were able to visit the one shop, and whether it was a Federal or State oriented matter, it would be dealt with by that body. In some senses, the establishment of the Advisory Committee in this Bill is the end of that policy evolution put into train by the Fraser Government. The Opposition supports not only the general framework of the Bill but also some of its details. In fact, as a result of some behind the scenes negotiations, the Opposition was able to get the Government to address a couple of the matters that it thought should be addressed. I was pleased to note that the Attorney-General's second reading speech referred to the fact that the Government has picked up the point the Opposition made about possible double-dipping by government officials receiving a sitting fee as well as their salaries. I note that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has written to some of his State colleagues and that matter is being addressed, which is good. Since I have been shadow Attorney-General there have been a number of Bills and a working relationship has been developed on some of them to attend to matters that the Opposition considered needed to be attended to. It is good that that sort of working relationship can be developed in the legislative arena in this Parliament. Before being specific, it needs to be said that the success of the Council and the Committee will virtually entirely depend on the attitude of the Minister for Justice. If he treats the two bodies as irrelevant, by and large, they will be irrelevant. No-one should kid himself to the contrary. The Bill was announced by the Attorney-General in December 1986. One can hardly say he was in a hurry to have the Bill drafted, debated and passed. I suppose if the speed with which the Bill has been introduced is an indication of the Government's real attitude or even indifference to this important issue, that would not be a happy start for the two bodies. Some fine Australians have been prepared to accept appointment to both of those groups, although there are perhaps not enough Victorians, as someone suggested to me. However, be that as it may, I am sure the people who have been appointed will do their best to provide sensible and considered advice to the Minister. I particularly congratulate His Honour Mr Justice Barblett who will chair the Committee and His Honour Mr Justice Grove, who will chair the Council. On behalf of the Opposition I express confidence in their capacity to provide sound leadership to both those bodies. I note that the community legal centres are represented. I think that is a good thing. I am sure the work of the Springvale group is reflected elsewhere around the country. One of the specific issues one finds in a first look at the legislation is the possibility of some overlap between the various bodies in the legal aid area. The Bill replaces the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council with two bodies, namely, the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee and the National Legal Aid Representative Council. From the outline provided it appears that the roles of both bodies overlap. In addition, there are now two Ministers-the Attorney-General, who is the big chief, and the Minister for Justice, who has day-to-day responsibility. He also has the same legal responsibilities for the Department. Then there is the Department itself. We have the Council, the Committee, a couple of Ministers and the Department. Five separate entities will have an involvement in this area. Admittedly, the Council and the Committee are advisory and, in a sense, they have nothing to do with the administrative nuts and bolts but they will, of course, cover a fairly broad field. According to the Minister for Justice, the National Legal Aid Representative Council will `provide a forum for major interest groups to express their views once a year'. The worst scenario might be that the Council will provide a perfect venue for a talk-fest for every type of interest group which, apart from preparing lengthy submissions or reading lengthy submissions, will have a free trip, and that will be about it for the year. That is the worst possible scenario. I hope that it will not come to pass. One should note that it will be difficult for twenty Council members from disparate areas of the law to come together only once a year to fulfil the Minister's aim of analysing the important issues in the legal aid field and to find ways of providing legal aid more effectively and economically. The Minister says that this is a new initiative but the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council existed previously and the present Minister for Justice and Attorney-General have responsibilities. The Attorney-General or the Minister for Justice ought to consider the guidelines for these two committees to ensure that they fulfil the Government's aim. The National Legal Aid Advisory Committee is the group that will be more active in the sense that it will meet five or six times a year. It will also have considerable expertise in fulfilling its role of ensuring that legal aid is provided to those in the community who are genuinely in need of such assistance. Again, it does not have administrative powers and is, like the Council, an advisory body. That Advisory Committee, whilst noting my general qualification for it to be relevant, will need to have some very strong support from the Minister. There is a window of opportunity, shall we say, for that Committee to be on the initiative. Mr Justice Barblett, of course, is from the Family Court of Australia and will be the Deputy Chief Judge there, and family law is a major area of legal aid. I am sure that there will be opportunities for him to take the initiative on some of the issues that really need to be grappled with and resolved. The effectiveness is in the end dependent on the goodwill of the Minister. Had it not been for amendments which we introduced in the Senate, requiring an annual report, recommendations from the Committee which may not fit the Government's predictions would not see the light of day. So I am pleased that our initiative on that matter was picked up. For an estimated cost of $80,000, which is probably an underestimation, I hope these new bodies will represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money. I understand that the Office of Legal Aid Administration will be responsible for the management, co-ordination and evaluation of the Commonwealth legal aid policy and funding. With a full time secretariat and administrative clout, I hope it will take decisive action in resolving the considerable and ever-growing problems associated with the funding and administration of legal aid. I was pleased to see that the Minister made specific reference to cost effectiveness and general levels of funding because these are crucial problems that threaten the administration of legal aid. The Government should be concerned, as was Senator Gareth Evans back in May 1983 when he said: . . . the debate has assumed a new urgency because the cost of legal aid is escalating in a manner which now seems to be almost out of control. I think Senator Evans's expectations in fact were borne out. Since 1977-78 Commonwealth expenditure on legal aid has increased by 89 per cent in real terms from $42.3m, in 1986-87 prices, to $76m in 1986-87. The estimates for 1987-88 are $85.6m in nominal prices and $80m in 1986-87 prices. This is an increase in the cost per capita on 1986-87 prices from $2.97 in 1977 to an estimated 1987-88 figure of $4.90. I think in anybody's terms, remembering that we have taken out inflation in these figures, it is a big jump from $2.97 to $4.90. I reiterate the point that while the poor can obtain aid and the rich can afford litigation, it is the people in the middle, Mr and Mrs Ordinary Australian, who in the end are in the firing line of the crushing costs of litigation. I see that two Labor backbenchers are nattering away. I hope that this is an issue that they take up. I do not think there is any doubt that the sort of government we have had from the Australian Labor Party in the last few years demonstrates that this Government really has lost touch with Mr and Mrs Ordinary Australian. I see that the honourable members continue their conversation. It really is an issue that must be faced. Quite frankly, it is hard to see the evidence of this Government facing up to that critical issue. I suppose the only consolation I have for Mr and Mrs Average Australian who have been caught up in expensive litigation is: If you reckon that was bad, wait until the Government slugs you with the superannuation tax which is coming. I think that is not far away. The Government is just waiting for the New South Wales State election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member is starting to get away from the legislation before the House. Mr REITH —It may be away from the legislation but very close to home for some people, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Nehl —Close to the bone. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper might recall that interjections are out of order, and interjecting from out of one's seat is even more out of order. Mr Nehl —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am here on duty as acting shadow; I am not out of my seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Even acting shadows are precluded from interjecting. Mr REITH —A further concern is that an excessive amount of money is going into some of these maxi-trials and a lot of money obviously is going into family law. It is simplistic solution to say, `Look, the answer is just more money'. That is not the answer and I think we must really look at some of the root causes to the ever greater calls on the exchequer for funds for legal aid. If we look at some of those underlying causes, for example, in New South Wales, we see a massive increase in the crime rate, which all feeds through and clogs up the criminal justice system. In the end that takes its toll on legal aid. We need an across the board response to some of those issues. Police numbers is one. I think that is an area which the New South Wales Government has not properly addressed. Mr Unsworth will face the music when he has his State election in due course. I do not think the Federal Government is completely free of blame when it comes to this issue. There is a lot of concern in the community about the level of violence across the board. There is concern about violence in videos. My view is that this Government has hardly lifted a finger on that issue, and it should do so. There is real concern out in the community for those issues to be addressed. As I have said, family law generates a lot of the demand for legal aid. The Government is doing something now about maintenance through the Child Support Bill and so on, but it has really dragged its feet on that. It has been going on for years. Mr Lionel Bowen —What did you do? Mr REITH —It is no good coming back with that sort of response. We are talking about five years. I simply make the point that when talking about legal aid, we have to go downstream, as it were, to discover what some of the causal factors are. In looking at legal aid funds we must ensure that the administration of legal aid funds is adequate and up to the task and, in fact, ensures that funds go out in the most efficient way. Generally speaking, I think people working in that area have a good reputation and what I have to say is, of course, no reflection on the great majority of people who are involved in the legal aid commissions and elsewhere. But some problems have been highlighted recently in the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission where the Commission's deputy director has taken the unprecedented step of going public with his worrying allegations. He claims that the financial systems are inadequate and that the inherent lack of controls and proper systems has led to faulty estimates and a major blow-out in expenditure. It is obvious from these claims by an experienced officer that there are some fundamental problems with the administration of legal aid in New South Wales. Commonwealth Legal Aid Bill I shall not go into that any further, but it illustrates the point that in legal aid policy one has to get the system right all the way down the line. The administration of funds is an important area. Fortunately, in New South Wales John Dowd will shortly be the new Attorney-General. Many people will be pleased to see him take up that role in New South Wales. He has been actively concerned about the matters raised by Mr Dillon. People living in New South Wales can be sure that in a month or so they will see Mr Dowd as Attorney-General, and I think that is basically good news. There are, of course, a lot of case studies and individual examples which come to public light from time to time in regard to legal aid but time prevents me from going over some of those tonight. The Opposition believes those who cannot afford the cost of legal representation should be guaranteed aid for that purpose, as equality of access is necessary in the administration of justice in our society. There must be a more stringent evaluation in determining whether appeals should be funded with public moneys, and a general re-examination of the scope of funding with the aim of narrowing the areas of activity without adversely affecting anyone's rights. The Government ought to be looking at the provision of legal aid, with some restrictions in civil and criminal matters involving Commonwealth laws, and it is important that the Commonwealth maintains a co-operative approach with the States. In conclusion let me say that, back in June 1985, the Australian Labor Party let the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council established by the Fraser Government lapse. It has taken from then until now to get these two advisory bodies going. They will pick up where that Council left off. Many important issues need to be examined, and both bodies have the expertise, interest and dedication to make an important and useful contribution. We therefore support the Bill, and look forward to hearing of the work of both the Council and the Committee. We give the members of both bodies our support and wish them the best in their endeavours. I am sure that, given the right attitude on the part of the Government and the sort of people we will have on those bodies, they will make that useful contribution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.02) —I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who has just resumed his seat. I agreed with many of the things he said, until he got off the track, when he thought he was playing politics in New South Wales. I take just a moment to correct him, because he made some outlandish claims about a superannuation tax. Let me make it clear to listeners that, should there be some changes in the superannuation arrangements, there will be no retrospectivity. In other words, the changes will not affect anyone who is involved in a superannuation scheme at the moment. There will be no erosion of a person's entitlement to opt for a lump sum and there will be no additional tax upon benefits that have accrued already. They are the facts. If the honourable member for Flinders wants to pursue the line he was taking, I suggest that he will end up in a lot of deep trouble. What he said was totally untrue. I turn to the Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill, which is before the House. As explained by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in some detail in his second reading speech, we are tonight providing for the establishment of two bodies-the National Legal Representative Council and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee. This is part of the Government's initiative to establish a brand new national structure, a structure that will administer, co-ordinate and provide advice to the Government on legal aid. I think the honourable member for Flinders is right when he says that there is a need for constant review. I believe that this new structure will be an excellent mechanism to monitor the legal aid system operating in Australia. There is a need for monitoring and review, especially of the delivery of legal aid services. The honourable member for Flinders talked as if the pit was bottomless when it came to funding this very important service. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth Government, the Hawke Labor Government, with the co-operation of the States provided $140m for legal aid. This Hawke Labor Government provided over 60 per cent of that sum. This financial year, the contribution of the Hawke Labor Government will rise to $101.1m. It is just not possible to meet people's demands and expectations in every area of legal aid. In fact, a financial dilemma faces governments. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Flinders when he talked about some legal aid cases. One case in Victoria at the moment, the Russell Street bombing case, is estimated to cost $1m in legal aid. In my own State of Queensland, the Maher case cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. If one case costs $1m and the Commonwealth contribution to legal aid is $100m, one does not have to be a mathematician to work out that we cannot cover many cases. There has to be a reconsideration, a review, of exactly where the money is going and how it is being used. I reiterate that the legal aid purse is not bottomless. I suppose it is only reasonable that some States have to look at what they are paying, but in my State of Queensland the National Party Government has cut savagely its contribution to the public defender system. Last night I was talking to a Queensland lawyer about that aspect. He said that there had been a cut of something like one-third. The legal aid service in Queensland will have to tighten its belt. Unless the Queensland Government notes what Mr Reith has said and understands the importance of the provision of legal aid, it will depend on the Commonwealth grant, on the interest being earned on solicitors' trust funds, and on the generosity of the members of the legal profession who work in the shopfront advice centres and who help community groups such as consumer associations and counselling services, and who accept about one-third of the normal fee when they act in a legal aid capacity. There is a need to rethink the structure, and that is what this Government is doing. It appreciates that it needs the advice of people from all the States. The advisory bodies will have representation on a State-wide basis and from the various interest groups within the legal aid system and I hope will come up with some changes and recommendations. A recommendation regarding my own State could be that the Public Defenders' Office and the Legal Aid Office be amalgamated. That might save some money in administrative costs. Resources could be pooled, especially in the counselling and legal advice areas. It would also provide a better career structure for lawyers. It would also remove the problems caused by the Public Defender being under the direct political responsibility of the Under-Secretary for Justice. If those authorities were combined they could come under the control of a statutory body. I urge the new National Party Premier, Mike Ahern, and the Attorney-General, Paul Clauson, to think through the idea and not just cast aside the concept of amalgamation. There is a need for a rethink of how the money is being spent. I suggest also that the Queensland Government needs to be willing, as do all governments, to act to ensure that justice is done. I refer very briefly to what is known in legal circles as the Byfield case, the case of a man who murdered his son. The matter is now under appeal by the Crown to the High Court of Australia. The defendant is not eligible for legal aid because his wife sold a small farm in the Byfield region in my electorate. She sold that farm because there was no-one to operate it. She has cash on hand, although she has no home. Under the very stringent and rigid rules that apply at the moment, because she has this cash asset she and her husband have no eligibility for legal aid. This is a very important issue because her husband has been ruled out on the financial test that applies. I think it is important for this man to be properly represented. It is the first time an issue such as this has been brought before the High Court. It is the first time the High Court will have the chance to test the issue of diminished responsibility that was added as a defence to the Queensland criminal code about 20 years ago. So there needs to be a rethink and, I suggest, a greater discretionary power needs to be given to the legal aid organisation to waive the requirements-a merit test and a financial test-in certain circumstances. I realise, as the honourable member for Flinders obviously does, that many challenges will confront the new advisory bodies. Every government, regardless of its political persuasion, has to understand that there is a limit to government-subsidised legal services. We must think very carefully as to how far we can open the purse and broaden access. The honourable member said that we ought to expand this service into some of the civil action areas and he challenged the service in some of the areas where there is access already. But legal aid is supposed to be for the needy, not the greedy. It is supposed to be for the disadvantaged and the poor, so the funds that are available must be used carefully. It has been recommended to me by those who are practising in the legal profession today that the legal aid services involve many unnecessary costs related to the antiquated procedures in the legal system-procedures that make the whole structure of law so expensive. It has been strongly recommended to me that, particularly in criminal matters, greater use ought to be made of pre-trial conferences-a system whereby both parties can come before a judge or a deputy president of the appeals tribunal. This could be a way of reducing time and costs and of heading off actions that are most likely to fail anyway. A pilot program has been in operation in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal area for some time. It is being watched extremely closely by this Government and, I have no doubt, by other governments and the results are already encouraging. There is also a need for some of our Supreme Courts, such as in Queensland, to review the complicated system of pleadings and pre-trial steps; and I think simplification is available. That simplification would save time, and saving time again means saving money. I think, too, the time has come to bring the legal system clearly into the twentieth century. Back in 1977, when I was the shadow Attorney-General in the Queensland Parliament, the Lucas inquiry brought forward some recommendations about allowing videotaping of police interviews. This was recommended 10 years ago and still nothing has been done. Those who know anything about the law appreciate that much time is wasted in a court as the defence counsel endeavours to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made the statement that the prosecution presented and that this was not something that the accused faced verbally. So we have the defence counsel using time in that court to establish everything his client had to say to the police so that justice is to be done. Videotaping could slash the time taken up with cross-examination and again reduce costs, not only in Queensland but also in those systems across the nation that are not even considering the use of videotapes. There is a need for uniformity in this country in the courts and within the legal aid commissions themselves. I suppose that one example of the good things that are happening in other States that are not being copied is the use of paralegals in Victoria. These people are not highly qualified lawyers-in fact, in most instances they are not qualified lawyers-but they are highly experienced and very capable people who have a specialist knowledge of certain aspects of the law. Just as one does not always have to go to the doctor but can go to the ambulance man or to the paramedic, so too there are circumstances in which one could go to a paralegal. Such instances could be the counselling that takes place in the family law area, in the problems we have in terminating tenancies, in consumer matters, and even in assessing applications for legal aid. People sit down with lawyers in legal aid offices and the lawyer has to work out whether they meet the merit test and the financial test. I argue that this assessment could be carried out by a paralegal and the lawyer could then give his or her time to case work. The same is true when it comes to the referral program whereby the legal aid officers refer cases to solicitors. Again it seems to me that much of that work could be done by paralegals. I agree with the point made by the honourable member for Flinders about the need for efficiency in operations. There is a need for constant upgrading of financial accountability. I also believe that there is a need for more selectively directed funds. The Australian Labor Party has done this by providing some $40m this year for the Aboriginal community. I wish to raise a question that I hope the new Council and the Committee will look at; that is, whether there should be full recovery of costs in civil matters. I am not suggesting that, if the legal case that is pursued by the Legal Aid Office costs $7,000 or $8,000, at the end of the day that $7,000 or $8,000 must be recovered from the client. But where there is due compensation and an award, if that award is $7,000 or $8,000 and the legal costs are $6,000, I believe that the Legal Aid Office ought to be able to recover the full $6,000. This is not always the situation. I suggest also that there is a need for some of the States to do more in terms of funding. I have looked at the contributions being made by the States. I do not intend to name any because I realise the circumstances prevailing in some areas, but in one case the contribution by the Commonwealth is 85 per cent and the contribution by the State is 15 per cent. I suppose that the average is around 65 per cent to 35 per cent and it ought to be brought down to a relationship of 55 per cent and 45 per cent. Let the Commonwealth carry the load as it has done all these years, but let the States also realise that they have a greater responsibility. I do not believe that it will ever be possible for any government to completely fund the legal aid needs of the future-I think that is the point we have to start realising-just as we have major problems in meeting the needs of our ageing community. So the Government will have to look very carefully at an arrangement or a system whereby we can overcome this constant drain on the public purse. The community will continue to demand more and more, yet governments will be supplying less and less in financial aid. We have some choices, which have to be considered very carefully. The first is to narrow down the legal aid eligibility to fewer people; in other words, cut down the number of people in this country who are eligible for legal aid. The other alternative is to increase the contributions for legal advice. In my State it is only $20. However, that $20 is a lot of money. It is like the widow's mite; it depends on how much is in one's purse and what sort of income one has. But it may be that that is the way it has to be. In this way we will attract an earning capacity from those in the small business world, as they would seek legal advice at a cheaper rate. As I mentioned earlier, there is also the alternative of adopting the policy of total recovery of costs where there have been awards and compensation. But I suggest another way. I suggest that consideration be given to the introduction of a legal bank or a legal expense insurance system. That is the real option confronting the Australian legal aid system and the governments of this country. It is being considered by some insurance companies. In fact, the FAI Life Insurance Society Ltd is putting together a package; it may have even started to market it. I am told by one senior person in the legal profession that, from what he knows about the package, there is a need for some improvement. Suncorp in Queensland is now considering the idea; and, regardless of the criticism that the honourable member for Flinders threw at the New South Wales Government, the Unsworth Government is giving the lead in this area through the New South Wales Government Insurance Office. It is preparing a package which could prove acceptable to all. It is a worldwide trend. I looked up some figures for other countries. In Germany at the moment 40 per cent of the population has legal insurance cover. Thirty million Americans now have legal insurance cover. About 30 per cent of the population of Scandinavian countries have seen fit to insure themselves against legal charges. It is finally catching on in Britain as the Europeans have greater influence on that country. I suggest that this is the option-and I say this to those who are involved in determining what happens in the funding of legal aid-because the cost of litigation is escalating and will increase. We will have continuing costs facing solicitors. The administrative costs of running offices amount to 60 per cent of total income. Supreme Court action over a couple of days can cost $10,000. We had a dispute recently in my home town of Rockhampton over the sale price of a house. The legal costs involved for the woman who defended the action were $30,000, but the cost of the house that she bought originally was $26,000. I welcome the amendments. I welcome what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is doing. I welcome the Government's stand on this issue and I wish the new Council every success in what it does in its advisory capacity. But I suggest that the challenge that faces this country is one of costs and the scarcity of funds to provide the legal aid services that we need across the nation to encompass all those people who need that legal advice and assistance in litigation. Unless we encourage a vast proportion of our population to start looking at legal aid insurance, we face a major dilemma. I ask the Attorney-General, as he meets with his advisers in this area, to pay every attention to the feasibility of a legal expenses insurance system. It may be that it will not be possible for low income groups to take out insurance. Let the legal aid services cater for them. But I believe that other people in the middle income areas have the financial capacity to insure themselves. We should encourage a large number of people in Australia to take up this burden which will give them very great protection. If we can do this, I think we can solve the dilemma that the legal aid system of this country will face. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.21) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions. As speakers in the debate have indicated, this is not a contentious matter. I listened with interest to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) who led for the Opposition. He was anxious to mention that two members of the Government were chattering about the matter. I am anxious to remind him that the only support he had was from an acting shadow Minister. Therefore, his comments seem to be rather lacking in substance. But that does not detract from what we are about here. There has been a bipartisan approach to the Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1987. It is important when dealing with matters of this ilk to have good advice. This advice will be provided by the National Legal Aid Representative Council and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee. I appreciate that Mr Justice Barblett is making himself available. He is a senior member of the Family Court of Australia. Apart from his all-round skills, he has been a tower of strength in opening up negotiations with the various commissions as to how we might make a better arrangement. When I inherited the Attorney-General's portfolio, I made a close investigation of why the Commonwealth seemed to be paying all the legal aid for all the matters in some States. This was because those States were able, because of their mental flexibility, to say that every application had some Commonwealth element in it. In other words, there did not seem to be any State element at all. Yet many of the offences for which the applicants were receiving legal aid were State offences. I pay a tribute to Mr Terry Sheahan in New South Wales, and Mr Bill Robinson who was then his legal aid director, to whom we said, `Look, we want to get some reasonable allocation, understanding and agreement'. For the first time we got an agreement with the New South Wales group that they would provide 45 per cent of whatever was needed. That is well in advance of what has happened in most other States. Some States-I will not name them-are not providing anything. But it is very clear that the whole burden cannot be put on the Commonwealth. The honourable member for Flinders quite rightly said, `We don't want to see any waste or escalation. We want to see value for money'. I agree with that. The whole objective of the exercise has been to look at what resources we have. I would like to remind the honourable member-and this was prior to his entering the Parliament-that in the last four years of the Fraser Government there was a blow-out of 54 per cent in legal aid costs in real terms. Something had to be done about that. Mr Reith —That is less than yours. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am happy that the honourable member raised that point because for the same length of time ours was 7 per cent in real terms. This shows that there has been better efficiency and better management. We have been able to cater for an increased number of people. Substantial increases have been made to community legal centres. For example, in 1982-83 the centres were given $450,000. We now give them approximately $2m. One has to get value for money. I think the honourable gentleman would agree with me that we have to recognise that for years the legal profession has been providing help to people for no reward at all. That point has to be clearly understood. I do not want it to be thought that members of the legal profession get money for services which they do not provide. For years, members of the profession have been appearing for nothing or for a very small fee. In many cases there have been a lot of bad debts. It would be very good if we could do as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) suggested and provide legal insurance. If that happened we would wind up in a position such as enjoyed by the medical profession which seems to have a gilt-edged guarantee of no bad debts. That does not happen in the legal profession. The profession is a very good one. It is criticised at times on the basis that it might be inefficient in some ways. But I cannot see that this is true in terms of what it provides by way of services to the people. We have to look at the profession from the point of view of the demand that it is trying to meet. As has been said and recognised, there is a rapid escalation in crime across Australia which is not limited to any one State. This problem is causing no end of congestion in the courts. The real issue is that about 70 per cent of serious criminal matters are now funded by legal aid and about 50 per cent of all legally aided matters are criminal cases. Some of these matters are very important and major. For example, trials for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice could last for a long time. Legal aid could run into a million or more dollars for one case because conspiracy trials can last for months. We have to recognise in a democratic society that if we are going to ask people to assist us, members of the legal profession are the only ones who can do so from the point of view of both the prosecution and the rights of the individual to be defended. Our society has a problem in that the profession has to be used to guarantee that justice is done. This is apart from the problems of the capital costs of courts and everything else. I am pleased to say that we have looked at the problem and that the State governments are now considering that they ought to pay a percentage share. Although they will not admit it, in many cases the States have never put any money in. It seems reasonable now that progress should be made in agreeing to an equitable reimbursement to the Commonwealth in respect of the administration of the legal aid commissions. I have supported the establishment of the commissions which were installed by the previous Government. I think that is a good concept. We are using the same courts and we are using the same profession. But the issue was always out of balance because we wound up with and open-ended situation and the States were very conveniently saying, `Sorry, we can't even make a contribution'. In one case I notice that a State Treasury decided to appropriate the amount it had to Consolidated Revenue, deeming it to be a surplus. I have been discussing all of these things face to face with the Attorneys in other States. They are reasonable people, but by the time they get back to their Treasuries, they are usually gazumped; they do not seem to be able to deliver. But the pressure is still on them. The example is now there in black and white for the first time in respect of the agreement that has been made with New South Wales which has said that it seems to be a fair proposition. The task force set up by my predecessor, Senator Gareth Evans, because of the explosion of legal aid, had some interesting things to say. For example, it established that in one capital city members of the Bar were getting $10,000 a head in family law legal aid cases. So the amount of aid was out of all proportion to that given in other capital cities. It meant that members of the Bar in that capital city were more adversary in their mental approach to family law matters than was the case in any other State. It is helpful if people particularly in the family law area are not too adversarial and are more conciliatory. We are making progress in this area. I am able to report that for the first time the percentage of legal aid going to family law matters is dropping. This is because we have better procedures in family law matters now in terms of case management and trying to get the parties to discuss the matters. Perhaps we do not need adversary skills so much. So more money is available. As I said, the increase in legal aid is taking place in the criminal area. Because of the increase in crime there will have to be more judges in the criminal area. There will be more legal aid demands because more cases will have to be dealt with more quickly. As a result, more funds will be required. This is not an easy proposition. By having a committee and a council, everybody will be aware of the problem. Money is not the only solution, because there will never be enough money to meet the demand. However, the money that is available ought to be well and properly used. It is not wise to have a lot of legal aid expended on adjournments or pleas of guilty. I do not see much sense in that. Legal aid is needed in cases where people are facing serious problems. There has to be an understanding of how best our legal aid resources can be used. Honourable members will note that a very substantial amount of money is going into legal aid-a substantial increase on the previous year. It will not be enough, but the Government is giving what it can by way of legal aid. This year the figure is $101.1m-a very substantial amount of money. But the profession itself is still making a very strong contribution-it always has and it always will. We are looking here at a structure where we can get more knowledge as to where resources should be allocated, with advice from the professional groups represented on the council and with the advice of a committee. This gives some balance to the issues which we are discussing here and which we have dealt with in the past. The previous advisory committee was a good one, but we had to look at the explosion in the system and exercise some control over it. We are not asking the States to make an appropriate contribution. All States have not agreed to do it, and that is the difficulty. If there were more contribution from States, we would be better off. Basically the commissions are State oriented and are very much mindful of the problems in their State. It is left to the State commissions to make the recommendations. There was one case, to which the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) adverted, where a State commission decided not to fund a person. I do not know why that happened, but it left the Commonwealth with the task of having to fund that case so that that person could be represented. At times one has to convince the commissions that they have a responsibility, so that these demands do not just fall on Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue. The case was a little unusual because the individual concerned, who was able to obtain legal aid because he was bankrupt, was still attending the hearing in a Rolls-Royce. That shows some of the problems that can happen in some States. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation which deals with a very important matter. It requires continual surveillance as to how best we use resources-resources which will always be limited, but not insignificant. Certainly $100m is not insignificant. I pay tribute to all those who work in the community legal centres; they do a magnificent job. The honourable member for Flinders properly mentioned the work of the students at Monash University. It is a very good idea, and I am pleased to see that other universities are doing the same thing, particularly the University of New South Wales. This gets law students actively involved in the practice of dealing with people and their legal problems. This is another example of what the profession and the law schools are all about. A lot of young, and not so young, people are interested in the study of law. It is very good for mental alertness and perhaps advancement in life, though that does not necessarily follow. It is always a challenge to be able to argue and be an advocate on the basic principles of freedom and justice. At the same time it is often the devil's own job to try to interpret the laws that we pass in this place. That is one of the difficulties. But it should never be thought that the profession has never pulled its weight. It has. And it should not be thought that it has not always given services for no reward. The profession has, and it will continue to do so. This Bill is a fair compromise dealing with the competing interests in respect of the provision of money from the national Government for so many different needs, whether they involve defence, social welfare or other matters. The Bill will give added strength to the administration of legal aid and should be of undoubted benefit to the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Reith —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table entitled `Commonwealth Expenditure on Legal Aid' which has been prepared for me by the Parliamentary Library. As we have had some slight altercation about how much money has been spent, I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be happy with that document. Leave granted. The table read as follows- LEGAL AID COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE ON LEGAL AID $'000 $'000 at 1986-87 prices $ at 1986-87 prices per mean head of population 1977-78 ... 20,028 42,342 2.97 1978-79 ... 21,884 43,507 3.01 1979-80 ... 23,453 42,334 2.90 1980-81 ... 27,984 44,990 3.04 1981-82 ... 32,393 45,948 3.05 1982-83 ... 49,701 63,638 4.16 1983-84 ... 54,357 65,569 4.24 1984-85 ... 57,360 65,330 4.17 1985-86 ... 66,015 70,454 4.44 1986-87 ... 76,041 76,041 4.72 1987-88 (est) ... 85,640 80,037 4.90 Includes ACT Legal Aid Commission, Australian Legal Aid Office, and payments to the States and Northern Territory. Mr Lionel Bowen —I also would like to have incorporated in Hansard a document entitled `Commonwealth Legal Aid Funding 1978-79 to 1986-87.' Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH LEGAL AID FUNDING 1978-79 TO 1986-87 Financial year Major legal and bodies Community legal centres Aboriginal legal centres Total C.P.I. $ $ $ $ 1978-79 ... 21,534,230 21,000 4,207,970 25,763,200 83.0 1982-83 ... 49,406,521 450,000 7,961,976 57,818,497 123.1 Real term % increase ... 54.7% 1,344.8% 27.6% 51.3% . . 1982-83 ... 49,406,521 450,000 7,961,976 57,818,497 123.1 1986-87 ... 70,029,030 1,931,747 13,014,066 84,974,863 162.6 Real term % increase ... 7.3% 225.0% 23.7% 11.3% . . Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 December 1987, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.37) —The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is an omnibus piece of legislation which deals with a range of issues within the communications sphere and amends a number of Acts of Parliament. In general terms the Opposition does not oppose this legislation, although we have some comment to make on the Government's approach to this issue. We shall be moving a second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. As I have said, this Bill makes a number of changes. It streamlines the procedures by which the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Australia Post and Telecom Australia can enter into hedging contracts. It puts them on a commercial basis and it is pleasing to see the Government recognising the need for commercial standards to apply to these organisations. One hopes that whenever the Government gets beyond its policy paralysis following the Adelaide by-election and gets back to talking about privatisation and the injection of capital into these government enterprises, it will recognise that it has moved to streamline the hedging provisions which of necessity must be available to organisations that deal in foreign currency and borrow overseas. One hopes the Government will recognise that a commercial approach to the provision of the services is relevant, appropriate and in the best interests of the Australian community. One hopes that Caucus will show some commonsense. The Bill also provides for Australia Post and Telecom to issue securities which are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government. I am quite sure that with the falling credit rating of the Commonwealth of Australia under the administration of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) Australia Post and Telecom are pleased to be free of that credit standing and to be able to develop their own reputation in the marketplace. It probably has some advantage in terms of the statistical returns of this Government when we debate the degree of debt, both domestic and foreign, that exists. If there is no Commonwealth Government guarantee, I imagine that the Treasurer will be able to come into the House and quote statistics that do not relate to Australia Post and Telecom. That will probably make his fairly appalling record in borrowing and the growth in government borrowings both in the Australia capital markets and overseas, look slightly better. We can well understand his motive. We also acknowledge the commercial motive in providing flexibility for these organisations. Other amendments clarify and strengthen the prohibition on the sending of dangerous goods through the mail. No-one in this House would argue against this. We all recollect the explosion that occurred in the Brisbane Mail Centre which resulted in the death of an Australia Post employee. That is to be deplored, and anything that is done to discourage the irresponsible action of sending dangerous goods through the mail is a move in the right direction. I was interested to note in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) that a number of Acts are now gender-neutral as a result of this amending Bill. I have no argument with that, but find it interesting that the Government's priorities are such that the scarce time of parliamentary draftsmen is tied up in making legislation gender-neutral. Ministers often complain of the difficulty of having Bills drafted to meet the legislation timetable, and the community is constantly waiting for legislation. A piece of legislation that went through only in the last session was delayed considerably and we were forced to rely on a Press release from the Treasurer concerning guidelines for superannuation. When the Bill finally came to the House it did not even have the regulations attached. Part of the problem was a delay in drafting. The Government has the time and priority to have gender neutral amendments put through this place, but it cannot introduce significant legislation for superannuation. There is probably some reason for the Government not wanting to have specific legislation for superannuation because we all know that for some time it has had an interdepartmental committee which is planning ways of taxing superannuation funds. The Premier of New South Wales is well aware of that and he has had the living daylights scared out of him because of it. I guess he would be terrified if the legislation were in black and white and we knew the Government's intentions on withdrawing the existing concessions from superannuation. This Bill also makes a number of changes to the testing and registering basis for various items of radio communication equipment. That is of a technical nature and to the extent that it improves the provision of services to the community, the Opposition has no objection. We are moving a second reading motion amendment simply because we believe that the Government should be criticised for its ad hoc, inconsistent and rather tardy approach to communications policy. There is an interesting quote in the Minister's second reading speech. He said: The Bill represents further evidence of the Government's commitment to efficiency and sound commercial practice for . . . government business enterprises . . . I reflect for a moment on the way in which the Government handled the time charging of telephone calls in recent weeks. That was a commercial decision taken by a Government enterprise. The Minister said that the Government believes in efficiency and sound commercial enterprise, yet the Government has been running away from the policy when the acid is actually put on it, when Telecom decides that it wants to be commercial and take the decision that a business enterprise would take in terms of setting its prices and the way its charges for its product. Although the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other members of his Government are running scared as a result of that loss, that crushing defeat-I think that is the right term-at the Adelaide by-election, it was only last Sunday, half an hour before his Prime Minister was on television, that Senator Button said that time charging of telephone calls was still on the agenda and would be considered. Yet half an hour later the Prime Minister went on television and made another statement. That highlights the differ From: ences of opinion and the brawls we are yet to see erupt within this Labor Government. This week we have seen the Government paralysed by fear. Honourable members opposite have been buffeted by incapacity in this House. They are certainly missing the humour of the former member for Port Adelaide. The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) is a bright chap and I am sure he will learn well. I am sure he has learnt by his mistakes of this week; perhaps next week he will be slightly better and maybe a bit more fleet of foot. The business of the House may operate better next week. I hope so, because the Leader of the House did not perform terribly well this week and even the Government Whips seemed to be a bit off their game because they had to call a quorum this afternoon. It was quite an amazing situation. I return to the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). Points have to be made in response to assertions made by the Minister in his second reading speech. He talked about organisations such as Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), Australia Post and Telecom Australia. He referred to the need to have a sound commercial basis for these organisations. The Minister was foreshadowing the need for the injection of new capital because he recognises that a major revolution is taking place in communications in Australia and the world today. Australia has to maintain its place and pace with the rest of the world and to do that we need massive injections of capital. He also recognises that the Government really cannot afford to do that. It cannot afford to devote taxpayers' funds to funding these investments that are so essential for these Government instrumentalities. That means only one thing-that private equity will have to be introduced into these organisations. Of course, that means that the Government will have to float 49 per cent, 51 per cent or 100 per cent of a number of these organisations. That will be a very interesting debate for Caucus. I know what the Labor left wing thinks and how jealously it guards its ideological position. When faced with the choice-and it will arise-between funding the new investments for these vital infrastructure facilities for the Australian community and cutting back on welfare spending and other projects which are dear to the heart of left wing members, they will sit down and weigh in the balance whether they will cut back on the needy in the Australian community in order to provide government funds for these government organisations or whether they will move with the times, follow the example of many countries overseas and adopt the rather progressive approach of this side of the House-that is, introduce private initiative and private capital wherever appropriate in order to minimise the call on Treasury and to avoid the necessity to cut back spending on those people in the Australian community who least can afford to suffer because of an ideological intransigence on the part of the Government. Mr McGauran —`Bloody-mindedness' is a better word. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! That is unparliamentary language. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member for Gippsland has made a valid interjection. It is hardly unparliamentary. It is a term that reflects a state of mind. It is not blasphemous in the true sense; it refers to an intransigent state of mind. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Nonetheless, it is unparliamentary and I ask you not to repeat that expression. Mr BLUNT —I certainly have not repeated it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have simply acknowledged the interjection so that Hansard can record it and agreed with the sentiments. I think that even the Minister would recognise that there are a number of his colleagues who could be fairly described as pig-headed or ideologically dogmatic or determined to achieve their goals irrespective-- Mr Cadman —Rigid. Mr McGauran —Inflexible. Mr BLUNT —Rigid, inflexible-I could think of a number of adjectives to describe them. The point is that in communications perhaps more than any other area, this Government has demonstrated its major weaknesses, its inability to address the major policy areas and to reconcile the competing ideologies within its Caucus and its inability to govern for the benefit of all Australians. It would rather have a communications policy that reflects the attitudes and the flow of benefits to its mates and cronies. I notice that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) who is at the table looks up. I know the Minister's views on many of these matters. I know that he does not share the views of the Treasurer or the Prime Minister on a lot of issues. In communications perhaps more than any other portfolio area in the Government, we have seen cronyism run rife. We had an example of this today with a quote from an Australian Federal Police report. It spoke of Christmas Island and how the gentleman concerned in this area was a mate of the Prime Minister. Mateship is a great part of the Australian Labor Party. We have heard Senator Richardson-that renowned number cruncher from the right wing-- Mr Snow —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you to ask the honourable member at least to return to the subject of telecommunications and communications networks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I am just looking at the scope of the legislation before us. Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that this is in fact an omnibus Bill that deals with everything that could fairly be described as coming within the purview of the portfolio, from government restrictions and commercial undertakings for statutory authorities through to the regulation of the radio waves. For that reason I am covering a wide range of issues, because they are relevant to the philosophy behind this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that they should be made relevant to the particular omnibus legislation that is before us and not necessarily cover omnibus portfolios generally. Mr BLUNT —Point taken, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was simply going to say, for the benefit of the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Snow), that mateship is very important. The Federal Police said that the guy running the casino at Christmas Island was a mate of the Prime Minister, so that was all right. As I said before, mateship is very important in the development of communications policy. So that you will understand the relevance of my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me refer to the second reading speech. The Minister said that the Government has a commitment to efficiency and sound commercial practice for major government business enterprises and to efficient and equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum, which is a scarce and valuable resource. The emphasis must be placed on the words `scarce and valuable resource'. In terms of radio frequencies we are, of course, talking about who can broadcast on what particular wavelength, on what frequency. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will acknowledge that that has some relevance to who actually operates the radio stations and television licences in Australia. Let me make the point that this Bill in particular deals with the regulation of those frequencies and how transmitting equipment will be controlled and regulated. It is in that context that I make the following remarks. One cannot run a transmitter in Australia without a licence. The granting of licences is very important. In recent months we have seen major changes to the ownership of licences for the transmitting of signals for both radio and television. It is the basis of those changes that I think is indicative of the Government's attitude to the regulation of this scarce and valuable resource. One point that should be made, and made very strongly here is that the Government has spared no effort in adhering to its fundamental principle of looking after its mates when it comes to this particular policy area. I think that is something of which every Australian is aware. Many Government backbenchers are aware of how conscious the community is of this Government's communications policy. Only the other day the Premier of New South Wales was saying that the community was aware that the Labor Party is out of touch. I am sure that the back bench is aware that the Labor Party is out of touch in terms of its communications policy because the community is showing considerable disquiet about the changes that have taken place in the ownership of television and radio stations. It was only late last year that one significant operator in the radio industry-this is, of course, relevant to the legislation we have before us tonight-spent tens of millions of dollars acquiring radio station licences. The acquisition actually put his company in breach of the existing legislation. When asked for his comments about the possible conflict between his commercial decision and the legislation, he said in words to this effect: `I'm sure it will be right. I'm sure there will be a Press release forthcoming that will clarify the Government's intention in this area'. Wink, wink! Obviously he had been given the nod by the Minister, probably because he was his mate or had gone fishing with him or had played golf with the Prime Minister. Very shortly after these tens of millions of dollars were spent acquiring radio stations, the Minister actually did put out a Press release saying that the Government's intention was to change the legislation so that these licences could be acquired. I see the honourable member for Eden-Monaro having a wry smile. He understands the system quite well. He knows that the Labor Party looks after its mates. That we can count on. Similar things have occurred in terms of television licences. Despite the commitment of the Minister in the second reading speech, the Government does not know how it will go about the efficient and equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum. Let me take the House back to announcements made in the Budget. In the Budget the Government announced its policy for new FM radio licences and the conversion of AM licences to FM. Places on this radio frequency are a limited resource, a resource of considerable value to those people who are licensed to operate. A particular process and financial arrangement was announced in the Budget. Within weeks, the Government had changed its mind completely. As a result of the Budget formulation process the Government decided it had to raise X million dollars, and it developed a formula to do that. But then some of its mates probably explained exactly what this process would mean. So the Government changed it. We have a totally inconsistent Labor Party policy on the allocation of spaces on the FM frequency. There are a limited number of spaces on this FM radio frequency. There are two ways that one can get a space on this FM frequency. One way is to apply for a new space, and that will cost a certain amount of money, depending on where one is-it is a function of the commercial value. The other way is to convert from an existing AM position through to an FM position, which costs considerably less. These two spots have the same economic value but there are two different ways of getting there and two different prices. I refer to the Minister's statement that the Government is committed to the equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum. We are proposing a second reading amendment that highlights the Government's inconsistent approach to commercial undertakings in this area. It imposes a great deal of unnecessary burden on these organisations. It has an industrial relations procedure which complicates and frustrates the resolution of disputes and forces them into an arbitrated situation rather than allowing conciliation and reconciliation on the job. Of course, it has done nothing to reduce the cost to these organisations, which by its own statement are designed to operate on a commercial basis. It has done nothing to remove the significant impost of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme on these so-called commercial organisations. It would appear to me that if the Government were fair dinkum in this area it would have commercial standards for superannuation apply to these commercial undertakings. That will probably happen when it gets around to deciding the privatisation issue. Let me refer to the cost of superannuation. Oncosts for wages and salaries are in the order of 20 per cent for organisations such as OTC, Australia Post and Telecom. The cost of superannuation for a comparable private sector organisation would be 10 to 12 per cent, yet for these government instrumentalities it is 20 per cent. It is anywhere between 8 and 10 per cent more. The Government has some strange approaches to commercial undertakings by these organisations. It imposes restraints on their ability to get into joint venture undertakings. As I said, there will be a need to involve the private sector both for initiative and for capital into the future to make sure-- Mr McGauran —What is the Government doing? Mr BLUNT —The Government is doing nothing. Of course, it has made this legislation gender neutral. That is very significant to the commercial operating efficiency of these organisations. It has not got around to amending the legislation to make them commercially more competitive, but its enabling legislation is now gender neutral. I guess there are some honourable members on the other side of the House who think that the most significant thing has now taken place. The Bill is no longer offensive to their particular set of criteria because it is gender neutral. Nothing has been done to make the organisations more commercial, more competitive, less of a burden on the Australian taxpayer, and more efficient in providing the services they are required to provide, both by their enabling legislation and by the demands of the community. We were talking about the commercial significance of this legislation. Again, it is important to refer to the confused approach of the Government in this area. Nothing highlights it more than its rather confused and reactive attitude to time charging of local telephone calls. The Prime Minister has said a number of times that there will be no time charging of local telephone calls in Australia. But my colleague and friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has highlighted the fact that in western Queensland there is time charging for local telephone calls. Mr Ian Cameron —It is 7c a minute. Mr BLUNT —I am told it is 7c a minute. Is the Prime Minister fair dinkum when he says there will be no time charging for local telephone calls? We are not talking about STD calls, let me make that absolutely clear; we are talking about local calls. In the electorate of Maranoa local calls are time charged. If the Prime Minister intends to honour his word, if he is going to be fair dinkum-and know that he has broken a lot of promises; in fact, I have seen something like 22 metres of broken promises from the Prime Minister-he will do away with time charging of local telephone calls or he will admit that Senator Button is right and that eventually, under the Hawke Labor Government, there will be time charging of local telephone calls. It has to be one or the other. The Government cannot have an inconsistent policy. I do not know how it justifies time charging for local calls for the constituents of the honourable member for Maranoa. The Government wanders around the country, when it suits the political convenience of the embattled Premier of New South Wales-- Mr McGauran —What is going to happen to him? Mr BLUNT —He is finished. There will be the Barrie Unsworth memorial park soon, because he will be the last Labor Premier of New South Wales. Just for his convenience, the Prime Minister has mouthed these words on telephone charges and mouthed more words on superannuation. Undoubtedly, as the weeks go by, he will mouth a few more words for the convenience of the New South Wales Premier. It will not do Barrie Unsworth any good and it will not do the Prime Minister any good because no one believes a word he says. As I highlighted earlier today, he said to the President of the New South Wales Labor Council in 1983-and we talked about superannuation earlier in the context of this Bill-that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation. He gave that as an earnest undertaking to Mr MacBean. However, in 1984 we got a lump sum tax on superannuation. Maybe that is why Barrie Unsworth is a bit twitchy about what the Government intends to do next with superannuation. Mr Cobb —There was to be no capital gains tax. Mr BLUNT —There was to be no capital gains tax. Mr McGauran —No tax on wine. Mr BLUNT —There was to be no tax on wine. There were other undertakings. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Before honourable members get too excited, I point out that they are helping the honourable member to become less relevant to the debate by encouraging him in that way. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was being drawn off the point of the Bill by my colleagues. I can understand their enthusiasm. They reflect the annoyance at, and even the contempt for, the Prime Minister that is felt in the electorate. It is a contempt that clearly is felt by the Labor back bench. Indeed, I think it was the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) who, in Question Time today, admitted that the Government was out of touch. Many other people have said it, from the Federal Secretary-elect, Bob Hogg, who has said that the Government is out touch, right through to the-- Mr McGauran —John Bannon. Mr BLUNT —Right through to the shortly to be disposed of Premier of New South Wales. John Bannon also said it. Mr West —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we really have just seen a rambling exercise. One lets it go because we know that no-one is listening to it. But it has reached the point where I must point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member has blatantly ignored your consistent rulings as I have sat here over the last 20 minutes. We do not want to see it happen again, do we? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that we are debating the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I understand that the honourable member intends to move an amendment in relation to the Bill. If he is looking for something relevant to say in the time that is left, perhaps he could move the amendment. Mr BLUNT —There are a number of more relevant points that I intend to make, but I formally move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) condemns the Government for its lack of action to date in abolishing a number of government-imposed constraints on Australia Post, Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission including: (a) unnecessary industrial relations co-ordination procedures which, in a number of cases, frustrate rather than expedite the resolution of particular industrial disputes; (b) a costly and inflexible superannuation regime through the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme which, in the case of Telecom, represents a 20% on-cost compared to an average cost of superannuation in the private sector of between 10 and 12%; (c) restrictive borrowing limits which inhibit the raising of funds for capital works programs; (d) cumbersome contracting and purchasing requirements, which, in the case of the latter, were recommended to be abolished by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for Australia Post, Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission; and (e) constraints on new development initiatives such as joint ventures and subsidiary arrangements; and (2) further condemns the Government for its shabby handling of the privatisation debate, which is highlighted by the current intense conflict within the Labor Party on this issue'. In the few minutes remaining to me I will make some relevant points that relate specifically to this Government's incompetence and its commitment to the policy of mateship in communications. After a chat with its mates, the Government has decided what its communications policy will be. Yet it has not been able to bring legislation into this place to effectively decide what that policy will be in legislative terms. We still do not know exactly what the Government's policy is for FM conversion in capital cities. We do not know what it intends to do in terms of new FM licences throughout Australia. However, we have seen its inability to come to grips with the ownership limits in terms of television stations and we have also seen that it does not know quite what to do with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In the terms of this Bill, which deals specifically with OTC, Telecom and Australia Post, we see that the Government is in a quandary. It does not know how to handle those organisations, which increasingly are under commercial pressure and need the injection of more capital. The capital is not available from this Government. The taxpayer cannot be expected to fund the expansion of new technology. The Government will have to come to grips with the question of financing new investment in these areas. That is when Caucus will have to decide what its attitude to privatisation will be. It cannot sweep the issue under the carpet. It cannot take politically expedient positions on it. It will have to address the relevant policy areas on this issue and give the Australian people decent direction and leadership or our whole communications infrastructure system will break down and we will be the laughing stock of the developed world. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The honourable member for Richmond has moved an amendment. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Cadman —Indeed, it is; most enthusiastically. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.06) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what the Government intends to do about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I will certainly not accept it. It is quite worthless. I am pleased about one thing; that is, the National Party of Australia has at last woken up to the necessity of regaining the communications portfolio. The Liberals' handling of the portfolio was an absolute disaster. I am glad that the honourable member for Richmond has at least slightly modified the privatisation stand of his Liberal predecessors who held that shadow portfolio. He might well do that because, when one looks at communications around the world, one can reject entirely the call for privatisation, which is even included in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond. I refer to the headlines which appeared in the United Kingdom after the privatisation of British Telecom: `Public call box charges to be doubled and rentals to rise'; `Higher telephone bills herald privatisation'; `Row over Telecom rate charges'; `Telecom to end free emergency repairs'. Do we want that in Australia? That is what happened in the United Kingdom, but we can also look at other countries. Other headlines read: `How the taxpayer has lost out'; `Telecom to pull plug on exchange'. In Australia we are automating country exchanges and improving the efficiency of the system, while Britain is pulling out exchanges. Let me turn to the overall costs of the service in Canada. A five-year comparison of charges incurred by an average customer in Australia and Canada, when taking into consideration call baskets used for international comparison purposes, provides the following information on rental and charges for calls: in Canada the business customer pays $2,099 in total bills. In Australia, the average customer pays $1,700. In Canada the high user is paying $15,691 and in Australia only $5,080. That is what privatisation does. I now turn to an article under the sub-heading `Businesses Suffer', referring to the United States of America. A conservative newspaper, the United States News and World Report, said: Phoning remains as easy as ever. But service for businesses with special needs is chaotic. Residential users remain bewildered. Anyone having to deal with the new phone companies stand a chance of getting evasive treatment. Under the sub-heading `Financial Burden placed on Domestic Users' the article stated: The issue of `by-pass' has also begun to distort local telephone rates. That is the situation in the United States. One reads that services to the disabled in the United States of America have been lost with increased deregulation. Bill paying has become more complicated. Under deregulation paying for telecommunications will become a much more complicated process. Instead of a single bill, New York residential users will receive one account for local services and another account for long distance calls. When a fault is found in customers' equipment, the telephone company will charge $28.28 for the visit, and no repairs will be performed. There is no charge if the fault is with the company's equipment. Do we want that in Australia? I say, no. We read that pay phone charges have increased. The standard pay phone charge in New York was increased from 10c to 25c in June, and deregulation is held responsible for that increase. Who pays more? It is the poor because pay phone charges have increased far more than any other type of charge. Pay phone charges have increased by 150 per cent in New York State where 7.5 per cent of households, a total of 475,500 homes, do not have a telephone service and have to use these high charging pay phones. The honourable member for Richmond hardly said a word about country people; he did not talk about the cross-subsidies taking place in country areas. It is Opposition members who want to cut out the cross-subsidies through privatisation. Mr Ian Cameron —There is no subsidy; they pay for their phone. Mr Tim Fischer —Do you want it cut out? Mr Ian Cameron —What are you going to charge them? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I regard consistent interjections of that sort, which are designed to elicit responses, as quite disorderly, particularly when they are all shouted out in unison as they were. I ask honourable members to restrain themselves. Mr SNOW —There is an increasing tendency within government to give users some idea of the cost of service to keep overusage at a minimum. In a sense, that is an answer to privatisation. One argument for privatisation is that it may reduce abuse by making the user realise the penalty of abuse. For instance, when I was in Los Angeles two or three years ago I paid $1.90 to telephone from the outskirts of the city to the centre, for nine minutes. A farmer in a remote area of Scotland, which is nothing like the remote farms represented by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) or me, had to pay $10,000 to have the telephone service put in. There are many reasons why it would be impossible to privatise everything in the Australian economy. Every National Party member knows that. For example, private ownership of Telecom would mean the removal of non-profitable services in country areas. The cross-subsidies, which we now have, acknowledge the growing cost of keeping people in the cities and the need to keep viable communities in the country to service our major export industries, which are still agriculture and mine products. It also acknowledges the low population and therefore low return from charging for services in many areas, but even acknowledging those facts, governments still have other considerations that are important. One is the natural tendency to economise when business turns down. When a shop is going broke one reduces stock and costs, and at the same time promotes the business better. In other words, it becomes more efficient. When Budgets blow out, as the Fraser-Howard and Muldoon Budgets did-I would hate to see what would have happened if the National Party had been in complete control, as it was in New Zealand-there is a natural tendency to economise because, eventually, the money must come from somewhere. If taxes increase so much that people have far less to spend, there will be fewer jobs and, in the end, less tax. If that does not happen, money may be borrowed from overseas, which removes the problem today and creates huge problems for tomorrow-big debts and interest rate payouts. There are other ways, and the Government, with intestinal fortitude, will use those other methods. The businesslike attitude would be to look at the stock and the costs and determine where efficiencies could be introduced. That happened when, like a breath of oxygen, the Hawke team arrived, looked at the wide range of problems left it by a spending Government and began to make difficult but necessary decisions in a fair and equitable way. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.15 p.m.) —I raise a very important matter that arose out of the Joint Sitting of Parliament. I have had the opportunity of studying and weighing the Hansard report of that Joint Sitting. I shall quote to the House what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said when he nominated Bob McMullan to the Joint Sitting last Tuesday night. He said: Bob McMullan has been endorsed by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to fill the vacancy created by Susan Ryan's retirement. He is particularly well qualified for the task as Susan Ryan's successor. He is a person of demonstrated capacity, integrity and energy. Bob has given many years of service to the Australian Labor Party, being a member since 1969. In his youth, Bob was prominent in his native State of Western Australia in the campaign against conscription and the Vietnam War. He was, in fact, the first person in Western Australia to establish through the courts his conscientious objection to conscription on the basis of political principle rather than religious principle. On this occasion I do not proffer any criticism of or reflection on Senator McMullan and his right to go to the courts under the laws that were then prevailing for what was essentially draft dodging for reasons he saw fit. However, what I object to is the Prime Minister of this nation elevating this matter to be the centrepiece of his speech nominating Senator McMullan in the Joint Sitting last Tuesday night. I object to it for another reason, namely, that it was the same Prime Minister who signed advertisements and statements in support of the moratorium during the Vietnam war when Australian troops were still at war in Vietnam in difficult situations. As President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and in other positions, he saw fit to go on adding succour to and supporting the then campaign that was sabotaging the support for Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam at the behest of the Government, the Parliament and the nation. What a hypocrite the Prime Minister is- Mr Beazley —You cannot call the Prime Minister a hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr TIM FISCHER —I withdraw the term that the Prime Minister is a hypocrite but I should like to highlight the action of the Prime Minister last Tuesday night in front of the left wing of the Labor Party in the historic Joint Sitting, referring to the conscientious objection of Senator McMullan to taking part in conscription, recalling his support of the moratorium of yesteryear, yet last October he saw fit to stand on the dais of the Sydney Town Hall and receive the salute of the Welcome Home Parade of the Vietnam veterans, in sharp contrast to his other statements. It is legitimate and fair for me to raise the matter to compare the actions of the Prime Minister, on the one hand, trumpeting the conscientious objection of Bob McMullan in his nominating speech to the Joint Sitting and, on the other hand, seeing fit to take the accolades on the dais. I note that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is in the chamber tonight. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to him for his supporting role in helping to ensure that Vietnam veterans reached Sydney and participated in that excellent Welcome Home Parade. Full credit is due to him for his decisive intervention with additional RAAF transport aircraft made available to facilitate that magnificent weekend. I believe it was appropriate that the Administrator at the time, the New South Wales Governor, Sir James Rowland, officially received the salute, but it was interesting to see the Prime Minister present on that occasion, in sharp contrast to the things he has had to say about Vietnam. I might add that the same Prime Minister fronted for the Navy's seventy-fifth anniversary, which was entirely appropriate; but he should be consistent in these matters from now on. He should be judged, especially in the veterans' constituency, by his actions, both in the past and in the present, and by his action last Tuesday night in injecting into his speech nominating Bob McMullan the aspect of conscientious objection in relation to the Vietnam War. Finally, there is and remains massive concern with morale in so many of our armed forces units. Unit morale is very good in many of them, but the morale of individuals as part of our defence forces leaves a lot to be desired. Time does not allow me to elaborate on that, but it is a matter of grave concern, especially in relation to the changes on Defence Service homes loans. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.20) —Much has been said in the House over the last three days in respect of the forthcoming State election in New South Wales. Much has been said about the various merits of both the Unsworth Government and the Greiner Opposition. Last week there was a front page story in the Bulletin which looked at the place of Independents in the forthcoming State election in New South Wales. In reading that particular article, I found some very interesting statistics and facts which I believe require comment. They require comment because the article highlighted six Independents who were running for State Parliament in the forthcoming election and suggested that Independents could very well shape the future of the New South Wales government or, indeed, hold the balance of power because people were generally sick of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party. Two of those Independents mentioned in that article are members of the Wollongong City Council. I am pleased that my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) is in the chamber tonight to listen to what I have to say. He and I know full well the ability of both those people: the Lord Mayor, Frank Arkell, and his apparatchik, Giles Pickford, who are seeking office in the seats of Wollongong and Kiera respectively. Frank Arkell has been Lord Mayor of Wollongong for some 10 years. Giles Pickford is an alderman on the council and part of the Arkell team, and has been there for some two years. If one looks at those two people and also the other Independents who have decided to stand, one will see that both Arkell and Ted Mack, for example, are sitting members in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly by virtue of the fact that they won elections previously and are still mayors of their respective cities. Therefore, they are open to a great deal more exposure than many of the other people who have been thrown up as Independents. Some of the others, of course, were Independents on the Sydney City Council before it was replaced by commissioners. There is also John Hatton representing the South Coast who, for a variety of reasons over a long period, has developed a strong personal following, and for reasons best known to ourselves, we never decided to stand a candidate against him for the first couple of elections; hence he was able to entrench himself there. What amused me greatly about this article on Independents and how they could control the balance of power in New South Wales is the fact that it was written by one Mr Ben Sandilands who, to my knowledge, was a travel writer before he decided to enter politics and make predictions that Independents such as the two that I have mentioned will hold the balance of power next. It is interesting that just below that article the well-known pollster, Mackerras, makes his famous pendulum predictions as to what might happen in various seats. Giles Pickford, whom I have already mentioned, is being seen as being able to take the seat of Kiera, yet when one looks at the Mackerras pendulum, it is a 17 per cent safe Labor seat. Those of use who are a bit more realistic would believe that 17 per cent on 1984 figures is a little bit beyond the pale. I think my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services would probably suggest that 10 or 11 per cent is closer to the mark, and I would probably agree with him. I also say that our candidate, Colin Markham, will win that seat at a canter. What concerns me greatly, as I am sure it concerns my colleagues on the other side of the House, is the nonsense contained in the suggestion that Independents can do things in government, or if they are elected as members of parliament they can do things for their local areas. What absolute nonsense! I caution the people of New South Wales, and particularly those in Wollongong, who are thinking about voting for these people, to give some thought to it. What has been achieved, for example, in Wollongong such as the grain terminal, Brandon Park, the State office block and the Federal office block has come about because of the action of the State and Federal members of government-Labor members-and not because of any action of either an Independent member of the House in New South Wales, the Mayor of Wollongong, Frank Arkell, or any of his apparatchiks who operate down there. I look forward to election day and to the return of all members in the Wollongong region who will represent the Labor Party in the next Unsworth Government. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.25) —It is nice to welcome the new member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt). He will be a good member because he is an earthy sort of fellow and will say a lot in the House. I hope he is here for a long time to come. Mr Lamb —You will learn. Mr GOODLUCK —You can baa as much as you like, Mr Lamb. I have often talked about Tasmania. Tasmania is a island with 400,000 people. I woke up one morning and saw the headlines in the newspapers `The price of commodities in Tasmania is 7.5 per cent over the other States of Australia'. I wondered where all this information came from. It was from the famous price watch committee of the Australian Labor Party. The Government, to cover up its own sins of increased transportation and to cover up its own sins of increased interest rates, formed this committee. I do not talk about honourable members when they are not present, but the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) is down in the Antarctic. Good on him; he is on cold storage down there but when he comes up, the former member for Denison, Mr Hodgman will be back again. Michael will be back! Mr McArthur —Michael Goodluck. Mr GOODLUCK —Not Michael Goodluck. What I was going to say before I was rudely interrupted by my own side-- Mr Campbell —What about uranium? Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie should stick to uranium and I will stick to the prices. I woke up one day and saw this exaggerated headline, `Tasmania, the dearest place in Australia'. The poor housewives and the poor ordinary people started to panic until we looked at it a little bit more clearly to find out about the national average that was brought down by the price watch committee of the Labor Party, which was given headlines in every Tasmanian newspaper. We found that there were discrepancies. It even mentioned that the average price of a 500-gram packet of margarine was 79c while in Tasmania it was $1.69. I thought, `Bruce Goodluck, do your own price watch'. I got on the telephone, not on time charge, incidentally, and rang every part of Australia. I could not get anywhere near 79c for margarine. The dearest price and the cheapest price were roughly the same as they were in Tasmania. I thought, `This is a political gimmick to discredit the Tasmanian Government. All members on my side of the House should start to look at this price watch and make certain that it is telling the truth'. Mr Cobb —What is price watch? Mr GOODLUCK —Price watch-I could say price where. It compared even the meat in Tasmania and said it was far dearer than-in fact, twice as dear as-in every other State; but it was not true. The poor housewives in Tasmania started to blame the poor supermarkets. I always say to supermarkets that they should be fair with their prices. Of course, I watch that. But when they are being treated unfairly, one has to look very carefully at it. The honourable member for Denison did the survey from his office-his staff did the survey. I have nothing against that, but the comparisons that he made with the rest of Australia were on specials, were on dog's meat and God knows what. The prices were not right and they should apologise for it. I have put a question on the Notice Paper asking the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) to tell me when this committee did this survey and what supermarkets it went to. The Labor Party should be very careful when it talks about price watch. The Government has its own Prices Surveillance Authority which it pumped up. That cannot even handle the price of petrol. It has fixed a maximum price in every capital city and we all know what the price of petrol is. It is up and down like a yo-yo. How the hell can it fix the price of groceries? I have written to the Prices Surveillance Authority and said, `Come on, tell me if the committee's prices are right'. I have written to the Consumer Affairs Council in Tasmania to tell me if they are right. Our housewives are being taken to the cleaners with the outrageous prices. Mr Chynoweth —Rubbish! Mr GOODLUCK —It is not rubbish; it is the truth. Honourable members opposite know that this is only a pretence. Let us face it-we have high transportation costs and the price of petrol has gone up 12c a litre since they got into Government. Interest rates have gone up also, and that has an effect on the ordinary housewife of Australia. Why shift the blame to the poor old supermarkets? Why say those sorts of things when they are not true? Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.31) —I hope, for the benefit of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), that the price of tranquillisers has not gone up in Tasmania. He certainly looks as though he needs them. One of the benefits of parliamentary privilege is that it occasionally allows us to tell the truth about people, which I intend to do tonight. I must say that this benefit is highly modified by the fact that nobody listens to the adjournment debate. I want to talk about John Pilger, who has recently done a series of shows on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I saw the first show. As an example of intellectual dishonesty and downright misrepresentation, I think it really takes the cake-so much so that I took up the matter with people at the ABC. They said to me, in a somewhat embarrassed manner, `To be quite frank, we cannot understand how it happened, but this contract was let three years ago and he was given complete editorial control of the content. It is something we never do but somehow this happened. We are, frankly, appalled. Technically the program was not up to our standard and we put out a disclaimer.' And so they should have. I just want to run through some of the many intellectual dishonesties that Pilger displayed on that program, but I think we ought first to look at Pilger. Pilger is one of those Australians who go overseas-he went to the United Kingdom, in fact-to make good. Making good was aspiring to a centrefold page in the Daily Mirror, where he used to write such a load of garbage that he eventually lost that privilege and is now freelancing. `Freelancing' is a term in the journalists' trade for being out of work. The program was absolutely outrageous. Pilger stood for the whole time whining at us in a rather pompous voice that only the disaffected Australian who is trying to affect pommy mannerisms can aspire to. First he claimed to have convict ancestors. How fortunate for the gentleman to have convict ancestors! Of course, we have no way of telling whether he has these great credentials. It is really a matter of no consequence. I do not have convict ancestors-- Mr Chynoweth —Shame! Mr CAMPBELL —I have grown used to it. My ancestors were never caught, which might say something about their relative IQs. Pilger started his program with a series of simple lies. He told how convicts were transported from the United Kingdom in chains and tied six or eight to a bed. It simply did not happen, for the reason that it was much easier to transport convicts without leg irons. In most cases the leg irons were struck off. There were three or four hell ships and those were recognised but, by and large, the fact that the death rate was so low says that the transport system was fairly benign. Pilger also completely overlooked the fact that the convicts who were transported were infinitely better treated than the convicts who remained in the United Kingdom. Many of those who were transported thrived and prospered in Australia with opportunities that would never have been available to them in the United Kingdom. Pilger then showed a strip of the New South Wales coast. This, he said, was where the Aboriginals had their armoury, where they made the heads for their spears to repel the English invaders. The truth is that this simply did not happen, and history proves that it did not happen. He then cut away to an Italian love boat, I suppose one would call it, which was bringing out young brides for migrants from southern Italy. He said in his sanctimonious whine that some of these girls were very young indeed. The whole thing was put forward as though this was an example of the failure of our culture. The truth is that it was not our culture at all; it was the Italians' culture. It is simply that our culture was benign enough and big enough to accept the Italians exercising their culture. it was not a travesty of our culture at all. The whole program was pervaded with this sort of nonsense. The unfortunate thing about Pilger is that there is some small element of truth in what he says but he has the capacity to put the very worst face on things. No matter what happened, he has the capacity to make the very worst out of it. One might say that he is a sort of John Howard of journalism. I thought I would get a laugh out of the other side with that one. Mr Chynoweth —We thought it was good. Mr CAMPBELL —I thank the honourable member. I will say it again: `the John Howard of journalism'. I am afraid those on the other side are asleep. I think we in Australia have to be very careful of these expatriates who make money overseas by knocking the country that gave them the benefits they have obviously acquired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.36) —Madam Speaker, you would know that nothing is more important to Australia's balance of trade problems than increased exports. I therefore raise two issues that relate to the inadequacy of our shipping and transport systems and an apparent lack of concern by our national carrier in particular. During the past five years the Australian table grape industry, through exports, has shown a phenomenal growth, from 6,000 tonnes in 1985 to 18,000 tonnes in 1987. More significantly, after 15 years of being excluded from the European market, this industry has been redeveloped and table grape exports have increased from four containers to Europe in 1985 to 428 in 1987 and an estimated 1,100 this year. This achievement has been made through a significant commitment by grape growers and government authorities to the development of improved varieties based on the Thompson seedless grape, with improved technology, transportation and marketing techniques and an additional cost of some $600 an acre to grape growers. Also, in co-operation with government instrumentalities-the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in particular-new inspection procedures and specifications for exports have been developed. Now we find that current specifications are to be changed. I understand that changes are to be made to satisfy some exporters and growers whose sultana grapes do not meet present specifications and who have found a niche in the market for their product. Such a change obviously has ramifications and should not be considered without widespread consultation between growers, governments and exporters. To make changes in the middle of this season, when picking has just started, is totally unsatisfactory. As a flow on, and in anticipation of new specifications, we now find that bookings of containers made by exporters some months in advance are not being met with any consistency and that there is now a desperate shortage of shipping space. The second issue I wish to raise concerns a new industry that is gathering strength. Yum Gum and Co., operating from Swan Hill and out of Robe in South Australia, is now shipping an average of 500 kilograms of crayfish to Japan once a week. It is anticipated that the number of its cargoes and the number of countries to which it will export will increase. I raise this issue tonight because our own national carrier, Qantas Airways Ltd, seems not to appreciate that exports are the lifeline of this country, and its attitude suffers accordingly. For example, this company's first export order to Japan was left rotting on the tarmac while the scheduled flight, QF21, was rescheduled to New Zealand to cater for a pop music concert. I am not complaining about how a company runs its business, but I am complaining that Qantas did not even bother to inform this company that the flight was rescheduled. Had it done so, the company could have retrieved the crayfish and advised its Japanese customers accordingly. The result was that the company lost the crayfish and the good faith of the Japanese buyers-a total disaster, especially on its first order. Normal business practice should necessitate that the party at fault, in this case Qantas, would make suitable monetary reparation. In this case Qantas has offered half of the value of the lost stock but, naturally, this has been rejected by the company on the grounds that the fault is Qantas's and that reparation should be made in full. I am concerned, however, that Qantas, the company responsible for a considerable proportion of the export income of this country, has apparently behaved in such a manner. The attitude of Qantas is that it was not the airline's fault that the company's stock was left on the tarmac, that no-one bothered to inform the company of the situation, and that, if the company continued to complain, it would withdraw its offer of half compensation. At the moment Australia's valuable perishable export commodities are being given second preference to passenger trade, which in the long term is not in the best interests of Australia. I understand that some 3 per cent to 20 per cent of cargoes are generally lost as a result of inefficiencies within our transport industries. Qantas should be influenced to provide a pure freight service. I believe that the potential is there. Many would-be exporters are discouraged from trying to export because of the difficulty of getting air space. Today I wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) advising him of this situation. I believe that this Government has a right to act on this very important national matter. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.41) —I was prompted to speak tonight by an excellent article in the Age of 4 February by Kenneth Davidson. Unlike some members of this House, I get a great deal of intellectual stimulation from reading Kenneth Davidson's articles and I congratulate him on his perception on economic matters. The article dealt with the gambling instinct which appears to stimulate much activity on the stock exchanges of the world. It is argued that the stock exchange is a market which stimulates business activity and provides a measure of the real worth of business enterprises. I find such arguments difficult to believe, particularly in respect of the recent market crash in the price of shares on the stock exchange. For several years now economic analysts have been pointing out that the value of shares, as measured in the prices quoted on the stock exchange, were grossly inflated. Despite these warnings, so-called investors, like Kenneth Davidson-I prefer to call such people gamblers-continued to purchase shares at prices which were double or treble their true worth, particularly in relation to their capacity to produce interest and dividends in relation to the asset backing of the company concerned. To put the matter in economic terms, I cannot do better than quote Kenneth Davidson. He says: The valuations which the markets put on the value of the shares, particularly in the period leading up to the October crash, did not reflect a rational assessment by investors of the valuation of the future stream of earnings which could be expected from owning the shares. It was simply an assessment of what somebody else would be prepared to pay for the shares in a few days or a few months time. Of course, there were other financial factors which caused a huge overvaluation of shares, together with certain technical factors, all of which are dealt with in the article. For example, Davidson points out: . . . while new equity raisings may have increased around 1300 per cent in real terms over the four years, new private capital expenditure . . . rose by only eight per cent. That is all in real terms and clearly is a big contribution to the huge speculative rise. The technical factors relate in particular to the financial deregulation of December 1983. The removal of exchange controls has left the Government powerless to act in a direct way to halt the speculative spiral. Banks and their finance companies, insurance companies and superannuation funds were able to borrow and invest heavily in overseas markets. Let me quote again from Kenneth Davidson, who puts the matter so succinctly. He says: Clearly, given the subdued level of business investment, the extra strong growth in lending was used for the purchase of shares and company takeovers rather than for working capital or investment in plant and machinery. The justification for the deregulation was to encourage development in Australia arising from the use of overseas capital as a stimulant to the growth of business enterprise. However, the business community, rather than concentrating on the creation of real wealth in the form of new factories, trading houses or new primary industry, has indulged itself in takeover bids for existing business enterprises. Again I quote from Kenneth Davidson's article. He states: What fundamental contribution did Holmes a Court's ultimately unsuccessful takeover of BHP contribute to the underlying efficiency of the corporation or, even more pertinently, what would have been the consequences had he been successful in gaining control? One could ask the same question about the activities of a number of other corporate raiders such as Packer, Bond or Murdoch. Again I quote Kenneth Davidson: The bid and its aftermath involved massive transaction costs of more than $100 million if brokerage costs on speculation in BHP shares are included with the costs of legal and financial advisers on both sides. This activity, involving some of the most highly paid brains in the country, created not one cent of real wealth. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.45) —Time in an adjournment debate does not really permit members to give other than most sketchy details of some matters which would really take a great deal of time to address properly and thoroughly. So I hope that in the comments I make tonight, brief as they are, some measure of the concern that I feel and my interest in a particular subject will become apparent. Last night in the Senate Senator Schacht made a speech about a visit that he and I recently made to Kampuchea as members of parliament at the invitation of the aid organisation, World Vision. We had the opportunity whilst there to undertake a number of discussions and also to see the work of a number of aid organisations that, with the support of the Australian Government, undertake a number of activities in Kampuchea. We also saw the work of certain international organisations. As I have said, time does not permit me to go into any detail of the nature of the RINE program which World Vision runs; the hospital in Phnom Penh in which Australian staff are involved and have been over some period; the distribution of rice supplied by the Australian Government to people who are in drought affected areas, the rice being delivered through the Kampuchean Red Cross under the auspices of World Vision; the work involved in installing pumps by the Freedom From Hunger campaign; and the activities of the United Nations Children's Fund in providing clean water in many situations-again supported very ably by Australia. We cannot provide funding at this time while the Kampuchean occupation by Vietnam remains an unresolved political issue. Australia does not give recognition to the present PRK Government in Phnom Penh, but it provides assistance through indirect sources. We had the opportunity of seeing much of that. Honourable members ought to be aware of the work that is being undertaken and the improvement that I witnessed on this occasion, having been to that country twice in the last year. When I travel in this region I do not do so in a partisan political sense. I take the opportunity of seeing the Khmers on the Thai-Kampuchean border. On this occasion I met with Prime Minister Hun Sen of the PRK Government in Phnom Penh, but also met with Prime Minister Son Sann of the coalition and leader of the KPNLF when I was in Bangkok. I had the opportunity of visiting Green Hill, the camp at which Prince Sihanouk's people so ably administer 50,000 displaced people on the Thai-Kampuchean border. I had the opportunity of visiting Vietnam and seeing something of Ho Chi Minh City and the difference between that city and Hanoi, and of learning something of the changes that are occurring at this time in economic investment in Vietnam, but also of hearing of the future plans in relation to Kampuchea and the prospect of achieving peace. The question of peace for Kampuchea is a difficult subject to address in the short time that I have, but I want to say to honourable members that I think there has been considerable movement in the last few months. The discussions that have been taking place between the PRK and Hun Sen are an advance. I said to Son Sann that I was disappointed that he had not been involved in discussions to this point in time. Unless the Khmer Rouge are ultimately involved in any settlement and China encourages them to be involved in that, I think the ultimate future will still be one of a good deal of pessimism. Nevertheless, I think it needs a deal of goodwill on the part of all those involved and a positive role to be played by Australia to ensure that all the participants are involved in discussions to try to bring about a realistic peace to this very troubled land. I take this opportunity, as Chris Schacht did last night, of thanking World Vision for giving me the opportunity of seeing what is happening in that part of the world, of seeing something of its work, and being able to commend it for what it is doing. World Vision's dedication and conscientious approach to the provision of aid needs to be commended, but its desire to see peace so that it can administer programs more equitably to all Kampuchean people is something which it has pursued and for which it also deserves to be commended. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.50) —I was not going to participate in tonight's adjournment debate until I heard the comments of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). The honourable member, who was the first speaker on the adjournment tonight, used his time first to criticise new Senator Bob McMullan and then, from that, to try to attack the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He attacked Bob McMullan directly and indirectly by criticising the Prime Minister's comments that Bob McMullan is a very fit person to take his place in the Senate because he is a man of conscience, a man who was prepared to stand up against the drafting by Liberal governments of the time of young men into what became known as an immoral and unwinnable war. I have some admiration for the concern that the honourable member has for the defence of this country. However, it seems to me that he has somewhat debased his position as a shadow spokesperson by making a rather opportunistic attack upon Senator McMullan and the Prime Minister in a very poor effort to try to get some support from the Vietnam war veterans. I find it difficult to accept this from a person who argued against the human rights Bill which this Government introduced, on the grounds that it was against free speech, the principles of following one's conscience and so on. Yet this view does not extend to people like Bob McMullan and many others such as John Zarb and Michael Hamel-Green who stood up in the late 1960s and early 1970s and exercised their right to object to what the government of the time was doing to the youth of this country who were sent off to a war in which 500 conscripts lost their lives. I find it very difficult to understand how the honourable member can possibly knit together the rather tenuous argument that a Prime Minister cannot, at the same time as respecting a person's conscience and his right to reject conscription-not on the rather bigoted grounds of religion but on political grounds involving decisions of pure conscience-welcome home Vietnam veterans. I find it quite simple to accept that a Prime Minister can do this. The guilty people are not those soldiers who went to Vietnam. The guilty people are not the conscripts who were forced through a lottery, a birthday ballot, to go to Vietnam. The guilty people are none other than the Liberal governments of the 1960s and 1970s who sent those people to Vietnam. I find it totally impossible to accept that the honourable member can stand up in this House tonight to try to taint the current Prime Minister and conscientious objectors like Senator McMullan with guilt. I reject what he said. Honourable members should not think that I am the only one who thinks in this way. One of the most important issues of the 1972 election, which saw the Whitlam Government elected to office, was the question of whether or not we should continue to be involved in the Vietnam war and whether or not we should continue conscription. I was elected to this Parliament at that election. I believe that the people voted for an end to conscription, an end to our involvement in that war and also for the release of those who were gaoled because of their conscientious objections. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), while not gaoled, suffered because he too exercised his conscience by marching in demonstrations in Melbourne. The honourable member was threatened with the sack because he dared speak against what was first the mainstream, and later those who were a hangover from the Cold War, the white feather brigade from the First World War. They criticised the honourable member because he dared exercise his conscience. Let it be said that Bob McMullan is now a senator in the other House. Every member on this side of the House will continue to argue that it is right and proper for every citizen, on whatever grounds, to put his conscience above all else and to vote and act according to his conscience. In that way we will always have a better nation. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.55) —I wish to draw the House's attention to the Australian Wool Corporation's magnificent international fashion parade held at the Sydney Opera House at the conclusion of the week-long celebrations for the bicentennial year. It is worth noting in passing that the Australian Bicentennial Authority did not even take the trouble to respond to a letter from the Wool Corporation when it first suggested this international event. It did not offer any support for this very important show. However, the Wool Corporation saw fit to proceed with the staging of this quite remarkable event. It is estimated to have cost about $3m, and to have provided about $25m worth of promotion for Australia, Australia's fashion industry, Australia's wool growers and the wool fibre. It was a wonderful finale to the celebrations held in Sydney during that week. There were six designers from Australia and nine designers from overseas-from France, Great Britain, the United States of America and Italy-consented to come to Australia to participate in this very important event in their area of fashion. This added a certain lustre and importance to the event, which gained worldwide television coverage. It meant that the Australian wool industry, our fashions and the events of the previous week were relayed around the world. Honourable members will know that this event marked 200 years of the wool industry in Australia. It began with 26 merinos, with Samuel Marsden and with my namesake, John Macarthur. It is worth noting that John Macarthur is not related to the present member for Corangamite. If one reads the history books correctly, one will find that John Macarthur's personal record is not up to the high standard of the present member for Corangamite. The present industry is in very good shape, with 160 million sheep, rising from a sheep population of 130 million during the drought years. However, this figure does not quite reach the peak of 180 million reached in 1967. The industry produces 845 million kilograms of wool, employs about 100,000 sheep farmers and creates about 300,000 jobs in the wool industry. I note in passing that one former well-known member of the wool industry, Mr Mick Young, is no longer employed either in the wool industry or in this House. He seems to have retired with honour from the wool industry, but I am not sure that he has retired with honour from this House. The wool industry is now the major export earner for Australia. It earns about $5.2 billion, which puts it ahead of the coal industry in export earnings. I wish to refer to the self-help attitude of the wool industry in that its members have contributed, by way of an 8 per cent levy, to helping their industry's wool support fund, which deals with promotion, research and development. The revolving fund helps with price support mechanisms and over the years has developed a very strong financial base. Last year, 1986-87, the Federal Government contributed only $35m to this very important export industry. Finally, I pay tribute to Mr David Asimus, the outgoing Chairman of the Wool Corporation, for his contribution to the wool industry, for his great ability to communicate the wool industry's position, the attitude of the Corporation and the way in which the wool industry should compete on a world wide basis. The industry has been supported by the growers, not by the Government. It competes on the export market for two per cent of the fibre market. It is because of the attitude of the Corporation and of the growers that this great industry is now in a much more buoyant position and is making a major contribution to the exchange and export crisis that Australia now faces. If it was not for the profitability of the wool industry Australia would be in much greater financial difficulty than it is now. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TIM FISCHER —I wish to make it quite clear that in this adjournment debate I made no criticism of Senator McMullan. My criticism did, however, relate to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.00) —I wish to answer one or two of the points made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), and also wish to pick up very briefly a sleight of hand comment, if you like, by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), who implied that the former member for Port Adelaide had retired from this place without honour. When the honourable member for Corangamite has the record of public service and the political success of the former member for Port Adelaide, he might be at liberty to make comments of that sort in this place. Until he has, he merely passes judgment on himself by making such comments. The comments made by the honourable member for Farrer, as he indicated in his personal explanation, went principally to the position of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as opposed to Senator McMullan. It is on that basis that I would like to answer them. One of the points he made was that he felt there was some dissonance between the fact that he was able to make statements about the Senator's conscientious objector status and at the same time appear on the dais of the Vietnam Veterans Welcome Home Parade. I should point out that the Prime Minister was invited to appear on that dais. He did not insert himself into the process. The veterans wished him to appear there. He also did not appear-this applies to anyone else on that platform-in order to receive accolades. He appeared on that platform like everybody else from Government, Opposition and other spheres of public life to pay tribute. That was the point of their being there. It was to recognise the service of those Vietnam veterans who marched, one of whom was the honourable member for Farrer, and to acknowledge that the country owed them a debt. It was perfectly appropriate for the Prime Minister to be there. Whatever may have been his views on the Vietnam war or his views about Senator McMullan, it was the place for the Prime Minister to be. The comments made about and the motives imputed to the Prime Minister about accolades or whatever do no service to the people who issued that invitation. Likewise, in regard to the Royal Australian Navy's seventy-fifth anniversary, the Navy was very anxious that the Prime Minister should honour that service with his presence, and he was most anxious to have the opportunity to honour the Navy for 75 years service to the nation. There is a certain functional role for a Prime Minister on occasions of this sort, and on this occasion he performed that role willingly. On the question of whether the Prime Minister should find interesting the fact that Senator McMullan had a political objection to the Vietnam war, I would point out that last session the Senate produced a report on this subject. As I understand it, all parties in the Senate agreed that the relevant Acts should be amended to allow for the question of conscientious objection to a specific war. As a result of that Senate decision, that matter has to be before government. In the last 12 to 18 months governments have not acted upon it, but obviously it is not a point of view that is simply shared on this side of the House. It is a matter the honourable member should consider when thinking about Senator McMullan's views on these matters. I think the point about all of this and the point about the Vietnam Veterans Welcome Home Parade is that there is a sphere of the debate on the Vietnam war that the community as a whole, on both sides, wishes closed; that is, that element which relates intensively to personal bitterness on both sides of the particular political argument of the time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. No other Minister having risen, he may continue. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I say, the political lessons of the Vietnam War are something that must be maintained to the forefront of people who may be Ministers for Defence, Foreign Affairs or whatever serving governments in this country so that the errors which occurred at the time are not made again. As I said, I think that the Vietnam Veterans Welcome Home Parade did a great deal in this community to sink the remnants of the bitterness of the debate at the time, and I think those elements of personal bitterness really ought to be allowed to peter out in this place. Madam SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. next Monday. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 February 1988: Acts Interpretation Act- Statements relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report- Australian Heritage Commission-Report for 1986-87. Australian National Gallery-Report for 1986-87. Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-Report for 1986-87. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 327. Apple and Pear Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 292. Apple and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 291. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 4. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 312. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 8. Australian National Railways Commission Act-General By-laws-Amendment No. 1. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statutes- No. 62-Staff Superannuation Amendment 1987. No. 63-Liquor (Repeal and Replacement) Amendment 1987. No. 64-Courses and Awards Amendment (No. 2) 1987. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1988-No. 1-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 12-Christmas Island Assembly (Amendment). No. 13-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Winding up) (Amendment). No. 14-Public Holidays (Amendment). No. 15-Recovery of Maintenance Abroad. No. 16-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 17-Wills. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinances-1987- No. 5-Recovery of Maintenance Abroad. No. 6-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 7-Wills. Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 280. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 281, 298. Copyright Act-Declaration pursuant to paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 1 December 1987. Crimes at Sea Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 286. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 300. Customs Act- Notice-1987-No. 9. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 297, 301, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 325. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987-No. 9. Determinations-1987- No. 80-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 81-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 82-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 83-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 84-Airconditioning Allowance and Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 85-Trainee Leader's Allowance. No. 86-Attendance Allowance. No. 87-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 88-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 89-Tindal Allowance. No. 90-District Allowance. No. 91-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. No. 92-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Dried Fruits Export Charges Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 11. Excise Act- Declarations pursuant to section 78b, dated 10 December 1987 and 11 January 1988. Notice-1987-No. 9. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 295. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 5. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 328. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 9, 10. First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 287. Fisheries Act- Notices-Nos. 44b, 44c, 77b, 144a, 198a, 200, 200a, 201, 202. Plan of Management-No. 14-South East Trawl Fishery Preliminary Management Plan. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 323. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 296. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 284, 285. Health Insurance Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 309. Statements of particulars of Ministerial Determinations made pursuant to section 106aa, relating to- Dr H. Battersby, dated 15 December 1987. Drs A. and S. Bransgrove, dated 15 December 1987. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act-Ordinance-1987-No. 1-Environment Protection and Management. Horticultural Policy Council Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 6. Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 7. Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 340. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 339. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 302. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for Aviation purposes, Botany Bay, NSW. Statements (3) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 326. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 330. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 313, 314, 315. National Health Act- Notice for the purpose of subsection 47 (2b), dated 7 December 1987. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 310. Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order- 1987-No. 10-Marine, Part 26. 1988- No. 1-Marine, Part 91. No. 2-Marine, Part 93. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Notice for the purposes of subsection 13 (1a), dated 7 December 1987. Occupational Superannuation Standards Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 322. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 311. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 299, 334. Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 12. Patents Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 331. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 293. Postal Services Act- Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1987-Postal-Amendment No. 7. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 333. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Customs Tariff Act 1987-1 January 1988. Defence Housing Authority Act 1987-1 January 1988. Migration Act 1958-Amendments of paragraph 67 (1) (c) made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 January 1988. National Health Amendment Act 1987-Section 5-1 January 1988. Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1983-Provisions of the Act, other than sections 1 and 2, and Part III-14 January 1988. Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987-21 December 1987. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Section II-1 January 1988. Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Section 4- 14 January 1988. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983-Provisions of the Act other than sections 1 and 2-14 January 1988. Williamstown Dockyard Employees Act 1987-1 February 1988. Public Service Act- Determinations- 1987-Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128. 1988-Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 294. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 303. Radiocommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 332. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1987/21 and 1987/22-Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner and holders of offices on other bodies. Satellite Communications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 336. Sea Installations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 1. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 282. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 283. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations listing fees and/or charges for purposes of the following Ordinances- City Area Leases, dated 30 November 1987. Health Authority, dated 22 December 1987. Liquor, dated 30 November 1987. Motor Traffic, dated 1 December 1987. Ordinances- 1987- No. 68-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 69-Health Authority (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 70-Schools Authority (Amendment). No. 71-A.C.T. Institute of Technical and Further Education. No. 72-Liquor (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 73-Long Service Leave (Amendment). No. 74-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 75-Seat of Government (Administration) (Amendment). 1988- No. 1-Canberra Institute of the Arts. Regulations- 1987- No. 18 (Dangerous Goods Ordinance). No. 19 (Building and Services Ordinance). 1988- No. 1 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 3. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 9 December 1987, 5 and 15 January 1988. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 288, 289, 304, 305. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 290, 306, 307. Telecommunications Act- Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendments Nos. 79, 80. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendments Nos. 50, 51. Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 50. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, Nos. 335, 337, 338. Telecommunications (Interception) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 329. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instrument, dated 18 December 1987, varying Treatment Principles. Wine Grapes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 324. Wool Marketing Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987, No. 308. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act- Proclamation pursuant to subsection 6 (3), dated 19 January 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 2. The following answers to questions were circulated: Mr Dawkins —On 26 November Mr Tuckey asked a question without notice about the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, and, in particular, the resignation of a specific officer. I refer the honourable member to the answers given by the Minister for Finance in reply to a similar question asked by Senator Chaney, in the other chamber on 26 November (Senate Hansard pages 2477-78) and 9 December (Senate Hansard pages 2757-58). (Question No. 23) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) departmental minutes from the Queensland region advising that operations at Cairns during busy periods are unsafe and (b) a facility proposal from the Airways Division of his Department which labels the need for radar at Cairns International Airport as urgent. (2) Will he honour the promise made by the former Minister for Aviation, made on 28 July 1987, to provide Queensland with an extended aviation radar cover. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government is fully aware that air traffic at Cairns is growing more quickly than earlier forecast and steps are in hand to introduce radar and ensure that staffing levels are adequate to meet the air traffic demands. The budget included authorisation for a program to upgrade radar capability along the Queensland coast, including Cairns. The new radar at Cairns will enhance both en-route and terminal approach control, by utilising modern technology radar similar to that now operating at Brisbane. In the meanwhile, measures have been instituted to strengthen the staffing organisation and to bring in improved control procedures, in order that safety will not be jeopardised. (Question No. 62) Mr Blunt asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How many public servants have been less than fully utilised during the recent changes to the Australian Public Service. (2) From what levels of the Public Service were these persons drawn and for how long were they under-utilised. (3) What was the average operative staffing level during this period. (4) What sum in salaries was paid to persons who were less than fully utilised during this period. (5) For what reasons were officers not fully utilised. (6) Are some officers still not fully utilised; if so, (a) when will they be fully utilised, (b) what effect has this had on average operative staffing levels and (c) what is the cost in salaries. (7) Are there officers who are being paid salaries and who do not have work to do or are not required to attend at their workplace; if so, why. (8) How long was each former Department given to implement the changes. (9) What details were provided to each former Department concerning the changes. (10) For each former Departmental Secretary who was not appointed to head a new Department (a) to which positions have they moved, (b) what functions will they now perform and (c) did the functions to be performed exist prior to the changes being made or were they created subsequently. (11) Have there been instances where officers have been promoted in new Departments directly as a result of the departmental changes; if so, (a) how many instances have there been, (b) from which former Departments, positions and levels were officers promoted and (c) to which new Departments, positions and levels were they promoted. (12) How many positions in each Department, division and section are to be cut following the Public Service changes and when will each take place. (13) What will be the change in average operative staffing levels in each affected Department, division and section. (14) What salary savings are expected. (15) What consultations have taken place with Public Service unions and what has been the result. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (7) Following announcement of the changes by the Prime Minister on 14 July 1987, Secretaries of the new departments have been proceeding to finalise their organisations and staffing arrangements as quickly as possible. Oversight and co-ordination of the changes are being undertaken by an interdepartmental committee of senior officers of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Commission. Detailed procedures have been put in place for the management of any excess staff situations which may result from the restructuring. Staff savings are beginning to accrue now and are expected to be reflected in full (3137) in the 1988-89 budget. Staff who become excess to departments' requirements as the new structures are implemented are being redeployed to vacancies arising elsewhere in the Service. It is the responsibility of departmental Secretaries to ensure that such officers are productively employed pending re-location. It is inevitable that in the course of a process that involves so many individuals and such a widespread re-adjustment there will be some disruption to the normal flow of work. However, the procedures which have been developed have been designed to minimise this and to avoid as far as possible situations of the kind referred to in the honourable member's question. (8) While no specific time frame was set for implementation of the changes, the responsible Ministers and Secretaries of departments were fully aware that a high priority was to be accorded to their achievement. (9) The Administrative Arrangements Order and the instruments transferring staff between departments as a result of the changes were, as necessary, developed in consultation with relevant departments. Further information on some detailed functional changes, on operating arrangements, and on target figures for staff savings were also provided to Ministers and departments. The determination of the organisation and structure of the new departments was a matter for departmental Secretaries. (10) The details requested of each former departmental Secretary are shown in Table A. (11) Insofar as the Senior Executive Service (SES) is concerned the Public Service Commission has approved 53 promotions since 11 July 1987 and made 8 appointments. However, none of these was as a direct result of the post election departmental changes. Details of the promotions and appointments are notified in the SES section of the Commonwealth Gazette. The then acting Public Service Commissioner wrote to all portfolio Secretaries conveying the Government's decision that, in filling SES vacancies, priority is to be given to the placement of excess staff, including the possibility of offering placement at lower levels. The Commission itself is required to be satisfied that redeployment action would not be in the interests of the efficient administration of the Service before accepting a recommendation for filling an SES position by promotion or appointment. Promotions below SES grades are the responsibility of departmental Secretaries. However, following the machinery of government changes, procedures have been put in place which require Secretaries to give priority consideration in the filling of vacancies to the placement of excess staff, and to effect promotions only where no suitable excess staff are available for the positions under consideration. Details of all promotions effected since the departmental changes were announced are notified in the non-SES section of the Commonwealth Gazette. (12) Since the 1984 Public Service reforms, management of each department's establishment of positions has been solely the responsibility of the department. Therefore it has been left to departmental Secretaries to determine how their departments' establishments should be adjusted and re-organised within the broad staffing/running costs budgets approved for each of them for 1987-88. (13) and (14) Details of staff and salary/administrative savings associated with machinery of government changes are shown in Table B. The Department of Finance measures staffing levels in terms of paid staff, rather than operative/inoperative. All reductions in average staffing levels indicated in Table B are therefore in terms of paid staff. (15) Prior to implementation of the co-ordinating arrangements for the machinery of government changes, consultation occurred with representatives of the ACTU and key public sector unions. Consistent with the arrangements then implemented, and in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Public Service Redeployment and Retirement (Redundancy) Award, Secretaries of departments are required to consult unions at the earliest practicable time if it appears that the changes potentially create an excess staff situation. Such discussions were held in relation to the abolition of the former Public Service Board, where the potential excess staff situations was for a period the subject of work bans. Discussions have also been initiated in respect of potential excess staff situations in some other departments, and these discussions are continuing. TABLE A FORMER DEPARTMENTAL SECRETARY POSITION NOW OCCUPIED FUNCTIONS NOW PERFORMED Mr P. J. Galvin Mr W. J. Harris Associate Secretary, Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment Tourism and Territories Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio: Mr Galvin-Environment Mr Harris-ACT Administration Mr A. D. Rose Associate Secretary, Attorney-General's Department Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio Mr B. V. McKay Retired Ms H. Williams Associate Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio Mr G. L. Miller Associate Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio Mr A. D. McGaurr Associate Secretary, Department of Primary Industries and Energy Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio Mr R. D. Beale Mr C. W. M. Freeland Associate Secretary, Department of Transport and Communications Provision of assistance to portfolio secretary in administration within the portfolio Mr J. D. Enfield Public Service Commissioner Function as indicated by position title Mr H. B. MacDonald President Designate of the Proposed Data Protection Agency Function as indicated by position title Mr W. J. McG. Tegart Secretary, Australian Science and Technology Council Function as indicated by position title Mr E. M. W. Visbord obe Ambassador to the OECD Function as indicated by position title Mr C. C. Halton cbe Chairman, Task Force on Training and Education Commissioner, Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Commissioner, Overseas Telecommunications Commission Function as indicated by position title The functions of the Associate Secretaries are particular to the establishment of a number of portfolios on 24 July 1987. The office of Public Service Commissioner is a part of the successor arrangements to the former Public Service Board. The Data Protection Agency will be established as part of the proposed legislation to protect privacy. The Task Force on Training and Education is carrying out a review of the advisory committees in the Education and Employment portfolio. The remaining functions have been in existence for some time. TABLE B ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ORDER-SAVINGS PORTFOLIO/AGENCY AGREED SAVINGS 1987/88 ASL STAFF YEARS SALARY $m TOTAL R/C* $m 1987/88 ASL STAFF YEARS SALARY $m TOTAL R/C* $m Department of Administrative Services ... 375 10.9 12.0 750 21.8 24.0 Arts Sport Environment Tourism Territories ... 37 1.0 1.6 92 2.6 3.9 ACT Administration ... 43 1.2 1.4 64 1.8 2.0 Attorney-General's ... 21 0.6 0.7 27 0.8 1.0 Community Services Health ... 134 3.4 3.9 335 8.8 9.7 Department of Aboriginal Affairs ... 0 0.0 0.0 90 2.3 2.6 Employment, Education and Training ... 135 3.7 4.6 300 8.3 10.4 Finance ... 4 0.2 0.2 8 0.3 0.3 Foreign Affairs and Trade ... 66 2.6 2.4 165 6.5 6.1 Immigration, Local Government and EA ... 9 0.4 0.4 9 0.4 0.4 Industrial Relations ... 25 0.8 0.8 50 1.7 1.7 Industry, Technology and Commerce ... 68 2.2 2.7 171 5.6 6.8 Australian Nuclear Science and Tech nology Organisation ... 60 1.6 1.2 130 3.6 2.7 Public Service Commission ... 144 6.0 8.0 350 12.2 16.5 Primary Industries and Energy ... 68 2.1 2.5 170 5.3 6.3 Transport and Communication ... 140 3.8 5.0 350 9.5 12.4 Treasury ... 6 0.2 0.2 6 0.2 0.2 TOTALS ... 1335 40.7 47.6 3067 91.6 107.0 * Running costs-salaries plus administrative costs (Question No. 87) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What was the value of imports of military equipment in each year since 1980-81 and what is the estimated value of such imports in 1987-88. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The table below provides estimates of imports of military equipment and stores, measured on a balance of payments basis, for each financial year from 1980-81 to 1986-87 inclusive. Data on the estimated value of such imports in 1987-88 are not available. IMPORTS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND STORES Year $ million 1980-81... 491 1981-82... 290 1982-83... 456 1983-84... 483 1984-85... 1131 1985-86... 1455 1986-87... 1082 (Question No. 98) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What is the present status of the Archer River pastoral lease in respect of which the Winychanham group took successful proceedings under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in the High Court in the case of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Following its refusal to transfer title to Aboriginal interests, the Queensland State Government converted the Archer River Pastoral lease into the Archer Bend National Park in 1977. Although the circumstances surrounding the decision were successfully challenged under the provisions of the Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the legality of the proclamation of the national park stands. An application by Mr Koowarta for damages is currently before the Queensland courts. (Question No. 100) Mr Milton asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) How many positions will be designated for Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) staff in the new Public Service Commission. (2) How does this figure compare with the (a) number of positions in the former EEO Bureau of the Public Service Board and (b) total number of staff previously allocated to regional EEO offices. (3) What provisions will be made to ensure that EEO functions are not eliminated or reduced in each Department, in view of the Government's stated commitment to devolve responsibility for EEO to individual Departments. (4) Will additional resources be provided to Departments to take on the additional EEO functions previously performed by the central EEO Bureau and regional EEO offices; if not, why not. (5) How will EEO be guaranteed, on a day to day basis, if Departments are only required to report annually on EEO matters. (6) Why was the intellectually disadvantaged access program, which was to have commenced in 1987, scrapped. (7) Will separate tests for Aboriginal applicants for the Public Service be continued; if not, why not. (8) If separate tests for Aboriginals are to be continued, what agency will be responsible for carrying out the tests and selecting the successful candidates. (9) Will special tests designed for disabled applicants who are unable to sit normal entrance requirements be continued; if not, why not. (10) If special tests for disabled applicants are to be continued, what agency will be responsible for carrying out the tests and selecting the successful candidates. (11) What avenues will employees in the Public Service have to appeal against decisions they believe to be discriminatory once all avenues within a Department have been exhausted. (12) Will applicants for Public Service employment be required to approach individual Departments and sit separate selection tests, in view of the Government's stated policy of developing responsibility for recruitment of clerical staff to individual Departments; if not, what agency is to have responsibility for setting the selection tests. (13) Will each Department be responsible for setting its selection criteria for applicants; if so, what measures will be taken to ensure that the selection of applicants does not discriminate against disadvantaged groups. (14) Has the Senior Executive Service Staffing Unit been increased from 33 to 67; if not, what is the size of the increase and what is the rationale for the increase. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An average Staffing Level (ASL) of 9 has been allocated specifically for EEO. All areas of the Commission will be expected to apply and promote EEO policies as part of their work. (2) This figure compares with: (a) 23 ASL in the EEO Bureau in Canberra; and (b) 14 ASL previously allocated to regional offices for EEO purposes. (3) Secretaries of departments have clear responsibilities under section 22B of the Public Service Act for the development, implementation and review of EEO programs within their departments. The Government has recently reiterated its commitment to the advancement of EEO within the Public Service, and stated that all departments will be expected to provide adequate resources for these programs, maintaining at least the former level of activity in this area. In particular, departments will have to take into account the need to take on additional functions in regions outside Canberra, following the closure of the former Public Service Board's Regional Offices. The Public Service Commission (PSC) will have overall responsibility for monitoring progress and will report regularly to Government. The Public Service Board's powers under the Public Service Act in relation to guiding and monitoring EEO programs have been transferred to the Public Service Commissioner. Departments will continue to lodge copies of their EEO programs and reviews of those programs with the PSC to assist it with its monitoring responsibilities. The PSC will be able to call for additional information, if necessary. Service-wide and agency-specific performance indicators will be developed and used in measuring agencies' performance. Departments will also be required to report on actions planned, implementation and results in their annual reports to Parliament against guidelines to be developed by the PSC. (4) No. The Government accepted a recommendation from the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit not to supplement the resources of departments when functions of the Public Service Board were devolved. (5) As explained in response to part (3), reporting and monitoring arrangements will be more extensive than this question presupposes. The day to day details of EEO implementation within departments will be a departmental responsibility, as they always have been. (6) This program has not been scrapped. Introduction of the planned pilot program had to be postponed, because the approach endorsed earlier this year by the Joint Council (the peak management/union consultative body for the Australian Public Service) involved a central role for the Public Service Board, which would not be consistent with the functions of the Public Service Commission. Following further discussions with the Joint Council in November arrangements are now being made for the program to be piloted in three departments in the Australian Capital Territory. (7) Yes. The specially designed tests for Aboriginal applicants for Aboriginal Services Clerical Assistant Grade 1 positions and Aboriginal Services Clerical Administrative Class 1 positions will be continued. (8) The Aboriginal Recruitment and Career Development Unit in the Department of Employment, Education and Training will be responsible for the operation of Aboriginal Services Recruitment Campaigns. (9) Yes. (10) The Department of Employment, Education and Training will conduct the tests and allocate successful applicants to departmental vacancies. (11) The Merit Protection and Review Agency, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and, in appropriate cases, the courts. (12) The Department of Employment, Education and Training will conduct tests for clerical and certain graduate categories. These tests will be developed by the Public Service Commission. (13) Each Department will have the option of applying selection criteria related to its particular operational requirements in addition to the selection test. The additional criteria will be submitted to the Public Service Commission for approval. The Commission will ensure that any such criteria are appropriate and do not discriminate against any applicant group. (14) The Unit's allocated ASL for 1986-87 was 35. However, in December 1986 the Public Service Board moved a number of broadly based staff development programs not restricted to Senior Executive staff (Interchange, the Executive Development Scheme, the Administrative Trainee Scheme), with 17 ASL, from the Personnel Management Division to the SES Unit. The allocated ASL for 1987-88 is 52. As part of the arrangements for managing excess staff in the Public Service Commission following abolition of the Board, 67 positions have been filled in the SES Unit, but, with natural wastage and further redeployment, it is intended to meet the allocated ASL of 52 at the end of the financial year. (Question No. 105) Mr Hollis asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 September 1987: 1. Was a Working Party established within his Department in April 1975 to inquire into and report upon legislation to secure protection in the nature of copyright for the work of Aboriginal artists. 2. Is he able to say what stage has been reached in the drafting of (a) Australian legislation and (b) international conventions on this subject. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. In April 1975, the then Attorney-General agreed to the convening of a Working Party to consider the need and nature of legislation required for protection of Aboriginal artists in regard to Australian and international copyright. As issues beyond copyright were found to be involved, reponsibility for the Working Party was subsequently transferred, in March 1980, from the Attorney-General to the Minister for the then Department of Home Affairs and Environment. The Committee's Report was published in December 1981. 2 (a). There are no Government proposals, at this time, for legislation to be drafted in the area of Aboriginal folklore. The 1981 Report does not necessarily reflect current Government policy in this area. I understand that, in consultations subsequent to the release of the Report involving my colleagues the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, endorsement was given to the need to protect Aboriginal culture. In their view, the copyright style protection contemplated in the Report did not present the best vehicle for the protection of Aboriginal folklore. This view was further confirmed in consultations with Aboriginal organisations and communities. Since 1981, the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 have been passed by Parliament which, whilst not offering protection in the nature of copyright to works of Aboriginal folklore, have nonetheless afforded protection to Aboriginal cultural property. A 1987 amendment to the latter Act also affords protection, in Victoria, to Aboriginal cultural property which, within the terms of the amendment, includes Aboriginal folklore. 2 (b). At the international level, UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have undertaken work in the field of folklore for over a decade. In 1982, a joint WIPO/UNESCO Committee of Experts recommended model laws for intellectual property style protection of folklore. Three regional meetings initiated to consider these model laws subsequently indicated their interest also in the development of an international convention on the subject. This interest was formally recognised at a joint WIPO/UNESCO meeting in December 1983. Following this, a joint WIPO/UNESCO meeting in December 1984, which was attended by an officer of my Department, considered a draft multilateral convention for the intellectual property style protection of folklore. However, it became apparent that there is a divergence of views internationally on whether a treaty is appropriate at this stage. To date, there have been no further international meetings on the draft convention. Within UNESCO, interest in folklore protection has focused upon the formulation of an international instrument in the form of a recommendation containing general principles which countries would be invited to implement by way of a national law or in some other appropriate manner. The last session of the General Conference of UNESCO was to formally consider the desirability of adopting an international instrument for the safeguarding of folklore. (Question No. 63) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How many positions in the former Departments of Community Services and Health have been (a) upgraded, (b) downgraded and (c) removed in the amalgamation. (2) What are the expected savings or extra costs of each of the changes. (3) In which areas of the Departments were the changes made. (4) When were the changes initiated. (5) How many changes have been made as at 15 September 1987. (6) When will the changes be completed. (7) How many of the senior staff in his Department are former Department of (a) Community Services and (b) Health personnel, and what levels do they now hold. (8) Have any persons involved in the changes not been fully utilised during the Departmental restructuring, if so, (a) how many persons were not fully utilised, (b) what positions did they hold and (c) what sum was spent in salaries during the time they were not fully utilised. (9) What sum will be saved in salaries from the amalgamation of the 2 Departments. (10) Will other savings be achieved; if so, what are they. (11) What was the cost of the amalgamation of the 2 Departments. (12) What is the cost of providing staff and other support for the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. (13) What administrative responsibilities will the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health have. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a), (b) and (c) It is not possible to provide a detailed analysis on the basis of individual positions in the Departmental amalgamation, as positions in the new Department were created on the basis of organisation, classification and workload criteria without direct reference to positions in the former Departments but, on aggregate: (i) 12 Senior Executive Service (SES) positions were saved out of a total of 86 positions in the former Departments of Health and Community Services and the Housing Division of the former Department of Housing and Construction. (ii) 323 non-SES staff years will be saved in a full year out of a base of 6,905, although, because of the need to achieve these savings through attrition and redeployment, savings in 1987/88 are expected to be 40% of this amount. (2) A figure of $3.350m was withdrawn from the combined total of the previously agreed salary allocations for 1987/88 from the two former Departments and Housing Division of the former Department of Housing and Construction. This figure represents the salary savings expected to result from the amalgamation for 1987/88. The full year savings will be $8.375m. (3) Most of the impact (and the savings) was in the corporate service areas of the former Departments, although all areas were subject to review and rationalisation occurred in nearly all policy and operational areas. (4) The revised Administrative Arrangement Orders were gazetted on 24 July 1987. (5) and (6) The top structure of the Department comprising Divisional and State management was implemented on 28 September 1987, following consultation with staff and unions. Work on the underpinning structures has been largely completed, with the few remaining organisational units to be finalised by mid-December 1987. Staff selection and placement is being undertaken in accordance with normal public service procedures. (7) The split by former Departments of SES officers being held against positions in the new Department (including on an acting basis) at 9 November 1987 was: Ex Community Services Ex Health Ex Housing Level 5/6 (Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer, Deputy Secretary)... 2 2 - Level 3/4 (Division Heads, State Managers, Principal Advisers)... 8 8 1 Level 1/2 (Branch Heads, Deputy State Managers, Senior Advisers, Directors)... 19 27 3 29 37 4 (8) No (9) See (2) above (10) A figure of $0.536m was withdrawn from the combined total of the previously agreed administrative allocations for 1987/88 from the two former Departments and the Housing Division of the former Department of Housing and Construction. This figure represents net administrative savings expected to result from the amalgamation for 1987/88. The full year savings will be $1.340m. (11) See (2) and (10) above, the amalgamation will result in a net saving. (12) Departmental costs are limited to the salary costs of $84,382 p.a. for two Departmental liaison officers assigned to Ministers Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health; one is assigned to the office of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and one to the office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. (13) The Ministers in the Community Services and Health portfolio have been allocated the following particular areas of responsibility: Senator Ryan, Special Minister of State, is responsible for housing assistance programs; the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse; the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission; workforce issues, including the Medical Education Inquiry; and the development of policy and advisory structures in bioethics. Mr Ben Humphreys MP, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, is responsible for assisting in the day-to-day administration of: the Home and Community Care program; and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Mr Gerry Hand MP, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is responsible for assisting in the day-to-day administration of: the Children's Services program. Mr Humphreys and Mr Hand will also assist generally in the portfolio. (Question No. 106) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 21 September 1987: When did the Government last give consideration to amalgamating Telecom and OTC? Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: This issue was last looked at formally by the Whitlam Government in 1975 following the report of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office. The present Government has not given specific consideration to amalgamating Telecom and OTC. However, this is a matter that is being closely considered by the Telecommunications Policy Review Team established within the Department of Transport and Communications and will be considered by the Structural Adjustment Committee of the Cabinet in due course in association with other Telecom-related policy matters. (Question No. 107) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 21 September 1987: (1) What proportion of the metropolitan population is in the central telephone zone in each State capital city. (2) How far from the demographic centre of each capital city metropolitan area is the central telephone exchange. (3) Is he able to say how many more telephone subscribers would belong to the central zone if these exchanges were located at the demographic centre of the metropolitan area. (4) What sum would it cost Telecom to change the boundaries of the central zone so that they were equidistant from the demographic centre. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Telecom does not keep information relating to the population in general. However it does maintain records in respect of the population of telephone customers. The percentage of metropolitan telephone services in each capital city inner zone is: Sydney...86% Melbourne...83% Brisbane...76% Adelaide...80% Perth...86% Hobart...84% (2) &(3) The Australian Bureau of Statistics has advised Telecom that there is no information available as to the ``demographic centre'' of each metropolitan area. Local call access is available between subscribers served by exchanges in the capital city inner zone and subscribers served by exchanges in the adjacent outer metropolitan zones. In the hypothetical situation posed by the honourable member, it would not necessarily follow that there would be any change in these charging arrangements. However, if the inner capital city zone and outer metropolitan zone boundaries were to be re-drawn to take account of certain areas of population, then it is inevitable that some subscribers would incur changes in their present local call arrangements. (4) Telecom is not able to supply this information. (Question No. 108) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 21 September 1987: Which International Civil Aviation Organization Conventions have yet to be ratified by Australia. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following ICAO related instruments have not been ratified by Australia: The International Air Transport Agreement, signed at Chicago, on 7 December 1944. The Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation-Article 93 bis, signed at Montreal, on 23 May 1947. The Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft, signed at Geneva, on 19 June 1948. The Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, on 12 October 1929, as amended by the Protocol, signed at the Hague, on 28 September 1955. Signed at Guatemala City, on 8 March 1971. The Protocol to amend the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome, on 7 October 1952. Signed at Montreal, on 23 September 1978. There are a number of other ICAO related instruments where possible ratification by Australia is still under consideration subject to further work and development. Instruments included under this category are: The Additional Protocol Number 1 to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, on 12 October 1929. Signed at Montreal, on 25 September 1975. The Additional Protocol Number 2 to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, on 12 October 1929, as amended by the Protocol, signed at the Hague, on 28 September 1955. Signed at Montreal, on 25 September 1975. The Additional Protocol Number 3 to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, on 12 October 1929, as amended by the Protocols, signed at the Hague, on 28 September 1955 and at Guatemala City on 8 March 1971. Signed at Montreal, on 25 September 1975. The Additional Protocol Number 4 to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, on 12 October 1929, as amended by the Protocol, signed at the Hague, on 28 September 1955. Signed at Montreal, on 25 September 1975. The Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation-Article 83 bis, signed at Montreal, on 6 October 1980. (Question No. 124) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) How many aircraft are owned by the Minister's Department. (2) Where is their home base. (3) What are the details of their manufacture. (4) What is their annual operating cost. (5) What is the total purchase cost of the aircraft in 1987 money terms. (6) What is the specific purpose of each aircraft. (7) How many persons are deployed in this area of the Minister's Department. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 15. (2) The aircraft are dispersed to bases around Australia corresponding to the regional organisation of the Department: In the Victoria/Tasmania Region, 6 aircraft are based at Essendon Airport supporting national as well as regional programmes: 3 F28s 2 Gulfstream 1000s 1 Beechcraft Bonanza In the New South Wales Region, a Gulfstream 1000 aircraft and a Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft are based at Sydney Airport; In the Queensland Region, a Gulfstream 1000 aircraft and a Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft are based at Brisbane Airport and a Beechcraft Bonanza is based at Townsville Airport; In the South Australia/Northern Territory Region, a Gulfstream 1000 aircraft and a Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft are based at Parafield Airport; In the Western Australia Region, a Gulfstream 1000 aircraft and a Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft are based at Perth Airport. (3) F28 AIRCRAFT Registered VH-ATD VH-ATE VH-ATG Model ... Mk 1000 Mk 1000 Mk 1000 Serial No. ... 11047 11082 11084 Date of manufacture ... Feb. 1972 Aug. 1974 Sep. 1974 Date acquired ... May 1977 Dec. 1976 Mar. 1977 General description: Medium performance small twin jet airliner. Manufacturer: Fokker VFW. Country of manufacture: Holland. Gross weight: 29480 Kg. Aircraft equipped to carry specialised calibration equipment and instrumentation. GULFSTREAM COMMANDER 1000 AIRCRAFT Registered VH-LTI VH-LTJ VH-LTK VH-LTM VH-LTN VH-LTO Model ... 695B 695B 695B 695B 695B 695B Serial No. ... 96063 96069 96065 96208 96078 96085 Date of manufacture ... June '83 Aug '83 Sep '83 Feb '86 Oct '83 Nov '83 Date acquired ... June '83 Aug '83 Sep '83 Feb '86 Oct '83 Dec '83 General description: Advanced light twin engined turbo-prop aircraft. Manufacturer: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Country of manufacture: USA. Gross weight: 5330 Kg. Aircraft equipped for general purpose technical and operational duties including fittings to drop rescue supplies. BEECHCRAFT BONANZA Registered VH-CAB VH-CAD VH-CAE VH-CAG VH-CAQ VH-SGS Model ... S35 V35 V35 V35A B36 A36 Serial No. ... D7367 D8041 D8358 D8783 E150 E759 Date of manufacture ... Jul '64 May '66 Jun '67 Aug '68 Jul '69 Jun '75 Date acquired ... Jul '64 Jun '66 Jun '67 Aug '68 Jul '69 Apr '82 General description: Small single piston-engined light aircraft. Manufacturer: Beechcraft Corporation. Country of manufacture: USA. Gross weight: Between 1500 and 1675 Kg. Aircraft equipped as a utility aircraft with provision for aerial photography. (4) The annual direct operating cost of the aircraft fleet is $M8.78. (5) The total purchase cost of the aircraft converted to 1987 dollar values equals $M54.7. (6) The F28 aircraft are equipped and provided for measuring the performance and verifying the safety of the national radio navigational aid network, including military installations, and the retention of jet flying skills by Departmental specialist pilots. The checking of the air route system is a specialised technological task which forms part of the Departmental program to comply with the relevant international standards and practices. The aircraft are also used on some other activities such as VIP transport as a back-up to No. 34 Squadron RAAF. The Gulfstream 1000 aircraft fulfil a wide range of flying requirements and are engaged in the inspection of visual navigational aids, the proving of descent and aerodrome approach profiles, critical assessment of the airways system and associated procedures, periodic aerodrome appraisals/inspections, SAR missions and the maintenance of flying skills by relevant Departmental pilots. The Beechcraft Bonanza aircraft are multi-purpose utility aircraft and primarily provide economic logistical support. The tasks for the aircraft include the transportation of personnel engaged in the servicing of remote facilities, the periodic inspection of airports and facilities and supervisory visits to the widely dispersed operating and maintenance organisations within the aviation industry. The Bonanza aircraft are also equipped for low altitude aerial photography to maintain aerodrome and site drawings/plans, to record progress of works, to assist in the site selection process for new facilities, to record accident sites and support environmental impact assessments. (7) 123. (Question No. 125) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 September 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports originating in the USA that low-quality bolts have been substituted in large numbers for high-quality bolts in numerous US-manufactured weapons, platforms, components and even nuclear power plants. (2) What action has he taken to ensure that no equipment used by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) incorporates counterfeit bolts. (3) What action has he taken to ensure that visiting US warships and aircraft remain safe in the light of these revelations. (4) If he has not taken any action to ensure that visiting US warships and aircraft are safe, (a) why not and (b) will he take immediate action to do so; if not, why not. (5) Will he give an assurance that no items in, or about to enter, ADF service contain counterfeit bolts; if not, why not. (6) What action will be taken to recover the cost of replacing any counterfeit bolts in ADF equipment. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the following instances of counterfeit or substitute standard bolts having passed into U.S. usage: a. Supplies to the U.S. from some Asian countries of bolts bearing grade 8 markings regardless of their actual quality. About 26% of the bolts prove to be of the lower grade 8.2 standard, and the grade 8 marking wrongly implies that they maintain tensile strength above 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The bolt supplies are purchased for general industrial use (e.g. tanks, armoured personnel carriers) and are not used in aircraft, however they can be found in aircraft ground support equipment. Tests of their exposure to heat in tank engines have not recorded temperatures above 350 degrees Fahrenheit. b. Use of zinc plating as a substitute for cadmium plating on bolts which require such a finish. Zinc, which is more vulnerable to corrosion in certain environments, was substituted for cadmium for a time when cadmium plating was banned for environmental reasons. The ban was later modified and cadmium plating is preferred in Grade 8 bolts. Existing zinc plated stocks are considered acceptable until exhausted. (2) The Department of Defence has been working for some time with U.S. authorities on the matter of counterfeit Grade 8 bolts. For the time being, a requirement for source inspection is being incorporated in all U.S. Grade 8 bolt contracts and all current deliveries of Grade 8 bolts in the U.S. are being sample tested. Samples of bolt supplies for Australian spares stocks are also being tested in Australian Army establishments. The longer term solution will involve increased random testing and inspection. New U.S. bolt supply contracts will require: 1. a manufacturer identification marking, listed with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, to be shown on all bolts; b. the right of the U.S. Defence Logistics Agency to test samples before acceptance and shipping; c. a Certificate of Quality Compliance, including source identification and inspection/test results for all characteristics specified by the contract. U.S. authorities plan to smelt counterfeit bolts for disposal except some items needed for litigation purposes. (3) and (4) It is implicit in visit proposals by friendly nations that military equipment entering host territory will not endanger public safety. The United States has every incentive to adhere to this principle not only in the interests of U.S.-Australian relations but also for the protection of its own personnel. (5) While the Australian sample testing program is a relatively recent initiative, counterfeit bolts could remain to be found in ADF equipment. On the basis of recorded temperature exposures supplemented by Australian tests there is no evidence that bolts that are inadequate for their function will pass into ADF equipments. (6) Where defective items are identified, action is taken to obtain rectification as necessary under normal contractual conditions, including warranty action. (Question No. 137)) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, 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. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Letters to individuals, companies, other Departments etc., are dated when they are signed. Envelopes are not date stamped when the mail is despatched. The Department uses mainly the bulk postage system (postage paid) operated by Australia Post. Although the use of this system produces minor costs savings, efficiencies are achieved from the time saved through despatching Departmental mail in bulk. (2) The current arrangements are considered to be satisfactory and no changes are proposed. (Question No. 140)) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Administrative Services, 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. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Internal franking and date stamping is the common practice with normal departmental correspondence. However, some areas of the portfolio with very high mailing volumes (eg AGPS subscriptions) employ bulk mailing contractors. In these cases mail is marked ``postage paid'' by the contractor and is not usually dated. The use of bulkmail contractors results in significant savings in labour and postage costs. (2) Departmental correspondence despatched through normal departmental mailing procedures will continue to be appropriately date stamped. (Question No. 187)) Mr Scholes asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: What is the estimated cost to revenue of anti-tax avoidance and tax recovery measures which have been amended, rejected or not finally voted on in the Senate since March 1983. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia Card Bill 1986-The Bill, which sought to introduce an identity card system, a register of information and a Data Protection Agency, was twice considered but not passed by the Senate in the previous Parliament and following its reintroduction in the present Parliament has, after further debate in the Senate, been laid aside. It is estimated that measures contained in the Bill would have produced the following annual net gains to revenue: Year Estimated Total Revenue $m 1989-90... 1563 1990-91... 413 1991-92... 612 1992-93... 724 1993-94... 724 Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1985 and Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1985-Apart from some minor technical corrections, these Bills are identical to Bills of the same titles introduced in 1983 and 1984 to deal with `bottom of the harbour' tax avoidance schemes. On each occasion the Bills were passed by the House of Representatives but were defeated in the Senate with an estimated loss to revenue of $270 million. However, subsequent action taken by the Commissioner of Taxation to apply section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to assessments of those taxpayers originally intended to be within the scope of measures contained in the defeated legislation has the potential to reduce any revenue loss. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984-This Bill, which was rejected by the Senate in preference to a substantially similar private Senator's Bill, resubmitted measures to counter tax avoidance practices associated with employer-sponsored employee superannuation funds that were previously included in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 which were not passed by the Senate. The date of effect of the preferred private Senator's Bill was 7 December 1983 while the Government's Bill proposed a 1 July 1977 commencement date. The loss to revenue as a consequence of the change in date of effect of the remedial legislation is estimated at $30 million. Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985-Part of a package of Bills to recoup income tax sought to be avoided under trust stripping schemes was passed with a Senate initiated amended date of effect of 12 May 1982 rather than 1 July 1980 as proposed in the Bill as introduced, resulting in an estimated loss to revenue of $9 million. (Question No. 192) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the (a) Commonwealth Banking Corporation and (b) Industries Assistance Commission, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (i) total number of employees, (ii) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (iii) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (iv) value of the average compensation claim and (v) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Commonwealth Banking Corporation 1984/85-(i) 36,111, (ii) 1,242, (iii) $3,590,385, (iv) $1,078.76, (v) 3.44 per cent. 1985/86-(i) 37,546, (ii) 2,160, (iii) $5,416,326, (iv) $991.19, (v) 5.75 per cent. 1986/87-(i) 36,252, (ii) 2,032, (iii) $5,263,591, (iv) $806.30, (v) 5.61 per cent. (b) Industries Assistance Commission 1984/85-(i) 297, (ii) 38, (iii) $135,320, (iv) $3,561, (v) 12.8 per cent. 1985/86-(i) 314, (ii) 35, (iii) $160,695, (iv) $4,464, (v) 11.4 per cent. 1986/87-(i) 301, (ii) 35, (iii) $189,547, (iv) $5,415, (v) 11.6 per cent. (Question No. 198) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the (a) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and (b) Health Insurance Commission, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (i) total number of employees, (ii) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (iii) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (iv) value of the average compensation claim and (v) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) 1984/85-1063*, 1985/86-1105*, 1986/87-1205*; (ii) 1984/85-118, 1985/86-130, 1986/87-143; (iii) 1984/85-$430,800, 1985/86-$604,500, 1986/87-$727,700; (iv) 1984/85-$2,209*, 1985/86-$2,934*, 1986/87-$2,675*; (v) 1984/85-11.1%, 1985/86-11.8%, 1986/87-11.9%. (b) (i) 1984/85-4186*, 1985/86-4479*, 1986/87-4560*; (ii) 1984/85-277, 1985/86-507, 1986/87-504; (iii) 1984/85-$687,677, 1985/86-$1,602,829, 1986/87-$1,695,188; (iv) 1984/85-$2,482, 1985/86-$3,161, 1986/87-$3,363; (v) 1984/85-6.6%, 1985/86-11.3%, 1986/87-11.0%. * These figures are averages for the years concerned. (Question No. 212) Mr Shipton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: Is solidry, which is a material used in the construction of roads, exempt from sales tax if it complies with the spirit of item 89a (2) of the First Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act which includes mixtures or compositions of a kind used in a plastic or fluid condition in the construction or repairs of roads, paths, buildings or other fixtures? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commissioner of Taxation has made enquiries about the composition and use of solidry. It is, broadly, a hydrating powder used in conjunction with other products that are mixed with soils for use in the construction of roads and other works. Solidry removes the water from the soil infrastructure and creates a strong bond between soil particles, providing a water resistant finish. The Commissioner has confirmed that solidry is not covered by exemption item 89a (2) in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. This is because, as recognised in the honourable member's question, the exemption applies only to compositions used in a plastic or fluid condition in the construction or repair of roads, paths, buildings or other fixtures. Because solidry is marketed for use in a powder form it cannot qualify under this item. There is no other provision in the law that would provide exemption. Solidry is therefore taxable at the general rate, currently 20%. The Commissioner added that the product would be for use mainly by State Government Departments and by local government authorities which would be entitled to exemption. However, other persons who use the product to construct or repair roads would not be entitled to an exemption. (Question No. 215) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) Will the Government's tax reform package fail now that the Government has decided not to proceed with the identification card proposal. (2) What is the estimated sum which the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) would have gained in (a) the recovery of tax owed and (b) the prevention of tax fraud in the 10 years to 1997 through the use of an identification card. (3) At what cost would this be to the ATO. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Based on estimates included in the Submission by the Government to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card the revenue that the ATO would have obtained from the Australia Card with a photograph to 30 June 1997 was $4,798 million. This figure is expressed in 1986 dollars. The estimates did not provide a precise breakdown of the kind sought in the question. (3) The Australia Card implementation costs that would have been borne by the ATO in the period ending 30 June 1997 were estimated to be $97.054 million. This figure is also expressed in 1986 dollars, and does not include the costs anticipated by other agencies such as the Health Insurance Commission. (Question No. 221) Mr Price asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) What are the occupational classifications covered by the tribunals established under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. (2) How many individuals are in each occupational classification. (3) What is the current average annual salary for each occupational classification. (4) Which occupational classifications have a (a) higher and (b) lower annual salary than the base salary for a member of parliament. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are two tribunals established under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. They are, the Remuneration Tribunal and the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The groups within the jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal include federal parliamentarians, the federal judiciary, secretaries of Commonwealth Departments and holders of public offices. Academics previously covered by the Academic Salaries Tribunal now come within the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission following the registration with the Commission of the relevant employer and employee associations. It is the intention of the Government to amend the Remuneration Tribunals Act to abolish the Academic Salaries Tribunal. (2) There is a range of classifications within each group whose remuneration is determined or recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. These classifications are detailed in the Remuneration Tribunal's 1986 Review. The number of individuals within each group varies. (3) The remuneration pertaining to each classification is set out in the annual reviews of the Tribunal, the most recent of which is the 1986 Review. (4) All classifications within the judiciary, and all secretaries of Commonwealth Departments currently have higher annual salaries than the base salary for a Member of Parliament. Of the classifications pertaining to full time holders of public offices, 138 of the 148 classifications currently receive an annual salary higher than the base salary of a Member of Parliament. (Question No. 222) Mr Price asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Is he able to say how parliamentary salaries are determined for the State and Territory parliaments. (2) Is he able to say whether any of the State or Territory parliamentarians have been granted part or whole of the 11.7% flow on; if so, what was the percentage of the flow on and when was it granted. (3) Is he able to say whether the increase was opposed by the State or Territory Trades and Labor Councils. (4) In which State or Territories did the granting of an increase lead to a salary and wages break out. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The salaries of State and Territory parliamentarians are set by independent tribunals, except in the States of Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania. In Victoria, the salaries of State parliamentarians are statutorily linked to the salaries of federal parliamentarians. In Queensland, there is a nexus with particular classifications in the State Public Service. In Tasmania, the Auditor-General is empowered to adjust parliamentary salaries to reflect awards made or amended under specific provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1984. All State industrial relations commissions have adopted the wage fixing principles enunciated by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 March 1987. In turn, the specialist tribunals which have been established to determine salary adjustments for State and Territory parliamentarians are either required to or do have regard to the wage fixing principles adopted by the relevant industrial tribunal in that State or Territory in setting the salaries of groups within their respective jurisdictions. (2) The 11.7% increase in remuneration awarded in 1984 to groups within the jurisdiction of the federal Remuneration Tribunal and to parliamentarians in 1986, represented the amount the Tribunal determined to be appropriate to establish an equitable base. This increase took into account, inter alia, the fact that these groups had not received in full the metal industry standard. The Remuneration Tribunal is required to have regard to the National Wage Case principles of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the increase awarded to parliamentarians in 1986 was determined accordingly. It is a matter for the relevant tribunals to determine the appropriate level of salary for State parliamentarians having regard to the principles under which they operate. (3) I am not aware of the attitudes adopted by the State or Territory Labor Councils towards adjustments made to the remuneration of State parliamentarians. However, it would not be expected that adjustments made to parliamentarians' salaries consistent with the principles which apply to the majority of wage and salary earners would be regarded as being untoward. (4) Wage and salary earners continue to demonstrate the restraint required for the effective operation of the wages system. Adjustments to parliamentarians' remuneration have not engendered any apparent lessening in commitment to the continued operation of the system. (Question No. 236) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to NSW Pesticide Order PO-DIEL-4G, dated 29 December 1986, which permits the use of the organochlorine pesticide Dieldrin on farm land for the treatment of trees, tree stumps, fences and soil until 28 February 1987; if so, when was it brought to his attention. (2) Is the order in direct conflict with the prohibition in the publication referred to in my question No. 235. (3) When was the prohibition referred to in my question No. 235 brought to the attention of landholders, and was it widely publicised. (4) Has the Government considered granting compensation to landholders who used Dieldrin up to 28 February 1987, which was legally permitted by NSW Pesticide Order PO-DIEL-4G, if their land is subsequently quarantined for all time. (5) Has he referred this matter to the Australian Agricultural Council; if so, when did he refer if to the Council. (6) If he not referred this matter to the Council, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, but my Department receives New South Wales Pesticide Orders as part of pesticide information exchange. (2) I have not seen the publication of Dr Byrne but Pesticide Order PO-DIEL-4G would not appear to be in conflict with section 14 of the publication as described by the honourable member as it relates to the treatment of buildings, trees, timber and soil for termite control. Chemical application is therefore confined to these situations. The Pesticide Order also warns against allowing livestock access to treated areas. (3) I am unable to say. This would be the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. (4) No. This is a matter for New South Wales Government consideration. (5) No. (6) The control of chemicals in New South Wales is a State Government responsibility. The issues raised do not seem to warrant Australian Agricultural Council consideration. (Question No. 237) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the NSW Pesticide Order PO-ALDR-4, dated 20 September 1984, permitting the use of the organochlorine pesticide Aldrin on farm land used for growing sugar cane up until 14 October 1985; if so, when was it brought to his attention. (2) Is he able to say whether the order permits the application of Aldrin at a rate of up to 300 gm per hectare. (3) If Aldrin could be applied to farm land legally up until 14 October 1985, can he assure Australians that food produced for human consumption during this time was safe, even though it is considered unsafe if fed to animals and the publication referred to in my question No. 235 states there is a prohibition on the growing of food for livestock for all time on land to which organochlorines were used after August 1982. (4) How does a farmer ensure that food grown on Aldrin-treated soil during the period August 1982 to 14 October 1985 is only fed to humans and not livestock. (5) Is it more important to keep animals free from pesticide residue than humans. (6) Has he referred this matter to the Australian Agricultural Council; if so, when did he refer it to the Council. (7) If he has not referred this matter to the Council, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, but my Department receives New South Wales Pesticide Orders as part of pesticide information exchange. (2) Yes, for the control of wireworms in sugar cane and then only by a person who is the holder of a permit authorising such use. (3) It is not unsafe for animals to be fed produce containing Aldrin residues but as residues in meat and milk can accumulate to levels in excess of maximum residue limits, animals should not be fed treated produce; Pesticide Order PO-ALDR-4 makes this quite clear. Any food with Aldrin residues below established maximum residue limits is acceptable for human consumption. (4) Good agricultural practice is for farmers not to feed or allow stock to graze on pasture/produce treated with aldrin. Livestock producers who purchase stockfeed should ensure that all ingredients used are free of contamination. A statutory declaration of warranty should be sought from the vendor. (5) No, but as animals can more easily accumulate residues to unacceptable levels, it is important to keep them as free of persistent chemical residues as possible. (6) No. (7) These matters are generally well known. (Question No. 252) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: What was the average payment by the Government to procedural specialists in each State and Territory in (a) 1980-81, (b) 1983-84 and (c) 1986-87. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of average Commonwealth Medical/Medicare benefit payments to all procedural specialists and to `full time' procedural specialists in each State and Territory in 1980-81, 1983-84 and 1986-87 are listed below: AVERAGE MEDICAL/MEDICARE BENEFIT PAYMENTS ($) (a) State/Territory All procedural specialists 1980-81 1983-84 1986-87 Fulltime (b) procedural specialists 1980-81 1983-84 1986-87 New South Wales... 72,387 119,341 172,870 121,523 189,784 227,377 Victoria... 57,678 98,002 152,824 98,126 167,706 206,675 Queensland... 58,615 97,611 168,946 97,576 149,575 224,732 South Australia... 60,286 99,146 146,311 121,251 172,492 217,052 Western Australia... 53,710 97,284 147,913 100,161 162,975 201,398 Tasmania... 65,563 100,783 162,345 102,944 159,591 219,323 Northern Territory... 36,953 71,725 112,078 108,526 180,884 183,320 Australian Capital Territory... 70,952 130,619 163,909 117,237 185,421 211,325 (a) Excludes payments associated with the treatment of public patients in public hospitals, Veterans' Affairs' patients and compensation cases. (b) Providers with Schedule fee income greater than $30,750, $40,450 and $50,000 in 1980-81, 1983-84 and 1986-87, respectively. (Question No. 254) Mr Scholes asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) How many superannuation schemes were established under the `cherry picking' scheme prior to the announcement of proposed changes to tax laws to prevent the use of the arrangement for tax avoidance? (2) How many schemes were established under the arrangements between the date of announcement of the proposed tax changes and the date of the new arrangements becoming law? (3) What has been the estimated loss of revenue caused by the amendments made to the Bill which were first proposed and agreed to in the Senate? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation has to date identified approximately 200 superannuation funds as `cherry picker' schemes put into effect prior to the 7 December 1983 announcement of changes to the tax laws to prevent the use of this arrangement for tax avoidance. Investigations into a number of other funds are being undertaken by the Commissioner. (2) The legislation proscribing `cherry picker' schemes took effect from 7 December 1983, the date of announcement. To date, a further 40 schemes have been identified as having been put into effect since 7 December 1983. (3) While some $30m in tax was initially at risk in relation to arrangements entered into before 7 December 1983, these have been challenged administratively with the result that most have now been settled without major revenue loss. A few such cases are awaiting resolution of appeals. (Question No. 306) Ms Fatin asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) What is the average across the board subsidy paid for child care provided by (a) family day care, (b) centre based (i) long day care and (ii) occasional care, (c) out of school hours care and (d) vacation care. (2) What is the range of subsidy for families meeting the criteria for fee relief. (3) How many families are in receipt of fee relief. (4) How many families receive maximum fee relief. (5) What information is available on the range of fees charged to parents using subsidised services. (6) What will be the estimated cost to the Government of the child care program when the present commitment to provide an additional 20,000 child care places has matured, and how is the cost distributed between the different forms of care. (7) Is there any estimate of the number of 3- and 4-year-old children attending pre-school. Mr Hand —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Based on the 1986-87 costs, the average subsidies are as follows: Opera- tional subsidy Fee relief $ per week $ per week (a) Family Day Care... 12.25 16.10 (b) Centre based (i) Long Day Care... 14.31 34.61 (ii) Occasional Care... 16.00 10.12 (c) Outside School Hours Care... 6.00 - (d) Vacation care is paid in a block grant to the States/Territories and therefore average subsidy figures are not available. (2) The range of subsidy for families meeting the criteria for fee relief is as follows: Operational subsidy is paid for all places in Commonwealth sponsored family day care and centre based child care. The amount varies with the age of children and the type of care but averages about $16 per approved place per week. Fee relief is income tested and can best be described as the difference between the fee the service has been approved to charge and the amount a family is required to pay, based on their income. That is, for families who are eligible for fee relief, the service receives its approved fee in two components: the family's fee plus the Government contribution. For families with 1 child in care in average cost services: Fee Range for Fee Relief Families Fee relief from Common- wealth Child Care Centre ($78 per week)... $13- $77 $1- $65 Family Day Care Scheme ($60 per week)... $13- $59 $1- $45 Fee relief payments are, of course, higher in above average cost services and for families with more than one child in care. (3) The number of families in receipt of fee relief is as follows: Some 32 000 families using Commonwealth funded child care centres are in receipt of fee relief. Some 23 000 families using Commonwealth funded family day care are in receipt of fee relief. This gives a total of some 55 000 families in receipt of the relief. (4) Of these 55 000 families, some 10% are only liable for the minimum weekly fee of $13. These are the families who receive the maximum fee relief subsidy for the services in which their children are cared for. (5) Information on the range of fees charged to parents using subsidised services is as follows: (The following information is taken from a sample of budgets (about 80% of total) for the 1986-87 period) Centre Based Long Day Care Average Range $ $ NSW ... 75 44-95 Victoria ... 81 46-90 Queensland ... 63 38-79 Western Australia ... 80 66-90 South Australia ... 80 60-90 Tasmania ... 80 55-88 Northern Territory ... 64 55-70 ACT ... 84 78-90 Overall average ... 78 48-87 Family Day Care ... $56 per week for 40 hours Occasional Care ... Approx $2 per hour (6) The estimated cost of the child care program to the Government when the present commitment to provide an additional 20,000 child care places has matured is as follows: Common- wealth Funding $m Centre Based Care ... 141.8 Occasional Care ... 8.3 Family Day Care ... 71.3 Outside School Hours Care and Vocation Care 13.1 Aboriginal Services ... 11.4 Disability Services ... 3.1 Migrant Services ... 3.5 Supplementary Grants to Services ... 8.4 Family Support Like Services ... 1.8 Program Support ... 5.3 Total ... 268.0 These figures are based on the 1989/90 estimates for children's services. (7) The estimate of the number of 3 and 4 year-old children attending pre-school is as follows: The provision of pre-school programs is the responsibility of State Governments. The relevant State Governments would need to be approached for current records of 3 and 4 year-old children attending pre-school. However, a survey of Child Care Arrangements undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in November 1984 indicated the following use of pre-school: NSW ... 68 200 Victoria ... 49 100 Queensland ... 44 800 Western Australia ... 21 100 South Australia ... 16 400 Tasmania ... 1 100 Northern Territory ... 1 600 ACT ... 4 000 Total ... 206 400 These figures are an estimate based on a sample survey and pertain to 1984. There are no more recent figures available and extrapolation from this sample to today's population of 3 and 4 year-olds would be invalid as there is no reason to assume that all factors affecting pre-school attendance would have remained constant over the years 1984 to 1987. (Question No. 308) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) What was the (a) value and (b) percentage of foreign exchange earnings attributable to Qantas for each year from 1979-80 to 1986-87. (2) What was the value of (a) interest and capital repayment made to overseas lenders on behalf of Qantas, (b) capital equipment imported for Qantas' use, including a description of what each item was and (c) other payments made overseas by Qantas, for each year from 1979-80 to 1986-87. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Value and percentage of Qantas foreign exchange (a) and (b) earnings are set out below: QANTAS FOREIGN EARNINGS Year ended 31 March Value Percentage of total earnings $m % 1980 ... 461.8 50.13 1981 ... 525.8 51.36 1982 ... 643.6 57.74 1983 ... 745.1 57.66 1984 ... 797.2 57.48 1985 ... 907.0 57.62 1986 ... 1,197.7 61.93 1987 ... 1,672.4 67.66 (2) Interest and capital repayments to foreign lenders, capital equipment imported and other expenditure are set out in the following tables: (a)- INTEREST AND CAPITAL REPAYMENTS TO FOREIGN LENDERS Year ended 31 March Interest Capital repayment $m $m 1980 ... 26.4 35.1 1981 ... 27.8 21.1 1982 ... 25.5 48.9 1983 ... 24.1 39.5 1984 ... 21.6 38.8 1985 ... 19.9 60.7 1986 ... 28.4 35.3 1987 ... 42.7 62.5 (b)- CAPITAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTED Year ended 31 March *Aircraft and related equipment Other $m $m 1980 ... 96.6 3.0 1981 ... 162.0 2.8 1982 ... 189.9 3.0 1983 ... 69.2 2.9 1984 ... 4.4 2.3 1985 ... 215.7 4.0 1986 ... +635.1 4.0 1987 ... 156.5 7.5 * Financed through overseas borrowings or by Australian leverage leases with the majority of lease commitments in foreign currencies. + In 1986 four B767 aircraft were financed from internal sources. OTHER PAYMENTS (EXCLUDING INTEREST PAYMENTS) Year ended 31 March $m 1980 ... 395.5 1981 ... 443.5 1982 ... 559.7 1983 ... 681.3 1984 ... 588.6 1985 ... 726.1 1986 ... 1,022.2 1987 ... 1,133.7 (Question No. 310) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Does his Department abide by the Marine and Ports Council of Australia's Uniform Shipping Laws Code. (2) Does his Department employ marine engine drivers with appropriate qualifications for the equipment they are operating. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Marine and Ports Council of Australia's Uniform Shipping Laws Code relates to the survey, manning and operation of commercial vessels in Australia. A commercial vessel is defined as ``a vessel which is not used solely for pleasure or recreation and the use of which is made, allowed or authorised in the course of any business or in connection with any commercial transaction and subject to any State legislation includes any Government vessel other than one under the control of the Minister for Defence'' (vide Section 1 Part 2 Paragraph 4). The Defence Department is therefore specifically excluded from the provisions of the USL code. (2) The Defence Department employs a number of marine engine drivers of various grades, the majority are 3rd Class Marine Engineers qualified in diesel or steam, a higher classification than that defined as Marine Engine Drivers Grade 1 or 2. In accordance with past custom and practice positions are filled not merely on qualification but also by seniority and experience. In the majority of cases positions are filled by men whose qualifications exceed the minimum laid down in the Uniform Shipping Laws Code. The provisions of the Code, though not applicable to the Department, are nevertheless used as a guide to qualifications required in manning the Department's vessels. (Question No. 315) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a new emergency braking system for heavy vehicles developed by Mr R. Kershaw, which utilises a heavy duty mat that is unrolled and trails underneath rear wheels, thereby producing very effective braking. (2) Has he or his Department been approached with a view to allowing this system to be fitted to trucks and other vehicles on Australian roads; if so, what has been the result of the approaches. (3) Will the braking system be permitted to be fitted to vehicles in Australia; if not, why not. (4) Will he permit the fitting of the system, which weighs approximately 250 kg, without the accompanying penalty of a reduction in the overall legal carrying capacity of a truck; if not, why not. (5) If amendments to State legislation are required, will he approach the States with a view to increasing total load limits by the same weight as the fitted braking system. (6) Is he able to provide any information concerning the performance of the braking system, including its performance in comparison with other braking systems currently in use and its evaluation by Dr A Harrison of the CSIRO. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My attention has been drawn to the system developed by Mr R. Kershaw. (2) Yes. The Kershaw Emergency Stopping System is intended for fitting in addition to the normal vehicle braking system. As such, it is outside the scope of the Australian Design Rules and approval by the Department of Transport and Communications is not required for its use. (3) Yes. (4) No. Legal carrying capacity of vehicles is not subject to Federal legislation. States and Territories set maximum limits for the mass of vehicles to help preserve the substantial investment in roads. (5) This issue was discussed by Federal, State and Territory Ministers at the Australian Transport Advisory Council in July 1987. Council did not agree to grant any concession. Any decision to increase mass limits needs to have a very sound economic justification in order to offset the consequent costs of road damage. In addition, it was considered there was insufficient rationale for granting concessions for one particular safety feature when equivalent concessions are not granted for the range of more essential safety features already built into heavy vehicles. (6) I am aware of the evaluation of the Kershaw System by Dr. Harrison. The system is not directly comparable with primary and secondary braking systems required under the Australian Design Rules. I understand that the Kershaw System is a supplementary unit, and cannot perform the task of the standard braking systems, which generally provide heavy vehicles with a high standard of safety. (Question No. 316) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Does he have any proposals from his Department, including legislation, for the fitting, compulsory or otherwise, of Emergency Personal Indicator Rescue Beacons (EPIRBs) or crash beacons to private aircraft; if so, what are the proposals. (2) Would the compulsory fitting of EPIRBs to private aircraft have a significant positive effect on search and rescue operations and would it be significant enough to warrant the compulsory fitting of such equipment. (3) Has he any proposals concerning the provision of a tax incentive to encourage the fitting of such equipment; if so, what are the proposals. (4) Will he adopt any of these proposals; if so, which proposals will be adopted. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4): The Department of Transport and Communications is currently examining all aspects of the carriage of crash beacons by aircraft, including the possibility of incentives. (Question No. 319) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Do Australian aircraft certification standards meet International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidelines and agreements; if no, why not. (2) Do any Australian certification standards exceed ICAO standards, or cover areas not covered by ICAO standards; if so, (a) what are they, (b) why is there a difference or addition and (c) what is the estimated additional cost to the aviation industry in meeting these additional standards. (3) Do any Australian certification standards exceed U.S. Federal Aviation Authority standards; if so, (a) what are they, (b) why is there a difference and (c) what is the estimated additional cost to the aviation industry in meeting these additional standards. (4) What discernible and recognisable improvement in safety do these standards which are additional to either U.S. or ICAO standards achieve. (5) If there is no appreciable improvement in safety, what is the reason for their adoption. (6) Why is it that a new Bell helicopter with less than 500 operating hours, registered in the U.S.A. and meeting all U.S. certification and safety standards, and with a proven history of safe operation, must undergo modifications, at a cost approaching $14,000, to be deemed safe enough to be included on the Australian aircraft register and operate in this country. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. ICAO only provides guidelines and each contracting State must establish its own detailed standards or adopt those established by another State. (3) In a limited number of cases Australian standards exceed U.S. FAA standards while in other cases the U.S. requirements exceed Australia's. Australia has adopted the U.S. standards but has not excluded the acceptance of aircraft built to other standards such as those of the U.K. or European countries. In addition, local operating conditions accident/incident investigations, differences in climatic conditions have resulted in some minor variations to the U.S. standards, for example Australia requires a higher level of fatigue integrity in small aircraft The U.S. has more stringent requirements for some aspects of larger aircraft standards (e.g climb gradients, stall warning and stall manoeuvre margins, birdstrike parameters). It has not been possible to calculate either the costs or the savings arising from such differences. (4) The differences in standards that Australia has introduced are as a result of recognised needs to improve safety. They have arisen largely as a result of accident/incident investigations and are based on the conclusion that, in some cases, the standard may need to be modified to prevent a recurrence. Similarly, it has not been felt to be necessary to adopt some of the more restrictive U.S. standards which relate to operational conditions not likely to be encountered in Australia (e.g. extreme cold weather). (5) See (3) and (4). (6) Of the $14,000 estimate, about $8,000 is required to fit appropriate upper torso restraint harnesses in addition to the existing lap straps. The FAA also now requires this seat belt standard to be met in all U.S. helicopters. Even motor vehicles in Australia are required to be fitted with such devices. Other expenditure is required to recalibrate and replace instruments. This is an inescapable consequence of moving the aircraft from a non-metric to a metric country and from one part of the globe to another (e.g. the need to change altimeter sub-scales and compass adjustments). I might add that $14,000 may not be the lowest cost for which this particular work could be done and represents a quote from one supplier of these kinds of services. (Question No. 327) Mr Jull asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) What is the present composition of the Qantas Airways aircraft fleet. (2) What plans does Qantas have to dispose of or retire of aircraft from this fleet before 1 January 1990. (3) What orders does Qantas have to purchase additional aircraft. (4) Are any of the present Qantas aircraft leased from other owners; if so, from whom are aircraft leased and what are the conditions of the leases. (5) Does Qantas have immediate plans to lease additional aircraft; if so (a) what type of aircraft are to be leased, (b) from whom will they be leased and (c) what are the details and conditions of the proposed leases. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Present composition of Qantas fleet: B747-238B 15, B747-238B (Combi) 3, B747 SP-38 2, B747-338 6, B767-238ER 7. (2) Disposals/retirements before 1 January 1990: One B747-238B (Combi) aircraft will be sold in December 1987. One B747-238B will be sold in April 1988. Two B747-238B's on operating lease will be returned to lessors in the April-October 1989 period. The duration of these leases has been established to maintain fleet strength after two aircraft are sold in December 1987 and April 1988 until new model-400 series B747s are delivered in 1989. (3) Firm orders for additional aircraft purchases and delivery dates: 4 B747-400s April-Oct 1989; 1 B767-300ER August 1988; 2 B767-300ERs March 1989. (4) Present leased aircraft: Four B747-238B's within the current fleet are subject to operating leases-two from ALLCO Finance Ltd, an Australian company, one from British Caledonian and the other from Aerospace Finance in the UK. The terms and conditions of these leases are commercially confidential. Additionally, ten aircraft acquired since 1980 are the subject of finance leases over a 12 year period, extendable, from Australian lessor companies. (5) Plans for additional leased aircraft: (a) Two B747-100s and one DC 10-30 (b) Aerlinte Eireann (subsidiary of Aer Lingus); Tower Air (US airline) and Martinair Holland respectively (c) The planned duration of these operating leases are approximately 12 weeks for the Aerlinte aircraft, and eight weeks for the Tower Air and Martinair aircraft during the forthcoming 1987-88 Christmas peak period. The terms and conditions of these leases are also commercially confidential. In addition Qantas is exploring the leasing of further aircraft over this period to guard against the possibility of any shortage in capacity arising. (Question No. 328) Mr Jull asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) Which international airlines presently have applications before the Government for new or additional air services to Australia. (2) To which ports do these carriers wish to fly. (3) What criteria does the Government use to determine whether the applications are approved or rejected. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1 and 2)- Airlines Port Canadian Airlines International Sydney Continental Airlines ... Sydney Iberia, Spain ... Not specified JAT, Yugoslavia ... Perth KLM, Netherlands ... Sydney/Melbourne Korean Air ... Not specified Lauda Air, Austria ... Sydney (possibly Melbourne) LOT, Poland ... Not specified Malaysian Airline System ... East coast of Australia Singapore International Airlines Not specified Swiss Air ... Sydney Thai Airways International ... East coast of Australia Turkish Airlines ... Not specified (3) The central criterion the Government uses when considering applications for new or additional air services is that the total amount of capacity proposed should bear a reasonable relationship to current levels of traffic between Australia and the other country concerned, with allowance for realistic projections of growth. This criterion is designed to ensure that as far as possible services can be economically viable on the basis of end-to-end traffic, without excessive reliance on the carriage of traffic between Australia and third countries. Bilateral aviation agreements are based on the principle of fair and equal opportunity for the airlines of each side. Access for foreign carriers is therefore negotiated on a reciprocal basis, with opportunities of equivalent value being sought for the Australian carrier. These can be in the form of additional capacity entitlements or new traffic rights or a combination of both. With regard to proposals for the introduction of direct airlinks for the first time, a number of other factors are taken into account. These include the amount of new traffic that a direct airlink is likely to generate, and in particular the potential for tapping new sources of inbound tourism. Also, it is necessary to examine existing travel patterns in order to assess the proportion of end-to-end traffic which can be expected to use a direct service and that which will continue to travel via intermediate points. In addition, foreign policy implications are taken into account by the Government. When traffic is not adequate for scheduled services, it is usual to propose means for testing and developing the market to levels sufficient to sustain direct services. Charter flights have been successfully used for this purpose in the past, and under the Government's new international charter policy the scope for extended programs of charter services has been considerably expanded. Cooperation between airlines in marketing and improving connections over intermediate points can also help build up traffic. (Question No. 340) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 October 1987: (1) In view of his strong attack on Australia's banks for not providing adequate consumer education to its customers, has his attention been drawn to the banks' recent expenditure of $700 000 on school and community education programs. (2) Has he seen the educational material which was prepared by the Australian Bankers Association; if so, how can he justify his attack in view of the high quality of the material being distributed and the large number of consumers being reached. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes, my attention has been drawn to the materials prepared by the Australian Bankers Association and I have discussed this material with a representative of the Association. My press statement of 13 September 1987 pointed out among other things the reluctance of financial institutions to undertake comprehensive consumer education in relation to electronic funds transfer (EFT). Much of the activities of Australia's banks in this area to date relate to informing their customers of revised terms and conditions, which is education only in the most basic form. The educational materials produced by the ABA for use in schools cover a range of banking matters including EFT but more material needs to be provided about EFT, in particular explaining consumers' rights. Furthermore, education programs could usefully be extended beyond the schools to the community more generally. The recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers (SCOCAM) discussed this issue and concluded unanimously that major financial institutions had failed to fully recognise their responsibilities to educate consumers. Ministers requested me to convene a meeting, in consultation with them, with representatives of major financial institutions and retailers to discuss consumer education issues with special reference to Electronic Funds Transfer Systems and consumer credit cards. I plan to hold this meeting as soon as possible. (Question No. 342) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) What defence-related facilities (a) operated by a foreign power and (b) jointly operated by Australia and a foreign power existed in Australia at the date of answering this question. (2) What is the foreign power and designated operating agency in each case referred to in part (1). (3) Under what agreement or other authority does each facility operate in Australia. (4) What is the (a) function and (b) location of each facility. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The information sought by the honourable member on the joint defence facilities in Australia is in the Table below. The term `joint defence facilities' is used to refer to all the installations in Australia which are jointly operated and controlled by the Department of Defence and foreign defence authorities. There are at present five such facilities, as shown in the Table. In addition to the joint defence facilities there are three other installations which can be described as `defence-related' facilities, as they are operated under arrangements made between the Australian Government and US authorities for purposes which are of benefit to military as well as civil users. These facilities are also listed in the Table. There are no other defence-related facilities in Australia operated by foreign powers. Extensive details of defence-related facilities in Australia were provided in the answers to Questions No. 1253 (Hansard, 10 October 1978) and No. 726 (Hansard, 21 August 1984). The only substantial changes since 1984 to any of the activities covered by Question No. 726 have been the withdrawal of the Australian contingent from the Sinai Multinational force and the removal of US personnel so that the TRANET satellite tracking station at Smithfield is now manned wholly by Australians. TABLE OF JOINT DEFENCE AND DEFENCE-RELATED FACILITIES IN AUSTRALIA Name and Location Cooperating parties and main relevant agreement Functions (a) Joint Defence Facilities Joint Defence Space Research Facility (JDSRF), Pine Gap, Northern Territory Australian and US Departments of Defence; Agreement of 9 December 1966 Relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility in Australia; as extended Detailed functions are classified. General purposes and functions are to contribute to timely knowledge of developments that have military significance and to reliable assessments of military developments for verification of arms control and disarmament; and to provide information from satellites about missile launches and nuclear explosions Joint Defence Space Communications Station (JDSCS), Nurrungar, South Australia Australian Department of Defence and US Air Force; Agreement of 10 November 1969 Relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Space Communications Station in Australia Joint Tropical Trials and Research Establishment (JTTRE), Innisfail, Queensland Australian Department of Defence and UK Ministry of Defence; JTTRE Memorandum of Understanding of 24 October 1977 Determine the effects of the tropical environment on materials and equipment North West Cape Naval Communication Station, Exmouth, Western Australia Australian Department of Defence and US Navy; Agreement of 28 June 1963 between Australia and the US relating to the Establishment of a United States Naval Communication Station in Australia, as amended Relay of communications to and from Australian and US ships and submarines TRANET Satellite Tracking Station, Smithfield, South Australia Australian Department of Defence and US Defence Mapping Agency; Agreement of 5 June 1961 for Cooperation in a TRANSIT Navigational Satellite Program, as supplemented in 1979 Tracking of satellites to assist in military and civil navigation, mapping, charting and survey work (b) Defence-Related Facilities Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station, Alice Springs Australian Department of Primary Industries and Energy and US Air Force; Agreement of 2 March 1978 between Australia and the US regarding future management and operation of the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs Monitoring of seismic disturbances OMEGA Navigation Facility, Darriman, Victoria Australian Department of Transport and US Coast Guard; Agreement of 20 September 1977 between Australia and the US for the Establishment in South Eastern Australia of an OMEGA Navigation Facility Transmission of navigation signals Solar Observatory, Learmonth, Western Australia Australian Department of Administrative Services and US Air Force; Agreement of 27 October 1977 between Australia and the US for the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of a Solar Observatory Monitoring of solar activity (Question No. 344) Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) Has land previously owned by J. E. and P. G. F. Street within the area designated for the purpose of the Albury-Wodonga Area Development agreement been acquired by the Commonwealth; if so, when was it acquired. (2) Is the land which has been acquired contained in Certificates of Title volume 1306 folio 001, volume 6029 folio 674, volume 2879 folio 639 and volume 2894 folio 688. (3) Did the Street family willingly agree to the acquisition or were they left without a viable alternative. (4) What is the total area covered by the land which has been acquired. (5) What compensation was paid for (a) the land, including the total sum and price per hectare, (b) fixtures and (c) expenses incurred as a result of the acquisition. (6) Has the Street family been paid full compensation of the items referred to part 5. (7) What formula was used to determine the compensation to be paid to the family. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (7) No. The Commonwealth did not acquire the land in question. In accordance with the Albury-Wodonga Agreement between the three Governments involved in the project, land in the Wodonga area is acquired by the Victorian Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources using powers vested in him by an Act of the Victorian Parliament. Accordingly the subject matter is not one for this Parliament to consider. (Question No. 345) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) Which Army Reserve depots are planned to be closed in the 1987-88 financial year. (2) What is the reason for each closure referred to in part 1. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Parkes and Macksville depots will be closed this year. (2) The Government's White Paper on Defence issued in March 1987, foreshadowed a more relevant and significant role for the Army Reserve in the defence of Australia. To enable it to fulfil this role, it is necessary to rationalise and review existing structures including the re-organisation of the Army's 2nd Division and Royal New South Wales Regiment. The Parkes and Macksville units are being closed as a result of the review. One factor in the decision to close those units was that their effective strength had been well below Army's permitted establishment for some time. All personnel currently attached to those units are being offered alternative options for continuing their Reserve service. (Question No. 346) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) Which Army Reserve units are planned to be amalgamated or disbanded in the 1987-88 financial year. (2) What is the reason for each closure referred to in part 1. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Present planning provides for: Units to be amalgamated 203rd Works Section-Melbourne-amalgamate with Headquarters 6th Engineer Group. 3rd Field Engineer-Adelaide-amalgamate into 7th Field Regiment. 103rd Construction Squadron-Sydney-and 108th Plant Squadron (Heavy)-Sydney-amalgamate to form Engineer Support Squadron 2nd Division. 5th Field Engineer Regiment Brisbane (less 35th Field Engineer Regiment-Enoggera. 47th and 44th Transport Squadron-Tasmania-are amalgamated to form 44 Tpt Sqn. 2nd Movement Control Unit and 10 Movement Control unit-Mosman-amalgamated with 11th Movement Control Group-Mosman. Units to be disbanded 132nd Divisional Locating Battery-East Brighton. 133rd Divisional Locating Battery-Belmore. Headquarters 5th Engineer Group-Haberfield. 12th Field Squadron-Tasmania. 146th Signals Squadron-Tasmania. 1st Battalion The Royal Victorian Regiment-Melbourne-Manpower to 5/6 RVR. 2nd Battalion The Royal Victorian Regiment-VIC Country-retitled 8/7 RVR for Historical nomenclature. (2) The amalgamations and disbandments detailed above results from the new direction for the Army Reserve outlined in the Government's Defence White Paper. (Question No. 356) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: Is the Government taking action to alleviate the lack of qualified audiologists for the National Acoustic Laboratory Program. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The demand for audiologists to staff the National Acoustic Laboratory Health Centres is finely balanced by the number of persons graduating in audiology each year. Presently, it appears that there will be a shortfall of approximately 4 audiologists for the Hearing Services Program in the current year. As you will appreciate, there are difficulties in recruiting staff for country centres which cannot be directly overcome through increasing the number of persons graduating from approved courses. Nevertheless, the present situation is of concern to my Department and was discussed on 13 October 1987 with senior staff of the universities which conduct audiology courses, with a view to ensuring an adequate supply of graduates to meet the future needs of the Program. (Question No. 357) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) What were the (a) income from operations, (b) dividends from subsidiary companies, (c) operating expenses, (d) operating profit, (e) amount payable to the Commonwealth and (f) unappropriated profits transferred to reserves for the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) in each of the financial years 1982-83 to 1986-87. (2) What were the operating expenses of the Corporation, other than those given on page 60 of the Corporation's Annual Report of 1985-86 for the years 1984-85 to 1986-87. (3) What was the amount of profit (a) paid to the Commonwealth and (b) retained by the Corporation in the years 1984-85 to 1986-87. (4) For what use are unappropriated profits intended when transferred to reserves. (5) How many of the Corporation's subsidiary companies operated at a profit for 2 or more of the last 3 financial years, and which companies are these. (6) How many of the companies referred to in the answer to part (5) of this question have some degree of shareholding ownership, and which companies are these. (7) What was the net taxation payment by the AIDC and each of its associated companies for each of the financial years 1982-83 to 1986-87. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The details requested have been provided to Parliament in the financial statements attached to the AIDC's Annual Reports for those years. (2) As the Corporation operates on commercial principles in a competitive market place, it would not be appropriate to disclose further details of operating expenses as its competitors are not required to disclose similar information in respect of their own operations. However, the Corporation has advised that its operating expenses are in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards for Public Company Disclosure to Shareholders and are also in accordance with the guidelines for the Form and Standards of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings approved by the Minister for Finance. (3) Details of these items are disclosed in financial statements included in the AIDC's Annual Reports for those years. (4) Profits transferred to reserves help to expand the Corporation's capital and reserves and thereby its capacity for borrowings and investments to promote Australian industry development and restructuring. (5) Three subsidiaries operated at a profit in the periods described. They are: AIDC Securities Limited, AIDC Leasing Pty Ltd and Southern Alloys Venture Pty Limited. (6) None of the Corporation's subsidiary companies has outside shareholders. (7) Details of net taxation paid are contained in the relevant Annual Reports tabled in Parliament. (Question No. 366) Mr Miles asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 3 November 1987: (1) How many Telecom staff have been based in Tasmania in each year since 1977, and (a) in which Tasmanian Telecom divisions have they been based and (b) at what staff classification have they been employed. (2) Where does Telecom maintain offices in Tasmania and what is the role of each office or group of offices. (3) What Telecom services to Tasmania are provided from outside Tasmania. (4) Does Telecom have any plans to relocate any of the services currently provided (a) in Tasmania to be supplied from outside Tasmania and (b) from outside Tasmania to be supplied from within Tasmania. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The information requested is shown at Table A. The figures for the period 1977 to June 1981 are not available in a form shown in the Table. To manually extract relevant information from variouis sources would take a considerable amount of time and resources. (2) The information requested is shown at Table B. (3) It has been assumed that ``services'' refers to services available to the general public. The answer is none. (4) Telecom has no plans to relocate any of the services currently provided in Tasmania. Table A TOTAL TELECOM STAFF EMPLOYED IN TASMANIA STATE (Does not include Broadcasting from June 1985) Designation group June 1981 F/T P/T June 1982 F/T P/T June 1983 F/T P/T June 1984 F/T P/T June 1985 F/T P/T June 1986 F/T P/T June 1987 F/T P/T Accounting Machinist... 18 0 16 0 16 0 17 0 7 0 6 0 3 1 Artisan... 94 0 98 0 92 0 91 0 95 0 93 0 92 0 Auto Data Processing... 6 0 5 0 4 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 15 0 Building Services... 44 33 41 34 42 40 41 36 39 37 38 36 33 31 Clerical Admin... 360 0 336 0 334 0 347 0 352 0 361 0 372 0 Clerical Assistant... 167 3 164 4 164 5 160 6 176 7 168 10 148 11 Data Processing Op.... 19 0 19 0 17 0 19 0 23 0 15 0 15 0 District Management... 3 0 3 0 19 0 22 0 36 0 50 0 57 0 Drafting... 46 0 44 0 45 0 45 0 44 0 42 0 41 0 Engineer... 64 0 59 0 60 0 60 0 61 0 64 0 62 0 Executive... 3 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 Food Services... 0 7 0 8 0 8 0 7 0 7 0 8 0 7 Lineman... 542 0 510 0 489 0 510 0 552 0 576 0 556 0 Miscellaneous... 52 0 46 0 45 0 41 0 42 0 32 1 29 1 Message Bureau... 11 0 11 0 9 0 9 0 5 0 4 0 15 1 Storeman... 29 0 30 0 43 0 44 0 47 0 45 0 47 0 Technical... 10 0 11 0 11 0 11 0 12 1 13 0 12 0 Telecom Technical... 732 0 709 0 717 0 724 0 697 0 704 0 676 0 Telegraphist... 22 0 19 0 17 0 15 0 12 0 11 0 1 0 Manual Assistance... 162 30 137 32 125 31 129 29 153 24 153 20 163 21 Trainee... 82 0 64 0 72 0 68 0 62 0 57 0 100 0 Transport... 8 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 6 0 5 0 Typist... 28 2 28 2 30 4 23 5 33 6 28 7 26 5 Total... 2 502 75 2 361 80 2 362 88 2 392 83 2 468 82 2 479 82 2 470 78 STATE (Does not include Broadcasting from June 1985) Department June 1981 F/T P/T June 1982 F/T P/T June 1983 F/T P/T June 1984 F/T P/T June 1985 F/T P/T June 1986 F/T P/T June 1987 F/T P/T State manager and staff... 13 0 10 0 9 0 10 0 17 0 15 0 16 0 Information systems... 9 0 11 0 10 0 13 0 20 0 18 2 19 1 Human resources... 55 4 54 5 55 6 48 5 49 5 47 7 44 5 Finance and accounting... 102 0 89 0 85 0 87 0 96 0 87 0 105 1 Material supply... 79 0 75 0 77 0 72 0 71 0 79 0 77 0 Marketing... 38 0 32 0 34 0 40 1 46 0 48 0 54 0 Operations... 1 459 56 1 388 58 1 409 64 1 440 59 1 508 61 1 548 60 1 543 65 Engineering... 747 15 702 17 683 18 682 18 661 16 637 13 612 6 Total... 2 502 75 2 361 80 2 362 88 2 392 83 2 468 82 2 479 82 2 470 78 Designation Group June 1981 F/T P/T June 1982 F/T P/T June 1983 F/T P/T June 1984 F/T P/T June 1985 F/T P/T June 1986 F/T P/T June 1987 F/T P/T STATE MANAGER AND STAFF Accounting Machinist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical Admin... 7 . . 6 . . 6 . . 7 . . 10 . . 8 . . 8 . . Clerical Assistant... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous... 3 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . 3 . . 4 . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Total... 13 0 10 0 9 0 10 0 17 0 15 0 16 0 INFORMATION SYSTEMS Accounting Machinist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... 6 . . 5 . . 4 . . 5 . . 10 . . 10 . . 15 . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical Admin... 1 . . 4 . . 3 . . 5 . . 4 . . 6 . . 3 . . Clerical Assistant... . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . Data Processing Op.... 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 4 . . 2 . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . 1 Total... 9 0 11 0 10 0 13 0 20 0 18 2 19 1 PERSONNEL &INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS/HUMAN RESOURCES Accounting Machinist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical Admin... 32 . . 28 . . 28 . . 27 . . 20 . . 25 . . 23 . . Clerical Assistant... 12 . . 12 . . 12 . . 9 . . 9 . . 7 . . 6 . . Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . 6 . . 6 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . 2 . . 3 . . 3 . . 2 . . 2 . . 3 . . 2 Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous... 3 . . 4 . . 5 . . 5 . . 4 . . 3 1 3 1 Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telegraphist... . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... 8 2 9 2 10 3 7 3 9 3 6 3 6 2 Total... 55 4 54 5 55 6 48 5 49 5 47 7 44 5 FINANCE &ACCOUNTING Accounting Machinist... 8 . . 6 . . 6 . . 6 . . 4 . . 4 . . 2 1 Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical Admin... 59 . . 53 . . 49 . . 52 . . 51 . . 51 . . 71 . . Clerical Assistant... 19 . . 14 . . 15 . . 12 . . 16 . . 13 . . 12 . . Data Processing Op.... 14 . . 14 . . 12 . . 14 . . 16 . . 11 . . 13 . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . 4 . . 5 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... 2 . . 2 . . 3 . . 3 . . 4 . . 3 . . 2 . . Total... 102 0 89 0 85 0 87 0 96 0 87 0 105 1 MATERIAL SUPPLY Accounting Machinist... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... 2 . . 2 . . 4 . . 2 . . 1 . . 1 . . 2 . . Clerical Admin... 31 . . 30 . . 30 . . 29 . . 28 . . 26 . . 29 . . Clerical Assistant... 10 . . 8 . . 8 . . 7 . . 8 . . 8 . . 5 . . Data Processing Op.... 3 . . 3 . . 3 . . 3 . . 3 . . 2 . . 2 . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 2 . . 2 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . Miscellaneous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... 21 . . 21 . . 20 . . 20 . . 20 . . 20 . . 19 . . Technical... 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 4 . . 3 . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 5 . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . Transport... 8 . . 7 . . 8 . . 7 . . 6 . . 6 . . 5 . . Typist... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 2 . . 3 . . Total... 79 0 75 0 77 0 72 0 71 0 79 0 77 0 CUSTOMER SERVICES/MARKETING Accounting Machinist... . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical Admin... 24 . . 17 . . 18 . . 23 . . 23 . . 22 . . 22 . . Clerical Assistant... 14 . . 15 . . 15 . . 17 1 22 . . 21 . . 24 . . Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 5 . . 7 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total... 38 0 32 0 34 0 40 1 46 0 48 0 54 0 OPERATIONS Accounting Machinist... 5 . . 5 . . 4 . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... 20 20 19 20 18 26 17 23 18 27 18 26 20 28 Clerical Admin... 159 . . 153 . . 157 . . 158 . . 176 . . 181 . . 177 . . Clerical Assistant... 84 3 87 3 88 4 91 4 87 6 87 9 71 10 Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... 3 . . 3 . . 19 . . 19 . . 19 . . 26 . . 26 . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . 11 . . 11 . . 11 . . 13 . . 12 . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 6 . . Executive... 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 2 . . 1 . . 1 . . Food Services... . . 3 . . 3 . . 3 . . 3 . . 4 . . 4 . . 4 Lineman... 513 . . 485 . . 466 . . 485 . . 527 . . 545 . . 527 . . Miscellaneous... 2 . . 2 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... 11 . . 11 . . 9 . . 9 . . 5 . . 4 . . 15 1 Storeman... 3 . . 3 . . 18 . . 20 . . 23 . . 22 . . 24 . . Technical... . . . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Telecom Technical... 418 . . 412 . . 409 . . 423 . . 426 . . 442 . . 430 . . Telegraphist... 21 . . 17 . . 17 . . 15 . . 12 . . 11 . . 1 . . Manual Assistance... 162 30 137 32 125 31 128 29 153 24 153 20 162 21 Trainee... 47 . . 41 . . 54 . . 47 . . 35 . . 28 . . 60 . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... 8 . . 9 . . 9 . . 7 . . 10 . . 9 1 8 1 Total... 1459 56 1388 58 1409 64 1440 59 1508 61 1548 60 1543 65 ENGINEERING Accounting Machinist... 4 . . 4 . . 4 . . 5 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . Artisan... 92 . . 96 . . 90 . . 89 . . 93 . . 91 . . 90 . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... 22 13 20 14 20 14 22 13 20 10 19 10 11 3 Clerical Admin... 47 . . 45 . . 43 . . 46 . . 40 . . 42 . . 39 . . Clerical Assistant... 27 . . 27 1 24 1 22 1 32 1 31 1 29 1 Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 4 . . 6 . . 9 . . Drafting... 46 . . 44 . . 34 . . 34 . . 33 . . 29 . . 29 . . Engineer... 64 . . 59 . . 60 . . 60 . . 61 . . 59 . . 56 . . Executive... 1 . . 2 . . 1 . . 2 . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . Food Services... . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 2 . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 Lineman... 29 . . 25 . . 23 . . 25 . . 25 . . 30 . . 28 . . Miscellaneous... 44 . . 39 . . 39 . . 35 . . 33 . . 26 . . 22 . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... 5 . . 6 . . 5 . . 4 . . 4 . . 3 . . 4 . . Technical... 8 . . 8 . . 8 . . 8 . . 9 1 8 . . 8 . . Telecom Technical... 314 . . 297 . . 308 . . 301 . . 271 . . 257 . . 241 . . Telegraphist... 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... 35 . . 23 . . 18 . . 21 . . 26 . . 27 . . 40 . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... 8 . . 6 . . 6 1 4 2 8 3 7 1 6 1 Total... 747 15 702 17 683 18 682 18 661 16 637 13 612 6 BROADCASTING (Not included in State figures) Accounting Machinist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artisan... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Auto Data Processing... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 2 2 2 Clerical Admin... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 2 . . 2 . . Clerical Assistant... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 2 . . 2 . . Data Processing Op.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Management... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drafting... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineer... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . . Executive... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Services... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lineman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Miscellaneous... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Message Bureau... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storeman... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecom Technical... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 . . 37 . . 37 . . Telegraphist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manual Assistance... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trainee... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . 2 . . Transport... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typist... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 2 45 2 48 2 Table B HOBART-47 LIVERPOOL STREET Administrative Headquarters of Telecom in Tasmania HOBART-MLC BUILDING, 65 MURRAY STREET Finance and Accounting Department-Their role is the management of the total accounting operation within the State. Material Supply Department-Responsible for the procurement of, custody and distribution of all materials used by Telecom in Tasmania. HOBART-69 LIVERPOOL STREET Operations Sales Branch-Responsible for the planning, co-ordination and management of the total sales activity for the State. HOBART-1 SANDY BAY ROAD Hobart District Telecommunications Branch-Responsible for the provision of telecommunications services to customers and the maintenance and operation of the network within the Hobart District. HOBART-80 ELIZABETH STREET Business Systems Branch-Responsible for the design, sales support, installation and maintenance of the more complex telecommunications equipment in the state. HOBART-19 CASTRAY ESPLANADE Broadcasting Branch-Responsible for the design, establishment, operation and maintenance of all Federal Government funded broadcasting transmission systems and services for the State. LAUNCESTON-93 YORK STREET Launceston District Telecommunications Branch-Responsible for the provision of telecommunications services to customers and the maintenance and operation of the network within the Launceston District. BURNIE-49 CATTLEY STREET Burnie District Telecommunications Branch-Responsible for the provision of telecommunications services to customers and the maintenance and operation of the network within the Burnie District. MOONAH-26 LAMPTON AVENUE Engineering Department-Buildings and Services Branch-Responsible for the provision of accommodation, buildings and building services and maintenance, technical training, drafting and photographic services and various workshops for the State. HOBART-HEATHFIELD AVENUE Information Systems Branch-Responsible for the planning, development, implementation and support of information processing systems for the State. (Question No. 383) Mr McArthur asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) Which Department has the responsibility for conducting and adjudicating entrance examinations into the Public Service. (2) Are there to be any changes in the system of examining candidates seeking to enter the Public Service as a result of the abolition of the Public Service Board. (3) Have any examinations been delayed as a result of the change of control. (4) How many candidates have been disadvantaged by not being able to sit the examination at the item they expected to do so. (5) How many candidates have had to withdraw their candidacy because of delays in sitting the entrance examination through no fault of their own, but through departmental and administrative delays. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Employment, Education and Training has the responsibility for conducting and marking entrance tests for base grade clerical and graduate positions in the Australian Public Service and for referring tested applicants to departments. Other examinations are conducted by individual departments. (2) The functions of the Department of Education, Employment and Training, as outlined in (1) above, have been taken over from the former Public Service Board. The new Public Service Commission will determine recruitment policy and selection methods and procedures and monitor and report on performance. (3) A small number of planned tests were deferred, but the testing program has since been resumed and most of the planned tests have been held or will be held within a few weeks of the dates previously proposed. (4) Not known. Annual tests are generally arranged within the period from October to February. It is not uncommon for the timing of these tests to vary within that period. (5) Not known. (Question No. 385) Mr Downer asked the Prime Minister, 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 Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $144,000 was spent on public opinion polls in my portfolio in 1986-87. (2) and (3) Only one opinion poll was conducted. Australian National Opinion Polls Research Services Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake a national study of community attitudes, perceptions and awareness in respect of Federal government policies and programs for young people. (4) I released the results of the study, entitled ``Survey of Community Attitudes to Issues Affecting Young People'', on 6 March 1987. (Question No. 387) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A total of $29,850 was spent on public opinion polls by elements of the portfolio in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. The polls were commissioned by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) and the Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE). (2) The objective of the ACS poll was to gauge the attitudes and experiences of passengers in relation to Customs' entry operations at Sydney International Airport. The poll cost $18,650. The objective of the AUSTRADE poll was to determine: (i) who the community believed was responsible for Australia's export performance; and (ii) who the community believed should be doing more to improve Australia's export performance. The poll cost $11,200. (3) Reark Research Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake the ACS poll. McNair Anderson (now known as AGB McNair) was commissioned to undertake the AUSTRADE poll. (4) The results of the ACS opinion poll are available under normal Freedom of Information procedures. The results of the AUSTRADE opinion poll are publicly available. (Question No. 390) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, 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 Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $42,450. (2) In the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget there was one opinion poll-type survey undertaken by the Department: the Attitudinal Survey of Population Issues. This was a nation-wide survey of 2200 people aimed at measuring the Australian community's knowledge and awareness of population and related issues, with a view to providing an improved basis for a community-awareness and population strategy and the capacity for further development of policies with significant population implications. (3) The organisation commissioned to carry out the survey was Reark Research Pty Ltd of Surry Hills, NSW. (4) The results of the survey are contained in the research report, which is publicly available. (Question No. 393) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, 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 to 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 Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) to (4) Not Applicable. (Question No. 395) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Defence, 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 to 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $165,086. (2)- (a) Committee for Employer Support for the Reserve Forces research to test the attitude and awareness of Army Reserve serving personnel in regard to support provided by their employer-$7,760. (b) A study of the awareness of advertising for the Army Reserve and attitude towards it-$24,583. (c) To gather information on the perceptions of members of the communities in the Jervis Bay region who may be affected by the proposed relocation of naval facilities and associated environmental studies-$21,000. (d) Major opinion poll on community attitudes towards the Department of Defence. To provide information and assistance to Defence management in ongoing activities-$81,000. (e) Preliminary survey to establish areas of questioning for the major opinion poll on attitudes towards the Department of Defence-$28,343. (f) To assess public support for persons who intended to disrupt the Navy's 75th Anniversary celebrations on Sydney Harbour because of the presence of nuclear armed warships in the flotilla-$2,400. (3)- (a) Bennett Research Pty Ltd. (b) Bennett Research Pty Ltd. (c) Hill and Knowlton (Sydney). (d) Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP). (e) McNair Anderson. (f) Spectrum Research. (4)- (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) No. The results are expected to be made public sometime early in 1988. (e) No. The results were only used to design the major poll conducted by ANOP. (f) Yes. (Question No. 409) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) How many overseas students have had their studies terminated because of their inability to meet the overseas students charge in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87. (2) How many overseas students who were unable to meet the charge (a) were deported and (b) voluntarily returned to their home country. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) In 1985 and 1986 a total of 16 students were referred to the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (DILGEA) for non-payment of the charge. (b) So far in 1987 48 students have been referred to DILGEA for non-payment of the charge. (2) (a) In 1985 and 1986 a total of three students were deported and three departed voluntarily. (b) In 1987 no students have been deported and three have departed voluntarily. (Question No. 410) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) How many deportations have there been in each year since 1980 (a) in total and (b) from each state. (2) What were the nationalities of those deported from each state. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a)- Financial Year Deportations Prohibited non-citizens Criminals 1979-80 ... 657 95 1980-81 ... 287 70 1981-82 ... 548 67 1982-83 ... 741 82 1983-84 ... 683 24 1984-85 ... 457 21 1985-86 ... 872 28 1986-87 ... 782 39 With regard to the honourable member's request for a state-by-state breakdown, the department is unable to provide such figures for criminal deportations. However, a state-by-state breakdown is available for prohibited non-citizens since 1983-84 and is as follows: (b)- N.S.W. Vic. Qld W.A. S.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. Total 1983-84... 337 173 54 51 11 2 21 34 683 1984-85... 192 127 57 26 30 2 14 9 457 1985-86... 325 274 134 56 27 6 27 23 872 1986-87... 238 281 119 52 31 5 18 38 782 (2) A breakdown of deportees by nationalities on a state-by-state basis is not currently available for prohibited non-citizens. However, the nationalities of criminal deportees has been recorded since 1983-84 and those figures are as follows: CRIMINAL DEPORTATIONS BY COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Country of Citizenship- Bangladesh ... 1 Czechoslovakia ... 1 Canada ... 1 1 Finland ... 2 1 Germany ... 1 Indonesia ... 1 Italy ... 2 1 Lebanon ... 1 2 3 New Zealand ... 13 15 18 25 Philippines ... 1 Spain ... 1 Tonga ... 1 1 Turkey ... 2 1 1 Yugoslavia ... 3 3 U.K. ... 4 2 U.S.A. ... 1 2 Total ... 24 21 28 39 A state-by-state breakdown of the nationalities of deported criminals is not available. (Question No. 411) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) Which pharmacies were receiving the Isolated Pharmacy Allowance (IPA) as at (a) April 1983 and (b) June 1987. (2) What was the threshold used to determine when the IPA applies in (a) April 1983 and (b) June 1987. (3) What was the consumer price index as at 30 June (a) 1983, (b) 1984, (c) 1985, (d) 1986 and (e) 1987. (4) To what extent is the receiving pharmacy responsible for the transport costs involved in freighting drugs to sell in remote areas in order that drugs provided under the National Health Scheme remain at a fixed price. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Because of the secrecy provisions of the National Health Act, I believe it is not in the public interest to list those pharmacies which receive the Isolated Pharmacy Allowance (IPA). However, I can advise that: (a) at April 1983-81 pharmacies were receiving IPA; and (b) at June 1987-61 pharmacies were receiving IPA. (2) (a) April 1983 IPA Annual Rate Profitability Guidelines Current Proposed $3,168 (100%)... Less than $22,500 Less than $24,750 $3,168 (100%)... $22,500-$23,750 high stock $24,750-$26,125 high stock $2,220 (70%)... $22,500-$23,750 low stock $24,750-$26,125 low stock $2,220 (70%)... $23,750-$25,000 high stock $26,125-$27,500 high stock $1,920 (60%)... $23,750-$25,000 low stock $26,125-$27,500 low stock $1,584 (50%)... $25,000-$27,000 high stock $27,500-$29,700 high stock -... $25,000-$27,000 low stock $27,500-$29,700 low stock -... Greater than $27,000 Greater than $29,700 (2) (b) June 1987 IPA Annual Rate Current Proposed Profitability Guidelines Current Proposed $3,936 $4,133 (100%) Less than $30,775 Less than $32,314 $3,936 $4,133 (100%) $30,775-$32,475 high stock $32,314-34,099 high stock $2,755 $2,893 (70%) $30,775-$32,475 low stock $32,314-34,099 low stock $2,755 $2,480 (70%) $32,475-$34,150 high stock $34,099-35,858 high stock $2,362 $2,066 (60%) $34,150-$36,900 low stock $35,858-38,745 low stock $1,968 $2,066 (50%) $34,150-$36,900 high stock $35,858-38,745 high stock - - $34,150-$36,900 low stock $35,858-38,745 low stock - - Greater than $36,900 Greater than $38,745 (3) The Consumer Price Index as at 30 June-all groups index numbers (weighted average of eight capital cities.) (a) 1983-127.3 (b) 1984-132.3 (c) 1985-141.1 (d) 1986-153.0 (e) 1987-167.2 (4) The pharmacy is wholly responsible for the transport costs involved in the freighting of drugs. (Question No. 412) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) Does Mr P. Steedman work in any capacity for the Government or any Minister; if so, (a) for which Minister or Ministers does he work, (b) what sum is he paid, (c) what are the nature and conditions of his position, (e) where is the position based and (f) was the position advertised. (2) If the position was advertised, (a) when and (b) where was it advertised and (c) what sum did it cost to advertise. (3) If Mr Steedman is employed by the Government or any Minister and his position was not advertised, why not. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a)-(e) Mr Steedman is engaged as a part-time Ministerial consultant to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Mr Steedman receives remuneration of $37,000 pa and $21,662 pa respectively for these consultancies and travelling allowance payments on the same basis as a Senior Executive officer in the Australian Public Service. Mr Steedman works primarily in Melbourne. (f) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) There is no requirement for consultancies which are available under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to be advertised. (Question No. 426) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: What federally funded programs exist for (a) children's medical research, (b) acquisition of equipment for the treatment of children's medical disorders and (c) travel by children and their parents to enable Australian children to be operated on overseas. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The National Health and Medical Research Council is the major Commonwealth funding body for medical research. It has provided $3.99m for research related to children in 1987 and will be providing $4.34m in 1988. (b) In 1985/86, the Commonwealth introduced the Medicare Teaching Hospitals Capital Equipment Program to provide $150m to the States and Territories over a three year period for the purchase of capital equipment in teaching hospitals. Distribution of the funds is broadly on a per capita basis. Application of these funds is a State/Territory responsibility. Expenditure in 1985/86 and 1986/87 by all States and Territories (except New South Wales) specifically for children's hospitals is: 1985/86-$3.433m 1986/87-$2.830m New South Wales has indicated it will spend $3.026m over the three year period 1985/86 to 1987/88 in its specialist children's hospitals. Obviously other equipment purchased for non-children's hospitals can be utilised for the treatment of children's medical disorders. (c) Travel by children and their parents to enable Australian children to be operated on overseas is provided for under the Act of Grace arrangements arising from s34A of the Commonwealth Audit Act (1901). Eligibility for Act of Grace financial assistance is determined by the following criteria: (i) treatment must be lifesaving; (ii) treatment must not be available in Australia; (iii) there must be a real prospect of success; (iv) treatment must be beyond the experimental stage. The medical aspects of each application are considered by medical experts. However, the final determination on financial assistance is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. Act of Grace assistance contributes to the costs of travel, accommodation, medical and hospital treatment of the patient and to the travel and accommodation expenses of escorts, where an escort is deemed medically necessary. Naturally, in the case of children, it is accepted that a child would not travel alone and, therefore, their escort is usually a parent or guardian. (Question No. 429) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the European Community (EC) has prohibited the use of hormonal substances and promotants for all food animals; if so, (a) what reasons were given by the EC authorities for the prohibition and (b) from what date was the prohibition effective. (2) Is he able to say whether the Government or any State or Territory Government has introduced a similar prohibition in Australia; if so, what reasons were given for the decision. (3) Is he able to say which countries, other than those in the EC, have prohibited the use of hormonal substances and promotants for some or all food animals. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In December 1985, the Council of Ministers of the EC enacted legislation prohibiting the use of certain substances having a hormonal action in livestock farming for fattening purposes. (a) the reasons for the decision stated in the relevant EC legislation are to ``ensure that all consumers are able to buy the products in question under largely identical conditions of supply and that these products correspond to their anxieties and expectations in the best possible manner''. As meat from animals treated with the compounds cannot be imported into the Community, the decision has a direct effect on the systems of livestock production in Third Countries such as Australia wishing to trade with the EC. Australia has worked closely with the U.S., Canada and N.Z. in opposing the EC decision mainly on grounds that the prohibition is not essential for safeguarding human health and is not supported by any scientific evidence. The U.S. has challenged the ban as a non-tariff trade barrier under the Standards Code of GATT. (b) the prohibition is effective 1/1/88. However, the Council of Ministers of the EC recently agreed to a 12 month transitional period which would allow for access to EC markets under existing arrangement up to 1/1/89. (2) The Government or State/Territory Government has not introduced a similar ban in Australia. The Australian Agricultural Council does not support a ban at this stage nor does the Australian meat industry through its Industry Policy Council. (3) Other than those in the EC, I am not aware of other countries that have prohibited the use of these substances to the same extent. Where countries have enacted legislation relating to restrictions on hormonal substances, they have also been prepared to accept that Australian regulatory systems provide adequate safeguards. (Question No. 431) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many officers of his Department have been placed on an unattached list since the reorganisation of the Public Service. (2) How many officers have been placed on unattached lists in each Department and at what levels have they placed. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 24 July 1987 five officers of my Department have been unattached from their positions. None of these unattachments arose as a result of the reorganisation. (2) Officers may be unattached from their positions in a range of circumstances, including the reorganisation of Departments or responsibilities within a Department, or simply because they go on long-term leave. Not all Departments maintain such lists, or material on the eventual placement of unattached officers, as a matter of course. I am reluctant to authorise the work which compilation of a meaningful answer to this part of the question would generate throughout the Public Service. (Question No. 466) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many applications have been received for refugee status since 1 January 1987. (2) How many cases have been heard by the Determination of Refugee Status Committee since 1 January 1987. (3) What is the average time between an application being made and a determination. (4) How many cases for refugee status were (a) approved and (b) rejected in (i) 1984), (ii) 1985), (iii) 1986 and (iv) 1987, to date. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 410 applications as at 19 November 1987. (2) 320 cases and an additional 45 cases where an unsuccessful applicant had requested a review of a decision. (3) 10 months. (4) (i) (a) 57, (b) 144. (ii) (a) 65, (b) 216. (iii) (a) 61, (b) 408. (iv) (a) 69 (b) 251 as at 19 November 1987. (Question No. 467) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: What sum was spent by the Government on all advertising associated with the Australia Card legislation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: By the Department of Community Services and Health-Nil. By the Health Insurance Commission in 1985-86-$86 891, 1986-87-Nil, 1987-88-Nil. The expenditure in 1985-86 related to the printing of an explanatory booklet to enable informed discussion at the Taxation Summit in July 1985 ($70 903) and the balance subsequently for an information brochure ($15 988). (Question No. 472) Mr Hunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) What steps have been taken by the Government in support of moves by the South Australian Government to aid victims of crime, including proposed increases in funds for criminal injuries compensation, funded if necessary by a levy on offenders. (2) Does the Government accept the view of the SA Attorney-General that information on how a crime has affected a victim is relevant to sentencing and should be put before the court in a more organised and structured manner. (3) What actions are being taken to ensure that direct restitution to victims of crime is given a higher priority than at present. (4) Has he previously supported changes of this nature in the UN. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government's responsibility for victims of crime is in a practical sense restricted to the Australian Capital Territory where victims of crime have been able to obtain financial aid since 1983 when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 became law. The utilization rate of this compensation scheme has increased from 15 applications in 1983-84 to 137 applications in 1986-87. Commensurate with this the Government has increased funding for the scheme from an actual total expenditure on awards made in 1983-84 of $11,313.60 to that in 1986-87 of $647,564.77. The operation of this Ordinance is currently being reviewed by my Department. This review includes the issue of the maximum amount payable as compensation to victims of crime and the various methods of funding, such as a levy. (2) and (3) The South Australian Government passed legislation in March 1986 (the Statutes Amendment (Victims of Crime) Act 1986 (SA) dealing with `victim impact statements' based on the declaration of victims' rights adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders. This legislation has not as yet come into force because of what I understand to be a number of practical difficulties which have been encountered. I also understand that the South Australian legislation may be amended before it comes into operation. The South Australian Government has also adopted a number of principles according victims rights at a number of stages of the criminal process. The Government is monitoring the developments in South Australia and intends to address the issue of `victim impact statements' and that of restitution as part of its response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's Report on its Sentencing reference, when that is finalized. (4) The Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders was held in Milan, Italy between 26 August and 6 September 1985. The Australian Delegation, of which I was the leader, adopted a constructive and supportive role at the Congress in developing a declaration on victim's rights. The South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Sumner, took a leading role as a member of the drafting committee which prepared the `Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and House of Power' which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 1985. (Question No. 473) Mr Smith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Does the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence have sole jurisdiction overseas for the location and assistance to State police forces in seeking the extradition of criminals to Australia. (2) Is he able to say what other Departments or instrumentalities have a role in extradition and location matters. (3) What is the average time for federal authorities to process a request by a State for the extradition of a criminal located overseas. (4) What was the time taken from the date of the request by the Government of Tasmania to his Department until the issue by his Department of a warrant and extradition request to the US in the matter of Mr C H Room. (5) What steps has he taken to expedite the process in the case of Mr Room. (6) Is he able to offer State police forces greater assistance than currently exists in cases in which location and extradition of criminals to Australia is being sought. (7) Has a review ever been made concerning the level of assistance provided by federal authorities to State police forces for location and extradition processes of Australian criminals; if so, when and by whom was the review undertaken. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence does not normally have a role in locating fugitives overseas and assisting police forces in seeking the extradition of such fugitives once located overseas. (2) The locating of fugitives overseas is primarily a matter for the police forces of the countries in which such fugitives are located. Those police forces act on a request made by a State or Territory police force, other law enforcement agency, or by the Australian Federal Police or the National Crime Authority communicated through the International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol). The material necessary to support an extradition request is also prepared by the jurisdiction seeking the surrender. Assistance is normally given to the law enforcement agency either by the State or Territory prosecutorial authorities or, in the case of the Australian Federal Police or the National Crime Authority, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General's Department. Once that case is prepared and received the Commonwealth Attorney-General makes the formal request for the surrender of that fugitive on behalf of Australia and the request together with its supporting documentation is transmitted through the diplomatic channel by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (3) The actual processing of a completed request for the extradition of a criminal located overseas prepared by a State is normally completed within two weeks. That assumes that the material provided in support of the request complies with Australia's extradition law and the applicable treaty. (4) The extradition documentation in its final form was received by my Department from the Tasmanian authorities shortly after 29 May 1984 and a formal requisition for Mr Room's surrender from the United States of America was signed by me on 7 June 1984. On the preceding day a request for the provisional arrest of Mr Room had been made. In other words only one week lapsed from the time when my Department received the necessary material to the signing of the request. During that week the material provided was assessed for compliance with the US/Australia Extradition Treaty. (5) The question of expediting the process of extradition in the case of Mr Room has not arisen as Mr Room has not, in fact, been located in any overseas country. (6) The Attorney-General's Department does not play a role in the location of fugitives, that being a police matter. My Department does however give such assistance as is requested by State and Territory law enforcement agencies and the Australian Federal Police and the NCA in the preparation of the supporting documentation for extradition requests. (7) As far as I am aware no such review has been undertaken. (Question No. 476) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the findings of a recent report by the Department of Community Services and Health which described over-the-counter cough medicines as ``ineffective'', ``mixed inappropriately'' and ``potentially dangerous''. (2) What action is being taken to ensure that these inappropriate cough mixtures are not being marketed to consumers. (3) Is any follow-up action being taken on Dr J Holmes' study to rectify the situation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The report to which the honourable member refers was not a Departmental report but an editorial in the Australian Prescriber. This is a journal with an independent editorial board, supported by the Commonwealth, and aimed at improving prescribing. Currently, the Commonwealth does not have legislative control over locally-manufactured products, which would comprise a considerable proportion of the proprietary medicines discussed in the article. The amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act planned for 1988 will rectify this situation. However, in Australia, preparations on the Pharmaceutical Benefit list are continuously under review by an expert advisory committee and inefficacious or unsafe products are removed from the list. None of the combination products referred to by Dr Holmes is on the Pharmaceutical Benefit list. The Adverse Drugs Reaction Advisory Committee also acts upon any reports of side-effects from a specific product. (Question No. 477) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Is it a fact that processed food containing additives such as monosodium glutamate can cause severe migraines, provoke allergic reactions and aggravate asthmatic attacks? (2) Is it necessary for food manufacturers in Australia to alert consumers to the existence of such additives in foods, as it is in the USA? (3) Why is there a trend under this Government towards less food labelling? (4) Has his attention been drawn to the situation where many Australian consumers are forced to buy imported foods which are labelled as to their contents rather than Australian products which are not so labelled? Mr Staples —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) It is a fact that monosodium glutamate in processed food can cause allergic reactions in a small minority of hypersensitive individuals. However the reactions referred to in the member's question appear to be more symptomatic of hypersensitivity to ingestion of additives such as sulphur dioxide which again is a problem for only a very small number of individuals. (2) Consumers are already alerted to the presence of such additives in food as State/Territory legislation requires that all packaged food is labelled with an ingredient list including the class name of each additive immediately followed by the prescribed name, appropriate designation or code number of each food additive. This requirement was recommended to States and Territories for inclusion in their respective food legislation in October 1983. (3) The member's statement is not correct as this Government has oversighted the introduction of the food additive numbering system and nutrition labelling, both resulting in more informative and efficient labelling. (4) I am not aware of the allegation that many Australian consumers are forced to buy imported foods. The great majority of foods produced in Australia are adequately labelled in compliance with the comprehensive mandatory labelling requirements. (Question No. 478) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 25, what is the reason for the discrepancy in cost between re-testing flight examiners in Australia and re-testing them in the USA. (2) Which overseas suppliers offer the training to which he referred in his answer and how often is this type of training undertaken. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In my response to question No. 25, I made it clear that Examiners are only tested (i.e. have their qualifications revalidated) in Australia. Examiners are also provided with a minimum level of training on the specific aircraft type(s) for which they are responsible to allow them to set and oversight operational and flight crew standards for those particular aircraft. Aircraft time for such training is very difficult to obtain in Australia and it is generally cheaper and more readily available in the US due to the size of the industry in that country. Flying training may also be undertaken in the UK and NZ because ready access to particular types may not be available elsewhere. (2) Training for the purpose of maintaining proficiency on airline-type aircraft is undertaken every six months. Overseas suppliers with whom the Department holds current contracts are: United Airlines-USA Eastern Airlines-USA Western Airlines-USA Piedmont Airlines-USA Dan-Air-UK Air New Zealand-NZ Other suppliers are also able to tender when the contracts are being re-negotiated. (Question No. 488) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Does footnote 1 to paragraph 1.10 of the 1987 Defence White Paper define Australia's area of direct military interest as, inter alia, other nearby countries of the South-West Pacific; if so, which countries are included in the area of direct military interest. (2) Does paragraph 1.11 of the White Paper define Australia's area of strategic interest as the area of direct military interest plus South-East Asia, Indochina, the eastern Indian Ocean and the South-West Pacific; if so, (a) which nations of South East Asia are (i) included in and (ii) excluded from this area, (b) which nations in the South-West Pacific, not included in the area of direct military interest, are included in the area of strategic interest, (c) to what longitude in the Indian Ocean does the area of (i) direct military interest and (ii) strategic interest extend, (d) to what longitude in the Pacific does each area extend and (e) what is the (i) northern and (ii) southern latitude boundary of each area. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. As the 1987 Defence White Paper states, Australia's area of direct military interest stretches over 7000 kilometres from the Cocos Islands to New Zealand and the islands of the South-West Pacific, and over 5000 kilometres from the archipelago and island chain in the north to the Southern Ocean. Accordingly, the term defines an area, rather than a group of countries described by inclusion or exclusion. As a concept used for planning purposes, the term delineates a broad area in which Australia must be able to project independent, comprehensive military power in order to provide for our direct security. The concept informs capability, and as such is not directly related to international political boundaries or exact lines on the map. (2) Yes. This definition is not dependent on the existence of specific countries, their particular policies or precise boundaries. It is a more enduring concept defining the broad geographical area within which strategic developments could directly affect Australia's security and where our broader defence policy must be responsive to those developments. While the area of strategic interest can therefore usefully be defined by reference to generally accepted regional groupings or geographical areas, it would be inappropriate to attempt to include or exclude particular countries or areas simply because they fall on either side of a precise boundary determined by more limited and specific geographical (as distinct from strategic) criteria. (Question No. 492) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) For each year since 1982-83, what was the value in (a) constant and (b) current dollars of expenditure incurred by or on behalf of her Department for maintenance of defence housing. (2) What was the level of this expenditure in terms of work carried out (a) directly by her Department, (b) by the former Department of Housing and Construction on behalf of her Department, (c) the State and Territory authorities on houses leased by her Department under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and (d) by private contractors on behalf of her Department. (3) Is there an agreed plan of maintenance for houses leased under the Agreement; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what controls exist to ensure that the plan is adhered to. (4) If there is no agreed plan of maintenance for houses leased under the Agreement, why not. (5) Have there been any cases where maintenance work on houses covered by an agreed plan has failed to conform to the plan; if so, how many instances have occurred in each year since 1982-83. (6) How many complaints from tenants have been received in each financial year since 1982-83 in each State or Territory authorities on houses leased by her Department. (7) How many complaints were rectified within (a) 1 week, (b) 1 month, (c) 3 months, (d) 6 months and (e) more than 6 months in each State or Territory since 1982-83. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1983 the year by year expenditure on maintenance of Defence owned housing by the Department of Housing and Construction was: Constant Dollars Current Dollars at 1.3.87 $m $m 1982-83... 8.0 10.9 1983-84... 7.6 10.1 1984-85... 11.0 13.8 1985-86... 14.2 15.5 (2) Information is not kept in the format requested by the honourable member, nor can it be obtained without substantial effort on the part of the Department of Administrative Services and the respective State Housing Authorities. I am not prepared to divert manpower resources from other priority tasks to obtain the information. In future years I expect the new Defence Housing Authority will be in a better position to produce this type of information. (3) The Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement (Service personnel)-CSHA(S), does not specify an agreed plan of maintenance but places the onus on the respective State Housing Authorities to maintain CSHA(S) dwellings in good repair and condition. The standard of maintenance of CSHA(S) dwellings is to be appropriate to the type of short term occupation generally applicable to Service personnel. The States, as owners of CSHA(S) dwellings, carry out both cyclical and ad hoc maintenance of the dwellings in keeping with their overall stock management policies and practices. (4) and (5) See previous answer. (6) No records of an ongoing nature are kept regarding complaints about arrangements for CSHA(S) housing maintenance. However complaints in this regard are not uncommon and in discussions with the new Defence Housing Authority I have emphasised the need to improve the standard and timelineness of maintenance arrangements to all Defence housing stock. (Question No. 505) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) Did the German submarine as tendered meet the operational performance specified in the Project Definition Study (PDS) contract. (2) Did the Swedish submarine fall short of PDS specified operational performance in certain aspects; if so, where did it fall short. (3) Why was tendered operational performance data from both tenderers altered by his Department, given that the PDS contract was specifically designed to gain information from the Swedes and Germans which could be compared directly, especially in the important areas of submarine performance. (4) Why did his Department alter the tendered data given the world design standing of the tenderers and their guarantees to meet tendered performance figures. (5) Did the operational performance data which was altered by his Department indicate that the Swedish submarine exceeded PDS specified operational performance and the German submarine did not meet PDS specified operational performance. (6) Was this altered performance data used as part of an argument to Defence Committees to support the selection for the Swedish submarine over its competitor. (7) Was Cabinet presented with this altered operational performance data in support of a departmental recommendation for a Swedish submarine. (8) Has the Commonwealth, having selected the Swedish submarine, contracted for a submarine with (a) essentially the lower operational performance as originally tendered and which may have fallen short of specified operational performance or (b) the higher operational performance figures which his Department used as part of the selection argument to Cabinet. (9) Does the signed submarine contract place full responsibility for such critical work on the contractor, and does the contract fully protect the Commonwealth from any lack of contractor or sub-contractor performance in this regard, given the cost overrun risk associated with the enormous shipbuilding task of integrating a new and technically advanced combat system into a new class of boat to achieve a submarine with the contracted functional and operational performance. (10) What percentage cost of the construction and fitting out of the hull of the first boat now will be undertaken in Sweden and not in Australia. (11) Is the bulk of design engineering to be undertaken in Sweden, given that the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) is openly recruiting design and engineering personnel on the basis that they spend the first 3 years employment in Sweden; if so, why has this decision been taken. (12) What percentage of Australian industry involvement has been contracted between the Commonwealth and ASC for all the submarines and is this percentage guaranteed with appropriate penalty clauses. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There were some points of detail in respect of which the German Submarine Type 2000 would not have met the operational requirements specified in the PDS contract. There were also some points of detail in respect of which the Swedish submarine Type 471 would not meet the operational requirements specified in the PDS contract. The Type 2000 was judged to be a viable option for the RAN but the Type 471 was the preferred option. (3) Tendered performance details were not altered by my Department. Calculations were made to enable both of the proposed submarines to be evaluated against a common baseline. (4) Tendered performance data was not altered. (5) Calculations made using the tendered performance data showed that neither of the proposed submarines could fully meet the PDS objectives in every point of detail. (6) Calculations made using the tendered performance data were relevant in the evaluation and selection process. (7) Cabinet was fully informed of all factors which were relevant in the evaluation and selection process. (8) The Commonwealth has contracted for the Type 471 submarine performance as offered and evaluated. Only minor adjustments to points of detail have been or will be considered. (9) The submarine contract places full responsibility on the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) for achievement of the performance and characteristics specified in the contract. The contract fully protects the Commonwealth's interests in this and other regards. Sub-contractor performance is the responsibility of the prime contractor (ASC). The contract is essentially for a fixed price, variable only in accordance with defined escalation formulae linked to independently established indices. Some five percent of the contract is provisionally priced, with definitive prices for those elements to be set under prescribed procedures which are subject to Commonwealth audit. (10) The first submarine will be built in Australia. As is only prudent, transfer of technology will take place progressively and the Swedish content of the first submarine will be higher than for subsequent submarines. The two hull sections and two internal platforms to be built in Sweden (using Australian steel) for the first submarine represent approximately 27% of the weight of the hull structure of the submarine. This Swedish content falls within the 30% overseas component of the total contract value (excluding the combat system). (11) Kockums of Sweden is the principal source of engineering expertise to be applied in the design of the Type 471 submarine. The planned deployment of Australian engineers to Sweden is to ensure the most effective transfer of submarine design and production technologies to the Australian industry environment. (12) The contract requires 70 percent local content for the submarine excluding the combat system. It also requires about 45 percent local content for the Combat System plus 30 percent offsets in respect of the imported content of the Combat System. Liquidated damages provisions are incorporated in the contract and would apply in the event of non-achievement. (Question No. 514) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Is he able to say which ports within and bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans have been visited by Soviet naval shipping during 1986 and 1987. (2) How many of these visits were by shipping which was (a) nuclear powered and (b) believed to have the capacity to carry nuclear weapons. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) and (2) Were I to provide the information sought by the honourable member, it would have the effect of assisting other countries to evaluate the ability of the Australian Government, and the countries with which it shares intelligence information, to monitor the activities of the Soviet navy in our region. This would not be in our security interests. (Question No. 519) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) How many (a) male and (b) female taxpayers are there aged (i) 55 years and over, (ii) 60 years and over and (iii) 65 years and over and in each case what is their total taxation payment to the Commonwealth. (2) How many persons in each category are engaged in part-time work rather than full-time employment. (3) What would be the loss to revenue if in each case the tax-free threshold was raised to $7000. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The relevant income tax statistics included in the main statistical tabulations for the 1985-86 income year for assessments issued to 30 June 1987 are set out below. The statistics are incomplete in that data in respect of taxpayers who did not provide details of their year of birth or of assessments that have issued after 30 June 1987 are not available. Number of taxpayers Net Tax and Medicare Levy (000) ($m) (i) 55 years and over Males ... 736.8 3 702.5 Females ... 507.4 1 421.5 Total ... 1 244.2 5 124.0 (ii) 60 years and over Males ... 471.8 2 003.0 Females ... 370.3 952.9 Total ... 842.1 2 955.9 (iii) 65 years and over Males ... 267.3 933.5 Females ... 260.4 620.8 Total ... 527.7 1 554.3 (2) Statistics that would enable an estimate to be made of the number of persons in each of the aforementioned categories that are engaged in part-time work rather than full-time employment are not available. (3) The cost to revenue of raising the tax-free thres- hold to $7000, for taxpayers referred to in (1), for the 1987-88 income year is estimated as follows: Cost to revenue ($m) (i) 55 years and over Males ... 350 Females ... 220 Total ... 570 (ii) 60 years and over Males ... 220 Females ... 160 Total ... 380 (iii) 65 years and over Males ... 115 Females ... 110 Total ... 225 (Question No. 523) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What has been the allocation for water resources purposes by the Government in each year from 1983-84 to 1987-88 in (a) dollar terms and (b) real terms, using constant 1983-84 prices. (2) What has been the percentage change in dollar and real terms in funding between 1983-84 and 1987-88. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Commonwealth allocations for water resources from 1983-84 to 1987-88, in dollar terms: Financial year Actual allocation ($m) 1983-84 ... 58.860 1984-85 ... 64.270 1985-86 ... 67.318 1986-87 ... 69.000 1987-88 ... 66.000 (1) (b) Commonwealth allocations for water resources from 1983-84 to 1987-88, in real terms using constant 1983-84 prices: Financial year Constant values compared with 1983-1984 * ($m) 1983-84 ... 58.860 1984-85 ... 61.679 1985-86 ... 59.573 1986-87 ... 55.825 1987-88 ... n.a. 2. Percentage change in dollar and real terms in Commonwealth funding between 1983-84 and 1987-88. Financial year per cent change in dollar terms compared with 1983-84 per cent change in constant values compared with 1983-84* 1983-84 ... . . . . 1984-85 ... 9.2 4.8 1985-86 ... 14.4 1.2 1986-87 ... 17.2 -5.2 1987-88 ... 12.1 n.a. * Based upon movements in the Consumer Price Index between 1983-84 and 1986-87 as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat. 6401.0). (Question No. 531) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: What steps have been taken or are likely to be taken to ameliorate the plight of teachers on exchange overseas whose income has been affected by the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The employment and working conditions of teachers whether overseas or in Australia is essentially a State matter. It would be the responsibility of the State Government to decide whether or not it would be appropriate to compensate their teachers on exchange overseas for any fluctuation in the Australian dollar. (Question No. 533) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Have Australian military personnel been involved in, or the Australian Defence Force (ADF) undertaken, research concerning lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). (2) Has the ADF or any of its members ever co-operated and been involved with international agencies or governments researching LSD. (3) Do military psychiatrists prescribe or administer LSD to a greater extent than is found in non-military psychiatric practice. (4) What ethical standards or codes of conduct apply to the participation of Australian military personnel in medical research generally. (5) What guarantees can the Government provide about the standard of code and protection of rights of Australian military personnel currently undergoing psychiatric treatment. (6) Will the Government provide adequate compensation to Australian military personnel unknowingly or adversely affected by medical experiments. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No. (4) The Chief of the Defence Force advised the Minister on 20 November 1987 of the intention to establish a medical ethics committee in accordance with NH&RC guidelines. The composition of the Committee has been established but appointments have not yet been made. Pending appointment of the ethics committee, medical research is conducted under ethical standards and codes of conduct monitored by the Directors General Health Services of Navy, Army and Air Force. Relevant aspects of diving research in the Navy are monitored by an experimental diving ethics committee. (5) All psychiatric care of members of the ADF is carried out in accordance with the ethical standards established by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry. All consultant psychiatrists to the ADF are fellows of that college. (6) Compensation will be provided on the basis of proof of a compensable condition. (Question No. 536) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Has he received any complaints regarding the involvement of Australia Post, and indirectly the Government, in the promotion and sale of exorbitantly priced postage stamp replicas. (2) Is he empowered to investigate or have investigated these complaints. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have not received any complaints about the involvement of Australia Post in the promotion and sale of the postage stamp replicas, and I am advised by the Trade Practices Commission that neither have any such complaints been made to it. (2) The investigation of alleged contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is the responsibility of the Trade Practices Commission. Should I receive any complaints about the postage stamp replicas which suggest a possible contravention of the Act, I will forward them to the Commission for investigation. (Question No. 545) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 3640 (Hansard, 18 November 1981, page 3161), which countries have attended the 10th and subsequent International Labour Organisation (ILO) Asian Regional Conferences. (2) Is he able to say which of these countries has ratified the ILO freedom of association conventions. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) &(2) The following table lists the 27 countries attending the 10th International Labour Organisation Asian Regional Conference at Jakarta in December 1985 and sets out the information requested in respect of each country. CONVENTION* Country 11 87 98 135 141 151 Afghanistan X Australia X X X Bahrain Bangladesh X X X China X Hong Kong India X X Indonesia X Islamic Republic of Iran Iraq X X X Japan X X Jordan X X Kuwait X Malaysia X X Mongolia X X Nepal New Zealand X Pakistan X X X Philippines X X X Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore X X Sri Lanka X X X Thailand USSR X X X United Arab Emirates USA Footnotes: X: Denotes Ratification *: There are 6 International Labour Organisation Conventions which the International Labour Office lists as freedom of association Conventions: Convention No. 11: Right of Association (Agriculture), 1921 Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 Convention No. 98: Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949 Convention No. 135: Workers' Representatives, 1971 Convention No. 141: Rural Workers' Organisations, 1975 Convention No. 151: Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978. (Question No. 549) Mr Rocher asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: How many actions have been commenced as at 9 December 1987 under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and how many (a) have been settled or withdrawn, (b) are still pending (excluding cases subject to appeal) and (c) have been decided by a Court in the first instance. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Federal Court registry has provided information indicating that at least 169 actions have been commenced since the sections were enacted and at least 109 of those have been finalised. Information as to whether finalised actions were settled or contested is not readily available. As all these actions were commenced by private litigants, it would be necessary to manually examine each relevant case file held by the Federal Court registry to obtain this information. (Question No. 554) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: What sums were expended by the Commonwealth in (a) 1984, (b) 1985 and (c) 1986 for the incidentals allowance paid to tertiary students who qualified for the living allowance under the former Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The amounts expended on incidentals allowance were: (a) 1984-$7,205,250. (b) 1985-$7,632,700. (c) 1986-$8,015,570. (Question No. 555) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: Is he able to say how many teachers were employed in each State and Territory for each year from and including 1984. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following table shows the number of teaching staff (in full-time equivalent units) employed in each State and Territory for the years 1984 to 1987 by sector. Data for 1987 is preliminary. NUMBER OF TEACHING STAFF BY SECTOR AND STATE, 1984-1987 (FTE) NSW Vic. Qld WA SA Tas. NT ACT Aust. Government 1984 ... 46 554 43 123 22 328 12 450 14 324 5 145 1 801 2 835 148 560 1985 ... 46 847 42 699 22 752 12 566 14 204 5 011 1 845 2 838 148 762 1986 ... 47 123 40 723 23 906 12 706 14 187 4 985 1 882 2 882 148 334 1987p ... 47 323 41 432 23 996 12 552 13 951 4 732 2 158 2 829 148 972 Non-Government 1984 ... 14 824 15 023 6 186 3 301 3 087 1 030 290 1 056 44 797 1985 ... 15 555 15 504 6 505 3 454 3 202 1 069 336 1 122 46 747 1986 ... 16 194 15 907 6 689 3 661 3 340 1 115 331 1 152 48 388 1987p ... 16 580 16 192 6 889 3 807 3 400 1 130 346 1 200 49 543 Total 1984 ... 61 378 58 146 28 514 15 751 17 411 6 175 2 091 3 891 193 357 1985 ... 62 402 58 203 29 257 16 020 17 406 6 080 2 181 3 960 195 509 1986 ... 63 317 56 630 30 595 16 367 17 527 6 100 2 213 3 974 196 722 1987p ... 63 903 57 624 30 885 16 359 17 351 5 862 2 504 4 029 198 516 p-preliminary Source: National Schools Statistics Collection, Australian Bureau of Statistics, catalogue numbers 4220.0 and 4221.0. (Question No. 565) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) What is the construction material used in the Deakin Offices, A.C.T. (2) Who designed the building. (3) Why was a recessed window wall design used in the building. (4) What facilities are installed in the building to provide emergency power generation. (5) Do the various computer facilities have uninterruptable power supply systems; if so, how are they provided. (6) How do staff gain access to the building. (7) Is the building used twenty four hours a day. (8) What staff canteens and other catering installations exist in the building. (9) Is there any sleeping accommodation in the building. (10) Is the building connected in any way with any other building. (11) What are the external physical dimensions of the building. (12) What is the available floor space of the building. (13) What Departments, agencies and instrumentalities use this building, and in each instance how many staff are located there and what are their duties. (14) What floor space is allocated to each user. (15) Is there any under-utilised or otherwise unaccounted for floor space. (16) How is security maintained in the building and who is responsible for maintaining it. (17) Are employees of any Department, agency or instrumentality located in the building required to undergo any security clearance or make any specific undertakings with respect to secrecy or confidentiality that are not required of public servants in other locations; if so, what are they required to do. (18) Are any of the contact telephone numbers of any of the Departments, agencies or instrumentalities occupying the building classified, restricted, or otherwise protected from general distribution. (19) Who provides security control for the building. (20) Is security control provided by private contract; if so, (a) why, (b) when was the contract made, (c) was it put to tender, (d) what is the term of the contract and (e) what are the specific requirements for the contractor. (21) Are Australian Federal Police officers located on the site for any purpose; if so, for what purpose. (22) Are army personnel located on the site for security or guard purposes. (23) Does ASIO or any other security organisation have a role in protecting the security of the building. (24) Has ASIO provided, or does it provide, a regular security sweep of the building to check for breaches of security and potential electronic eavesdropping. (25) Who took the decision to locate the Computer Centre in the building. (26) Were any other buildings considered at the time; if so, what other buildings were available. (27) In relation to the computer facilities, data processing equipment and functions of the installations located at the Deakin Centre, have the terms `hub cap' and `man data' any relevance; if so, what is their (a) relevance and (b) meaning. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The building is constructed of reinforced concrete with precast concrete panel cladding. The roof consists of pre-coated steel decking. (2) The building was designed by the then Department of Construction (now Department of Administrative Services, Construction Group) for Telecom Australia. (3) The building was designed as a telephone exchange and trunk switching building. Telecom's design requirements for buildings of this type specify that window provision be at an absolute minimum. This design philosophy is appropriate in the provision of a controlled environment for electronic equipment. (4) The building has three diesel alternator sets which provide an essential power supply in the event of failure of the ACT Electricity Authority mains. These diesel generator sets do not provide uninterrupted power as they require time to come to full speed after power failure. (5) Each tenant's computer installation in Deakin has an associated uninterruptable power supply provided by a bank of batteries (charged from the mains supply) which provides an uninterruptable AC supply through an inverter to the connected computers and associated equipment. (6) The staff gain access to the building by using the front entrance. The basement entrance is only used for building contractors and deliveries. (7) Some of the computer sites (Telecom and Tax- ation) are manned 24 hours a day. (8) The building contains a small coffee lounge type canteen which provides takeaway snacks and other general store items. The canteen is under revenue licence for a period of two years as from 1 November 1987. (9) I am not aware of any sleeping accommodation in the building. However, departments working 24 hour shifts may have provided some facilities for shift workers to take a rest. (10) The building is connected to the adjacent telephone exchange by telephone conduits and cabling. There are also microwave communication links to and from the Deakin Offices. (11) The building floor plan is `T' shape with the following dimensions: (a) Length of cross of T-113m (b) Depth of cross of T 31m (c) Length of stem of T-92m (d) Depth of stem of T-23m (e) The height of the building above basement floor level to the top of the roof is 25.64m. (12) The building has approximately 11,500 square metres of nett usable office space on the three floors of the building. In addition, the basement consists of some 5,000 square metres of gross space which is used for plant rooms, electricity sub-station, cable rooms, storage, building maintenance group accommodation and site offices for construction work being carried out in the building. Car parking bays are also provided. (13) Departments using the building are Defence, Australian Taxation Office, Social Security, Transport and Communications, Telecom and Administrative Services. The following information has been provided by each tenant regarding their functions. (a) Department of Defence The number of staff is 54 people. Space is provided to house computer elements of the Defence Communication Systems Division and the Computer Operations Logistics Directorate. The functions provide: (i) secure voice, facsimile, telegraph and data communications for the Australian Defence Force (ii) design of equipment systems, software development and its maintenance and systems level training (iii) management of the technical support facility (iv) operation of a mainframe computer and its associated communications network for Defence logistics management. (b) Australian Taxation Office The number of staff is 60 people over three shifts. This establishment is part of Taxation's interconnected mainframe computer facilities. The computers are linked by a high security communications network leased from Telecom, and operates in total isolation from all other systems in the Deakin Offices. The functions provide: (i) for the primary processing facility for the Taxation Office (ii) support production processing for the Prescribed Payments System (iii) ongoing development activities associated with changes in taxation requirements as directed by Government (iv) processing and updating of all data collected by Branch and Regional offices. (c) Department of Social Security The number of staff is 39 people. This installation is known as the National Computer Centre and is used for the following purposes: (i) maintain, modify and distribute the computer software that is used in divisional computer centres (ii) technical work to ensure the stability of the computer systems and software (iii) identification, through computer based techniques, of social security fraud (iv) compile statistics, generate projections and calculation of costs of policy options (v) the operation of the facilities management information system (vi) to provide computing facilities to the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Community Services and Health. The facilities for the Taxation Office are to enable the development and operation of the Child Support Scheme and operates in independent technical environments and not connected to the Social Security Systems. The systems operated by Community Services and Health are expected to move to a facility operated by that Department in 1988 (vii) a back-up for regional computer centres. A detailed answer on Social Security's computer operations was given by the Minister for Social Security in Hansard on 2 November 1987 in response to Question Number 226. (d) Department of Transport and Communications The number of staff is 46 people. The Department uses space in the Deakin Offices as its major computer site in Canberra specifically for aviation related activities. The functions provided are: (i) the operations of the Systems Development and Automatic Data Branch (ii) general computing network for finance, accounts, general ledger and assets sub-systems. (e) Telecom The number of staff is 20 people, over a 24 hours a day operation. Telecom leases space for a telephone exchange, which is an after-hours centre for Canberra and district. (f) Department of Administrative Services The number of staff is nine people. The only presence in the building that my Department has is a building maintenance group located in the basement. (14) Defence 3,792 square metres, Australian Taxation Office 1,635 square metres, Department of Social Security 1,622 square metres, Department of Transport and Communications 1,666 square metres, Telecom 2,623 square metres, Common Services (canteen, conference room, etc) 150 square metres. Total 11,488 square metres. (15) Basically, all areas of the building are utilised. There are, however, areas which have been allocated to Departments/instrumentalities which are not actively utilised at this stage, i.e. electrical sub-station expansion, Department of Social Security disk farm, and Taxation expansion. The difference between the gross area and the nett allocated area is approximately 3,500 square metres. This is accounted for by lifts and lift lobbies, stair wells, corridors, toilets, large plant rooms and service areas. (16) Administrative Services, as the property manager for the Deakin Offices, arranged the perimeter security watching contract. The contract is designed to maintain a secure controlled building. Individual departments are responsible for their own areas in the building. (17) My Department requests no special security clearances that are not required of other public servants. Of course, the question of internal security and security clearances is the responsibility of the individual departments. (18) Telephone access to Departments in the building is through their departmental switchboards. (19) The Regional Property Office of my Department is responsible for the perimeter security control of the building. Departments are responsible for security control of their own areas in the building. (20) Yes. (a) As a result of the Review of the Commonwealth Functions in 1981, my Department no longer had the resources to provide a security guarding service and security contractors were asked to tender for the service. (b) 27 April 1982. (c) The first contract for the period of three months was in response to selected quotes. This contract was extended for a further three months while public tenders were called and a contract issued. (d) The term of the current security contract is for the period 1 October 1985 to 30 September 1988, and was issued following public tender procedures. (e) The requirements of the contractor are listed on the specification included in the contract. The contractor provides the following: A physical presence to control entry/egress to the building of authorised officers and material and to exclude entry of unauthorised personnel. To monitor, control and react to an electronic security alarm system (external and after hours internal). To monitor and react to the fire, emergency and safety system within the building. (21) No. (22) Army personnel are not located on the site for the provision of security of the building. I am not aware of the internal security provisions provided by the Department of Defence for the area it operates. (23) On request, ASIO advise Commonwealth Department and authorities on security matters. (24) ASIO are not engaged by my Department to provide a security sweep of the interior of Deakin Offices. (25) The Department of Administrative Services sought to lease space from Telecom in October 1980 for several computer installations (Defence and Taxation) following requests from these Departments. When the building became available from Telecom, the Department of Administrative Services investigated options including disposal, major refurbishment for general office space, and continued use for specialised technical facilities. The decision to utilise this building as a Computer Centre was made at the senior departmental level as part of the overall ACT accommodation strategy and in response to satisfying an urgent need by the Commonwealth for suitable computer space. (26) The Deakin Offices were designed for telecommunications equipment, which was not dissimilar to the requirements for computers. Floor loadings, ceiling heights, etc., were sufficient to allow efficient installation of computers. I am not aware of any other similar space being available at the time. (27) I have not heard of the term ``hub cap'', and I believe ``man data'' was a personnel records and processing system proposed by the then Commonwealth Public Service Board. To my knowledge, neither term has relevance to the Deakin Offices. (Question No. 569) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Age, dated 17 September 1987, entitled ``Coroner says air bureau tried to influence him''. (2) Did the report claim that a coroner investigating an aircraft crash which killed 6 people in 1986 had said that the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) had tried to influence him in the week before the inquest was held. (3) Did BASI publish a report on the crash under the guise of information designed to prevent similar accidents and which did not contain any such information. (4) What action has he taken to investigate these claims. (5) Is there any basis for the Coroner's claims; if so, what is it. (6) Has he taken action subsequent to any initial investigations; if so, what action has he taken. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of newspaper reports concerning criticism of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, voiced by the Victorian State Coroner. (2) Yes. (3) BASI published a report on the accident with the intent of preventing similar accidents. (4) The Director of the Bureau has held useful discussions with the Victorian State Coroner. Both parties now have a better understanding of the other's position. (5) No. (6) See (4) above. (Question No. 581) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) How many Australian Merino rams have been exported (a) in total and (b) to each overseas country that has received Australian rams since (i) 1900 and (ii) 1970. (2) Of the countries which have purchased Merino rams from Australia, is he able to say how many Merino rams have been purchased by buyers in these countries from countries other than Australia since (a) 1900 and (b) 1970. (3) Is he able to say what percentage of the total Merino rams purchased by each overseas country came from Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1970 a total of 2,654 Merino rams have been exported from Australia. These were received by: USSR...774 China...563 New Zealand...481 India...222 Mexico...220 Argentina...122 Indonesia...67 Saudi Arabia...44 South Africa...34 Brazil...30 Uruguay...26 USA...24 Iraq...19 Romania...18 Hungary...9 Italy...1 From 1929 to 1970 an embargo was placed on the export of Merino rams to countries other than New Zealand. During the period of free trade from 1901 to 1928, statistics do not discriminate Merino exports from total sheep exports. (2) Specific figures cannot be provided for trade in Merino rams between countries outside Australia. It is known, however, that China, India, Bulgaria, Romania and other Eastern Bloc countries have imported large numbers of Merino rams from the USSR. USA and EEC have also been minor exporters of Merino sheep. (3) Whilst Australia's proportion of market share for Merino trade with other countries cannot be precisely evaluated, it should be noted that the major importers of Russian Merinos, particularly China and India, have also been significant importers of Australian Merinos. (Question No. 16) Mr Reith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is it a fact that from 1 June 1987 the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, has been paid his full Commonwealth pension, $324 per sitting day for attendance at meetings of the Constitutional Commission and $9,396 per annum as Chairman of the Australian National Gallery; if not, what have been the amounts payable to him. (2) Are there any laws or finance regulations which prevent those payments being made concurrently. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Mr Whitlam may receive income from each of the three sources identified by the honourable member. As to the amounts involved, I understand the current salary payable to the part-time Chairman of the Australian National Gallery is $9,954 per annum and the current daily sitting fee payable to members of the Constitutional Commission, when they are engaged on its work, is $343. To 31 December 1987, Mr Whitlam was paid for 32 sitting days out of a total of 46 sitting days on which he has been engaged in Constitutional Commission business. Mr Whitlam was not paid for his work with the Constitutional Commission during the period before the expiration of his appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO on 9 December 1986. The superannuation entitlements of former members of the Parliament are set out in the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 and payments are made only in accordance with that Act. Members are able to take decisions of a personal and private nature that affect the form and amount of their retirement benefits. For this reason, it is not the practice to make public information about the amount of any benefits paid or payable under the Act to an individual. (2) The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act provides that, where a former member of the Federal Parliament who is entitled to a parliamentary pension also receives remuneration as the holder of certain offices of profit under the Crown, the parliamentary pension is reduced by the lesser of the remuneration received from that appointment or one-half of the parliamentary pension, disregarding any commutation of the pension. These provisions came into operation on 31 March 1984 and apply to members retiring from the Parliament after that date. Consequently, they do not apply to Mr Whitlam. However, on Mr Whitlam's appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO in July 1983, he voluntarily agreed to a reduction in his salary as an Ambassador equal to his parliamentary pension payment. I am not aware of any other legislation that would prevent Mr Whitlam from receiving the payments referred to in part (1) of the question. (Question No. 77) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a document referred to in The Australian on 24 August 1987 which states that the US Navy has ordered Pacific commanders to remove evidence in case of a nuclear weapons accident abroad and treat it as one involving conventional explosives. (2) Does he have a copy of the document. (3) If he does not have a copy of the document, will he undertake to obtain a copy and make it publicly available; if not, why not. (4) Are US Navy commanders obliged to inform Australian authorities of an accident involving nuclear weapons in Australian territory in all cases or only when the Australian public is deemed at risk. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The document referred to in The Australian on 24 August 1987 is an instruction which was issued by the US Commander In Chief Pacific (CINCPAC) with the intention of ensuring the adequacy of US nuclear safety arrangements in the area of CINCPAC's responsibility. Contrary to the implication in the question, the procedures which are set out in the instruction are not designed to conceal the fact of a nuclear weapon accident from the Government of any country in which such an accident might occur. The instruction specifically directs nominated US Government representatives to coordinate accident response arrangements with the host Government. The instruction stipulates that accidents that do not entail a radiation hazard should be handled in the same way as accidents involving conventional weapons. The objective is to provide responses suitable to the level of accident, and to avoid undue public alarm. (2) Yes. (3) As it is a US Government document, it is properly a matter for the US rather than Australia to decide whether it should be made publicly available. (4) The US Navy is obliged to inform Australian authorities of an accident involving nuclear weapons in Australian territory in all cases. (Question No. 111) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Executive Board of UNESCO appealed to member states in October 1986 to strengthen, by means of voluntary contributions, the financial resources of the Special Account of the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC). (2) Was Australia among the 143 states which voted in the UN General Assembly on 3 December 1986 in favour of a resolution again calling upon member states to respond to the appeals of the Director-General of UNESCO to contribute to the IPDC by making financial resources available, as well as staff, equipment, technologies and training resources. (3) Is he able to say which states have made resources available to the IPDC. (4) Has the Government given consideration to making resources available to the IPDC since the answer to question No. 3786 (Hansard, 7 May 1986, page 3329) was prepared. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) The following is a statement of contributions to the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) received as at 30 October 1987 (expressed in US dollars): Special Account for the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) Government $US Algeria... 10,000 Bangladesh ... 2,000 Benin... 10,000 Cameroon... 10,714 Canada... 282,389 China... 100,000 Cyprus... 1,944 Egypt... 10,000 Finland... 225,000 France... 204,884 Gabon... 17,094 Guyana... 2,000 India ... 600,000 Indonesia... 93,505 Iraq... 100,000 Italy... 168,573 Jamaica ... 2,000 Japan... 1,200,000 Kuwait... 100,000 Luxembourg... 1,961 Mexico... 10,000 Nigeria... 145,825 Norway... 5,382,137 Oman... 10,000 Pakistan... 25,000 San Marino... 5,000 Sweden... 145,476 Tunisia... 12,729 Turkey... 6,438 Trinidad and Tobago... 2,000 USSR... 2,103,951 Venezuela... 250,437 Yugoslavia... 39,995 Zambia... 5,231 (4) The Government has not given formal consideration to making resources available to the IPDC since the answer to question No. 3786 was prepared. (Question No. 132) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) What is the basis of the $27.65 subsidy standard aggregate module used for aged care costs. (2) How was this amount determined. (3) Does the amount include variations in costs between States and regions; if so, how are variations accounted for. (4) If the amount does not include variations in costs between States and regions, why not. (5) How was the national fee figure determined and does it take into consideration cost differences between States and regions. (6) Did his Department conclude in 1984-85 that the subsidy should be $27.66; if so, why is the present standard aggregate module less. (7) What are the appeal rights of private nursing homes under the Nursing Homes and Hostels Act. (8) Has the private nursing homes and hostels industry indicated its attitude to the appeal rights; if so, (a) what views have been given and (b) what has been his Department's reaction to points made. (9) Was the Victorian situation considered when the legislation was being drafted; if so, in what way was it considered and what action was taken. (10) If the Victorian situation was not considered, why not. (11) Was existing State legislation concerning nursing homes and hostels staff levels and workloads considered when drafting the legislation; if so, what was the result. (12) If existing State legislation was not considered why not. (13) Are there enough places in nursing homes and hostels to meet the demand now and for each of the next 5 years. (14) What is the projected growth in places for each type of accommodation in the private sector and in public beds for each of the next 5 years. (15) What has been the growth in the (a) public sector and (b) private sector for each type of place since 1982. (16) Are profits for private nursing homes and hostels reduced as a result of the nursing homes and hostels legislation. (17) In each State, what is the cost of each type of care, by component parts, in (a) public and (b) private accommodation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 authorised the introduction, from 1 July 1987, of new funding arrangements for nursing homes. The new arrangements apply to all non-Government nursing homes for the aged approved under the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act as at 30 June 1987. The new arrangements involve the phased introduction over the period July 1987 to July 1991 of standard fees and standard Commonwealth benefits to replace the previous cost-reimbursement funding arrangements. Once the new arrangements are fully in place the Commonwealth will, in effect, fund a specified level of nursing home care services on behalf of residents at a set price with variations largely confined to certain inter-State award differences. These arrangements were introduced to overcome major shortcomings with the previous cost-reimbursement arrangements, viz: frequent and unpredictable increases in fees faced by many residents with a consequent lack of financial security for residents; lack of incentives for nursing homes to achieve greater efficiency or operational flexibility; unacceptable cost escalation of Commonwealth expenditure per bed. Over the period 1973 to 1985, Commonwealth expenditure per bed grew by 600% compared with a 233% growth in the CPI and a 308% growth in the AWE. inequitable distribution of Commonwealth funds per capita. Prior to 1 July 1987, for example, the maximum benefit paid to ordinary care residents in Queensland ($35.25 a day) was 65% of the amount paid to residents in Victoria ($54.60 a day); and complex administration which was not effective in controlling costs. From 1 July 1987, all nursing home fees have been split into two components-one for all direct nursing and personal care costs together with payroll tax and workers' compensation for all staff, the other for infrastructure costs (e.g. laundry, transport fees, etc) and return on investment. This latter composite infrastructure component is known as the Standard Aggregated Module (SAM) The SAM is the only component in respect of which a transition to a uniform amount has commenced. Until new national uniform staffing standards are agreed with State Governments, current approved nursing and personal care staffing levels will continue to be reflected in fees on a cost-reimbursement basis. The levels of the SAM for 1987/88 has been set at $27.65 per resident per day. Each nursing home's funding level for infrastructure costs determined under the cost-reimbursement arrangements as at 30 June 1987, will be coalesced to the SAM over five annual steps which commenced on 1 July 1987. (2)-(6) The level of the SAM for 1987/88 represents the national weighted average infrastructure cost for all non-Government participating nursing homes for the aged approved under the National Health Act in 1984/85 ($22.27 per resident per day) indexed by a weighted average of actual and projected movements in CPI and AWE. At no time was it concluded that the SAM should be set at $27.66. Because the level of the SAM is well above the average for nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, approximately 65% of all nursing homes will receive increased funding in real terms over the next five years. The decision to adopt a national uniform level for the SAM is justified on the findings of a study of infrastructure costs incurred in the industry in 1984/85, which confirmed that there was an extraordinary diversity in the level of costing on a home-by-home and State-by-State basis. The study showed no statistically significant relationships between infrastructure costs and factors which might have been expected to explain the substantial variations, such as dependency levels, bed capacity, ward size and age of home. The conclusion drawn from that analysis is that there is no justification for the substantial variations in costs. (7)-(8) Proprietors have the right of appeal against determinations of scales of fees based on 1986/87 costs and they will continue to be able to request a review of decisions relating to the inclusion of nursing and personal care staffing costs within their scale of fees. Such review requests will be required to be made within 42 days of receipt of advice of a decision. The private nursing home industry indicated a preference for a mechanism through which it could appeal against the level of the SAM. Industry representatives were advised that it was the Government's prerogative to decide on the level of funding that it would provide for nursing home care. The Act provides for the Minister to either gazette a higher amount for the SAM or to gazette a formula in accordance with which a higher amount would be set. It is anticipated that in 1988/89 and subsequent years, the SAM will be indexed by movements in the AWE and CPI indices. In response to requests from industry organisations, the Government has agreed to regular reviews of the appropriateness of the SAM, based on surveys of industry costs. (9)-(12) The study of nursing home infrastructure costs incurred in 1984/85 showed that average costs incurred by private nursing homes in Victoria were 20% higher than the national weighted average. The major part of the cost difference was attributable to higher costs incurred in Victoria on administration and contract services for catering, cleaning and laundry. Prior to 1 July 1987, the Department met on a number of occasions with the Victorian Aged Services Peak Council (VASPC), broadly-based group representing aged care interests in Victoria, to consider and consult on the proposed funding changes. A Departmental/VASPC Working Party was formed to put forward recommendations on measures that would assist the industry to adjust to the new arrangements. In response to the Working Party's recommendations, the then Minister for Community Services announced the decision to accept the recommendation for a 10% rate of coalescence to SAM for 1987/88 and to bring forward the timing of the payment of Commonwealth benefits. The SAM relates to non-nursing staff and currently State legislation does not prescribe non-nursing staff levels in nursing homes. (13) There is considerable variation in State/Territory levels of provision for combined nursing home and hostel places ranging from 82.72 per 1000 persons aged 70 and over in Victoria to 113.45 per 1000 person 70 and over in South Australia. This gives an average national provision, as at 30 June 1987, of approximately 100 places per 1000 persons aged 70 and over. While there is no generally accepted view of the optimum level of provision of places and beds, there are a number of indications that present provision in Australia is sufficient for current needs: International comparisons show that Australia is among the high provision countries. There is mounting concern that elderly people are prematurely seeking residential care services of greater intensity than they need because they lack the social supports and personal care assistance which could in many cases be provided in their own homes. Evaluations undertaken on existing waiting lists indicate that the number of persons who need immediate placement is very low. On this basis, the Government has decided to maintain the existing level of provision at 100 places per 1000 people aged 70 and over. Within that provision a balance between hostel and nursing home places of 60 to 40 respectively will be gradually achieved. The balance of 60 hostel places to 40 nursing home places is a reversal of the current situation and involves considerable expansion of the hostel sector. This expansion is in recognition of the need to provide less intensive care alternatives for the greater proportion of aged people requiring residential care. Additional funding to allow the provision of more hostel places is reflected in increases in the capital program, with the planned level of expenditure of $64.7 million this financial year-an increase of 54 per cent on 1985/86. An important aspect of the strategy is assisting aged people to clarify their residential care needs and to choose the mose appropriate options. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will provide $7.4 million in 1987/88 on the assessment program-an increase of 85 per cent over expenditure in 1985/86. The above strategy for the provision of residential care places is underpinned by the Home and Community Care Program (HACC) which provides support to frail aged and disabled people in the community. In accordance with the Government's wish to promote the independence of aged people in the community, there has been an increase in Commonwealth and State expenditure on HACC services resulting in a rise from $150m in 1984/85 to about $300m in the current financial year. (14) On 22 October 1987, I announced the Government's intention to plan for the approval of 12,197 additional residential care places throughout Australia for the three years to June 1990. Of these, 1295 places will be for nursing homes and the remaining 10,902 places will be for hostels. A table showing the distribution of these places between States is set out below: THREE YEAR ROLLING PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 State NH H NH H NH H NSW ... 131 1277 141 1058 140 1057 VIC... 186 1443 180 1536 180 1536 QLD... 40 374 52 480 52 479 SA... . . 228 21 170 21 170 WA... 4 54 27 141 27 140 TAS... 30 126 24 215 23 215 ACT... . . . . 6 76 5 76 NT... 5 50 . . . . . . 1 AUST... 396 3552 451 3676 448 3674 The Commonwealth advertises for proposals to take up new places allocated under the program. It is not possible to predict with any accuracy the source of future applications, and consequently it is not possible to predict the relative growth in nursing home and hostel places between the Government and non-Government sectors. (15) Growth in the Government and non-Government sectors since 1982 is indicated below: 30 June 1982 1 July 1987 % increase Nursing Homes Govt... 152 174 14 Other... 1236 1309 6 Total... 1388 1483 7 Nursing Home Beds Govt... 14,988 14,039 -7 Other... 55,586 61,287 10 Total... 70,574 75,326 7 Hostels (1) Hostels... 780 947 21 Hostel Residents... 21,698 39,718 83 Note: Under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, hostel subsidies are paid only to non-profit-making organisations, some of which are local Government organisations. (16) Under the new infrastructure funding arrangements, nursing home operators are responsible for making their own decisions on the manner in which they manage their operations to provide nursing home care to the standard specified by the Commonwealth. The more efficiently they are able to manage their operations, the greater will be their financial reward or profit. Commonwealth subsidy is only provided to hostels operated by non-profit or local Government organisations. (17) RECURRENT SUBSIDIES: COST TO COMMONWEALTH 1986/87 ($'000) NSW & ACT VIC QLD WA SA & NT TAS TOTAL Nursing Homes -Public (ie Government)... 38,729 82,083 26,327 18,037 12,391 6,613 184,180 -Private (ie non-Government)... 385,555 216,210 128,853 68,932 120,779 22,831 943,160 424,284 298,293 155,180 86,969 133,170 29,444 1,127,340 Hostels... 22,355 15,869 12,369 6,443 8,641 1,350 67,027 446,639 314,162 167,549 93,412 141,811 30,794 1,194,367 (Question No. 148) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: Did the Government announce in the May Economic Statement that $2m was to be allocated for retraining Widow Class A and Supporting Parents Benefit recipients who lost those benefits as a result of the reduction in child qualifying age from under 24 to under 16; if so, (a) has the amount been allocated yet, and (b) what additional retraining programs have resulted from the allocation. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Additional funding of $2m was announced in the May Economic Statement to provide training places for those beneficiaries mentioned, and also women who turn 50 after 1 July 1987 who are no longer eligible for Class B Widow Pension. (a) The allocation was made in the 1987-88 Budget, handed down on 15 September 1987. (b) Extensive planning and development has been occurring in all States and Territories to ensure that the needs of this group are met. This is being undertaken in close co-operation with the Department of Social Security, and includes information seminars, interviews and assessments by CES staff and course curriculum development. Training courses designed specifically for this group have been contracted in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, and are being developed in the other States and Territories. To date over 300 people from this target group have been placed throughout Australia either in employment or in training programs. (Question No. 183) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) What proportion of Australia's foreign aid program has been committed to South Pacific Commonwealth nations during the years 1979 to 1987. (2) What proportion of the aid to these nations has been committed to Papua New Guinea during those years. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as shown in the statistical table below. Total Official Development Assistance ($'000) Aid to South Pacific Commonwealth Nations* ($'000) % Aid to Papua New Guinea ($'000) % 1978-79... 468,376 262,284 56.0 237,196 90.4 1979-80... 508,666 263,775 51.9 235,624 89.3 1980-81... 567,998 274,840 48.4 245,113 89.2 1981-82... 657,790 287,683 43.7 252,897 87.9 1982-83... 744,620 316,922 42.6 274,497 86.6 1983-84... 833,168 338,528 40.6 302,280 89.3 1984-85... 1,011,403(b) 368,753 36.5 320,199 86.8 1985-86... 1,030,964(b) 387,235 37.6 325,973 84.2 1986-87(a)... 975,616(b) 393,319 40.3 333,140 84.7 (a) Preliminary figures. (b) Includes costs of educating students from developing countries in Australian secondary and tertiary institutions. * Includes Fiji and Papua New Guinea. (Question No. 184) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: What is Australia's rating among OECD nations as a contributor of foreign aid. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The usual method of comparing the relative performance of aid donors is to compare the level of official development assistance (ODA) with gross national product (GNP). There are two different methods of measuring ODA which can produce different ratio figures. The difference relates to the way in which certain contributions to international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, are recorded. Contributions may be counted as aid flows at the time of the deposit of the promissory note in the bank (called the deposit method) or when the institution draws on the promissory note (known as the encashment method). The Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which collates aid statistics of OECD donors, uses the deposit method in international reporting of aid flows. The latest DAC reports for calendar year 1986 show that Australia has the eighth highest ODA/GNP ratio of 0.47%. The highest is Norway at 1.20%, the lowest is Austria at 0.21% and the average is 0.36%. (DAC reporting of aid flows on a calendar year basis causes difficulties for Australia and other donors which have a financial period that does not correspond to the calendar year. The numbers generated are often distorted by the bunching of expenditure in one or another calendar year.) For most reporting purposes, Australia adopts the encashment method to calculate its ODA/GNP ratio. For the 1987-88 financial year, Australia's ODA/GNP ratio is estimated on this basis at 0.36%. Leaving aside differences between encashment and deposit methods, this is likely to put Australia in eleventh place amongst OECD countries. (Question No. 185) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) Why was an advertisement placed in newspapers on 11 July 1987 ``The Nursing Home Scandal is over''. (2) In which newspapers was the advertisement placed. (3) What sum did it cost to (a) prepare and (b) place the advertisement. (4) Was an advertising agency involved; if so, which agency, and how was it selected. (5) Was the usual Government tendering process for advertising followed. (6) What are the rip-offs referred to in the advertisement. (7) In which (a) States and (b) homes have rip-offs occurred and for how long have they been occurring. (8) How many nursing home residents have suffered because of the rip-offs referred to in the advertisement. (9) What protections have been introduced to stop the rip-offs, and how will each rip-off be stopped. (10) Were nursing home residents sent letters detailing the information set out in the advertisement; if so, (a) how many residents were sent letters, (b) in which homes did they reside and (c) what was the cost of each component part of the operation. (11) Were letters sent to residents of nursing homes which were not the subject of the advertisement; if so, why. (12) When did the Government crackdown on unscrupulous nursing homes begin. (13) Has any action been taken against any nursing home; if so, (a) how many nursing homes have had action taken against them, (b) where are the homes located, (c) when was action taken and (d) what action was taken. (14) If action has not been taken against any nursing home, why not. (15) Have any nursing home residents or their relatives complained about particular nursing homes; if so, when did they complain and from which States have they complained. (16) If complaints have not been made, how does the Government have knowledge of alleged rip-offs and of action required to protect residents. (17) Who are the greedy nursing home operators referred to in the advertisement and how many of them are there in each State. (18) On what basis is a nursing home operator defined as greedy. (19) Is the term referred to in legislation; if so, where. (20) Who established the definition of greedy nursing home operator. (21) For how long have such nursing home operators been greedy. (22) How many residents are in homes run by greedy operators and how have they suffered due to the operators being greedy. (23) What are the detailed changes which came into operation on 1 July 1987. (24) How are profits of nursing homes maximised by minimising services. (25) How many false claims were placed by nursing home operators, as referred to in the advertisement. (26) What was the cost to (a) the Commonwealth and (b) residents, by State and home, of the false claims. (27) What is the basis of the allegation that false claims are being made by nursing home operators. (28) Has action been taken to prevent false claims being made and is it succeeding. (29) What is the basis of referring to the allegations as a nursing home scandal. (30) Why did the Government wait until 1 July 1987 before taking action on the alleged rip-offs. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) To refute an advertisement appearing in the Melbourne Sun on 9 July 1987 headed AGED CARE SCANDAL which was written and authorised by Messrs C. R. Lloyd, Solicitor, Camberwell, N. McK Marsden, President and G. P. Menere, Vice President, PGHAV Limited, for and on behalf of Victorian private nursing home proprietors. The placement of the advertisement on 11 July was considered necessary to counteract any unwarranted concern the earlier advertisement may have engendered amongst the frail aged and their families and friends that new nursing home funding arrangements would lead to severe disruption of nursing home care in Victoria. (2) The Melbourne Sun (3) (a) Prepared by the then Department of Community Services from within existing resources. (b) $2367 (4) &(5) Yes, the advertisement was placed by Neville Jeffress, an advertising agency appointed by the Commonwealth following usual Government tendering processes. (6) &(7) The cost-reimbursement nursing home recurrent funding arrangement existing between January 1973 and 1 July 1987 contained no real incentives for nursing home operators to achieve management efficiencies. Nursing home fees throughout Australia increased at rates significantly greater than prices applying in the community generally. Under these arrangements, some private nursing homes, particularly in Victoria, were charging fees which were very much higher than those charged by other nursing homes which were providing comparable care services and accommodation. In addition, under the old arrangements, the Department was regularly required to exclude from fees expenses which had not actually been incurred or which had been incurred for purposes unrelated to the care and accommodation of nursing home residents. In addition, there have been a number of convictions of proprietors for fraudulent practices under these arrangements and other similar cases were under investigation. These factors were relevant to the preparation of the advertisement placed by the Commonwealth. (8) It is not possible to quantify the number of nursing home residents affected by the factors referred to in the answer to (6) &(7) above. While most proprietors are considered to be honest, it is necessary for the Government to take measures to protect both taxpayers and nursing home residents from exploitation by a dishonest minority. (9) Under the nursing home funding arrangements introduced from 1 July 1987, all nursing homes for the aged will have their fee components covering non- nursing and personal care staff costs coalesced to a standard amount set by the Commonwealth. This arrangement provides nursing home operators with incentives to operate efficiently and obviates the need for operators to submit cost claims on the Commonwealth for infrastructure costs. As a result, there will be no incentive to enter into arrangements to claim for costs not genuinely and necessarily incurred in providing care and accommodation. In relation to costs incurred prior to 1 July 1987 and nursing and personal care staff costs incurred after that date, my Department has produced a Validations Manual to advise Departmental staff on techniques for inspecting records and validating cost claims. In addition, appropriate staff training workshops have been conducted. (10) &(11) When it became apparent that letters were being circulated in Victoria to all nursing home proprietors, patients in nursing homes and their relatives and friends, for the purpose of generating unwarranted anxiety about the new recurrent funding arrangements, Mr Hurford, the then Minister for Community Services, wrote, on 22 May 1987, to every non-Government nursing home resident in Victoria and issued a news release on the matter. Approximately 10,800 letters were sent. In that letter and press release, Mr Hurford assured nursing home residents that the changes arising from the introduction of the new nursing home funding arrangements would not increase the amount that residents would be required to pay for nursing home care nor would the level of care decrease. The letters were produced within existing Departmental resources. The cost of postage was $5793. (12) Since the mid 1970's the Commonwealth has, within available resources, periodically inspected nursing homes and nursing home records to verify the accuracy of cost claims and taken appropriate action where those claims could not be adequately verified. To enhance the Commonwealth's ability to ensure the adequate provision of nursing home care, a gazette notice was published on 11 November 1987 under Section 45d of the National Health Act setting out standards to be observed in the provision of nursing home care in approved nursing homes. (13) &(22) Yes, there have been 36 cases since 1 July 1985 which have warranted some attention in relation to instances of suspected fraudulent activity. Resource limitations and privacy considerations prevent detailed itemisation of actions taken. The details of cases where action has been taken are as follows: Location: Sydney Metropolitan Area... 9 North West New South Wales... 1 Northern New South Wales... 4 Melbourne... 11 100km radius of Melbourne... 3 Adelaide... 7 South East Queensland... 1 36 Action as at 1 November 1987: Warning... 1 Referral to Australian Federal Police... 4 Referral to Office of Director of Public Prosecutions... 15 Appeared in court of plea... 5 Injunction on sale of home... 1 Committed to trial... 2 Successfully prosecuted since 1 July 1985... 3 Investigations current... 5 36 In addition, many hundreds of adjustments have been made to exclude from fees amounts which did not reflect expenditures which were genuinely and necessarily incurred. The numbers of such actions cannot readily be quantified. Some individual homes and proprietors have been the subject of a number of such adjustments. From time to time the Department has received complaints from nursing home residents or their relatives concerning particular nursing homes in all States. However, it would be necessary to access many hundreds of individual records to provide specific details on each complaint and I am unable to authorise the allocation of significant Departmental resources for this purpose. (23) I refer the honourable member to the Second Reading Speech of 7 May 1987 in introducing the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 by the then Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Chris Hurford MP. (Hansard pages 2835-2841). (24) Prior to 1 July 1987, under the cost-reimbursement funding arrangements, nursing homes were able to increase their profits by fraudulently claiming for the cost of services either not provided or not provided to the extent suggested by the cost claim. Similarly, in cases where, after 1 July 1987, nursing homes do not employ nursing and personal care staff up to the approved level but fraudulently submit undetected cost claims in relation to staff not employed, the nursing homes profits will be increased. Under the standard infrastructure funding arrangements effective from 1 July 1987, nursing homes which do not provide services necessary to ensure compliance with the Commonwealth's care outcome standards, and hence do not incur expenditure on such services, would, as a result, increase their profits. (25)-(26) To establish the number of false claims by nursing home operators which have been detected by the Department and the cost of such false claims by State, would require access to numerous records. I am unable to authorise the Department to allocate the Departmental resources necessary to perform this task. (27) to (29) See above answers. (30) The Government did not wait until 1 July 1987 before taking action against nursing home proprietors who attempted to exploit the nursing home funding arrangements. See answers above. (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 amended 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 Officer Association (Resigned 30 June 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, Associate 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, A.C.T. 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. Clark, 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, 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-30 June 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 1 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 Campbell ... 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 Cowan ... 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 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 and 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 (Nos 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* 1986-87 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 (iii) Travel: (b) Committee Members ... 320,500 17,500 (iii) 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 (vii) Incidentals: (b) Promotion/Advertising ... 299,000 178,300 (vii) 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. 248) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Did he say in his answer to question No. 475 (Hansard, 3 November 1983, page 2360) that the Government was currently reviewing Australia's position with regard to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Article 14 procedures under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (2) Has the Government decided to (a) ratify the Optional Protocol or (b) make a declaration under Article 14. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government believes that accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the making of a declaration under Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would further enhance Australia's international human rights reputation by demonstrating willingness to submit our human rights performance to international scrutiny. Since the co-operation of the States is regarded as necessary for the effective operation of both the Optional Protocol and Article 14, the question of accession to the Protocol and the making of a declaration under Article 14 has been under discussion with the States in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. As yet, agreement has not been reached with all States. (Question No. 258) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Did he take any action to alter the route of the First Fleet Re-enactment Voyage in order to avoid Cape Town; if so, what action was taken and why was it taken. (2) Was any request made to the RAN to examine the feasibility of replenishing the fleet at sea; if so, what was its response. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On my instructions, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade wrote to the organisers of the First Fleet Re-enactment Voyage on 4 September 1986, advising them that in current and prospective circumstances it would be inappropriate to plan on calling at Cape Town. This action was prompted by the organisers who sought Government guidance on the proposed call. In a follow up letter to the organisers, the Department, on my instructions, reaffirmed the earlier advice and stated that the Government would neither support nor endorse the Fleet's call at Cape Town and that if a call had to take place it should be regarded as solely to meet practical needs and be kept as low key as possible. This subsequent letter was in response to the organisers advice that, notwithstanding the Government's wish, given safety and operational reasons and without the provision of a re-supply ship, there was no viable alternative to the fleet calling in at Cape Town. (2) The First Fleet Re-enactment voyage organisers sought advice from the Navy in early 1986 and on 1 May 1986, about resupplying the First Fleet at sea. The Navy informed the Company that the Navy was not able to provide the escort sought by the First Fleet. In a letter to the First Fleet on 21 November 1986, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet also referred to the Navy advice. (Question Nos 263-92) Mr Blunt asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: What sum was spent on (a) airline tickets, (b) VIP flights, (c) travelling allowances, (d) media statements, (e) pro forma letters, (f) overtime payments, (g) Commonwealth cars and (h) advertising of policies and other Government responses by (i) the Minister, (ii) the Minister's personal staff, (iii) officers of the Minister's Department and (iv) consultants to the Minister during the 1987 election campaign. Mr Hawke —As indicated above, the honourable member asked identical questions of all Ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of all Ministers: It has been practicable to provide the figures requested only in respect of part (b) of the question. Because of the form in which records are maintained, a very large amount of work would be required to collate the other figures for the relevant period, and I am not prepared to authorise it. However, qualitative information has been provided relevant to some other parts of the question. With regard to departmental staff, see the comments at the end of the answer. (a) Airline tickets See the comments in the preamble. (b) Special Purpose Aircraft flights The costs of Special Purpose Aircraft flights during the period 23 June 1987 (the date of my campaign policy speech) to 11 July 1987 (polling day) are shown below. Ministers may be accompanied by staff and/or consultants on such flights. Subject to space, media representatives may also travel on such flights, being charged the commercial economy class rate. For the 1987 campaign, I approved the allocation of 2 aircraft each to the Government and the Opposition, with a fifth aircraft allocated to the Government, subject to availability. Minister Cost ($) Mr Hawke 92,588 Mr Bowen 54,430 Mr Keating 61,381 Mr Beazley 9,158 (c) Travelling allowance See the comments in the preamble. The long-standing convention is that Ministers do not claim travelling allowance for the duration of the election campaign. The only exceptions are where Ministers travel for Cabinet meetings or primarily in connection with their ministerial duties. (Similar restrictions also apply to their Opposition counterparts and the leaders of other major parties.) (d) and (e) Media Statements and Correspondence The preparation of media statements and correspondence is, of course, part of the day-to-day work of Ministers and their staff. It is not feasible to cost these activities for the election campaign period. (f) Overtime See the comments in the preamble. The more senior ministerial staff receive ministerial staff allowance in lieu of overtime. (g) Commonwealth cars See the comments in the preamble. (h) Advertising of policies See the comments in the preamble. With regard to the advertising of Government policies, the normal conventions that apply during a pre-election period were followed. The accepted approach is for advertising campaigns which highlight the role of particular Ministers or which address issues which are controversial between the major political parties normally to be discontinued. Advertisements promoting rights or entitlements or which are of an operational nature usually continue. For the 1987 election period, I decided that any promotions or advertisements which featured Ministers should be withdrawn, and confirmed a decision to withdraw defence recruiting advertisements which featured myself and the Minister for Defence. Advertising campaigns which continued during the election period were the following: Press advertisements for the AIDS program. Radio advertisements for Australian Traineeships. Press, radio and TV advertisements for formal, postal and absent voting. Press advertisements for Australian Federal Police recruitment. Outdoor posters for plant quarantine. Press advertisements for energy management awards. Press advertisements for the Business Migration Program. Departmental Officers The honourable member has also asked for the costs of all the above items in respect of departmental officers. I refer him to pp. 39-45 of my Department's 1987 Annual Report, which contain an article on `Caretaker Conventions and Other Pre-Election Practices'. Among other things, the article describes the role of the Public Service during the pre-election period, and includes the following: `The general rule during the caretaker period is that the normal business of government continues until the incoming government's wishes are known. Several aspects of a department's usual activities are, however, affected. While departments are concerned at all times to avoid partisanship, the circumstances of an election campaign require special attention to the need to ensure the impartiality of the Public Service and its ability to serve whatever government is elected.' This approach was followed conscientiously by the Public Service during the recent election campaign. Costs incurred by departmental officers on items such as airline tickets, Commonwealth cars, travelling allowance, pro-forma letters, overtime, etc. would relate to the ordinary business of government and would be very resource-intensive, if not impossible, to collect for the election period. I do not propose to authorise the work necessary to attempt to get costings of the various items in respect of departmental officers. (Question No. 296) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) Will he provide all information held by his Department concerning the effects of the changes to nursing home funding on Tasmania. (2) What discussions have been held with the (a) aged care industry in Tasmania and (b) Tasmanian Government on this matter. (3) Has consideration been given to State regulations on staffing levels and classifications. (4) What will be the effect of the changes in nursing home funding for each of Tasmania's aged care homes. (5) What will be the staff hours per resident. (6) Is it anticipated that 60% of Tasmania's nursing homes will be forced to close when the new funding arrangements are introduced; if so, (a) why and (b) what is being done to ensure (i) money is not wasted and (ii) aged care residents are cared for adequately. (7) If the new funding arrangements are not expected to result in the closure of 60% of Tasmania's nursing homes, why not. (8) How many of Tasmania's aged care residents are in nursing homes of less than 28 beds. (9) How many beds has each home identified in part (8) of this question. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is not readily apparent whether the honourable member is seeking information in relation to the nursing home recurrent funding arrangements introduced on 1 July 1987 or the proposal to introduce, from 1 July 1988, national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards in nursing homes. I will therefore address both of these matters: (1) Arrangements Introduced on 1 July 1987 The Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 authorised the introduction, from 1 July 1987, of new funding arrangements for nursing homes. The new arrangements apply to all non-Government nursing homes for the aged approved under either the National Health Act or the Nursing Homes Assistance Act as at 30 June 1987. From 1 July 1987, all nursing home fees have been split into two components-one for all direct nursing and personal care costs together with payroll tax and workers' compensation insurance premiums for all staff; the other for infrastructure costs (e.g. laundry, power and return on investment). The nursing and personal care component of each nursing home's fees will continue to cost reimburse the level of nursing and personal care staff approved prior to 1 July 1987 subject to variation to take account of factors such as increases in bed numbers and in the proportion of extensive care residents accommodated. This arrangement will continue until uniform national staffing standards are introduced. The approved level of each home's infrastructure costs as at 30 June 1987 will be coalesced to a standard aggregated module (SAM) in five annual steps which commenced on 1 July 1987. The level of the SAM for 1987-88 has been set at $27.65 per resident per day. Each year the SAM will be indexed in line with movements in AWE and the CPI. As a result of this process of coalescing infrastructure costs to SAM, every non-Government nursing home for the aged in Tasmania was granted an increase in money terms for infrastructure costs from 1 July 1987, and 91% of the homes were granted increases in real terms. The nursing homes which were granted real terms funding increases will continue to receive a real terms increase at each of the four remaining coalescence steps to SAM, i.e. on each subsequent 1 July up to and including 1 July 1991. Proposed Arrangements from 1 July 1988 From 1 July 1988, it is proposed to phase in national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards. Nursing home residents accommodated from that date will be classified into one of a number of categories based on their relative care needs and a separate national uniform standard number of nursing and personal care hours will be attached to each resident category. The nursing and personal care component of each nursing home's fees will be gradually adjusted from 1 July 1988 to enable nursing homes to meet the cost of employing the new levels of nursing and personal care staff. A Commonwealth/State Working Party on Nursing Home Standards which includes representatives of all State Governments, was established in 1986 to provide advice, inter alia, on the development of national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards. It is expected that the Working Party will provide its advice in February 1988. That advice will be taken into account by the Government in determining the national uniform staffing standards proposed for introduction from 1 July 1988. (2) Arrangements Introduced on 1 July 1987 Prior to the introduction of the new funding arrangements on 1 July 1987, consultations covering a wide range of issues concerning aged care were held at both the State and national level with a wide range of groups and individuals, including representatives of the aged care industry in Tasmania and the Tasmanian Government. Proposed Arrangements from 1 July 1988 Representatives of the Commonwealth/State Working Party on Nursing Home Standards, including a representative of the Tasmanian Government, held consultations on 9 October 1987 in Hobart with a wide range of invited groups and individuals involved with residential aged care concerning the development of national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards. (3) Arrangements Introduced on 1 July 1987 The SAM relates to non-nursing staff and current State legislation does not prescribe non-nursing staff levels in nursing homes. Proposed Arrangements from 1 July 1988 The Working Party on Nursing Home Standards has given consideration to State regulations on staffing levels and classifications concerning nursing and personal care staff. (4) See answer to (1) above in relation to the effect on Tasmanian nursing homes of the funding arrangements introduced on 1 July 1987. Until a decision is reached on the national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards proposed for introduction from 1 July 1988, it is not possible to gauge the potential effect on each of Tasmania's nursing homes. (5) As indicated above, no decision has been reached on the national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards proposed for introduction from 1 July 1988. (6) No. (7) Firstly, as indicated under (1), the new arrangements introduced on 1 July 1987 will provide 91% of the non-Government nursing homes for the aged in Tasmania with increased funding in real terms for infrastructure costs each year of the transition period (i.e. until 1 July 1991). Secondly, because no decision has been reached on the level of the national uniform nursing and personal care staffing standards proposed for introduction from 1 July 1988, there is no basis whatsoever to conclude that nursing homes are under threat of closure as a result of staffing levels likely to be funded in the future. (8) 386 aged 70 and over as at November 1987. (9) Nursing Home Name No. of Approved Beds Mayshaw 16 Tasman District 18 Adaihi 20 Aralee 25 Jessen Lodge 6 Mayfair 16 Sunny Brae 17 Tara 10 Dr R. M. Wester 8 Smithton 22 Bethshalom 18 Florence Nightingale 18 Glenview 25 Grenoch Home for the Aged Inc. 23 Guilford Young Grove 18 Launceston Presbyterian 25 Levenbank 12 Lord Fraser Home for the Aged Blind 27 Mary Olgilvy 23 Medea Park 20 St Josephs 5 Swansea Cottage 8 The Huon Eldercare 24 Tandara Lodge 24 (Question No. 348) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka has committed widespread atrocities against the civilian population. (2) What has Australia done to ensure that the terms of the Sri Lankan-Indian peace accord are adhered to. (3) Does Australia provide aid assistance to Sri Lanka; if so, in what form. (4) Is the Government negotiating with the Sri Lankan Government to allow the International Red Cross to assist and monitor the present conflict. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The India-Sri Lankan Peace Accord is a bilateral agreement between the two signatories and only they can ensure that its terms are adhered to. Australia has, however, supported the Accord from the outset. In the Parliament on 8 October I expressed the Government's support for the Accord and called on the Indian and Sri Lankan Governments to take all necessary steps to ensure the full implementation of the Accord. I reiterated Australia's support for the Accord in a statement on 25 October and urged those concerned for the future of Sri Lanka to work together to give the Accord the chance of success it deserves. (3) Yes. In 1987/88 funds have been allocated for the following at an estimated cost of $3 million. Both developmental and emergency food aid Training awards for study in Australia projects Direct Aid Program administered by the Australian High Commission Grants to NGOs to undertake community projects Women in Development for projects focussing on women Collaborative agricultural research through assistance to ACIAR; and The Overseas Student Subsidy (4) The Government has consistently called for the ICRC to be allowed entry to the areas of Sri Lanka affected by fighting. In my statement of 25 October I again called on all parties to stop the fighting and allow the entry of the ICRC to the affected areas. The ICRC itself is responsible for negotiating its role with the Sri Lankan Government. (Question No. 358) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) How many employees were employed by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) at 30 June in each year since 1983. (2) How many of these employees were (a) engaged in research and development activities and (b) engaged in management, administration and other activities. (3) What staff turnover rates have been incurred for each year since 1983 in (a) research and development staff and (b) other staff categories. (4) What were the total sales of (a) drugs and serums imported by CSL, (b) drugs and serums made under licence by the CSL and (c) drugs and serums made in Australia by CSL for each year since 1983. (5) How many employees of CSL have been sent on overseas trips in each year since 1983 and what was the purpose of each trip. (6) And what was the cost of the 70th anniversary celebrations of CSL and on what items was it incurred. (7) What property does the CSL hold that is in excess of its requirements and when and was any such property last in use by the CSL. (8) What products have been recalled by CSL in each year since 1983 and why were they recalled. (9) For each year since 1983, (a) what instances of stock exhaustion of major items have occurred, (b) in each case, why has this occurred and (c) what steps have been taken to avoid repetition of such instances. (10) What Director's fees are paid to CSL officers for serving on the Board of CSL-NOVO and are these fees paid in addition to their salaries for CSL duties. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 30.6.83 30.6.84 30.6.85 30.6.86 30.6.87 958 1018 1061 1194 1033 (2) (a) (b) 30.6.83 30.6.84 30.6.85 30.6.86 30.6.87 122 134 146 166 138 836 884 915 1028 895 (3) (a) (b) 30.6.83 30.6.84 30.6.85 30.6.86 30.6.87 22.1% 22.4% 18.5% 12.7% 18.4% 27.0% 23.0% 29.6% 31.8% 22.8% (4) Total Revenue from sales 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 $48.724 million $54.720 million $61.628 million $73.304 million $88.400 million The value of CSL sales of drugs and serums imported, made under licence, and made in Australia, is considered to be confidential commercial information. (5) A detailed list of the purpose of all overseas trips since 1983 could expose confidential commercial information. 54 CSL employees have been sent on overseas trips since January 1983. The travel has been for one or more of the following purposes: The safety of CSL's range of vital blood products with the emergence of AIDS; The formation of CSL/Nova; Scientific collaboration and commercial/licensing aspects of molecular immunology research; The Australian Malaria Project; The promotion of export trade; Enhancement of expertise through attendance at scientific meetings and collaborative laboratory visits; Business negotiations on agency products and technology exchange; Negotiations with major suppliers; and Involvement in international aid projects. (6) The activities funded by commercial activities, and specifically undertaken in addition to normal operating activities celebrating the 70th anniversary were: The commissioning of the CSL Art Exhibition made up of six large canvasses and seven pastel sketches by Ian Senbergs, and thirty photographs by Dr. Mark Johnson-$70 000. The sponsoring of a display entitled ``The Apothecary's Shelf'' in the National Gallery of Victoria-$20 000. A dinner of appreciation for the dedicated staff of CSL-$19 480. A permanent Museum at Parkville-$48 500. The publication of the booklet ``The Fight Against Disease'' which in addition to being circulated to all State and Federal Parliamentarians was distributed to all secondary schools in Australia-$76 000. The sponsoring of a symposium conducted by the International Association of Biological Standardization on the topic ``Standardization in Blood Fractionation including Coagulation Factors'' held in Melbourne 7-9 May 1986-$16 552. The compilation of ``The History of CSL''-editor-ial fees-$10 000. (7) CSL's former South Australian Branch premises which have been leased to a commercial tenant since 1986. (8) 11 March 1983-a batch of carbenicillin injection was withdrawn because of marginal potency of imported raw materials. 24 March 1983-a batch of amoxycillin injection was withdrawn because of marginal potency of imported raw materials. 1984/85-9 related recalls when a series of batches of blood products were withdrawn for reprocessing because of the emergence of the AIDS virus. 29 May 1985-human pituitary growth hormone and human pituitary gondadotrophin were withdrawn when the Human Pituitary Advisory Committee decided to suspend the clinical use of the preparation because of concern about the possible transmission of Creutzfeld-Jacob disease. July 1986-a batch of staphylococcus toxoid (diluted) was recalled because of a labelling inconsistency. (9) (a) None. There have, however, been occasions when particular pack presentations were in short supply due to the CSL policy of commercially prudent management of inventory. (b) Not applicable. (c) Not applicable. (10) An additional $1034 is paid each year to each Director to meet the personal expenses involved. (Question No. 359) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) When will the Medicare agency arrangements with private health insurance funds cease. (2) Will new Medicare offices be opened in areas where private health funds are currently operating as Medicare agencies; if so (a) how many, (b) will these offices provide the same level of service to those persons who currently have their Medicare claims processed through their private health insurance fund, (c) what will be the cost of establishing these offices, (d) in which locations will they be opened and (e) on what criteria were these locations decided. (3) Have claims processed through Medicare agencies been wrongly paid; if so, how many. (4) Have Medicare claims processed through Medicare offices been wrongly paid; if so, how many. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 31 March 1988. (2) Yes, but not necessarily duplicating the locations from which the agent funds now operate. (a) To be finalised. (b) Service will be improved as all Medicare offices are on-line and not restricted in the transactions they may perform. Trained staff will also be available to provide expert advice. (c) New offices will be funded from within the Health Insurance Commission's current operating budget. No new funds will be sought. (d) Exact locations to be finalised. (e) Demographic factors and claiming patterns are the main criteria for determining Medicare office locations. (3) &(4) Separate statistics on overpayments by agents and Medicare offices are not kept. However, as agents' claims are not assessed by them against patient claims history, there is a greater risk that payments will be incorrectly made than if they were processed on-line. Quality control checks are conducted by the Commission on a sample of all claims processed. For the month of November, the error rate was 0.5% for direct bill claims and 1.99% for patient claims. Only 0.17% patient claim errors were incorrect payments. (Question No. 360) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 October 1987: (1) What was the contract price of constructing four new Defence houses in Gymkhana Road, Duntroon, ACT in 1987? (2) What is the contract price of the eight Defence houses in Gymkhana Road, Duntroon ACT that are presently being constructed? (3) What is the (a) number of rooms in, and (b) total floor area of each of the houses referred to in parts (1) and (2)? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Four new Defence homes were constructed in Gymkhana Road, Duntroon, ACT in 1986 at a cost of $285,172. Ancillary costs amounting to a further $120,730 brought the contract price to $405,902. These ancillary costs covered the following items: Floor coverings. Out buildings-Service Scales and Standards entitlements: carport, storage shed, car tracks, paths, outdoor recreation area, clothes hoist, letter box, house numeral; Perimeter fencing, gates and screen fencing. Landscaping. Servicing costs outside block, including extensive mains work for a street development to suit future houses. (2) There are 10 houses currently being constructed in Gymkhana Road, Duntroon, ACT at a cost of $573,020. Ancillary costs amounting to a further $217,440 brought the contract price to $790,460. These ancillary costs covered the following items: Floor coverings. Out buildings-Service Scales and Standards entitlements: carport, storage shed, car tracks, paths, outdoor recreation area, clothes hoist, letter box, house numeral; Perimeter fencing, gates and screen fencing. Landscaping. Servicing costs outside block. (3) All four 1986 houses have three bedrooms. Two of the houses are classified P3 Group with area of 125m2. The other two houses are classified P4 Group with areas of 136m2, including provision of en suites consistent with the parameters for this Group. Each house has a carport and store area of 28m2. The ten houses presently under construction are also three bedroom P3 Group dwellings and each has an area of 125m2. An additional area of 28m2 for each house is provided for carport and store. (Question No. 363) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: (1) Was Australia administrator of Nauru on behalf of the British Phosphate Commissioners. (2) Has Australia been a major beneficiary of the 80 years of phosphate mining in Nauru. (3) Has that mining removed most of the soil on Nauru, leaving the island so devoid of arable land that it cannot feed its population when phosphate mining ceases. (4) Has the Government of Nauru set up an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate who should be responsible for the damage and what steps should be taken to restore the environment. (5) Has the Government been invited to make a submission to the inquiry. (6) Will the Government make a submission; if not, why not. (7) What does the Government intend to do to assist Nauru to restore its soil to arable condition. (8) What discussions has the Government had with the NZ or British Governments concerning contributions by all 3 countries in view of their joint exploitation of the island's major resource. (9) When will the Government act with regard to Nauru in a manner consistent with what it asks of Australian mining companies in restoring the Australian environment and in the spirit of its attempts to procure compensation from the British Government for the restoration of Maralinga. (10) Has his attention been drawn to reports which suggest that the Soviet Union might offer funds to Nauru for the rehabilitation of the island in return for the use of the deep water anchorages off Nauru. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Australia administered Nauru on behalf of the United Nations Trusteeship Partner Governments, namely, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which together constituted the Administering Authority. (2) Yes. (3) The phosphate mining has taken place on land that was not previously cultivated. The arable coastal strip has not been affected by phosphate mining. (4) The Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government of the Republic of Nauru relates only to the areas mined prior to Independence, approximately one third the total mined area. Its terms of reference are to determine the Government or organisation who should accept responsibility for rehabilitation of the areas of phosphate land worked out in the periods covered by the German Administration, League of Nations Mandate, Japanese Occupation and the United Nations Trust, and the cost and feasibility of any projected rehabilitation. The Commission subsequently decided that it would also examine the extent of Australian compliance with the obligations of the League of Nations Mandate and United Nations Trusteeship in the administration of Nauru. (5) Yes. (6) The Australian Government has no present intention of making a submission to the Nauru Inquiry, which has no legal standing in Australia. In common with the other Partner Governments, it regards the comprehensive phosphate agreement concluded in 1967 prior to Nauruan independence on 31 January 1968 as a just settlement that cleared the Partner Governments of the former British Phosphate Commissioners of any responsibility for the rehabilitation of Nauru. This view has been conveyed to the Government of the Republic of Nauru, together with advice that the Australian Government will not be bound by the findings of the Nauru Inquiry. (7) &(8) When the United Nations Trusteeship was terminated, Nauru had a secure economic future and enjoyed one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. The Partner Governments noted in the Trusteeship Council debates that they had made sufficient provision in the financial arrangements that had been agreed on to enable the Nauruans to determine their own economic priorities, including the question of rehabilitation, and that such decisions were ones that should properly be taken by the Nauruans themselves and not anybody else. The Government intends to abide by this decision of a previous Australian Government. (9) Australia is not in a position to impose on the sovereign independent Republic of Nauru any conditions relating to mining. That Nauru has chosen not to restore the lands it has mined since independence is not a matter that the Australian Government would wish to comment upon. Australia's dealings with the British Government relative to Maralinga are distinguishable from and unrelated to the phosphate mining industry on Nauru. As the Administering authority during the period of its trusteeship Australia ensured that the BPC conducted mining operations in accordance with the best of then current mining standards. (10) I have seen reports that the Soviet Union may make a submission to Nauru's Commission of Inquiry in response to the Commission's widely advertised invitation. I have no knowledge of any offer of funds by the Soviet Union (indeed, I understand the Soviet Union's submission to concern a commercial rehabilitation proposal for which the Soviet Union would be paid) nor of any request for the use of a deep water anchorage off Nauru. (Question No. 367) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 3 November 1987: (1) How many staff of his Department or its predecessors have been based in Tasmania in each year since 1977, and (a) in which departmental divisions in Tasmania have they been based and (b) at what staff classifications have they been employed. (2) Where does his Department maintain offices in Tasmania and what is the role of each office or group of offices. (3) What departmental services to Tasmania are provided from outside Tasmania. (4) Does his Department have any plans to relocate any of the services currently provided (a) in Tasmania to be supplied from outside Tasmania and (b) from outside Tasmania to be supplied from within Tasmania. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The staff employed in the Department and its predecessors since 1977, by departmental division is included below. Year Department of Social Security Department of Health Department of Housing and Construction Department of Community Services Department of Community Services and Health Total 77/78 ... (a) (a) 5 5 (a) 78/79 ... (a) 128 5 133 (a) 79... (a) 123 5 128 (a) 80 etc... (a) 128 5 133 (a) 81... (a) 129 8 137 (a) 82... (a) 129 8(b) 137 (a) 83... (a) 143 8 151 (a) 84... (a) 135 22 157 (a) 85... (c) 108 15 85 (d) 208 86... 73 12 89 174 87... 162.5 (e) 162.5 Notes: (a) Figures not available (b) Function transferred to Department of Social Security and later returned to Department of Housing and Construction (c) Function transferred to Department of Community Services in 1985/86 (d) Department of Community Services created (e) Department of Community Services and Health created. (1) (b) The distribution of staff by classification is only available for this year. Year 1987/88 Classification Number of staff Clerical Administrative Class 11... 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9... 5 Clerical Administrative Class 8... 1 Clerical Administrative Class 7... 13 Clerical Administrative Class 6... 18 Clerical Administrative Class 5... 21.5 Clerical Administrative Class 4... 11 Clerical Administrative Class 2/3... 5 Medical Officer 2... 1 Medical Officer 1... 4 Nursing Officer 2... 4.7 Science (Occupational Therapist) 2... 3 Science (Pharmacist) 2... 2 Counsellor 2... 3 Counsellor 1... 4.5 Social Worker Class 2... 4.5 Audiologist Class 3... 1 Audiologist Class 2... 1 Audiologist Class 1... 4 Technical Officer (Engineering) Grade 1... 2 Technical Assistant 2... 2 Clerical Assistant Grade 7... 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 6... 4 Clerical Assistant Grade 5... 5 Clerical Assistant Grade 4... 11 Clerical Assistant Grade 3... 20.3 Clerical Assistant Grade 2... 2 Clerical Assistant Grade 1... 1 Word Processing Supervisor Grade 1... 1 Word Processing Typist Grade 2... 2 Word Processing Typist Grade 1... 3 162.5 (2) The Department maintains offices in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie as follows: Hobart State Headquarters Australian Government Centre 188 Collins Street Hobart Kirksway House 2 Kirksway Place Battery Point Hobart Southern Regional Office 192 Macquarie Street Hobart National Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Centre 121 Hampden Road Battery Point Hobart Launceston Northern Regional Office 288 Invermay Road Launceston National Acoustic Laboratory Hearing Centre 93 York Street Launceston Burnie North-Western Regional Office 49 Cattely Street Burnie National Acoustic Laboratory Visiting Office 14 Alexander Street Burnie (3) None (4) (a) Implementation of new streamlined procedures in Pharmpay involving the use of direct transmission of claims for pharmaceutical benefits from pharmacists' own computer systems has had a significant impact on workload in all Pharmpay centres including Tasmania. The Department is reviewing its strategy for future processing in light of this. No decision has yet been made in relation to the future of the Hobart centre. (b) No (Question No. 375) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 1987: (1) What is the total value of cash payments made to distressed Australians overseas since 1983/84 and how many persons were assisted. (2) Which were the 5 countries in which the largest payments were made. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total cash payments made to distressed Australians overseas since 1983/84 were as follows 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 $44,047 $56,728 $66,787 $80,573 Current financial procedures do not record the number of persons who are assisted. (2) The 5 countries in which the largest payments were made were: 1983/84 Not available 1984/85 Philippines $12,035 Greece $6,561 Singapore $2,245 U.K. $7,116 Italy $3,013 1985/86 U.K. $11,780 Greece $5,229 Thailand $2,472 Philippines $5,446 Italy $4,311 1986/87 Greece $9,407 Italy $7,374 Thailand $4,415 U.K. $8,230 Philippines $5,980 (Question No. 376) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 1987: (1) On how many occasions since 1980 (a) has the accredited Australian Ambassador to Bhutan and (b) have officers or staff of the Australian High Commission at New Delhi, visited Bhutan. (2) What is the extent of Australian overseas aid to Bhutan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) There is no Australian Ambassador accredited to Bhutan. The High Commission in New Delhi has reporting and representational responsibility for Bhutan. The High Commissioner in New Delhi, then H.E. Mr G. N. Upton, visited Bhutan in April 1981. (b) Since 1980, officers or staff of the Australian High Commission at New Delhi have visited Bhutan on sixteen occasions (not including the visit of the High Commissioner). (2) Australia has had a modest aid program to Bhutan since the mid-sixties, concentrating in latter years on agriculture and livestock development. Assistance has also been provided through projects and manpower training. Recent budgetary constraints have reduced the program to assistance in training, with estimated expenditure in 1987/88 of $24,000, covering one training award. (Question No. 384) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) Have any organisations with a religious basis, other than mainstream church organisations, ever applied for federal Government funding to enable them to (a) open or (b) run a school. (2) Have any organisations with a religious basis, other than mainstream church organisations, been granted any federal funding to help run a school; if so, what was the total of the grants. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Prior to 1983, all non-government schools were given an automatic entitlement to Commonwealth recurrent funding, subject to those schools receiving registration or other approval from the appropriate State authorities, and establishing their non-profit-making status. This entitlement was applied regardless of the financial viability of some new non-government schools or their possible impact on existing schools. In order to promote the economic use of resources and the balanced development of schools, from 1983 the Government adopted new criteria for schools applying for Commonwealth assistance to ensure that schools seeking funding had reasonable prospects of financial viability and would not have a significant impact on existing government and non-government schools. In 1985, following the recommendations of the Report, Planning and Funding for Non-Government Schools and extensive consultation with government and non-government school authorities, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 was amended to reflect further policy development in this area in respect of schools commencing on or after March 1986. For the honourable member's information, since the amendment of the above Act, the following new schools have sought and have received approval for Commonwealth general recurrent funding: Anglican 8 Baptist 1 Catholic 52 Greek Orthodox 1 Lutheran 5 Moslem 1 Other Christian (eg. Christian Community, Pentecostal) 17 Other Religion 1 Presbyterian 2 Seventh Day Adventist 2 Uniting Church 1 Non-Denominational 7 No Religious Affiliation 19 The following new schools have applied for Commonwealth general recurrent assistance as part of the 1989 round of funding applications: Anglican 2 Baptist 1 Catholic 13 Greek Orthodox 1 Lutheran 2 Moslem 1 Other Christian (eg. Christian Community, Pentecostal) 16 Other Religion 1 Presbyterian 1 Salvation Army 1 Uniting Church 1 Non-Denominational 4 No Religious Affiliation 11 (2) The table below categorizes by religious affiliation those schools reported in the 1987 Schools Census that are receiving Commonwealth general recurrent grants. The category `Other Religion' includes schools affiliated with the following specific religions, as well as those of unspecified religious affiliation: Ananda Marga Bretheren Christian Community Churches of Christ Hare Krishna Moslem Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Other Pentecostal Society of Friends A State by State breakup of the major religious affiliations in 1986 is given in Table 1 of the Schools Statistical Bulletin No. 3 published by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. A copy of this document and of the recently published `Schooling in Australia: Statistical Profile No. 1' have been provided to the honourable member. NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS RECORDED IN THE 1987 SCHOOLS CENSUS AND RECEIVING COMMONWEALTH GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS Religious Affiliation Number of Schools General Recurrent Grants $ Anglican 112 47,376,453 Baptist 25 5,155,709 Catholic 1,716 661,304,162 Jewish 16 4,972,371 Lutheran 67 13,434,778 Presbyterian 12 3,760,743 Seventh Day Adventist 77 6,090,092 Uniting 43 23,978,607 Inter- and Non- Denominational 148 37,641,593 Other Religion 84 12,214,891 No Religious Affiliation 164 9,421,905 TOTAL 2,464 825,351,304 (Question No. 392) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 12 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $18,750. (2) One poll only. Objective: to ascertain Australian public attitudes towards foreign aid. (3) Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University (The National Social Science Survey). (4) Not yet. They will be publicly available early in the New Year-probably the end of January. (Question No. 414) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) Did he, his staff or his Department conduct research into the child care situation in the Division of Richmond prior to the Discussion of Matter of Public Importance on 3 November 1987. (2) When was the decision made to conduct this research. (3) Who conducted it. (4) How long did it take to conduct. (5) What sum did the research cost. (6) Why was the research conducted. (7) Was it conducted in other federal Divisions at the same time; if so, which Divisions. (8) If similar research was not undertaken in respect of other Divisions, why not. (9) It is usual to conduct research in respect of a particular electoral division for use in a general debate in Parliament; if so, (a) when has it occurred previously, (b) by whom was it used and (c) what sum did it cost. (10) If it is not usual to do so, why was it done in this instance. (11) Was all the information gathered by the research on child care in the Division of Richmond used by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; if not (a) is he able to say why not and (b) what other information was gathered. (12) Is he able to say whether the information used by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the debate on 3 November 1987 was correct. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Over the last year, there has been increasing debate over the relative efficiency of child care provided by the commercial and the not-for-profit sectors. During this period, the Department has been seeking to gather as much information as possible from the commercial sector in order to be able to make accurate comparisons of cost structures. Information has been sought from State licensing authorities and the Department has met with the commercial child care associations who have undertaken to provide further information. This particular question about Richmond was prompted by the honourable member's public statements about the commercial child care sector. It was thought that he may have been basing his claims about the efficiency of the commercial sector on the practice of these centres within his own electorate. (3) The enquiries were made by the Department. (4) Information was requested from licensing authorities in all States. The project is therefore ongoing and proceeds as information becomes available. Particular information was sought about the electorate of Richmond. (5) There was no additional cost to the Department. (6) The information was collected to allow identification of the different characteristics of commercial and not-for-profit child care between and within States. (7) &(8) See (2). (9) &(10) The research was not conducted for use in a Parliamentary debate. (11) All available information was used. (12) To the best of my knowledge, all the information was correct. (Question No. 422) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports that 91 Malaysians have been detained under that country's Internal Security Act. (2) Is he able to advise the names of persons detained and the place of detention. (3) What action has the Government taken in an attempt to secure the release of these political prisoners. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that since 27 October, 1987, 106 persons have been arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act in Malaysia, and several newspapers have been closed. Those arrested are from all communal groups and include members of the main political parties as well as members of environmental and consumer organisations. 55 of the detainees have subsequently been released, most recently 3 on 26 December. (2) The Malaysian authorities have not yet released a complete list of all of those detained. The following is the most comprehensive list available. As this has been a security operation, authorities are not notifying places of detention other than to next of kin. UMNO: 1. Tajuddin Abdul Rahman. (Released 12/12/87) 2. Ibrahim Ali. (Released 12/12/87) 3. Fahmi Ibrahim. (Released 12/12/87) DAP: 4. Lim Guan Eng 5. Kerk Kim Hock. (Released 26/12/87) 6. Lim Kit Siang* 7. Karpal Singh* 8. Hu Sepang. (Released 12/12/87) 9. V. David 10. P. Patto 11. Wee Choo Keong. (Released 26/12/87) 12. Yau Siok Hwa. (Released 12/12/87) 13. Sim Teng Him. (Released 12/12/87) 14. Song Sang Kwee @ S. K. Song. (Released 12/12/87) 15. Tan Seng Giaw 16. Ngoi Thian Woh. (Released 20/11/87) 17. Lau Dak Kee 18. Eng Seng Chai. (Released 12/12/87) MCA. 19. Tan Choi Ho. (Released 12/12/87) 20. Chan Kit Chee. (Released 20/11/87) 21. Eng Thian Lai. (Released 12/12/87) 22. Yap Pian Hon. (Released 12/12/87) 23. Lee Chan Fei @ Soon Heng. (Released 12/12/87) 24. Tang See Hang 25. Chan Tse Yuen. (Released 12/12/87) 26. Kan Tong Fong. (Released 12/12/87) GERAKAN: 27. Liew Chong Beng. (Released 30/11/87) 28. Hiew Yew Lan @ Khiew Yau Kaw 29. Ong Tin Kim. Rel. 12/12 30. Cheng Poh You @ Pou Cheong Lou PAS: 31. Bunyamin Yaakob 32. Halim Arshat. (Released 18/12/87) 33. Mohamad Sabu 34. Khalid Abdul Samod 35. Haji Suhaimi Said @ Sulaiman Bin Said 36. Latiff Mohammad. (Released 18/12/87) 37. Mohd Ariff Yaakob. (Released 18/12/87) 38. Haji Ghulam Hassan @ Haji Muda Mahfuz Omar. (Released 20/11/87) 39. Haji Hussin (Hussein) Markon. (Released 18/12/87) PSRM: 40. Arokiadass CHINESE EDUCATIONISTS: 41. Lim Fong Seng 42. Tuang Pik King 43. Sim Mou Yu @ Sim Bo Yu @ Hun Loke RELIGIOUS GROUPS: 44. James Lai Chee Seng. (Released 18/12/87) 45. Brother Anthony Roger s/o Balavandram @ Balavan dram Anthony Roger 46. Theresa Lim Chin Chin 47. Sebil John 48. Patricia Lourdes Irene SOCIAL GROUPS: 49. Tan Ka Kheng @ K. K. Tan 50. Miss Chee Heng Leng 51. Dr Chandra Muzaffar. (Released 18/12/87) 52. Miss Meenakshi Raman. (Released 12/12/87) 53. Dr Kua Kia Soong 54. Mohd Nasir b. Hashim 55. Mohd Yunus b. Lebai Ali INDIVIDUALS: 56. Lai Shew Yet. (Released 12/12/87) 57. Low Tin Hock. (Released 30/11/87) 58. Wong Heng Wee 59. Low Foh Lai. (Released 20/11/87) 60. Dr Poh Boon Seng 61. Lai Thean Loy. (Released 20/11/87) 62. Tan Bee Hwa 63. Mohd Yusoff Karim 64. Pang Chau Nam. (Released 12/12/87) 65. Yang Khar Ming 66. Thean Kooi. (Released 30/11/87) 67. Loong Ming 68. Lee Koon Ban 69. Chew Wa Boo 70. Sivamoorthy s/o Solai. (Released 18/12/87) 71. Chang Tow Wah. (Released 30/11/87) 72. Hilmy Mohd Nor 73. Jamaluddin Othman 74. Nelson Koh Swee Eang. (Released 30/11/87) 75. Phang Kwai Yew. (Released 30/11/87) 76. Tang See Hang. (Released 30/11/87) 77. Zulkifli Abdul Kadir. (Released 30/11/87) 78. Abang Anak Untang Sarawak. (Released 28/11/87) 79. Mali Bin Seman Sarawak 80. Ahmad Sebi Bin Abu Bakar. (Released 20/11/87) 81. Mohd Ali Hanafiah Ismali. (Released 20/11/87) 82. Tan Ref Hwa. (Released 20/11/87) 83. Wong Weng. (Released 20/11/87) 84. Wong Ah Wan. (Released 20/11/87) 85. Chin Poh Yaw. (Released 20/11/87) 86. Cecelia Ng Choon Sim 87. Khoo Eng Tat 88. Wong Yong 89. Mohd Nawawi Haji Yusof. (Released 12/12/87) 90. Tan Jok Chieu @ Chen Yee Choo @ Chiu Shing. (Released 12/12/87) 91. Lee Ya Man. (Released 12/12/87) 92. Kan Tong Fong 93. Abdul Latif Ibrahim. (Released 25/11/87) 94. Paul Joseph Lejo. (Released 25/11/87) 95. Harrison Ngau 96. Ooi Teck Chye 97. Tan Ah Tak @ Chan Tuck Mun. (Released 26/12/87) 98. Hassan Yaccob 99. Hiu Sun Tai @ Hew Yoon Tat @ You Wan Tak 100. Mok Kwai 101. Lau Ah Kau @ Lau Shee Wing 102. Leow Teong Beng 103. Ghee Geok Kee. (Released 18/12/87) * Opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) Leader Lim Kit Siang and DAP M.P., Karpal Singh, are among the 33 who have had ISA detention orders issued against them for a period of up to 2 years. Lim and Singh are being held in Kamunting Detention Centre in the State of Perak. The names and places of detention of the other 31 have not been released. (3) On 30 October, I directed our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur to make representations to the Malaysian Government conveying the Australian Government's regret at the arbitrary detention of politicians and community leaders under the Internal Security Act. Senator Evans and I have both expressed our regret in parliament at the detention of parliamentarians and community leaders through the arbitrary powers of the Internal Security Act and I will continue to urge their early release. (Question No. 423) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports that the death penalty may be reintroduced in the Philippines after having been abolished in the new constitution which came into force on 11 February 1987. (2) Will the Government express its concern about this development with the Government of the Philippines. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A bill proposing the reintroduction of the death penalty for ``heinous crimes'' was introduced in October to the House of Representatives of the Philippines by Independent member Hermogenes Concepcion Jr. The bill defines ``heinous crimes'' as including treason, rebellion, insurrection, piracy, parricide, murder, kidnapping and robbery with murder. The Bill is currently being considered by a Congressional committee. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (Article III, Section 19 (1)) stipulates that the death penalty shall not be imposed, but reserves for the Congress the power to reintroduce the death penalty for ``compelling reasons involving heinous crimes''. (2) It would not be appropriate to make representations to the Philippine Government about a Private Members Bill which is still under consideration by a Congressional Committee. However, the Australian Government's opposition to capital punishment is well known. (Question No. 425) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) What percentage of drug deaths in Australia are related to tobacco. (2) What percentage of expenditure in the education programs of the Drug Offensive will be apportioned to warn of the health dangers of smoking. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department's publication `Statistics on Drug Abuse in Australia-1987' indicates that, in 1985, the last year in which data is available, 81 per cent of drug deaths were due to tobacco. (2) In 1987/88, the Commonwealth will provide $25.8m under the National Drug Programs for education, treatment, rehabilitation and research projects which aim to reduce the harmful effects of drug abuse. The projects use a range of strategies, including the promotion of healthy lifestyles and attitudes which will reduce the temptation to abuse all drugs, including tobacco. Nearly half of the Commonwealth funding is allocated to educational projects which benefit the community as a whole, and at least $2.2m is targeted specifically at young people where smoking is a major issue. In addition, under the umbrella of the Drug Offensive, all States and Territories have agreed to make available their anti-smoking advertisements and these are regularly used in community service time by the media. (Question No. 437) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: How many (a) Australian diplomatic and (b) official passports are currently on issue. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 2,403, (b) 10,258 (Question No. 438) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: What international treaties and conventions have been signed by Australia since 1 January 1986. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia has since 1 January 1986 signed fifty treaties. However many treaties require an additional step to signature, or an action such as accession, before Australia becomes bound by them. The following is a list of all action that Australia has taken in relation to treaties since 1 January 1986: BILATERAL TREATIES Date and place of signature Description Entry into force Notes and reference to printed text Austria 30 August 1985, Vienna Protocol amending the Treaty between Australia and Austria concerning Extradition done at Canberra on 29 March 1973 1 February 1987 The Protocol entered into force when notes were exchanged on 18 November 1986 pursuant to Article 6. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 6 8 July 1986, Vienna Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to taxes on Income The Agreement will enter into force upon an exchange of notes Belgium 20 March 1984, Canberra Protocol amending the Agreement between Australia and the Kingdom of Belgium for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes of Income 20 September 1986 The Protocol entered into force when notes were exchanged on March 1985 and 5 September 1986 pursuant to Article V. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 25 4 September 1985, Brussels Treaty on Extradition 19 November 1986 The Treaty entered into force when notes were exchanged on 20 October 1986 pursuant to Article 16. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 24 Britain 28 February 1986, Canberra Exchange of Letters constituting and Agreement to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to provide for the Establishment and Operation in Australia of a Large Optical Telescope, 1969 28 February 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 4 21 March 1986, London Agreement on Health Services 1 July 1986 The Agreement entered into force on 1 July 1986 pursuant to Article 5. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 13 29-31 December 1986, London Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1958, as amended 9 February 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 5 Germany-Federal Republic 14 April 1987, Bonn Treaty concerning Extradition The Treaty will enter into force upon an exchange of Notes 20 August 1987, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement on the Launching of Sounding Rockets 20 August 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 12 Greece 13 April 1987, Athens Treaty on Extradition The Treaty will enter into force upon an exchange of Notes India 26 February 1975, New Delhi Agreement on Co-operation in the Fields of Science and Technology 26 February 1975 Aust. T.S. 1975 No. 10 U.N.T.S. 975. p. 147. Terminated 15 October 1986 pursuant to Article X(1) of the Agreement of 15 October 1975 (see below) 15 October 1986, Canberra Agreement on Co-operation in the Field of Science and Technology 15 October 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 16 Indonesia 3 June-16 August 1986, Jakarta Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement between Australia and Indonesia for Air Services between and beyond their respective Territories, 1969 16 August 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 23 Italy 9 January 1986, Rome Reciprocal Agreement in the Matter of Health Assistance The Agreement will enter into force upon an exchange of instruments of ratification 23 April 1986, Rome Agreement providing for reciprocity in matters relating to Social Security The Agreement will enter into force upon an exchange of instruments of ratification Japan 21 March 1986, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan relating to Air Services 21 March 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 7 30 October 1986, Canberra Subsidiary Agreement concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing 1 November 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 28 30 September 1987, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement between Australia and Japan relating to Air Services, 1956, as amended 30 September 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 17 29 October 1987, Canberra Subsidiary Agreement concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing 1 November 1987 The Subsidiary Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1987 pursuant to Article IX Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 20 Korea-Republic of 26 February- 20 August 1986, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to amend the subsidiary Agreement concerning Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea 21 January 1986 The Agreement entered into force in accordance with the provisions of the Notes. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 17 16 December 1986, Canberra Subsidiary Agreement concerning Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea 1 October 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 30 Luxembourg 23 April 1987, Luxembourg Treaty on Extradition The Treaty will enter force upon an exchange of notes Netherlands 30 June 1986, Canberra Second Protocol Amending the Agreement between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income with Protocol 1 May 1987 The Protocol entered into force when Notes were exchanged on 8 December 1986 and 31 March 1987 pursuant to Article 3. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 22 New Zealand 2 April 1986, Rotorua Agreement on Medical Treatment 1 July 1986 The Agreement entered into force when Notes were exchanged on 27 June 1986 pursuant to Article 6(1). Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 15 5 October 1986, Melbourne Agreement providing for Reciprocity in Matters Relating to Social Security 1 October 1987 The Agreement entered into force when Notes were exchanged on 29 September 1987 pursuant to Article 24. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 18 Norway 9 September 1985, Oslo Treaty concerning Extradition 2 March 1987 The Treaty entered into force upon an exchange of notes on 2 December 1986 pursuant to Article 24. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 3 Portugal 21 April 1987, Lisbon Treaty on Extradition The Treaty will enter into force upon an exchange of notes South Africa 2 April 1970, Pretoria Agreement relating to Air Services 2 April 1970 Aust. T.S. 1970 No. 6 Australian notice of termination was given on 31 October 1986. In accordance with Article 12 the Agreement will terminate twelve months thereafter Spain 22 April 1987, Madrid Treaty on Extradition The Treaty will enter into force upon ratification Switzerland 28 January 1986, Bern Agreement concerning the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy The Agreement will enter into force upon an exchange of notes Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 20 November 1986, Canberra Agreement on Co-operation in Agriculture 20 November 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 27 United States of America 5 January 1987, Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning the conduct of Equatorial Mesoscale Experiment (EMEX) 5 January 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 7 5 January 1987, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement concerning the conduct of the Stratosphere-Troposphere Exchange Project (STEP) 5 January 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 7 2-3 April 1987, Port Moresby Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement on Access to the Australian Fishing Zone 3 April 1987 Text of the Notes will be published when the Agreement on Fisheries between certain Pacific Island States and United States enters into force 1 September 1987, Canberra Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement on the Launching of Sounding Rockets 1 September 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 13 8 October- 12 November 1987, Washington Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement relating to the Limitation of Australian export of Meat to the United States 12 November 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 21 MULTILATERAL TREATIES Date and place of signature Description Entry into force Notes and reference to printed text 17 June 1925, Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 8 February 1928 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 22 January 1930. On 25 November 1986 Australia withdrew reservations made on accession 21 November 1947, New York Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 9 May 1986. Aust. T.S. 1962 No. 13 U.K.T.S. No. 69 of 1959; Cmnd. 855; U.N.T.S. 33 p. 261 12 May 1954, London International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil 26 July 1958 Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia by 29 August 1962. Entered into force for Australia 29 November 1962. Instrument of denunciation deposited by Australia 14 October 1987, with effect from 14 October 1988. Aust. T.S. 1962 No. 7; U.K.T.S. No. 56 of 1958; Cmnd. 595; U.N.T.S. 327 p. 3 1 July 1955, Brussels Convention on the Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs 1950, as amended 11 September 1959 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 18 April 1973. Entry into force for Australia 18 July 1973. On 22 September 1987 Australia gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the Convention with effect from 22 September 1988. Aust. T.S. 1973 No. 18; U.K.T.S. No. 29 of 1960; Cmnd. 1970; U.N.T.S. 347 p. 142 1 July 1959, Vienna Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 9 May 1986. The Agreement entered into force for Australia 9 May 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 10 U.K.T.S. No. 27 of 1962; U.N.T.S. 374 p. 147 5 October 1961, The Hague Convention on the Conflicts of Laws relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions 5 January 1964 Instrument of accession, with declaration, deposited by Australia 22 September 1986. Entry into force for Australia 21 November Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 20 9 April 1965' London Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic 5 March 1967 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 28 April 1986. Entry into force for Australia 27 June 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 12 22 April 1968, London, Moscow and Washington Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space 3 December 1968 Signed for Australia 22 April 1968. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 18 March 1986. Entry into force for Australia 18 March 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 8; U.K.T.S. No. 56 1969; Cmnd. 3997; U.N.T.S. 672 p. 119 1 June 1972, London Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals 11 March 1978 Signed for Australia 5 October 1972. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 1 July 1987. Entry into force for Australia 31 July 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 11; U.K.T.S. No. 45 of 1978; Cmnd. 7209 14 January 1975, New York Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 15 September 1976 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 11 March 1986. Entry into force for Australia 11 March 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 5; U.K.T.S. No. 70 of 1978; Cmnd. 7271; U.N.T.S. 1023 p. 15 23 June 1975, Geneva Convention (No. 142) concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources 19 July 1977 Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 10 September 1985. Entry into force for Australia 9 September 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 2 28 April 1977, Budapest Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure, as amended 19 August 1980 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 7 April 1987. The Treaty entered into force for Australia on 7 July 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 9 9 June 1977, Nairobi Convention concerning Mutual Administrative Assistance for the Prevention, Investigation Offences 22 May 1980 Instrument of accession, including Annexes I and III deposited by Australia 3 November 1986. Entry into force for Australia 3 April 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 4 17 February 1978, London Protocol of 1978 relating to International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as amended 6 October 1983 Signed for Australia to 30 May 1979. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 14 October 1987. Entry into force for Australia 14 January 1988. 26 June 1978 Geneva Convention (No. 150) concerning Labour Administration: Role, Function and Organisation 11 October 1980 Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 10 September 1985. Entry into force for Australia 9 September 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 3 22 June 1979, Bonn Amendment to Article XI (3) (a) of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 1 July 1986. The Amendment is not yet in force. 5 December 1979, New York Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 11 July 1984 Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 7 July 1986. Entry into force for Australia 6 August 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 14 21 December 1979, Paris Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region 19 February 1982 Instrument of accession, with a statement, deposited by Australia 6 August 1986. Entry into force for Australia 6 September 1986. Aust T.S. 1986 No. 19 3 March 1980, Vienna Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 8 February 1987 Signed for Australia 22 February 1984. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 22 September 1987. Entry into force for Australia 23 October 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 16 25 October 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1 December 1983 Signed for Australia and instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 29 October 1986. Entry into force for Australia 1 January 19??. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 2 3 December 1982, Paris Protocol to amend the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat 1 October 1986 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 12 August 1983. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 26 14 June 1983, Brussels International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System 1 January 1988 Signed for Australia 26 June 1984. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 22 September 1987 10 May 1984, Montreal Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation [Article 3 bis] Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 10 September 1986. The Protocol is not yet in force. 25 May 1984, Rarotonga Memorandum of Understanding to confer upon the Committee for Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas status as an Intergovernmental Organ-isation Instrument of accession, with declaration, deposited by Australia 8 September 1986. Entry into force for Australia 8 October 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 22 22 March 1985, Vienna Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 16 September 1987. The Convention is not yet in force. 7 June 1985, Geneva Convention (No. 160) concerning Labour Statistics 9 April 1988 Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 9 April 1987. 6 August 1985, Rarotonga South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty 11 December 1986 Signed for Australia 6 August 1985. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 11 December 1986. Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 32 20 September 1985, London Agreement on CAB International 4 September 1987 Signed for Australia 8 July 1986. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 31 July 1986. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 19 16 October 1985, London Amendments to the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT) Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 30 March 1987. The amendments are not yet in force. 16 October 1985, London 1985 Amendments to the Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT) Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 10 July 1987. The Amendments are not yet in force. 16 October 1985, London International agreement on the Use of Inmarsat Ship Earth Stations within the Territorial Sea and Ports Signed for Australia 2 April 1987. The Agreement is not yet in force. 14 March 1986, London Wheat Trade Convention 1 July 1986 Instrument of accession deposited by Australia 27 June 1986. 12 May 1986, Geneva Amendments to articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia 25 February 1987. The amendments are not yet in force. 24 June 1986, Brussels Protocol of Amendment to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System 1 January 1988 Signed for Australia, without reservation as to ratification, 22 September 1987. 26 September 1986, Vienna Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency Signed for Australia 26 September 1986. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 22 September 1987. Entry into force for Australia 23 October 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 15 26 September 1986, Vienna Convention on Early Notification of Nuclear Accident 27 October 1986 Signed for Australia 26 September 1986. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia 22 September 1987. Entry into force for Australia 23 October 1987. Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 14 9 February 1987, Canberra Agreement to Terminate the Nauru Island Agreement, 1919 9 February 1987 Aust. T.S. 1987 No. 8 8 March 1987, Geneva Final Acts of the 2nd Session of the World Administrative Radio Conference for the Allocation of H.F. Bands Allotted to Broadcasting Signed for Australia 8 March 1987. The Acts are not yet in force. 2 April 1987, Port Morseby Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific States and the Government of the United States of America Signed for Australia 2 April 1987. The Acts are not yet in force. 2 April 1987, Port Moresby Agreement among Pacific Island States concerning the Implementation and Administration of the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America Signed for Australia 2 April 1987. The Agreement is not yet in force 2 April 1987, Port Moresby Agreed Statement on Observer Programme 2 April 1987 Signed for Australia 2 April 1987 16 June 1987, Suva Agreement concerning an International Trust Fund for Tuvalu 16 June 1987 with the exception of Article 5, 7, 12 and 16; Articles 7, 12 and 16 entered into force 11 August 1987. Article 5 is not yet in force Signed for Australia, without reservation as to ratification, 16 June 1987 16 October 1987, Geneva Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference for the Mobile Services Signed for Australia 16 October 1987. The Acts are not yet in force INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 4 March- 8 May 1986, Rome-Canberra Exchange of letters constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) concerning the extension of Australian Participation in the MFO 8 May 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 9 2 June 1986, Washington Agreement between the Government of Australia and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Association for the cofinancing of Development Projects 2 June 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 11 8 September 1986, Hobart Headquarters Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 8 September 1986 Aust. T.S. 1986 No. 21 11 November 1987, Geneva Agreement between the Government of Australia and the World International Property Organisation in relation to the functioning of the Patents Office of the Government of Australia as an International searching and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patents Co-operation Treaty 1 January 1988 The Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1988 pursuant to Article 9 (Question No. 442) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How many political officers now serving in the Australian Embassy in (a) Washington, (b) Jakarta, (c) Tokyo and (d) Beijing have served previously in that post. (2) How many political officers now serving in the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby have served previously in that post. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Two, (b) two, (c) two, (d) two. (2) None. (Question No. 443) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) With which representatives, organisations and individuals are Australian Heads of Mission not allowed to meet. (2) Do similar rules apply also to other diplomatic staff. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I circulated to honourable members and senators in February this year the guidelines I have approved on Official Australian Contacts with Representatives of Foreign States, Political Entities or Organisations Where Special Considerations are involved. The following is the text of those guidelines. Mr Hayden has approved the attached guidelines on official Australian contacts with representatives of foreign states, political entities or organisations where special considerations are involved. The guidelines, which update those issued in early 1986, are being sent by Mr Hayden to all Ministers and Members of Parliament and are being circulated to Government departments and authorities. Mr Hayden also has directed that the guidelines be circulated to the media. 2. It is intended to continue to update the guidelines on a regular basis. Executive Secretariat should be informed of any necessary additions or revisions. CONTACTS WITH TAIWAN Australia recognises no Government authorities in Taiwan. Hence any travel to Taiwan should be the subject of prior approval by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or as delegated by the Minister to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Policy on this matter has been formulated over the years since diplomatic relations were established with the People's Republic of China in 1972. While the policy generally follows the practice of the previous Government, it is in fact based upon principles laid down by the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975. The authorities in Taiwan claim to be nothing less than a Government of China and they agree entirely with Beijing that Taiwan is a province of China. We can only recognise the Government of the People's Republic of China with its seat in Beijing. This has practical implications for Australian Government operations: (a) Visitors from Taiwan are admitted subject to their accepting that they may not claim to represent authorities we do not recognise; it follows that any visitor must come here in a private capacity; departments or authorities expecting visits from Taiwan should consult the Department of Foreign Affairs. (b) Visits to Taiwan by officials travelling overseas on Government business require case-by-case approval by the Department of Foreign Affairs; visits to Taiwan may not include official dealings with the Taiwan authorities; Official or Diplomatic passports may not be used for any visit to Taiwan; Official or private visits by senior officers and Heads of Australian overseas missions are contrary to Government policy. (c) Where Government bodies or officers anticipate any interest in commercial or other transactions with Taiwan they should consult the Department of Foreign Affairs (on commercial matters the Department of Foreign Affairs' normal practice is to consult the Department of Trade). (d) If it is proposed to hold any conference to which persons from Taiwan may be invited, the Department of Foreign Affairs should be consulted. Contacts with Indo-Chinese states and groups Vietnam Australia has maintained normal diplomatic relations with Hanoi since 1973. It maintains an Embassy in Hanoi, as does Vietnam in Canberra. The usual range of contacts may be maintained with Vietnamese officials on both a formal and informal basis, as appropriate. Vietnamese and Lao Anti-Communist Resistance Movements There are a variety of Vietnamese and Lao expatriate groups operating in their countries of residence (France, U.S.A., Australia, Canada and Thailand). Some seek to support or engage in armed attempts to overthrow the current Lao and Vietnamese Governments. While such attempts do not necessarily present a coherent threat, they have a disruptive impact in some areas of Vietnam and Laos. Australia has recognised the current Governments in Vietnam and Laos and enjoys normal relations with them. Contact with groups which have openly espoused the armed overthrow of the Vientiane and Hanoi Governments should be avoided. Any activities by the Vietnamese and Lao expatriate communities in Australia, which go beyond the normal rights and freedoms enjoyed by Australian citizens are a matter of concern and will be subject where appropriate to legal action. Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) The CGDK was formed in 1982 to bring together the three resistance movements opposing the Heng Samrin Government in Phnom Penh. It consists of three groups, one of which, the Democratic Kampuchea Government, was overthown by the Vietnamese invasion in 1979 and whose Khmer Rouge forces now operate from bases on the Thai/Cambodian border. The Australian Government does not recognise any government in Cambodia. The U.N. General Assembly has accepted the credentials of the CGDK which, as ``Democratic Kampuchea'', occupies Cambodia's seat in UN fora and agencies. This arrangement does not in itself imply more general recognition of the CGDK: a number of governments which accept Democratic Kampuchea's credentials in the UN do not recognise it as the government of Cambodia. Australia's position on Democratic Kampuchea's credentials has been to abstain at all meetings where the issue has arisen since Australia withdrew recognition in 1981. It retains control and exercises influence over the Khmer Rouge armed forces now based on the fringes of Cambodian territory along the Thai border. Nominally the Khmer Rouge has replaced Pol Pot with a fresh leadership and abandoned its extremist version of communism, but its record is such that the professed changes are regarded with scepticism. As part of this image change, the Khmer Rouge armed forces prefer to be called the National Army of Democratic Kampuchea (NADK). The strong feeling of abhorrence in the Australian community towards Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the Government's position not to recognise any groupings of which it forms a part, provide the background for contacts with it. As a general rule, contacts in any form or on any occasion should be avoided. This could be difficult at UN gatherings where Khmer Rouge representatives, now also representing the CGDK, may be present, but even informal meetings are to be discouraged. We have not admitted Khmer Rouge members to Australia either as representatives of their own faction or of the CGDK. In the case of UN sponsored Conferences in Australia, we have made clear our difficulties with Khmer Rouge representatives; CGDK representatives at recent conferences in Australia have been KPNLF or FUNCINPEC members. The People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) The PRK Vietnamese-backed regime under the leadership of Heng Samrin was installed in power in Phnom Penh in 1979. While it has achieved some success in expanding its administrative mandate outside Phnom Penh, it is still largely beholden to the Vietnamese for its authority and its survival would be at risk without the continued presence of Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. The PRK is recognised by about 30 states, almost all East European or Soviet-influenced Third World states, together with India. As Australia recognises no Cambodian Government, there should be no formal contact with PRK representatives which might convey acknowledgement of the PRK as the government of Cambodia. There is no objection, however, to informal and social contact with representatives of the PRK, although care should be taken to ensure that such contacts do not attract undue publicity and misinterpretation. There have been two private visits to Australia by PRK officials at the invitation of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. The visitors complied with a requirement that they engage in no activities inconsistent with the private, aid-related purpose of the invitations. Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) The MNLF, formed in 1971, is the major Muslim separatist group in the southern Philippines. It has however split into several factions: the faction led by Nur Misuari, which has retained the name; the `Reformist' MNLF group led by Dimas Pundato; and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), led by Salamat Hashim. The Philippine Government has begun negotiations with the (Misuari) MNLF. Discretion should be exercised in contacts with persons known to be connected with the MNLF. Such contacts need not be shunned if initiated by MNLF adherents; possible implications for Australia's relations with the Philippine authorities should however be considered. CPP/NPA The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and its military arm, the New People's Army (NPA), are illegal in the Philippines. Although these organisations have operated more openly, to some extent, as a result of their involvement in the ceasefire talks in late 1986, contact with them should still be avoided. The National Democratic front (ND), which is the united front arm of the CPP/NPA, remains technically illegal. But as a result of its participation in ceasefire negotiations it has increasingly been able to operate comparatively openly and will be establishing an office in Manila for use during the negotiations. Discreet contact with leading figures involved in the negotiations who are accorded safe conduct passes by the Philippine Government need not be avoided. But in view of the NDF's close links with the CPP/NPA the possible implications for Australia's relations with the Philippine authorities should be considered. If contact takes place, care should be taken to avoid the appearance of treating the NDF as if it is on an equal footing with the Philippines Government, as a ``parallel'' Government, or as having any form of ``belligerent status''. Muslim Separatists in Southern Thailand There are a number of small Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand. Contact with such groups should be avoided. Tamils (Sri Lanka) Contact with various Tamil groups in Sri Lanka may be carried out with some discretion. Known militant groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam clearly associated with acts of terrorism, should however, be treated with appropriate circumspection. Contact should not be initiated by Australian representatives overseas and any contact that may occur should be limited and informal. Contacts should also be reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra. Representations to Ministers and parliamentarians from the Tamil Community in Australia should be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the first instance. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea) Diplomatic relations between Australia and the DPRK were established in 1974, followed by the opening of Embassies in Canberra and Pyongyang. For reasons which have never been fully explained, the DPRK withdrew its Embassy from Canberra in October 1975 and expelled Australia's mission from Pyongyang. We regard our relations with the DPRK as having been ``interrupted'', although we continue to recognise its Government. The Australian Government prefers to avoid any official contact with the DPRK except where necessary for trade. DPRK citizens are generally free to visit Australia for business or cultural purposes, or for attendance at multilateral meetings. Promotion or support of other activities connected with the DPRK remain sensitive and should be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for guidance. No undertakings should be given to DPRK officials. Australian officials are not permitted to visit the DPRK without the Minister's authority. CONTACTS WITH LATIN AMERICAN STATES Chile Australia's relations with the military government are cool but official contact is maintained. Caution should be exercised in situations where contact with persons of ministerial rank or with armed forces personnel could be misinterpreted as implicit support for the junta. Central America Australia maintains normal relations with all governments in the region. Discretion should be exercised with contacts to avoid giving an impression of Australian support for terrorism (e.g. FLMN in El Salvador, the Contras in Nicaragua). Care should also be taken to avoid acceptance of the human rights situation in Guatemala, El Salvador or Nicaragua. Paraguay Australia's relations with the military government are minimal. Official contact is maintained through the accreditation to Paraguay of the Australian Ambassador in Buenos Aires. Paraguay has a very poor record in the human rights area and care should be exercised in official contacts to avoid any impression of support for the regime. Cuba Australia has consular but not diplomatic relations with Cuba. There is a Cuban Consulate-General in Sydney and contact may be maintained at official levels. Care should be taken to avoid any suggestions of implied support for Cuban military activities abroad (e.g. Angola, Nicaragua) or of Cuba's human rights record. South America/Caribbean There are at times cases where human rights practices and the political processes in a number of other Latin American countries are questionable or unacceptable. An example at the moment is Surinam. There are also internal conflicts in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia which give rise to concern at times. Caution should be exercised in contacts so that there is no inference of approval of malpractices. CONTACTS WITH OTHER AFRICAN STATES AND GROUPS The Government maintains correct diplomatic relations with South Africa. There are no contacts or co-operation on intelligence, military or nuclear matters, reflecting the Government's strong opposition to apar- theid. Bilateral relations can be described as ``cool but correct'' and contacts should reflect this situation. South Africa: Black Homelands Australia, along with the rest of the international community, does not recognise the so-called independent ``homelands'' created by the South African Government-Transkei, Ciskei, Venda and Bophuthatswana-on the grounds that to do so would be to condone the apartheid system and accord it unjustified respectability. Contacts with ``representatives'' of ``independent'' homelands should be minimal. Normal contacts with leaders of non-independent homelands is allowable but on the understanding that the homeland system is regarded as an element in the apartheid system and as such is rejected by the Australian Government. Southern African Liberation Movements (ANC, PAC, SWAPO) Normal and informal contacts may be maintained with representatives of black nationalist movements opposed to the South African Government, including SWAPO, the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). There should be no recognition of claims to be the sole representative of the people of Namibia or South Africa or to be legitimately constituted governments-in-exile. Sympathy may be expressed for the objectives of installing a democratic system of government in South Africa which would represent all the people of South Africa and for the abolition of apartheid. While the Australian Government understands the frustrations that lead nationalist movements to adopt extreme measures, it cannot condone violence either as a means of bringing about or resisting political change and this should be reflected in dealings with these groups. Dissident Movements Australia follows the general policy of recognising those Black African governments recognised by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). However, there are dissident movements in many of these countries (Eritrean and Tigrayan secessionist movements, UNITA in Angola, the MNR in Mozambique to mention only a few), whose role in Africa may be significant. Contacts with representatives of such organisations need not be avoided. However, these should be at an informal level and there should be no real or implied recognition of the claims of the various movements. Australian diplomatic missions are instructed strictly to confine their contacts with Soviet officials purporting to represent the interests of the Baltic States to matters of a consular or humanitarian nature. Macedonians The Greek Government has in the past objected to the use in Australian Government publications of the term ``Macedonian''. The state of Macedonia is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Persons who live in Greece, and who speak the Macedonian language, are Greek in nationality. Ministers, parliamentarians and officials are asked to take care to avoid any action which implies recognition of a Macedonian state which includes those Macedonian speakers who are Greek citizens. There has been less pressure from the Greeks on this matter lately but sensitivity remains on the use of the term ``Macedonian'' in Government publications even if it is clear that this refers to a language rather than a nationality. Croatians The Government does not recognise the existence of a separate Croatian state, nor the international standing of any group purporting to represent such a state. No contacts should be made, nor correspondence conducted, which might imply Australian recognition of such an entity. Sinn Fein Sinn Fein is widely regarded as the political wing of the Provisional IRA (PIRA). Sinn Fein spokesmen do not admit this but have consistently supported the activities of the PIRA. In the Republic of Ireland, Sinn Fein has an extensive and legitimate political organisation. However, under an order endorsed by successive Irish Governments, Sinn Fein is prevented from having access to Irish radio and television stations because, inter alia, of the Government's belief that Sinn Fein seeks to undermine the stability of the State. Because of the official sensitivity in Ireland concerning the organisation and its association with PIRA, Sinn Fein should be treated with appropriate circumspection. Contact should not be initiated by Australian representatives overseas and any contact that may occur should be informal and confined to routine courtesies. RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ASPAC While the former Asian and Pacific Council (ASPAC) of which Australia, Japan, the ASEAN countries, the ROK and Taiwan are members is moribund, it still maintains a cultural and social centre in Seoul. As Taiwan is still a member of the Council, participation in any official activities under its auspices should be avoided. In May 1986 Australia formally repealed the Privileges and Immunities (Organisations Associated with the Asian and Pacific Council) Regulations. (Question No. 444) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) How many and which Australian Heads of Mission and Heads of Post have Australian made cars as their official vehicle. (2) What is the make of the official car for the (a) Australian Ambassador to Washington, (b) the High Commissioner in London, (c) Special Trade Ambassador in London, (d) Congressional Liaison Officer in Washington and (e) Ambassador in Tokyo. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 16-Bali, Bangkok, Colombo, Dhaka, Hong Kong, Honiara, Islamabad, Jakarta, Kingston, Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi, Nicosia, Nuku`Alofa, Tarawa, Tokyo and Wellington. It should be noted that overseas posts are encouraged to purchase high Australian content cars subject to economic considerations and the availability of suitable locally supplied spare parts and servicing facilities. (2) (a) Lincoln Town Car (b) Jaguar Sovereign (c) Jaguar XJ6 (d) No dedicated vehicle (e) Ford LTD (Question No. 445) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Why do only 38 of 88 Australian missions display photographs of the Queen of Australia. (2) How may Australian missions display a photograph of the Prime Minister or himself. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no formal requirement to display photographs of Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in public areas of Australian diplomatic and consular posts. That being the case I do not propose asking the posts concerned their reasons for not doing so. (2) As at 11 February 1987, when I replied to a similar question, 19 posts displayed photographs of the Prime Minister and/or the Minister for Foreign Affairs and for the reason given above I do not propose to seek an update of the figure. (Question No. 446) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How many Australians are employed on secondment from his Department in international organisations. (2) To which organisations and at what levels are the officers seconded. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nine (2) Senior Executive Service Level 3 to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as Principal Adviser; Senior Executive Service Level 2 AIDAB to World Bank as Director, Venezuelan and Caribbean Division; Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4 to OECD as Legal Adviser; Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4 to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as Consultant; Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4 to Commonwealth Secretariat as Director, International Division; Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4 to Asian Development Bank as Alternate Director; Clerical Administrative Class 11 to the Commonwealth Secretariat as Chief Officer (Economics); Clerical Administrative Class 9 to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as Internal Auditor; and Clerical Administrative Class 9 AIDAB to World Bank as Executive Director's Assistant. (Question No. 447) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: How many political officers in his Department work on the subject of international terrorism. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Two officers full time. (Question No. 448) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How often have Australian Ambassadors accredited to Nicaragua visited that country since March 1987 and with whom have they met. (2) What sum has each visit cost. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been two visits to Nicaragua by Australian Ambassadors since March 1987. Ambassador McCarthy paid a farewell visit to Nicaragua from 12 to 14 March 1987. His official calls included the following: Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tinoco Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Talavera Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, Bendana First Vice Minister of External Commerce, Chamorro Director of International Relations of Ministry of Culture, Bernheim U.S. Charge D' Affaires, Modderno Papal Nuncio, Giglio The Ambassador met with a number of Government officials, opposition leaders and diplomatic representatives at a reception which he hosted in Managua on 13 March. The Ambassador also met with several journalists and Australian residents. Ambassador Farmer paid an introductory visit to Nicaragua from 19 to 24 October. His official calls included the following: Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Talavera Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, Bendana First Vice Minister of External Commerce, Chamorro Vice Minister for External Co-operation, Buitrago Chief of Protocol, Cortez Director of the Asia/Pacific Department, Zeledon U.S. Charge D' Affaires, Modderno U.S. Economic Counsellor, Hope British Charge D' Affaires, Nash Papal Nuncio Japanese, West German and Soviet Ambassadors Editor of ``La Prensa'', Vileta Chamorro Director of Radio Catolica Vice Presidenc of COSEP, Cuadra President of non-governmental human rights organisation, Hernandez President of the Social Christian Party, Ramirez Representatives of the Coordinadora Democratica and opposition trade unions Journalists and Australian residents. (2) 12 to 14 March $909 (includes airfares Mexico/Nicaragua/El Salvador/Costa Rica/Mexico, which were costed as one round trip) 19 to 24 October $1,232 (Question No. 452) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: How many US Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators visited Australia in (a) 1983, (b) 1984, (c) 1985, (d) 1986, (e) 1987, to date. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to Departmental records, the number of U.S. Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators who visited Australia is as follows: 1983 : 11 1984 : 7 1985 : none 1986 : 27 1987 : 7 (Question No. 454) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Is he able to say how many clashes there have been between the New People's Army (NPA) and the armed forces of the Philippines since President Aquino took office. (2) Is he able to say how many casualties have resulted from these clashes. (3) Is he also able to say what is the current estimated size of the NPA. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to figures released by the Philippines Department of National Defense, there were 2617 violent incidents involving the NPA and Government forces in 1986. A further 2601 incidents have occurred between 1 January and 31 October 1987, making a total of 5218 clashes since 1 January 1986. Because figures are not available on a monthly basis, it is not possible to say how many of the clashes in 1986 occurred before President Aquino took office on 25 February 1986. The annual totals for 1986 and 1987 are lower than the figure of 3877 clashes in 1985, under President Marcos. (2) According to the same sources, fatalities arising from these clashes in 1986 totalled 3197, comprising 944 civilians, 1008 military and police personnel, and 1245 NPA. A further 3234 fatalities have occurred between 1 January and 9 November 1987, comprising 840 civilians, 994 military and police personnel and 1400 NPA. Again, figures are not available on a monthly basis. The cumulative total for 1986 and 1987 is 6431. The incidence of fatalities for this period is lower than in 1985, when 4778 fatalities occurred, comprising 1282 military and police, 1362 civilians and 2134 NPA. I would add that statistics of this nature inevitably contain an element of uncertainty and should be treated with some caution. (3) Estimates of the strength of the NPA vary considerably and depend to some extent on distinctions between NPA regulars and militia forces. We currently assess that the NPA comprises some 10-12,000 armed regulars and perhaps 13-14,000 militia. I would emphasise that these figures are estimates and should be treated with due caution. (Question No. 455) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How many re-education camps are estimated to be in operation in Vietnam. (2) Is he able to say how many political prisoners are held in these camps. (3) What representations have been made in 1987 to the Vietnamese authorities on these re-education camps and general human rights abuses, and when and at what level were any representations made. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no authoritative figure available for the number of re-education camps in Vietnam. Recent comments by Vietnamese officials in Hanoi would suggest that the figure is around 200. (2) No. Vietnamese official comment since the 2 September National Day amnesty suggests that between 1000 and 7000 persons are still held in re-education camps other estimates are considerably higher the Amnesty International (AI) annual report for 1987 states that AI is unable to ascertain precisely how many of the individuals taken into custody in 1975 or 1976 remained in `re-education' camps in 1986. (3) Representations were made on the following dates. Unless otherwise indicated, all representations were made at Ambassador level (or Charge when necessary) to the appropriate official at the equivalent level within the Vietnamese Government. 12.11.87 3.11.87 8.10.87 (Second Secretary, Immigration, in discussion in Ho Chi Minh City with Chief of Press Bureau of External Relations Service) 30.9.87 (To Vietnamese Deputy PM/Foreign Minister Thach) 26. 9.87 14. 8.87 7. 7.87 30. 6.87 13. 5.87 (First Secretary to Director, External Relations Service, Ho Chi Minh City) 19. 4.87 6. 1.87 (First Secretary to Assistant Director of the relevant Foreign Ministry Department). In addition, normal diplomatic contacts on less formal occasions have been used to follow up on these formal representations. (Question No. 459) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: Is he able to say whether the largest debtors to the UN include the USSR, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Iran, Romania, Libya, Ukraine and Czechoslovakia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to the UN list of the Status of Contributions to the Regular Budget, the 22 largest debtors of the 97 member States owing contributions to the UN as of 30 September 1987 were: Member State Amount owed ($USm) 1. USA 352 2. USSR* 52.3 3. South Africa 30.8 4. Brazil 16.8 5. Ukraine* 8.06 6. Iran* 7.57 7. Poland* 5.61 8. France 4.36 9. Romania* 4.00 10. Israel 3.89 11. Yugoslavia* 3.86 12. German Democratic Republic* 3.61 13. Libya* 2.79 14. Argentina 2.25 15. Nigeria 2.04 16. Byelorussia 1.95 17. Mexico 1.48 18. United Arab Emirates 1.30 19. Hungary 1.22 20. Peru 1.01 21. Cuba 0.968 22. Czechoslovakia* 0.825 Countries marked with an asterisk* were on the honourable member's list. (Question No. 463) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) On which occasions have lobby firms been employed by the Government in the USA. (2) For what purpose and at what cost were the firms used. (3) What were the names of the firms which were used. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Lobbying should be distinguished from legal and consulting services and can be defined as making representations to the Congress and/or the Administration in the United States to protect Australian interests. Agents engaged in this activity need to be registered in the United States under the Foreign Agents Act. On this basis: (1) The Government has engaged a lobbying firm in the United States on one occasion, in 1987. (2) To assist the Embassy with specific drafting and lobbying work in relation to trade law aspects of the Trade Bill. The cost of this work to the end of September 1987 has been US$6,827.29. The contract stipulates that the total fee shall not exceed US$20,000 for the duration of legislative action on the Trade Bill. (3) The Government consulting arm (called APCO) of the Washington law firm Arnold and Porter. (Question No. 456) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: How many officers of his Department have been assessed by independent assessors as being fluent in the Vietnamese language. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Only one (1) officer has current qualifications gained in examinations conducted by recognised independent assessors at a level beyond ``limited working proficiency''. Six (6) officers hold current qualifications at the level of ``limited working proficiency''. Other officers who have had training in Vietnamese may have retained their proficiency but have either not sat for formal examination or failed to take the requalifying examinations necessary to keep their qualifications current. (Question No. 457) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Is he able to say how many Vietnamese have left their homeland since the fall of Saigon. (2) How many Vietnamese are thought to have perished at sea in escape attempts. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately one million Vietnamese have left their homeland since the fall of Saigon. (2) Full and accurate figures are difficult to obtain and even where estimates are available they cannot be corroborated. Some refugee welfare groups have suggested that at the height of the boat exodus, up to half of all departures never reached their destination. On the basis of reports of refugees arriving in Thailand (the principal destination), it has been estimated that, from 1981 to the present, there have been 773 deaths due to piracy. 1,355 people were listed as missing (including these abducted and not recovered). Thanks largely to the activities of the UNHCR-assisted anti-piracy program in Thailand, to which Australia is a significant contributor, no deaths due to piracy have been reported this year and only 19 people reported missing. No figures are available for the number of Vietnamese who have perished at sea through storm and starvation nor for the effects of piracy on Vietnamese boat people heading for countries other than Thailand. (Question No. 458) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: How many executions are estimated to have taken place in Vietnam since the fall of Saigon. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information on the number of executions estimated to have taken place since the fall of Saigon is limited. There are no figures published by the Vietnamese authorities and we have no alternative, reliable sources on which to base an estimated. The Australian Government is strongly opposed to the practice of capital punishment when ever and where ever it occurs. (Question No. 464) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How many applications for political asylum have been received by his Department since March 1983. (2) What nationalities were the applicants. (3) How many applications have been successful. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since March 1983 the Department has received 20 approaches which have been regarded as serious or substantive applications. (2) Israel, Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, India, Iraq, Iran, South Africa, Egypt, People's Republic of China, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia and ``Palestine''. (3) None. (Question No. 465) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (a) Is he able to say how many political prisoners there are in Poland. (b) How many Polish citizens who have been approved for entry to Australia have been denied exit visas by the Polish authorities. (c) What representations have been made to the Polish authorities in these cases. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is: (a) Due to disagreement over the definition of the term ``political prisoner'', numbers can vary somewhat according to the source during the November/December 1987 period, political prisoners counted by Polish Church and Opposition sources rose at one point to 22 in mid-December 1987 a figure of 16 political prisoners was given, although Opposition sources have suggested the real figure could be higher as some prisoners were, in reality, being held for political reasons although they had been detained on criminal charges. (b) Following my visit to Poland of November 1987 only one family reunion case remains unsolved; ie, only one person on the Australian list has been unable to obtain permission to leave Poland. Other forms of travel appear to be proceeding relatively freely, although dissidents are sometimes refused permission to leave as a punishment for their political activity (or else they are invited to leave Poland on the understanding that they will not return). (c) The question of family reunion is a matter of concern to this Government and remains a major issue in bilateral negotiations between Australia and Poland. In another recent case where a dissident wished to visit Australia, representations were also made on his behalf to the Polish authorities. (Question No. 481) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 November 1987: Has his attention been drawn to question No. 445; if so why do 38 Australian missions display photographs of The Queen. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My attention has been drawn to question No. 445 which I have answered. For the reason given in that answer I do not propose asking the missions concerned why they elect to display photographs of Her Majesty The Queen. (Question No. 486) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) What amount of (a) manufactured and (b) partly-manufactured cement has been imported into Australia in each year since 1982. (2) Have any manufactured cement or cement-based products been exported during this period; if so, what was their value and quantity. (3) Have any applications been lodged for dumping or permanent protection during this period. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No distinction is made in the Tariff between manufactured and partly-manufactured cement although a distinction does exist between Portland cement, other cement and goods made of cement. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has provided the following figures for imports of Portland Cement and other types of cement for the period 1982-87. Imports of Portland cement were as follows: Year Quantity Value (Tonnes) ($A) 1982 ... N/A 1,468,003 1983 ... 35,831 2,608,227 1984 ... 134,236 6,368,326 1985 ... 113,071 4,866,171 1986 ... 112,256 5,664,477 *1987 ... 6,705 1,022,654 * (In June 1986 the ABS placed an embargo on the public release of Portland Cement Grey (Uncoloured) and Clinker statistics, consequently figures for 1987 do not include these items.) Imports of other types of cement are as follows: Year Quantity Value (Kilograms) ($A) 1982 ... N/A 3,899,607 1983 ... 11,436,913 2,708,897 1984 ... 11,595,220 3,904,558 1985 ... 7,200,513 2,088,271 1986 ... 15,265,783 4,189,411 1987 ... 10,560,366 4,523,795 (2) Cement and Goods made of cement were exported during the period 1982 to 1987. ABS have provided the following statistics for cement and goods made of cement for 1982-87. Exports of cement were as follows: Year Quantity Value (Kilograms) ($A FOB) 1982 ... 293,264,827 9,473,546 1983 ... 224,920,939 9,124,366 1984 ... 126,792,104 5,551,461 1985 ... 16,921,633 2,344,684 1986 ... 11,175,303 2,608,592 1987 ... 23,155,079 3,509,714 Exports of Goods made of cement were: Year Quantity Value (Kilograms) ($AFOB) 1982 ... 1,170,370 947,632 1983 ... 781,355 321,871 1984 ... 200,943 171,620 1985 ... 51,639 74,533 1986 ... 413,864 415,544 1987 ... 1,124,500 664,017 (3) Since 1982 three applications for dumping protection have been lodged. In November 1982, Queensland Cement and Lime Company Limited lodged a dumping complaint with the Australian Customs Service (ACS) against cement from New Zealand. An investigation was undertaken but no evidence of dumping was found and the complaint was terminated. Two dumping complaints were lodged in December 1987 with ACS. The first, by Australian Cement Limited, against Portland Cement Type ``A'' from Japan has been rejected by the ACS on evidentiary grounds and returned to the complainant for further attention. The second complaint was lodged by Cockburn Cement Limited and Swan Portland Cement Limited, concerning Cement Clinker from the Republic of Korea. This complaint is currently being examined by the ACS. (Question No. 510) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) Has the Government been asked to give evidence to the Commission of Inquiry into the rehabilitation of Nauru; if so, will it do so. (2) If the Government has not been asked to give evidence, will it do so if asked. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Government has been invited to make a submission to the Commission of Inquiry. The Australian Government has no present intention of making a submission to the Nauru Inquiry, which has no legal standing in Australia. In common with the other Partner Governments, it regards the comprehensive phosphate agreement concluded in 1967 prior to Nauruan independence on 31 January 1968 as a just settlement that cleared the Partner Governments of the former British Phosphate Commissioners of any responsibility for the rehabilitation of Nauru. This view has been conveyed to the Government of the Republic of Nauru, together with advice that the Australian Government will not be bound by the findings of the Nauru Inquiry. (Question No. 517) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Is Medibank Private a capital intensive business where increased turnover should create economies of scale and result in reduced administrative costs in relative terms. (2) Why did Medibank Private, notwithstanding an increase of 24.8% in turnover, have an increase in operating expenditure of 22% as stated on page 22 of the 1986-87 annual report of the Health Insurance Commission. (3) Does he support the claims of the Commission that this 22% increase in operating costs was the result of turnover growth. (4) Was the increase the result of the need to transfer ongoing expenditure relating to the now defunct Australia Card to some other legitimate account. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Medibank Private is not a capital intensive business. This is demonstrated by the fact that 50% of its management expenses relate to staff and staff associated costs. Increased turnover, to the extent that it relates to increased membership, causes increased workloads and increased costs of management. (3) Yes. (4) No. All expenditure incurred by the Health Insurance Commission relating to the Australia Card was charged to the Australia Card. Refer to the financial statements on pages 75-79 of the Commission's 1986-87 Annual Report. (Question No. 518) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Is the Health Insurance Commission to close the Medicare agency at Moruya, N.S.W. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the high level of aged population within the region and their need to obtain cash refunds for personal outlays on medical services. (3) Will persons in such need have to travel at least an additional 20km to the next Medicare agency and that the cost of this travel could exceed the rebate. (4) Will he review the decision. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Moruya Medicare office was closed on 11 December 1987. (2) and (3) Cash refunds are available from the Batemans Bay or Narooma Medicare offices. Alternatively, claims may be lodged by mail and a cheque payable to the claimant or the provider will be despatched to the claimant. There is a high utilisation of direct bill claiming by doctors in the area, and doctors in the region also accept `pay-doctor' cheques. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the aged will suffer inconvenience due to the unavailability of cash services. (4) In view of the above information, a review of the decision does not appear warranted. (Question No. 534) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Are pharmaceutical benefits paid for Ritalin or other amphetamine-type drugs prescribed by psychiatrists for hyperactive children; if so, what sum was paid for Ritalin prescriptions in each year since 1980-81. (2) Is the Government satisfied that the general public, particularly parents of hyperactive children who have been prescribed this medication, are aware of the addictive nature of amphetamine-type drugs like Ritalin and that withdrawal may lead to depression and even suicide. (3) Is he able to say whether Professor S. Schwartz has been awarded a grant totalling $25 000 under the Australian Research Grants Scheme to study the effects of Ritalin and other amphetamine-type drugs prescribed for hyperactive children; if so, is the Government satisfied with the research proposal, methodology, empirical and ethical content of the study. (4) What action will the Government undertake to prevent Ritalin and other amphetamine-type drugs becoming another valium for pre-school age children diagnosed as hyperactive. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Ritalin is not available as a pharmaceutical benefit. Dexamphetamine tablet 5 mg is available for use in narcolepsy and hyperkinetic brain damage syndrome in children. It is not available as a pharmaceutical benefit for any other condition. Thus, while there is no consensus on the diagnostic criteria for `hyperactivity', at least some children so designated would be receiving Dexamphetamine as a benefit item. Expenditures for the supply of Dexamphetamine 5 mg tablet as a pharmaceutical benefit are: $ 1980-81... 14,864 1981-82... 21,327 1982-83... 25,689 1983-84...23,718 1984-85...24,038 1985-86...26,737 1986-87...23,904 (2) Advice to parents as to possible side-effects of drugs prescribed for their children is generally considered to be the province of the prescribing medical practitioner and dispensing pharmacist. With regard to the two drugs mentioned, it is not necessarily accepted that their proper use leads to addiction. (3) Professor S. Schwartz was awarded a $25,000 grant under the former Australian Research Grants Scheme (ARGS) to study the `Neurobiology of Attention, Learning and Memory'. There is no reference in the project application to the substance of Ritalin or any other drug. The subject description contained in the application states ``All children will be neurologically sound and off medication.'' Where a project involves human or animal experimentation, the former ARGS required a certificate of compliance from a recognised Ethics Committee on Human and Animal Experimentation before payment can be made under a grant. In practice, any research proposal submitted to the former ARGS for funding support which deals with the study of human or animal subjects must satisfy the ethical guidelines set by the National Health and Medical Research Council. It should be noted that Professor Schwartz's project was also approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the University of Queensland. (4) Control over the prescribing and distribution of drugs is a function of the State and Territory Governments. For example, nearly all States require written Government authority to prescribe Ritalin, even for a one week trial. As with other drugs, the Commonwealth Government will continue to monitor their usage and any adverse reactions and, if necessary, take action in relation to pharmaceutical benefit listing or approval to market. Apart from these legal controls, education is important. In an article in the Australian Prescriber, a journal whose editorial board comprises independent specialists, emphasis was placed on the duration of treatment with Ritalin. If no effect was observed within 2 weeks, treatment should be stopped. (Question No. 542) Mr Cobb asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: Is he able to say whether Jews are allowed to migrate freely from South Africa? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There is no formal obstruction to emigration of Jews from South Africa. It appears in fact that there is considerable continuing interest by South African Jews in obtaining residence or citizenship rights elsewhere, as is shown by their relatively high rates of movement (compared to other white applicants) to Australia, the United Kingdom and Israel. (Question No. 544) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) Is he able to say whether the Australian National Group has nominated candidates for elections to fill vacancies in the International Court of Justice since 1977; if so, (a) who were the members of the group on each occasion that it has nominated a candidate or candidates; and (b) whom did the group nominate as a candidate or candidates on each occasion. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1977, elections to fill vacancies in the International Court of Justice have occurred in 1978, 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1987. The Australian National Group nominated candidates for election in 1978, 1981 and 1984. (a) Membership of the Australian National Group in the relevant years was as follows:- (i) 1978-Emeritus Professor K. O. Shatwell. The Rt. Hon, Sir Garfield Barwick, P.C., G.C.M.G., Chief Justice, High Court of Australia. Sir Clarence Harders, O.B.E., Secretary, Attorney-General's Department. Mr Maurice Byers, QC, Solicitor General. (ii) 1981-Emeritus Professor K. O. Shatwell. The Rt. Hon, Sir Garfield Barwick, P.C., G.C.M.G., Chief Justice, High Court of Australia. Sir Clarence Harders, O.B.E., Secretary, Attorney-General's Department. Mr Maurice Byers, QC, Solicitor General. (iii) 1984-Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E. Q.C., Solicitor General. The Rt. Hon, Sir Harry Gibbs, Q.C., G.C.M.G., K.B.E., Chief Justice, High Court of Australia. Mr Patrick Brazil, Secretary, Attorney-General's Department. (b) Candidates nominated by the Australian National Group for election to the I.C.J. in the relevant years are as follows: (i) 1978-Jose Sette-Camara (Brazil), Roberto Ago (Italy), Abdullah El Erian (Egypt), Richard Baxter (U.S.A.) (ii) 1981-Tun Mohammed Suffian (Malaysia) (iii) 1984-Taslim Olawale Elias (Nigeria), Zhengyu Ni (China), Sigeru Oda (Japan), Sompong Sucharitkul (Thailand) (Question No. 572) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: Is he able to say which states have (a) signed and (b) ratified the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America done at Port Moresby on 2 April 1987. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Treaty on Fisheries was signed by representatives of Australia, Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Western Samoa, Niue, Vanuatu, Palau, and the United States of America, and, as of 23 December, 1987, the Treaty has been ratified by each of these countries with the exception of Kiribati, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, and the United States of America. Indications from the Forum Fisheries Agency are that these outstanding ratifications are expected to be completed in the near future. (Question No. 228) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) When was it decided that the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) required an integrated computer network. (2) Why was the decision taken. (3) What sum was budgeted for the computer system. (4) Were tenders called for the system, if so, (a) how many companies placed tenders and (b) which company won the contract. (5) Is the system fully operational; if so, when did it become fully operational and did it reach that stage on schedule. (6) If the system is not fully operational, why not, and when will it become fully operational. (7) What sum did it cost to (a) purchase and (b) install the system. (8) How many computers are there in (a) total and (b) each CES office. (9) How are the computers linked. (10) Are there State main-frame computers; if so, where are they located and what sum did they cost to purchase and install. (11) Is there a computer headquarters in Canberra; if so, what was its cost to purchase and install. (12) Is the system compatible with the Department of Social Security STRATPLAN system; if not, why not. (13) If the system is compatible, (a) how was it achieved and (b) were additional costs incurred; if so, what sum did it cost and what were the component costs. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 1981. (2) Job Bank was to provide an improved service to: Employers-by ensuring that vacancies are given the widest possible circulation as quickly as possible, and that vacancies are cancelled immediately they are filled; Job Seekers-by providing them with access to the maximum number of vacancies and reducing the possibility that they are referred to filled vacancies; Disadvantaged Job Seekers-by enabling a regular program of interviews which will provide instantaneous access to jobs and training opportunities available to them; CES-through a substantial reduction in paperwork and clerical effort. (3) The capital cost of the Job Bank system was initially (1981) budgeted at $7,450,000 over four years. This was increased by $3,850,000 for additional terminals in 1983-84 to meet higher levels of unemployment. In 1984 the Job Seeker phase was budgeted at $4,511,000 over three years. In 1986 the overall placement system was upgraded at a budgeted cost of $9,869,000. The original mainframe was redeployed to operate systems for other departmental programs. (4) Job Bank Equipment Acquisition (a) 27 Companies tendered (b) Facom was selected to provide the mainframe and Raytheon and EAI-Electronics Associates to provide the terminals. Job Seeker Equipment Acquisition (a) 24 companies tendered. (b) WANG was selected to provide microcomputers. (5) Job Bank-The first stage was tested in South Australia in early 1983 and implemented nationally by the end of 1983. The second stage was tested in South Australia in 1984 and in other States (excluding Western Australia and Victoria) in 1985. The mainframe was upgraded to cater for Western Australia and Victoria and the system was fully implemented in 1986. Western Australia and Victoria were the only States where the second stage of the system was implemented behind schedule. Job Seeker-The Job Seeker system is being tested in a number of CES offices prior to full national implementation. The system is to be introduced to all CES offices nationally over 1987-88 on a staged implementation timetable. (6) Job Bank is fully operational. Job Seeker-Difficulties arose when the required software was not delivered by the contractor according to schedule. Detailed negotiations with the contractor led eventually to an agreement to vary the existing contract timetable. The contractor has now delivered the required software specified in contract amendments and the Department is now testing the system prior to national implementation. (7) (a) and (b) Purchase and Installation costs Job Bank- $m Terminals... 7.328 Site Prep.... 1.000 Mainframe*... 14.822 Total... 23.150 Equipment $5.026m (expenditure to date) * This includes costs attributed to applications other than on the mainframe computer including CES computer network. Attribution to specific projects is not currently available. (8) (a) There are two Fujitsu multiprocessor mainframe computers, one operating CES network functions, the other operating applications associated with Departmental Management Systems (eg Budgetary, Human Resource, Management). An Amdahl mainframe computer is used to process student allowances and general education systems. A number of smaller systems in Central sites are used for special applications (eg Schools Funding Program, Office Automation.) (8) (b) The attached lists detail the number of microcomputers to be provided in each CES office. (9) The Fujitsu and Amdahl mainframe are not currently linked, although this is proposed. The Fujitsu mainframes are linked to CES offices and State offices by leased Telecom lines over a FNA network. The microcomputers within CES offices will be connected to DRNET-a Digital Research product. (10) No. (11) The former Department of Education has a computer centre in Canberra which cost $7.25m to purchase and install. (12) and (13) The Job Bank system is not compatible as it was developed prior to the implementation of Stratplan. However, the Job Seeker system has been developed on WANG microcomputer equipment which is compatible with the Stratplan equipment. ALL CES OFFICES WITH PCs New South Wales Albury ... 3 Armidale ... 2 Auburn ... 2 Ballina ... 1 Bankstown ... 5 Bathurst ... 1 Baulkham Hills ... 2 Bega ... 2 Bourke ... 1 Blacktown ... 4 Broadmeadow ... 2 Bondi ... 4 Broken Hill ... 1 Burwood ... 3 Brookvale ... 3 Broadway ... 5 Byron Bay ... 1 Caringbah ... 2 Casino ... 1 Campbelltown ... 3 Coffs Harbour ... 3 Cessnock ... 1 Charlestown ... 2 Chatswood ... 2 City South ... 2 Corrimal ... 2 Campsie ... 3 Cooma ... 1 Cowra ... 1 Crows Nest ... 2 Cardiff ... 2 Cabramatta ... 2 Dapto ... 1 Deniliquin ... 1 Drummoyne ... 1 Dubbo ... 2 Fairfield ... 3 Gunnedah ... 1 Grafton ... 1 Gosford ... 3 Goulburn ... 1 Griffith ... 2 Granville ... 2 Hornsby ... 2 Hurstville ... 2 Ingleburn ... 2 Inverell ... 1 Katoomba ... 1 Kings Cross ... 2 Kempsey ... 1 Leeton ... 1 Lismore ... 4 Lithgow ... 1 Liverpool ... 4 Maitland ... 2 Manly ... 2 Mascot ... 2 Mayfield ... 1 Muswellbrook ... 1 Mt Druitt ... 4 Maroubra Junction ... 3 Moree ... 1 Martin Place ... 2 Mudgee ... 1 Murwillumbah ... 2 Marrickville ... 2 Merrylands ... 2 Narrabri ... 1 Newcastle ... 4 Nowra ... 1 Professional Employment ... 1 North Sydney ... 2 Newtown ... 2 Orange ... 3 Penrith ... 3 Petersham ... 2 Parkes ... 1 Port Macquarie ... 1 Parramatta ... 4 Randwick ... 1 Revesby ... 1 Rockdale ... 2 Ryde ... 3 Singleton ... 1 St Marys ... 2 Sutherland ... 3 Tamworth ... 2 Taree ... 2 Tumut ... 1 Villawood ... 1 Wagga Wagga ... 4 Windsor ... 2 Warilla ... 2 Wollongong ... 3 Warrawong ... 1 Wynyard ... 2 Wyong ... 2 Young ... 1 Victoria Ararat ... 1 Ballarat ... 5 Bairnsdale ... 1 Belmont ... 1 Bendigo ... 4 Benalla ... 4 Boronia ... 3 Brunswick ... 3 Box Hill ... 4 Camberwell ... 3 Cheltenham ... 2 Colac ... 1 Coburg ... 2 Corio ... 2 Dandenong ... 3 Echuca ... 1 Elsternwick ... 2 Footscray ... 4 Frankston ... 6 Fitzroy ... 2 Geelong ... 3 Glenroy ... 3 Hamilton ... 1 Heidelberg ... 2 Horsham ... 2 Kerang ... 1 Lalor ... 2 Lilydale ... 3 Malvern ... 2 Moorabbin ... 3 Maryborough ... 1 Mildura ... 2 Morwell ... 3 Melbourne ... 3 Moe ... 1 Moonee Ponds ... 3 Mornington ... 1 Montmorency ... 2 Noble Park ... 3 Northcote ... 3 Newport ... 2 Niddrie ... 3 North Melbourne ... 1 Nunawading ... 2 Oakleigh ... 4 PES-Professional Employment ... 1 Prahran ... 2 Portland ... 1 Preston ... 4 Rosebud ... 1 Richmond ... 2 Ringwood ... 3 Sale ... 1 St Albans ... 2 Seymour ... 1 Shepparton ... 3 South Melbourne ... 2 Springvale ... 2 St Kilda ... 2 Sunshine ... 4 Swan Hill ... 1 Stawell ... 1 Traralgon ... 1 Wangaratta ... 3 Warrnambool ... 2 Werribee ... 2 Warragul ... 1 Waverley ... 2 Yarraville ... 1 Queensland Inala... 2 Alderly... 2 Annerley... 4 Atherton... 1 Aitkenvale... 2 Ayr... 1 Fortitude Valley... 3 Brisbane... 2 Sth Brisbane... 2 Bundaberg... 3 Caboolture... 2 Cairns... 4 Cannonvale... 1 Coolangatta... 2 Charleville... 1 Chermside... 2 Cleveland... 2 Coorparoo... 2 Dalby... 1 Gladstone... 2 Goodna... 1 Mt Gravatt... 3 Gympie... 2 Indooroopilly... 2 Ingham... 1 Innisfail... 1 Ipswich... 3 Mt Isa... 2 Longreach... 1 Lutwyche... 1 Mackay... 3 Maryborough... 2 Mareeba... 1 Maroochydore... 3 Milton... 1 Mermaid Beach... 2 Nambour... 2 Nundah... 3 PES-Professional Employment... 1 Redcliffe... 2 Rockhampton... 3 Rockhampton North... 1 Southport... 3 Strathpine... 2 Surfers Paradise... 4 Toowoomba... 3 Templine-Brisbane... 1 Thursday Island... 1 Townsville... 3 Underwood... 2 Warwick... 1 Westcourt... 2 Woodridge... 5 Woollongabba... 2 Wynnum... 2 Expo... 2 South Australia Adelaide... 3 King William... 1 Beverly... 1 Brighton... 1 Campbelltown... 2 Croydon Park... 2 Edwardstown... 2 Elizabeth... 4 Enfield... 2 Gawler... 1 Glenelg... 2 Ingle Farm... 1 Murray Bridge... 1 Mile End... 2 Modbury... 2 Morphett Vale... 2 Mount Gambier... 2 Noarlunga... 2 Norwood... 2 Port Adelaide... 3 Port Augusta... 2 PES-Professional Employment... 1 Port Lincoln... 1 Port Pirie... 2 Renmark... 2 Salisbury... 2 Unley... 2 Whyalla... 3 Western Australia Albany ... 3 Booragoon ... 1 Broome ... 1 Bunbury ... 2 Cannington ... 4 Claremont ... 2 Carnarvon ... 1 Coburn ... 1 Collie ... 1 City West ... 2 Esperance ... 1 Fremantle ... 3 Geraldton ... 2 Gosnells ... 4 Greenwood ... 2 Mt Hawthorn ... 2 Innaloo ... 3 Kalgoorlie ... 2 Karratha ... 1 Kwinana ... 1 Mandurah ... 1 Mirrabooka ... 2 Manjimup ... 1 Merredin ... 1 Midland ... 3 Morley ... 3 Northam ... 1 Perth ... 5 Professional Employment ... 1 Port Hedland ... 1 Rockingham ... 2 Victoria Park ... 5 Tasmania Burnie ... 3 Devonport ... 2 Eastern Shore ... 3 Glenorchy ... 2 Hobart ... 4 Kings Meadows ... 1 Kingston ... 1 Launceston ... 3 Mowbray ... 1 North Hobart ... 1 Northern Territory Alice Springs ... 3 Casuarina ... 3 Darwin ... 3 Katherine ... 1 Palmerston ... 1 Tennant Creek ... 1 Professional Employment ... 1 Australian Capital Territory Belconnen ... 2 Canberra ... 3 New Parliament House ... 1 Queanbeyan ... 1 Tourism and Hospitality ... 2 Woden ... 3 South Canberra ... 1 (Question No. 559) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) Has Dr D. Ball, Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, conducted any research or consultancy work of any kind for his Department between 1982-83 and 1986-87; if so, what are the details of the (a) purpose, (b) title, (c) dates on which work was undertaken and (d) payments which were made to Dr Ball or the Australian National University, for each study, research project or consultant's report. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware, nor is there evidence in Departmental records of the employment of Professor Ball as a consultant or for research over the period 1982-83 to 1986-87. Professor Ball has been included in the Joint Services Staff College list of consultants since 1984 but I am advised he has not been employed in this capacity. He lectures at JSSC courses in his area of expertise. Since June 1984 he has given one lecture of 80 minutes duration to each course (two per annum). He was remunerated at the rate of $128.00 on each occasion. He is a member of the ADFA Academy Council having been appointed to this body by the Minister for Defence. The Academy Council advises the Minister on the development and operation of the Academy and advises the University of NSW on matters relating to the development and operation of the College with particular reference to policy, current activities and future operations. Of the two meetings that the Academy Council held during 1986-87, Professor Ball attended one. He has not been paid for his services as a member of this Council. (Question No. 325) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) Is he able to say how many countries there are on the African continent and how many distinct tribal or similar groups are in each country. (2) Which of the countries are independent. (3) What is the form of government in each country. (4) Who is the recognised leader of each country and how did he or she attain that position. (5) How many political parties are there in each country and what are their names. (6) Which countries have free and regular elections. (7) When was the last time each country had a democratic election and when is the next election due. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not have the resources to provide a response to this Question. The Honourable Member could perhaps draw on the resources of the Parliamentary Library to assist him in this matter. (Question No. 501) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) Did the National Health and Medical Research Council adopt at its 91st Session in June 1981 principles for the evaluation of food additives which expressed considerable reserve at the use of additives and listed a limited number of justifications for their use, including the fact that no additive should be used unless it is more consistent with the best interests of the consumer. (2) Do sweeteners such as aspartame (brand name NutraSweet) offer such benefits to the consumer over the alternative of natural sugars; if not, does the Government approve of the present consumer oriented national television and print media campaign to promote NutraSweet as a superior product for sweetening other food items. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council, which develops model food standards for adoption into State and Territory food regulations, has seen a limited role for the use of artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, in the diet of some consumers. Their use is permitted by the standards under significant and appropriate constraints. The Government has no formal position in relation to promotional campaigns for such products. (Question No. 500) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: Has Mr R. Kelly had the use of Commonwealth cars at any time since January 1984 in (a) Melbourne and (b) any other part of Australia; if so, on what basis have Commonwealth cars been made available to Mr Kelly. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nearly 4 million car-with-driver bookings were made with my Department between January 1984 and November 1987; over 1.5 million of these were performed by Commonwealth cars. My department also regularly hires some 7,000 self drive cars (sedans and stationwagons) to other departments and budget dependent agencies. A further 22,000 cars carrying Commonwealth registration belong to other Commonwealth agencies (mainly Telecom and Australia Post). I am not prepared on the grounds of cost and practicality to authorise an examination of all relevant records over that period to ascertain how many were made under the name R. Kelly. In any case it is likely that bookings would relate to more than one individual with that name.