Monday, 22 February 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, leaves today to represent Australia at the inauguration of the President-elect of the Republic of Korea. He will return on 2 March and in his absence, the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, will be the Acting Attorney-General and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Holding, will represent the Acting Minister in this House. The Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, left on 20 February on overseas duties. He will return on 1 March. In his absence, the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, representing the portfolio in this House. I regret to inform the House that the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, Mr Peter Morris, is still unwell and is on sick leave for the remainder of this week. Any questions normally addressed to Mr Morris should be directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Holding. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, will be absent from the House this week to undertake Government business outside Canberra. Mr Sinclair —One is ill and the other four are away. They should be in this Parliament. Mr HAWKE —Four Ministers are away. Opposition members should take account of the fact that this House has been sitting for a week; the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been sitting here yet they have not asked him one question on economic matters. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —For all Opposition members are worth in asking questions of Ministers who are here, the Treasurer would be better employed going back to his office and sitting there. Why do honourable members not get around to asking some questions about economic matters? They do not do so because they do not have a case. Mr Howard —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the Prime Minister making a statement or does he want a debate? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would both honourable members resume their seats. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Nauru led by the Hon. Derog Gioura, MP, Speaker of the Parliament. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —May I conclude what I was saying earlier, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —Is the Prime Minister seeking the Chair's indulgence? Mr HAWKE —I am seeking to complete the statement I was making about ministerial arrangements. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Obviously the Prime Minister is seeking indulgence. He may continue. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be absent from the House this week to undertake Government business out of Canberra. Questions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should be addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, who is the portfolio Minister. Mr N.A. Brown —If economic matters include the waste of public money, I direct this question to the Prime Minister. I remind him of the Expo document of 13 March that he quoted from in Question Time last week when he read a record of conversation between a senior public servant and the Principal Private Secretary of the then Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories written just after the tender assessment panel had been set up. Has the Prime Minister, having selectively quoted from the document, now been able to turn the page and read the further record of that conversation? In particular, I stress the following statement: Mr Klein said it may be that the Minister would have to sort the matter out with the Prime Minister. Did the then Minister, in fact, sort out with the Prime Minister the voting entitlements of public servants on the panel? What was the substance of the conversation that the then Minister had with the Prime Minister about this matter? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and note that the Opposition is still seeking to insinuate some sinister cover-up by implying that in this case there are now some further suggestions of something improper in this matter. There was last week, and there is now, no reason to debate this matter because there was, and there is, no cover-up. Mr Howard —You don't want him on his feet. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to debate this last week but he chickened out because he is chicken. The Leader of the Opposition was too chicken last week to have a go. We were all waiting with bated breath to see whether he had the guts to have a censure motion. He did not. We were waiting for it; we were hoping for it, but the Leader of the Opposition did not have the guts. Mr Howard —That is why you won't have a debate. Mr HAWKE —I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to give me this business about not having a debate. The Opposition had the opportunity last week to have a censure debate when the whole thing could have been debated. The Opposition did not have the wit or the guts to do it. We were waiting for it last week. We wanted it. But the Leader of the Opposition could not face up to it, in the same way as he cannot face up to the President of his Party and in the same way as he dodged the issue on the Sunday program yesterday. We are used to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us get this matter quite clear. I will go through the sequence of events. On my return from leave on 31 December I issued a full Press release listing my role and my stance in the theatre contract issue. As the honourable gentleman who asked the question will recall, I issued a further Press release on 11 January when my Department responded to a freedom of information request by the Leader of the Opposition. There was nothing further I could have added to those statements in making any explanation to the House. As to the so-called latest revelations that may have incited the honourable gentleman to ask his question-revelations which caused the Leader of the Opposition to get a little bit excited on the Sunday program yesterday-I reiterate that I never expressed a view as to the voting numbers or right to vote of members of the panel. I remind the honourable gentleman and the House, as I said in my Press release on 31 December 1987: . . . the numbers relating to a voting position in a tender assessment panel is a particular detail which by no stretch of anyone's imagination, however fevered, would on the face of it have entailed the Prime Minister's involvement. The Minister informed me of the difficulties being encountered in obtaining the views of the panel as a whole and of his intention to ensure that all the artistic members of the panel contributed their advice on the intrinsic merits of the competing tenders. I concurred in that intention and agreed that their views were important and relevant-as they obviously were. As I said then, and as I repeat: my involvement at all times was proper and appropriate. It was minimal. I do not spend my time second guessing my Ministers by watching their every move. I have had no reason to do that and I have no reason now. Indeed, the documents show that my attention was drawn to problems about the tender processes in mid-February last year. The honourable gentleman who asked the question would be aware of that fact. Within a matter of days of that being done I had taken steps to see that the Cabinet agreed on measures which would avoid potential problems. Mr Brown, in his then capacity as the Minister, carried out the direction of the Cabinet. The result of that adherence to proper procedures was announced in April when the contract was in fact given to AAV Australia Pty Ltd. As far as I was concerned, the matter was at an end. That is perfectly clear. In regard to these so-called latest revelations, I have answered quite clearly and unequivocally the questions put to me. Mr Brown has indicated that he accepts and agrees with what I have said. Ms FATIN —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Has he seen comments from the shadow Minister concerning the new Western Australian ship-lift facility? I ask the Minister: Are there sufficient docking and maintenance facilities in Western Australia to support half the Navy fleet when it moves there? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for her question and the diligent interest with which she pursues these matters that affect her electorate. It is planned, as the Government has announced previously, to move half the fleet to Western Australia, and that plan will take 10 years to implement. We are about a year or two into the implementation of it. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has no plans to base port the guided missile destroyers, the DDGs, in the west during the first five years of this process. The Navy is planning in the longer term to base port FFGs in the west. Timing is dependent on a number of factors, including the development of sufficient infrastructure in Western Australian industry, including depot level capability. The ship-lift, which was the subject of the honourable member's question, has been designed to be built in two phases. Phase one, which the Commonwealth is supporting, will be adequate to handle destroyer escorts and RAN submarines, both Oberons and the new ones. Phase 2, which will probably be undertaken in three to four years time, specifically aims to upgrade the ship-lift to handle vessels of up to 12,000 tonnes-sufficient to cope with the RAN FFGs. So the plans for upgrading our facilities in Western Australia to bring about the Government's policy of a two-ocean Navy are well in hand and proceeding satisfactorily. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I am pleased that he has had an opportunity to refresh his memory with respect to the document interchange relating to the World Expo 88 matter. One of the documents that were released is a letter dated 24 March from the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to his colleague the former Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, of which the Prime Minister will be aware. The Prime Minister will also be aware that at that time the tender assessment panel had put in its first report. I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that the letter says in part: The Prime Minister is aware that I have requested a meeting of the full committee. How did the Prime Minister become aware that the former Minister had called the further meeting of the panel? What reason did the Minister give the Prime Minister for that reconvening of the panel? Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, you will recall what I have said in my Press releases and what I have repeated here. It was brought to my attention in February that there was some suggestion of a problem with the processes that had been followed. As I have said in my Press releases, and I have said again here, within a matter of days I ensured that this matter would come before the Cabinet. It did come before the Cabinet. As a result of the Cabinet decision, the Minister proceeded with the further meeting of the panel. That was the sequence of events. I had it brought to my attention in February that there were some problems, the circumstances of which are known. When I was not satisfied that it could be left in that circumstance, I took it to the-- Mr Downer —Sloppy. Mr HAWKE —If the honourable member wants to say `sloppy'-- Mr McGauran —You said that. Mr HAWKE —Okay, I used that word. But if the honourable member is saying that the Minister was sloppy, I will repeat-- Mr McGauran —You said that. Mr HAWKE —Of course I did; I said it in this House. It appears that members of the Opposition get some satisfaction from getting back at the ex-Minister by saying that the Prime Minister referred to him as sloppy. But, to be fair to the ex-Minister, if the Opposition wants to quote me saying that, let it quote the rest of what I said. The rest of what I said was that he had done an outstanding job. Opposition members should be fair to the man. Yes, I said that the honourable member for Parramatta had been sloppy in some aspects of this matter, but I said that he did an absolutely outstanding job, not just for this Government but for this country, in the areas of tourism and sport. A comparison of the efforts of the honourable member for Parramatta with the pygmy efforts put in over a period of some 23 years by those opposite when they had responsibility ought to make them ashamed. The honourable member for Parramatta stands out like a mountain against the molehill of their achievements. If members of the Opposition think that it does them any credit, when talking about this man, to refer to one thing and say, `On that aspect the Prime Minister said that he was sloppy,' and think that they have exhausted an assessment in any sort of fairness of the man's achievements, that is consistent with the mean-minded way in which they approach politics. If we are to make a full assessment of this man, it is okay to say, `All right, he has been sloppy in regard to some aspects of the handling of this', but we should complete the assessment. By a fair observation, if we ask the tourist industry and the sporting fraternity in this country, they will tell us the fact: that this was the best Minister for tourism and sport that this country has ever seen. When it was brought to my attention in February that there were some problems in regard to aspects of the handling of this matter I immediately took steps to bring the matter before Cabinet. The Minister, in carrying out the decision of Cabinet, called a further meeting. In fairness to the Minister, I want to repeat the point I have made. Let us just look at the arithmetic of the matter. If the question of the artistic membership had not been predominant in his mind, what was the point of his having another meeting at any rate? He could not possibly win. If the question of the public servants was absolutely predominant in his mind, on that basis he was down 4 : 2 in the voting. If he called Mr Faiman in, there was no way in which he could win; the vote would still be 4 : 3 against him. As to what was in the former Minister's mind, it is quite clear, as is stated in paragraph 9 of the document he read the other day, that, as far as the Minister was concerned, the overwhelmingly important issue was the split of the vote between the artistic members. So the procedures followed by the former Minister were in pursuit of the Cabinet decision, the Cabinet consideration of this matter, which followed my bringing of the matter before the Cabinet. Mr CHYNOWETH —Can the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs inform the House of his response to media criticism that the time taken to issue visitor visas in Tokyo has been increasing? Mr HOLDING —At present the office in Tokyo is receiving about 850 visa applications a day. That is almost 60 per cent higher than the figure a year ago. Arrangements have been made to employ extra locally-engaged staff and to extend employment to two others whose work contracts were about to expire. Procedures have been re-examined and further refined and streamlined. The immediate aim is one of issuing all visas within 48 hours, and we believe that can be achieved in the immediate future. This will eventually be reduced to 24 hours, with visas issued on the spot when requested. That will depend upon the installation of new and updated technology which is designed to improve service standards. The Department is in the process of putting that in place. Mr PEACOCK —Has the Prime Minister seen the memorandum prepared in his Department on 22 December 1987 on the resignation of the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories? I ask in particular whether the Prime Minister has seen that part of that memorandum which says: . . . Mr Glenn of DOLGAS cleared with his Minister and with the Prime Minister's office that Mr Hillier and Mr Rubie (the two public servants on the Assessment Panel) would be on the panel to assess submissions for the theatre. We were unaware of this. Did the Prime Minister's office clear the appointments of the two public servants to the panel? If so, can the Prime Minister tell us why his former Minister continues to say that the two public servants were not members of the panel with full voting entitlements? Mr HAWKE —I have made it clear, and I repeat it to the honourable gentleman, that, obviously, as this matter has arisen, I have gone back over all the documents, including the one that has been referred to, although just quickly looking at my notes, I think it was dated 21 December. I think the honourable gentleman said it was the 22nd. Mr N.A. Brown —He is right, too. There are two of them. Mr HAWKE —Fair enough. I just looked quickly at the notes and saw one dated 21 December. Not only have I looked at the documents in this matter but also, clearly, I have discussed it with my Department and my officials. There is nothing in any document, and nothing has emerged from the discussions that I have had, which gives any reason at all to change the statements that I have made by way of public release, media release, or in this place. As to that part of the question from the honourable gentleman which goes to what was in the mind of the ex-Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta, that is clearly a question for him, although in the forms of this House it cannot be directed to him. Let me say on that point that the honourable member for Parramatta has made it quite clear that he accepts and agrees with what I have said on this issue as to the membership and voting rights or otherwise of the members of that panel. I repeat: it must be said in fairness to the honourable member that on the record it has been established quite clearly what was in his mind as to where the matter lay. One can take it to the next step. Let us assume, just for the sake of discussion, that in regard to Mr Faiman, who was the fifth of the five artistic members to come in, as it turned out in the event when the meeting was reconvened his vote, if we can put it in shorthand terms, went against Rogers and in favour of AAV Australia Pty Ltd. In the mind of the Minister that was absolutely decisive. For the sake of speculation, let us say that the vote had gone the other way, that Mr Faiman's vote had gone in favour of Rogers and against AAV. In the circumstances, I imagine what the Minister would have done would have been to report to Cabinet as to the outcome-that three of the artistic members were in favour of Rogers and two in favour of AAV. It would have been known what the position of the others was and the Cabinet would have been confronted with a decision as to what it should do in those circumstances. It would have had the report. I repeat that as far as what was in the mind of the Minister is concerned, clearly the arithmetic of it shows that there would not have been any point in his calling or going ahead with a meeting to that effect unless he thought in terms of its being decisive for him as to the view of the artistic members. The arithmetic shows that, if it was not the case, he was outvoted anyway. Mr DUBOIS —I address my question to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. In asking the Minister his maiden question, I want to congratulate him on his elevation to the Ministry. He will be one of the great Ministers of this Government. Mr O'Keefe —Is this a dorothy dixer? Mr DUBOIS —No, this is without notice. Is the Australian film industry facing financial difficulties? What is the Government's response? Mr PUNCH —I thank the honourable member for his question and his congratulations. There is no doubt that the Australian film industry has some fairly serious problems. The latest report I have is that the level of fund raising for film and television drama is expected to drop from about $140m last year to between $30m and $40m for 1987-88. Undoubtedly, I say to the House, the overwhelming reason for that reduction is the reduction in income tax rates that has been brought about by this Government, which has made tax concessions available for investment in film far less attractive to investors than they have ever been. Given that, I should inform the House that last week I met with representatives of the Australian Film Commission and the Australian film industry and, on behalf of the Government, I gave them an undertaking that we will be aiming to have a new film assistance scheme in place by 1 July this year and a decision is to be made next month on exactly which type of scheme. We on this side of the House-I hope honourable members on the other side will listen-believe in the Australian film industry. We think it is culturally very important to the people of this country and we intend to make sure that film production in this country continues at a high level. Mr SPENDER —I direct my question to the Prime Minister and refer him to the comments made by the honourable member for Parramatta that the Prime Minister shared his own view that the two public servant members on the second tendering committee for the Expo theatre pavilion did not have a vote in awarding the contract. In view of the fact that the honourable member for Parramatta subsequently requested that his comments on this matter not be published because it was not in the Prime Minister's-to use the honourable member's words-`best interests', will the Prime Minister inform the House of any circumstances which would not make the publication of this view by the honourable member for Parramatta be in his best interests? In other words, as the honourable member for Parramatta appeared to suggest, does the Prime Minister have a problem if the truth is told about him in this matter? Mr HAWKE —I feel quite devastated by this question. The fact is that I tell the truth. As can be expected from the fact that I always tell the truth, I have told the truth on this issue. It is the case that the honourable member for Parramatta seemed to have a misunderstanding and he has accepted without qualification the statements that I have made. He has made that clear today, as I understand it. He has made it quite clear that he accepts that. I repeat: it is a measure of the pathetic quality of the people opposite and their leader that in a situation where there is so much discussion about the economy, here in this country and in the international context, we went for the whole of last week without a question on the Australian economy from the opposite side to the Treasurer or me. This is now the fourth question on this matter to be asked today. There was some hope when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stood up that he might at last have summoned up courage to direct a question to his opposite number, the Treasurer, on the economy. But Opposition members go on in this way because all they have is their squalid, misplaced hope that we on this side of the House have the same standards of integrity that they have. Unfortunately for them, our standards are infinitely superior. They can go on for as long as they like. They can ask as many questions as they like. They can do this week what they did not have the courage to do last week and move a censure motion if they like. We do not mind how long they take on this by way of question to me or by way of censure motion. We would welcome it. They can go on as long as they like because the further they go on this issue the further they will sink in the estimation of the people of this country. Mrs DARLING —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of action taken by some States to include the family allowance supplement (FAS) in the calculation of Housing Commission rentals? If he is aware, as I would expect to be the case, can he inform the House what action has been taken by the Commonwealth to protect the integrity of the family package payments? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that she and a number of members of the Parliament are concerned that the treatment of the family allowance supplement by the State housing departments is extremely important, particularly given the Commonwealth's commitment to the elimination of child poverty. I inform the House that Senator Ryan, when she was the responsible Minister, wrote to the State Ministers asking them to give consideration to concessional treatment of the family allowance supplement on the basis that if the full amount of the supplement were taken into account it would contradict the Government's emphasis and initiative with respect to the elimination of child poverty. The current Minister with responsibility for that portfolio has further pursued the matter. He informs me that State officials met last week and gave consideration to the matter. There was a recognition of the Commonwealth's objective with respect to child poverty and a recognition that it may well be appropriate to review procedures for assessing income and rent for low income parents in the light of the additional payments they are receiving from the family package. The Government is certainly very anxious to see consistent treatment across all the States. To that end, my colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care shortly will write to State housing Ministers seeking an approach in line with that discussed by officials. We welcome very much the positive steps being taken by State officials and governments to reconsider this extremely important matter. I might say, incidentally, that the only Commonwealth area in which it seems there is very strong resistance to reconsideration of the issue is on the part of the Queensland Government which has said on a number of occasions that it will not undertake a review of the income rebate policy. Of course, that Government has been taking account of the earlier family income supplement payment. I very much regret the Queensland Government's position. We have had very fruitful discussions with that Government on the child support scheme and I think there was some willingness to co-operate in that area. It is extremely important that the child poverty issue be addressed nationally, by not only the Commonwealth but also all the States. There are perhaps stronger reasons that Queensland, more than any other State, should address this issue. As honourable members will know, Queensland has had extraordinarily high levels of unemployment. December 1987 was the twenty-second month in a row that Queensland had more people on the unemployment benefit than Victoria-98,817 compared with 83,577-whereas Victoria's work force is 65 per cent higher than Queensland's. Queensland has the highest unemployment of any State-a figure of 9.6 per cent compared with 7.8 per cent nationally. Given the unemployment that exists in Queensland and the reality of poverty that goes with those levels of unemployment, it would seem to me responsible for the Queensland Government to reconsider its position and, at the appropriate time, together with other Ministers, help us to achieve a genuinely national approach in terms of the treatment of FAS and the elimination of child poverty. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether he or anyone on his behalf had any discussion with the honourable member for Parramatta regarding the substance of the article on the front page of the Weekend Australian containing the allegation by the honourable member for Parramatta and former Minister that the Prime Minister shared his view about voting rights on the Expo panel and also containing the entreaty of the honourable member for Parramatta that that comment not be published. Mr HAWKE —Before I answer this question, which I will of course, I ask the House to note that it seems to be a new facet of the Leader of the Opposition's approach that it is appropriate to disclose in this place discussions that take place between leading members of it and other people. He went on with it last week. He wanted to suggest to this House that it was proper, for instance, that I should disclose to this House discussions that I had had with the President of my Party. I remind the House that the President of my Party is Mr M. J. Young. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was appropriate that I should disclose to this House discussions that I had had with the President of my Party. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is appropriate to disclose to this House discussions that I have had with the President of my Party, it would be interesting to see whether he would play the same game and disclose to this House why the President of his Party, on 5 February in Adelaide, told him that last year he was not fit to be the Prime Minister of a Liberal government in this country. It would be interesting to hear the details of that discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and the President of his Party. However, I do not imagine that the Leader of the Opposition will do that. In answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I had discussions with the honourable member for Parramatta because it was appropriate to do that, as clearly he had misunderstood this matter. Mr Howard —You misunderstood it. You got it together at last? Mr HAWKE —No, there was no misunderstanding. I shall indicate to the Leader of the Opposition precisely the events of last Thursday when this matter arose. On Thursday afternoon I was leaving Parliament House to go to Melbourne. Some 10 minutes before I left the matter was brought to the attention of my Press officer that the honourable member for Parramatta had made certain observations. The factual position of the Prime Minister was conveyed to the honourable member for Parramatta. Then we left. Naturally, I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition would be surprised to learn that I did discuss this matter with the honourable member for Parramatta. I make no attempt to disguise the fact that I did discuss the matter with the honourable member. There should be no smirk of satisfaction on the face of the Leader of the Opposition. That was a perfectly natural thing to do-perfectly natural. The honourable member for Parramatta accepts the position I put to him. It is not surprising that he should, because that position is factually correct. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Has the Minister any response from the State governments on the Government's Green Paper on Higher Education? Do the States support the thrust of the Green Paper's proposals? Mr DAWKINS —I am pleased to be able to report to the honourable member and to the House that on Friday of last week there was a special meeting of the Australian Education Council to consider the Government's proposals in relation to higher education. The importance of that is that whatever we do in the area of higher education has great implications for the States, in terms of the numbers of young people who are likely to enrol in higher secondary schools, the curriculum they might undertake, and most particularly, improved links between the technical and further education system and the higher education system as we now know it. After a long discussion during the meeting on Friday, the members of the Council agreed in principle to the three basic thrusts of the Green Paper: they supported the need for a strongly growing higher education system; they supported one that would run as efficiently as possible; and they supported one where quality of teaching and research would be safeguarded and enriched during the process. As a consequence of that agreement in principle, it was decided to establish in each State a joint planning committee in order to progress matters of detail as they will affect each State. Many issues will touch on State responsibilities in relation to the possible amalgamation of institutions. They include improved credit transfers between institutions, and an array of other matters. We are keen as quickly as possible to examine in some detail the States' views, and what they would like to see done in their States. We are keen because we want to use that input as an important contribution to the development of our White Paper later this year. With regard to other contributions to this debate, I might add that on 16 February the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education issued a statement in which it strongly supported the clear vision underlying the initiatives proposed in the Government's Green Paper. We are still awaiting the vice-chancellors' response. However, I have had a meeting with the executive of the Vice-Chancellors Committee, and I expect, again, a very positive response from the vice-chancellors. I do not want to indicate here that there will be unqualified, 100 per cent, support for all of the proposals. After all, this is a Green Paper intended to stimulate debate, a debate in which the Government is keen to participate. As a result of broad discussion during the next couple of months I am sure that we will be able to secure a strong foundation for the growth of higher education towards the turn of the century. Mr HOWARD —I remind the Prime Minister that we have now reached the situation in which the honourable member for Parramatta resigned because he misled the Parliament but refused to tell the Parliament how this occurred. He then asserted that the Prime Minister held the view which caused him to mislead Parliament. He then claimed that by telling the truth he had been misleading about the Prime Minister's knowledge of the matter, and he now maintains that the Press is being misleading by telling the truth. Does the Prime Minister still believe that the honourable member for Parramatta is a fit and proper person to return to his Ministry? Mr HAWKE —I made it quite clear before that I believe that in certain respects the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories had been sloppy in his handling of this matter. I have said that in the House and I have said it to him. I have also said to him, as I have to this House, that I believe that he did a simply outstanding job as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, as it was originally, and then in his enlarged capacity after the rearrangements of last year. I have no reason to change that assessment, that judgment, which I have conveyed to the honourable member for Parramatta personally and have also made public. In the balance of considerations, testing the sloppiness of this issue on the one hand and looking at the enormous achievements of John Brown as a Minister on the other, I have no reason to change my assessment that at some time in the future it would not be inappropriate that the great talents of the honourable member for Parramatta should be made available again to the government and people of this country. In saying that, I did not convey, nor did I intend to convey, that that was something for the immediate future; nor have I conveyed that to the honourable member. In regard to people on this side of the House or, indeed, those on the other side of the House, I do not take the view that some perceived inadequacy at some time should rule out people from higher office at some future time. In this regard I give some gratuitous advice to the Leader of the Opposition. It would not be a bad idea if he had a look at the range of talent on his back benches, to which he has consigned a considerable number of people. One only has to compare some of the talent back there, including that of the blushing honourable member for Menzies, with that of the singularly ineffective mob on the Opposition front bench. I think the Leader of the Opposition might be better served in advancing his position, which is perilous at the moment-I thank the honourable member for Menzies for nodding in profound agreement from the back bench-if he looked at the talent on his own back bench, including the namesake of the honourable member for Parramatta, instead of asking me when the honourable member for Parramatta is likely to come back. I do not know what the honourable member for Menzies did to upset the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he will come around to my office afterwards and tell me-he nods in agreement again. There will be a cappuccino waiting for him; we will have a discussion over that cappuccino as to why the Leader of the Opposition gave the honourable member for Menzies the rush to the back benches. I am not normally a fan of the honourable member for Menzies, but I would say there is evidence of his pertinacity and assiduousness in the way in which he perceives certain issues. I want to know what it was that he did wrong, what peccadillo he was guilty of, other than perhaps that of coveting the job of the Leader of the Opposition. Who could blame him for that after watching the Leader of the Opposition discharge his duties? There is a whole host of such people; not only here, but also outside. For example, the President of the Party covets the job. He has eyes on the seat of the honourable member for Higgins. The honourable member for Higgins knows that he is under siege. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realise that you are very tolerant of the Prime Minister, however I draw your attention to standing order 145 which clearly states that an answer shall be relevant to the question. The Prime Minister is now going on at length. His answer is irrelevant. Madam Speaker, I ask you to rule that way. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is drawing his answer to a conclusion. Mr HAWKE —Yes, I was, Madam Speaker. Other honourable members opposite were wanting me to carry on. However, in the discussion I am going to have over cappuccino with the honourable member for Menzies after Question Time he will tell me just what the range of peccadilloes was which got him the rejection by the Leader of the Opposition. I will be very interested to hear that. We will then understand why it is that not only the honourable member for Menzies but also a whole range of people behind the Leader of the Opposition consider that there should be some rethinking by the Leader of the Opposition about the use of the talents he has got. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that he had better hurry up and do it. He had better hurry up and get the best talent together because the Federal President of his Party is waiting to give him the boot. In conclusion, the only hope I have got is that the Leader of the Opposition will continue to be deluded by the implications of the Adelaide by-election because, from my point of view and the point of view of those who sit behind me, the longer he stays where he is, the better. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Treasurer indicate to the House the condition of State financial outlays and borrowings? Mr KEATING —In the last week or two there has been a debate in the Press about the condition of various State finances and some reference to those in New South Wales, particularly in light of statements by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales in the last few days that were he to have his way, a government led by him would freeze public outlays in New South Wales. The point of this utterance on the part of the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, no doubt, is that he feels that it will endow him with some particular virtue. However, the fact of the matter is that the New South Wales Government not only does not have outlays frozen but also it is actually reducing the size of outlays. This year public outlays in New South Wales are set to decline by minus one per cent in real terms. It is interesting that the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition is talking about some rigour, albeit of a subordinate variety, in the New South Wales Government in public administration when his Federal counterpart ran around in an election campaign with $8 billion in unfunded tax cuts and who, in the interregnum, has decided that he will take Commonwealth outlays back to some average that applied between the late 1960s and early 1970s which would cut about $11 billion from public outlays. Of course, he has not specified where those cuts would be made. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party of Australia has had its chance to do something to the national economy. It has failed as, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition has failed. I think it is worth placing on the record that New South Wales Government outlays to State gross product were the lowest of all the States through the 1980s. Not only are outlays growing negatively this year by one per cent in real terms, but also the net borrowing requirement for New South Wales is estimated to fall by 9.2 per cent in real terms in 1987-88 against minus 2.8 per cent for all other States, including the Northern Territory. Therefore, both on outlays and borrowings the New South Wales position is tighter than that of any of the other States. Its net borrowings are estimated at 1.6 per cent of State gross product-less than the all-State average and the second lowest of all the States. We can see that when the New South Wales Premier wishes to say that he would allocate spending to priorities set by him and his Government, he can do that as, indeed, the Commonwealth Government this year has set its priorities within an outlays growth figure of minus 2.4 per cent in real terms. It has been able to introduce the family allowance supplement as part of the family package, increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and make various other expenditure commitments and set priorities for the Federal Government within the rigour of a minus 2.4 per cent growth in real terms. In other words, it is the right of any government to change the spending priorities of its predecessors, which we have done by a rigorous evaluation of priorities from 1983 onwards and which New South Wales has been doing in the last 12 years, and continues to do. It is an entirely reasonable proposition for a Premier of any State to order priorities as he or she, as the case may be, sees fit in relation to the spending of that State. At the moment we have the debate about how the New South Wales Liberal Party, chastened by the defeat of the Federal Liberal Party with its grab bag of unfunded promises, has decided that it will freeze spending when its counterpart party, the Government of New South Wales, has spending decreasing-not just frozen, but declining. In mentioning the change in the priorities of the New South Wales Government, it is also worth recalling that over the past 12 years there has been a dramatic change in priorities in New South Wales. They have been Labor priorities set by a Labor government-by the Wran Government and the Unsworth Government. If people cast their minds back, the fact is that 12 years ago New South Wales was in industrial ruin. Under Federal and State Liberal policies we had the decimation of the great industrial heartland of Sydney. We saw the decimation of the satellite cities of Wollongong and Newcastle. We saw the priorities of spending cast away from the centres of population in the western suburbs where there were unsewered areas of unguttered streets. Since Labor has been in government in New South Wales we have seen the return of decent services with an extension of rail and transport services throughout the western region of New South Wales. On top of that, we have seen the revitalisation of the whole industrial base in New South Wales in the hands of both Premier Wran and Premier Unsworth. There has been very definitely a change and a resetting of priorities for public outlays within the State of New South Wales, particularly through the 1980s, so that today New South Wales is the leading industrial State, where the job growth rate in 1987 was double that of the rest of Australia, where half of all new Australian jobs were created in 1987 and where half of all private sector job vacancies occurred. That shows the progress of the State of New South Wales from the industrial shambles that the Liberal Party had left it in when Premier Wran picked it up in 1976. It shows the way in which Labor set its priorities and reinvigorated the place. We have seen great cosmopolitan changes in Sydney not only to the industrial base but also to the fact that, on weekends particularly, it had been a place nobody could visit because it was shut down. Things have changed dramatically for people who do not have the privilege of a harbourside home. They can now go to Darling Harbour, which the Liberal Party was happy to leave as a railway goods yard, or to Pier One, Walsh Bay, Macquarie Street, the gardens or the Art Gallery. The fact is that Sydney has come to life as the throbbing, beating centre of the Federation in terms of its industrial activity. It is the most cosmopolitan of the capital cities. This has all been done by Labor governments. All of the great changes in the city of Sydney, such as the electrification of the rail lines to the west and the Opera House, have been brought about by Labor governments. Labor governments will continue to set the priorities in New South Wales. We will not need to be told by any hand-me-down Liberal leader about freezing outlays when we can change priorities the Labor way, but change them with outlays to the State gross product in a way which is far tighter and more rigorous than is the case in any coalition-run State in the Commonwealth. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.55) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended that would prevent the Prime Minister and the Member for Parramatta providing the House forthwith a full explanation of the facts surrounding the resignation of the Member for Parramatta from the Ministry with particular reference to the Prime Minister's knowledge of the voting procedures for the theatre contract at Expo 88. All of the bluster and the irrelevance of the answers given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time cannot disguise one simple and fundamental fact-that the affair involving the resignation from the Ministry of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), but, more importantly, involving the standards of propriety of the Hawke Ministry, has assumed absolute Fawlty Towers proportions. The one and only way in which this issue can be resolved is for the honourable member for Parramatta to get up on his hind legs and to give, not to a journalist, not to the Prime Minister, not to his mates in the Ministry and not to his mates in the Australian Labor Party, but to the Parliament of Australia, some explanation in detail of why he misled this Parliament and why he resigned. That is the only way to resolve this matter, and I have moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the honourable member for Parramatta to do that. I ask the question: Why will the Prime Minister not allow the honourable member for Parramatta to get on his feet? Why does the Prime Minister want to prevent the honourable member for Parramatta from being as candid to this Parliament as he was to the journalist who reported him verbatim on Saturday morning? I wonder whether the Prime Minister has listened to the tape recording of the interview between the journalist and the former Minister. It is available in the office of News Ltd for anybody who wants to hear it. One can then make a judgment for oneself as to the nature of the conversation which the Prime Minister admitted took place between him and his former Minister after that article appeared on Saturday morning. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to bluster; it is all very well for us to have a sentimental defence of the honourable member for Parramatta by the Prime Minister, but this Parliament is the body to which Ministers, Prime Ministers and backbenchers who have been Ministers, are ultimately accountable. On this occasion we have been treated with utter contempt. The Prime Minister can use the brute force of his parliamentary numbers, he can give his smart alec answers and he can turn around to those who sit beside him and behind him to draw some comfort from their orchestrated cheers and their orchestrated encouragement, but nothing alters the fact that the honourable member for Parramatta resigned on 17 December and at no stage has this Parliament been treated to so much as the courtesy of a full and proper explanation. Even while this motion is being debated, the honourable member for Parramatta walks out of the chamber, joining the Prime Minister in the utter contempt in which he holds this Parliament and this chamber in particular. How extraordinary it is that a Minister resigns because he misled Parliament but offers no explanation. He then, in the course of a long rambling interview, said that the matter over which he resigned was common ground between himself and the Prime Minister. Common ground! There is no suggestion that the verbatim report in the Weekend Australian is wrong. I challenge the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, I challenge the Prime Minister, and I challenge the former Minister to verify any assertion on their part that this article is wrong. This article is very illuminating because not only does it say that the former Minister believed that the Prime Minister had the same view as he did about the voting procedures, but also, on top of that, after realising the import of what he had said, he then pleaded with the journalist not to publish what he had said. What was the reason he gave? The reason he gave was that it would not advance the interests of the Prime Minister if he were to have published what he had said. In other words, we have reached a situation in this country where it is legitimate to suppress the truth because the publication of the truth would be embarrassing to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his colleagues may trivialise this matter. They may say that it is irrelevant. The Prime Minister may beg us to ask questions of the Treasurer (Mr Keating); he will keep. We are interested today in what the Prime Minister has got to say about the standards of his Government. He was great when he was in Opposition in talking about standards. When Phillip Lynch was under fire over a matter of which he was totally exonerated, nobody shouted louder from the roof tops than did the present Prime Minister. When the former Attorney-General in the Fraser Government was under fire, nobody shouted louder from the roof tops that did the present Prime Minister. When some of my other colleagues were under fire there was nobody louder in his criticism than the present Prime Minister. Nobody paraded his outraged sense of propriety with greater venom and transparency than did the present Prime Minister. In an interview on 16 November 1977, the Prime Minister summed it all up when he said, `If a man shouts from the roof tops that those in high office should be subject to scrutiny he should have exactly those standards applied to himself'. That is exactly what we are doing. Nobody shouts louder from the roof tops, nobody parades his integrity more with such pathetic sensitivity, than does the present Prime Minister. He cannot let a statement pass his lips without saying how honest he is and how he always tells the truth. If he always tells the truth and he is so honest, why is he so frightened of this Parliament hearing from John Brown? Why is he so craven in his desire to prevent John Brown coming into this Parliament, getting up on his hind legs and saying, `This is how it happened'? Why? Until John Brown does that, until this craven Prime Minister, whose precious concern for his integrity blinds his judgment, allows Brown to come into this Parliament, his responses-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might refer to the honourable member for Parramatta by his electorate. Mr HOWARD —Until the Prime Minister allows the honourable member for Parramatta to come into this Parliament and explain to this chamber, to which he is accountable, why it is that the events that have transpired occurred in the manner that they did, we can draw only one conclusion. However trivial the Prime Minister may want the public and the Press to think this matter is, we can draw only one conclusion, and that is that the Prime Minister is frightened of the truth, that he is frightened of what would happen if the honourable member for Parramatta got on his hind legs and actually explained. Who believes what the honourable member for Parramatta and the Prime Minister now say in the face of the most explicit language used by the honourable member for Parramatta, as reported in this newspaper interview? This is what the honourable member for Parramatta said: I'm withdrawing that information. It was a mistake. I'm withdrawing it, right? And I don't want you to print it. In other words, he was down on his bended knees pleading with the journalist not to publish it because it might dob in his mate the Prime Minister. I do not believe the honourable member for Parramatta when he said on the steps of Parliament House this morning that the newspaper report was wrong. I do not believe the Prime Minister's account in the Parliament today. Of course, he had a word with the honourable member for Parramatta. Undoubtedly, he said to the honourable member for Parramatta, `You have got it wrong again, John. This is too embarrassing for me. How are we going to handle this matter?'. That is how they got together. Of course they had a conversation. I say again that this matter will remain a cloud over the Hawke Ministry until the honourable member for Parramatta, as is his bounden duty, gives this Parliament, in accordance with its right, a full account, a proper explanation and a truthful story regarding all of the circumstances that surround this issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.06) —I second the motion. There are three reasons why this motion should be seconded and why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) should make a full statement to the House about the whole matter concerning a World Expo 88 contract for $5m. The first reason is that it is fundamental to our system of parliamentary democracy that Ministers are answerable to the people through the Parliament of this country. They are members of Parliament. When they resign they have an obligation to this House to make a statement as to why they resign. Since this Parliament has reassembled, neither we nor the Australian people have been given the courtesy or the decency of an explanation as to why this Minister resigned and what the Prime Minister knows about it. If the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta and the Government as a whole had an ounce of respect for this principle of parliamentary democracy-the principle that Ministers are answerable to the Parliament-they would agree to this motion to set aside standing orders and the Prime Minister and the honourable member would make their statements to this House. They would not run off and make statements to the Press, deny them later on and then add insult to injury by abusing the Press; they would come into this House and make statements. If that principle has been abused, as it clearly has, it has been doubly abused by the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Parramatta walking out of this House while this debate is in progress. They have shown absolute and complete contempt for this Parliament and for the principle of ministerial responsibility. The second reason this motion should be supported is that there is now a whole series of documents which show in fact that the Prime Minister was involved. He put out his stupid Press release on 31 December, in between golf matches, saying that this matter was too trivial for him to be concerned with. But what do we see when we look at the documents that are available under the Freedom of Information Act? We find that the public servants, who are presumably telling the truth-and there are several of them and they have produced a whole series of documents-are saying that the Prime Minister was involved. They say his office was involved. They say he was intimately concerned, not just with the issue as a whole but with the very issue which led to the Minister's resignation. So the Prime Minister is involved. The House is entitled to an explanation from him by way of statement as to the extent of his involvement, when he became involved and what his dealings were with the honourable member for Parramatta when he was a Minister. The House is entitled to an explanation of all of the circumstances. It will simply compound the offence that they have committed if the Prime Minister does not make that statement. I think the third matter is somewhat new. The honourable member for Parramatta was sprung when the Sydney Morning Herald printed a document which showed that the former Minister had misled this House. That document, according to the honourable member for Parramatta, was leaked by a public servant-another smear, another piece of abuse thrown at the Public Service. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I believe-and I believe it on substantial grounds-that that document was not leaked by a public servant but by a Minister in the Hawke Government. Ministers were the ones who benefited most from getting rid of Brown. They were the ones who were responsible for those circumstances. They were the ones who, on my understanding, had the documents. It was only when the Ministers of this Government had the documents that one of them was leaked. For 20 months 20 or so senior public servants handled hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents about this matter and not one of them leaked; all the documents remained in the departments. When I put in my freedom of information request I was told by the Department that documents had been recalled from many places. For the first time they were together in one place. I was told by the Department that it was then that they came into the hands of Ministers and not before. The documents were in the hands of Ministers. The senior public servant in the former Minister's Department said to me that the Department was not responsible for what Ministers did with the Government's property. For that reason, among others, I believe that that document was leaked by a Minister in the Hawke Government. It was that which sprang him. It was that which proved that he had misled the Parliament. It is no wonder the Government wants to continue this deception. When the honourable member for Parramatta was involved in the so-called colour television issue in 1982, he said on opening his speech in this place: O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive. I can still hear him saying it in that debate. How true it is of this case. If the Government does not come clean, eventually it will get even more ensnared in this web. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.12) —What a damp squib the Opposition has made of this issue. This is the second time it has put forward this proposition. As on the first occasion, no additional arguments have been presented as to why a statement should be made. The Opposition has come in here with perhaps the weakest preliminary to censure discussions that I have yet heard a Leader of the Opposition-admittedly I have only eight years experience-make in this place. First of all, the Opposition invited us to consider the point that, when somebody resigns, invariably a statement must be made to the Parliament. It happens to be the case that the Opposition's period of administration provided ample examples of resignation on grounds of propriety. There were something like 22 resignations, eight of which were on grounds of propriety. What was the result? We might say that it was mixed. On four occasions statements were indeed made to the Parliament. One honourable member opposite, who is leaning forward and listening to this very intently, was one of those who made a statement to the Parliament. Apropos criticisms of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) returning to the Ministry, I notice that there is no difficulty at all-and I would say rightly so-on the part of the Opposition deciding that the concerns of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) were of sufficient proportion to enable him to return to the front bench at some subsequent stage. Persiflage is being thrown around this place about that being an inadequate precedent or that the man must be driven from public office forever, which is not, of course, a policy practised by the Opposition. From the researches that I have managed to undertake so far there were four cases in which statements were not made to Parliament. Vic Garland resigned as Minister for Post and Telecommunications because of allegations of electoral bribery leading to legal action. No statement was made in the Parliament. Phil Lynch resigned as Treasurer on 19 November 1977 over allegations that he had received special consideration from profitable land deals in 1976. No explanation was given to the Parliament. Glen Sheil resigned on 21 December 1977 after being named as a Minister on 20 December 1977. He was dismissed before being sworn in as Minister for Veterans' Affairs after making pro-apartheid statements contrary to Government policy. No explanation was given to the Parliament. Senator Withers resigned as Minister for Administrative Services after allegations of impropriety in the 1977 redistribution of Federal electoral boundaries in Queensland. In that instance there was a statement to the Parliament-a short one by the then Senator Carrick. Of course, we know that Mr Robinson resigned in here and then resubmitted himself as a member of the Government. He publicly resigned and retracted his resignation. In that instance Parliament was unable to discover what were the essential causes of his points of disagreement with the then Prime Minister and what brought him back. So we have these great attempts by Opposition members to portray themselves as the defenders of parliamentary proprietry in this place-that every time somebody resigns there must be a statement to Parliament. They managed to practise that not one whit while they were in government. The House can judge their seriousness in this case by their performance and practices when they happened to be in government. So, we do not take any lectures from the Opposition on the subject of whether we appropriately manage our affairs in this House by the explanations that we give. That is the first point. The Opposition arrives here without any great robes of propriety, honesty, honourableness, or whatever they attempt to clothe themselves in. The substance of the motion asks the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to explain in the House what he knew about the understanding of the honourable member for Parramatta as to who was entitled to vote or otherwise in the tender selection process. The Opposition's argument is that that has not been explained. I have been present during Question Times for the last week and a bit. To my memory there have been at least half a dozen questions going precisely to that point, to which the Prime Minister offered lengthy answers. The Prime Minister did not seek to duck or weave the issue. He said quite clearly that there were different understandings of the situation in the mind of the Minister and in the minds of the other people, including the Prime Minister, who were handling the matter. The Minister was quite clear in his mind as to what the voting procedures were. His understandings subsequently proved to be erroneous. The Minister had a defence on the question of whether he deliberately arrived at that erroneous conclusion. That is clear from memos that subsequently have been made the subject of freedom of information discussion. Obviously it was an honest mistake on his part. I shall speak more on that point when I speak on the question of ministerial propriety. As far as the Prime Minister was concerned, the question was whether a full range of artistic advice had been given with regard to the tender being considered by the Government for the Australian Pavilion at Expo. The Prime Minister has made his position quite clear. He has done so publicly and in this House in answers to questions asked. Therefore no further explanation is needed. However, of further interest is the motives of the people involved in this unfortunate affair. One thing that emerges clearly from all of this is that, whatever mistakes were made by the honourable member for Parramatta in the administration of his portfolio, his motives were of the highest. His concern was to provide for this country the best possible display at a very important event in our bicentennial year. There is no question of that in any of his activities. His motive is supported by the fact that no personal gain was involved. Clearly all that was involved was a mistake in administration. That demonstrates how fundamentally and totally trivial the Opposition is in persistently raising this question. There was no attempt on the part of the Minister to take from the public purse. There was no attempt by him to do other than effectively administer his portfolio. Honourable members will recall what happened last year with regard to the question of tenders. The Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support was regularly excoriated by the Opposition on whether he would interfere in a tender process. Oh no, said the Opposition, the precious tender process must never be looked at by Government Ministers; interference must not take place. That is what the Opposition now says on this issue. But what did it say when that issue was before the House? It said that governments must interfere regularly in the tender process to take a serious interest in what is happening. I tend to agree with that process. All Ministers must carefully view the tender process in any matter dealing with their public administration. The Government would not disagree with that. Of course, that is exactly what the honourable member for Parramatta did. Unfortunately the nature of affairs in this place is that a person can, by the way in which he conducts his portfolio, make a considerable effort in the public administration of this country in order to secure a great deal of public benefit-but be forced out on what is essentially a trivial matter. There is a considerable difference-I shall go straight to this matter-between misleading the Parliament and deliberately misleading the Parliament. The point has been clearly made by the Prime Minister and others that the honourable member for Parramatta adopted a stance on propriety with regard to his relationship to this Parliament that few other Ministers ever have. To this point there has been no requirement of any resignation that I have seen that says that a Minister who inadvertently misleads the House should resign. Mr Howard —We don't accept that. Mr BEAZLEY —The Leader of the Opposition may not accept that now but he did when his Party was in government. His Party regularly accepted it and he regularly corrected Minister's answers in this place. Opposition members regularly presented themselves here and answered positions given in Question Time that were ultimately misleading. So let us dismiss that nonsense for starters. The honourable member for Parramatta made a statement pointing out that he felt that his administration had been so totally inadequate that, while the resignation was not required of him by the Prime Minister and while there was no demand that that should proceed, he did not believe that he should any longer hold that position. He believed that his administration was inadvertently suspect. For that reason he decided to leave office. As far as this matter is concerned, all the facts are on public record. They are on public record because of the Freedom of Information Act, Press releases and regular answers to questions in this Parliament. There is no further material to be placed on the public record. Therefore, the demand by the Opposition that we make further parliamentary statements on this is ridiculous. The Opposition has managed over the last week or so to blow its chances. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Minister's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. Question put. That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N.A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hewson, J. R. Sullivan, K. J.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. 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.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —I present the text of the statement relating to alumina exports from Gove as listed on the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —Mr Deputy Speaker, in an excellent article in the Pacific Islands Monthly of February 1988 under the heading of `Spender slams Pacific neglect' a statement appeared to which I should like to draw attention. It stated: He is also critical of the quality of some Australian diplomats in island states'. At the time I gave the interview I had recently returned from a visit to some of the island states and that statement might be interpreted as being critical of some of those I saw. That was not intended. The point that I was seeking to make and which, perhaps, I did not make clearly enough was that we need to give very high priority to the South Pacific region in allocating our diplomatic resources. 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 and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. by Mr Beale and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undesigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. 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 Governments discriminatory Anti-Smoking legislation in the workplace bans and on Domestic Airline travel. 2. Note that so called Environmental Tobacco smoke has not been proved as a major pollutant either in the workplace or on aircraft. 3. This legislation will discriminate against thirty per cent of the citizens of Australia, and 4. Call upon the Government to lift all bans and not proceed with any discriminatory smoking legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would isolate many elderly and disabled people who depend on telephone services for communication and social contact. That the greatest effect will be on isolated people and communities and will add to their disadvantages in that it will restrict social contact The lifestyle of many people will be downgraded to facilitate business abuse of a technological device. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Totally reject plans by Telecom for time-charge local calls as a serious impost on housebound and isolated members of the community and the general public. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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 the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. That Telecom Australia's proposal to time-charge local telephone calls is unlikely to benefit the general public in the way outlined by Telecom in recent news releases; That low-income families, pensioners, social security recipients and people suffering physical and mental infirmities need telephone access without time limitations; That such people would be severely affected under the proposed changes; That such people would be unlikely to use the phone in off-peak hours, when lower rates would apply; That the operations of voluntary community help agencies would be severely disadvantaged under the proposed changes; That private subscribers should not be penalised for the over-use of Telecom facilities by businesses using facsimile machines and computers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reject Telecom's proposals to time-charge local calls. And your petitioners, as in in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris. 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 businesses, 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. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned Australian citizens, respectfully showeth: That we totally oppose Telecom's plan to charge local telephone calls according to their length. That we believe that such a system of charging would severely disadvantage the elderly, the disabled, community organisations and ordinary householders. That we call upon the Government to reject Telecom's time charge proposal and to ensure that Telecom maintains the current charging system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sciacca. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Hume 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 Fife. 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 a 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 Chynoweth. To the Honourable 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 Chynoweth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal; Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should not be considered any further, and in the event of it coming again before parliament it should be rejected because: We do not accept the concept of an I.D. card as necessary to control social security fraud or tax evasion, It would be an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy and our democratic society, in particular because it being required to work, operate a bank account, enter hospital or enter into any transaction, It would cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on tax payers, It cannot be guaranteed that the aggregated private information would not be misused for other purposes, The people of Australia should be fully informed and consulted in a referendum before legislation for any such change with such wide-ranging effect is considered, and We call upon the Government to cease immediately any endeavour to introduce this invasion upon our lives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australian 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. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we 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 purposes of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at a proposal to introduce a three minute time unit on local telephone calls. It would be an act of justice and compassion to prevent this hardship being imposed on persons as of low income; many being aged pensioners and housebound and handicapped to whom a telephone is a necessity to enable communicating with the outside world . . . if the proposal were abandoned. Your petitioners request that the present conditions and costs for local calls be not made more arduous, expensive or difficult, and as in duty bound will ever pray the government grant this request now. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to ACT legislation and Customs regulations which have resulted in Australia wide distribution of material restricted under State censorship laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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. We are totally opposed to any move by the Government to allow local telephone calls to be charged on a time basis. 2. This measure would discriminate against the aged and disabled who rely on the telephone as their main form of communication. 3. The Government should investigate other means of eliminating the misuse of the Telecom system by computer operations. We the undersigned call upon the Government to pledge to maintain the current system of charging for local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And Your Petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Prosser. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled the humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the post office at Camberwell South be closed. The post office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel further for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels. We maintain that the purpose of 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 to help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of the Camberwell South Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. 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 the deterrent penalties, and Close the customs barrier to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. 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 Webster. 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 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Parkes electorate respectfully showeth that: An $8 million wealth inquiry proposed by all three factions of the Labor Party and the ACTU will give the Hawke Labor Government the information it needs for a Wealth Tax and the reintroduction of Death Duties. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject any plans Labor has to conduct a wealth inquiry and impose two new taxes on the Australian people and businesses, already struggling under 16 new Hawke Labor Government taxes. Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: They strongly oppose the introduction of timed local telephone calls in regional and rural areas as they are already severely disadvantaged in comparison with telephone users in the major metropolitan areas in their ability to contact other people on an untimed local call basis. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Correct the problem created in the major metropolitan areas, do not alter the present untimed local call policy in regional and rural areas and reinstate the ability for those living in remote areas to have an untimed local call. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the McEwen electorate respectfully showeth that: The Constitution of Australia recognises the significance of the Christian religion to the people of Australia by specific reference in the preamble. This Parliament recognises Christianity as the overwhelmingly predominant religion of Australia each day proceeding with the Lord's Prayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Continue this recognition by a Christian Prayer and Blessing forming an important part of the opening of the new Parliament House by Her Majesty the Queen on May 9th 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Newcastle New South Wales draws to the attention of the House that: (a) Bilateral Peace Treaties offer a context of increased global security. Signatory States will have a specific commitment to PEACE from their inception. Bilateral Peace Treaties create a climate which encourages creative work in improving international relations. and (b) Bilateral Peace Treaties are firmly based on the principles and nation-state obligations of the United Nations Charter and, as such, can be easily supported by all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that Australia offer to each nation-state in the world a Bilateral Peace Treaty containing these two proposals: 1. We will settle all disputes between us by negotiation or other peaceful means. and 2. We will never be the first to resort to force, violence or war. by Mr Allan Morris. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania showeth: That the Government ensure that the `Armed Forces Food Science Establishment' in Scottsdale, Tasmania be maintained due to its strategic significance in providing specialist food products and food science research to the Australian Defence Forces. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Extradition Bill 1987 Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received advice from the National Party of Australia Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) to be a member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training in place of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The contempt shown to the Australian people by the Prime Minister and the Member for Parramatta through their failure to provide the Parliament with a full explanation of the facts surrounding the resignation of the Member for Parramatta from the Ministry. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.35) —The vote which has just been taken by this Parliament to deny to the Opposition its motion to move the suspension of Standing Orders makes this matter of public importance all the more relevant and all the more compelling. I remind the House that this matter of public importance once again gives to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and to the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) an opportunity of coming into this Parliament and, unprotected by the forms of Question Time, explaining to this Parliament why it is that so far they have failed to give a convincing explanation of their roles in the World Expo 88 contract affair. It would appear from those honourable members opposite who are present in the Parliament and by the way in which the Government has handled the matter to date, that once again the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Parramatta are going to treat the Parliament with contempt. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) that the Opposition warmly welcomes the opportunity of saying more about this particular affair. We welcome the opportunity because once again it gives us the chance to remind the Australian public and this Parliament of the chapter of events which has unfolded. It gives us a chance to remind this Parliament once again that when it comes to questions of ministerial propriety it will always find the Prime Minister siding with mateship instead of duty. It gives us an opportunity to remind the Australian Parliament that although the honourable member for Parramatta resigned from the Ministry on 17 December less than two months after that the Prime Minister was talking about having him back in the Ministry. I suppose that is barely surprising because within six months of the former honourable member for Port Adelaide standing down from the Ministry for having leaked national security information in a Canberra car park, he was allowed back into the Ministry. So I suppose that the standard of the Hawke Government is six months if one endangers national security and less than three months if one misleads Parliament. The level of contempt of this Government for ministerial standards and parliamentary propriety is not restricted to the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Parramatta. It goes right through the Government. A few minutes ago the Leader of the House, who, I might say, is a very poor man's imitation of Mick Young, came into the House and said to the Parliament, `The honourable member for Parramatta was forced to resign over a trivial matter'. A trivial matter to mislead the House! The Prime Minister goes running out of the Parliament. Even though at Question Time he challenged the Opposition to raise this matter by substantive motion what does he do? He scuttles and runs with his golfing partner, the honourable member for Parramatta. He leaves it to the Leader of the House and the poor disappointed honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths). I would have voted for the honourable member for Maribyrnong instead of Senator Bolkus too. It is no wonder that 10 members of the right wing deserted the Prime Minister. One can hardly expect the Prime Minister to have very good ministerial standards when he is prepared to vote for somebody like Senator Bolkus who is opposed to the American alliance; who is opposed to every decent defence and foreign policy instinct in the interests of this country. The Prime Minister is prepared to vote for Senator Bolkus instead of some honourable candidate, such as the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), put forward by the Centre Left. Yet that is what this great right wing Prime Minister did because of a factional deal. Oh, Andrew has joined us. I am delighted to see the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) join us. One day, because of a factional deal, we will have the Prime Minister voting for the honourable member for Calwell. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —We will; I kid you not. If he will vote for Bolkus instead of Bilney, he will vote for Theophanous instead of Alan Griffiths. Mr Deputy Speaker, I digress a little from the substance of the motion. Let me return to it. Mr Beazley —You are going to have trouble filling in 15 minutes with this. Mr HOWARD —If the Leader of the House thinks that, on this subject, I have to filibuster for 10 minutes, he is completely wrong. I renew the invitation to the Leader of the House, and issue it to the Prime Minister and to the honourable member for Parramatta, to go up into the Press gallery, knock on the door of News Ltd bureau-I do not know whether it has a door; not many of them do have doors-and say, `Can we listen to the tape?'. They will hear what the honourable member for Parramatta had to say during that interview and they will know that he said it with very great fervour. It was not hazy; it was not accidental; it was not mistaken; it was absolutely deliberate, and it was clearly reproduced on the front page of the Australian. What that interview did was to make it very plain that, far from the Prime Minister's heated denials of any kind of involvement in this issue, the Prime Minister was in it right up to his ears. The honourable member for Parramatta must be the most hopelessly compromised member of parliament that we have seen in many years. The honourable member for Parramatta was forced to resign because he misled Parliament. I charge that he misled the Parliament deliberately-not accidentally and not technically. He has a perfect opportunity to come in here and demonstrate that what I am saying is wrong. But he will not do that; he will hide behind the cowardly device that the Government has adopted of denying to him or the Prime Minister an opportunity to give an account. Government members think it is very clever to use the Leader of the House to deny our motion. They thought they were very clever and sought to call on the matter of public importance, thinking there was no longer anything to be said about this. But what they have failed to understand is that this cowardly resort to silence by the honourable member for Parramatta and the Prime Minister is convincing nobody. At Question Time today the Prime Minister failed to explain satisfactorily to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) the nature of the discussion that took place between the Prime Minister and the former Minister way back in April. The minute of 22 December from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister, after the resignation of the Minister, pointed out, `Oh, Prime Minister, we may have said something to you a few weeks ago or a few days ago but we have subsequently learned that there were some exchanges between your office and perhaps you and the former Minister that we did not know about'. In other words, the Prime Minister's Department was covering its back; it was protecting its reputation. We still have not been told. The Prime Minister adopted the device that he so often adopts at Question Time when he gets an awkward question; he gives about one-third of the answer and then he goes off at a tangent and starts inviting people around to his office and talking about cappuccinos. All of those things are irrelevancies designed to lead the House into disinterest on the subject. But he did not answer the question put by the honourable member for Menzies and he did not answer the question put by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). It is therefore not surprising that we have seen this extraordinary spectacle of this pathetically compromised former Minister, a man who the Prime Minister says has made a mountainous contribution to the tourism industry of Australia. I say that he has made a mountainous contribution to rewriting the rule books as they relate to ministerial conduct. I have never seen an example of a former Minister more hopelessly compromised. He did not resign because of any sense of honour or concern for the Parliament; that is the most sanctimonious nonsense that we have been treated to. He resigned because he was caught out. In the view of many of us on this side of the House, the document was leaked by a ministerial colleague. That is why he resigned. It had nothing to do with honour; it had nothing to do with concern for the Parliament. That is why he is not in here. That is why his seat is empty. The honourable member for Parramatta is one of the most garrulous members we have ever seen. Certainly, if his performance, reported in the paper on Saturday morning, is any illustration, he has not ceased to be garrulous. But, on this issue, when his reputation and his credit are at stake-that is what he said to the Parliament-where is he? He is hiding for cover. He has run for cover. He has left it to the fall guys, such as they are-three of them-and they do not look very enthusiastic. They are in here trying to put up a miserable defence. But the honourable member is hopelessly compromised. He was caught out. He was sprung, probably by one of his own ministerial colleagues. Then, for a few fleeting hours, he thought he would be restored to the Ministry and, no doubt flushed with the expectation of that, went off and had a very long and revealing interview with a journalist from the Australian. A report of that interview turned up on the front page of the Weekend Australian on Saturday morning. What did he say in that interview? He said, `The Prime Minister shared my view; I was not alone'. Then he suddenly realised what he had done and pleaded, on bended knee, with the journalist, `Don't publish that; it might damage the Prime Minister. It is true, but don't publish it'. So, we have a new standard written for this Government: if anything that is true might damage the Prime Minister it must not be published. In other words, all the world can see the supreme cynicism of the Hawke Government splashed across the front page of the Weekend Australian on Saturday morning. I hope every student of ministerial standards and governmental propriety read it, because it was sickening in its cynicism. The honourable member did not ask that it not be published because it was wrong; he asked that it not be published because it might hurt the Prime Minister. The only reason he has changed his story now is that he does not want to do further damage to the Prime Minister. There is no concern for the truth. We have not been told that the account in the Australian was wrong. We have not been told how such a detailed verbatim report can get into the newspapers. Everybody in this building knows that there is a tape recording available of the interview, and people can go and hear it in the offices of News Ltd if they like. I am correct in making that statement because I have verified it. But we were not told that. We were told only one simple thing: that it had to be withdrawn and that it must not be published because it might hurt the Prime Minister. That cynicism is sickening in the extreme. We have had a lot of allegations lately about the Prime Minister losing touch. If we want another example of how this Prime Minister has lost touch, he has lost touch with the fact that at the end of the day nobody in politics in this country is so high and mighty that he is not accountable to the Parliament. The Prime Minister has lost touch with that reality. He thinks that he and anybody on whose shoulder he puts a hand-he certainly put his hand on John Brown's shoulder-is above all of that. He thinks that we should not bother great men with such trivial things, as the Leader of the House calls them, as an explanation to the Parliament as to why it was misled. I repeat-I will go on repeating it until we get a decent explanation from the Prime Minister and the former Minister-that this Parliament is the supreme body of this country. Ministers, whether Labor, Liberal or National Party, are accountable to the Parliament. No member or Prime Minister who thumbs his nose at the proprieties and the prerogatives of the Parliament can indefinitely walk tall and walk with the assurance that one would want in those positions. The Parliament has been treated shabbily; it has been treated contemptuously; and it has been treated thoroughly in keeping with the character and the behaviour of the Prime Minister over this issue. Members of the public have been treated shabbily; they have been misled; they have been treated arrogantly. We deserve better. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.50) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) did make the full 15 minutes allotted to him. There was some suspicion on this side of the House that he might not do so, and when he got to the point of discussing the internal ballots for the Ministry in the Australian Labor Party (ALP), there was a degree of conviction that he was getting to a point where he might not be able to reach the 15 minutes. To introduce that sort of topic in a discussion such as the one we are having here today begs the question of a discussion of his back bench, and who is and who ought not to be on it. It is a back bench replete with ex-Ministers-ex-Ministers who, in different degrees, were of good standing when they were Ministers. Yet we find them all now cooling their heels in the most faction-ridden Liberal Party that we have ever seen. There is a simple reason why most of them are sitting on the back bench. It has nothing to do with their talent; it is that they come from the wrong faction. We have on the back bench the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and one of the South Australian members-a whole range of former Ministers. Certainly, whether or not they were particularly talented Ministers, they are vastly more talented than the people who are sitting on the front bench of the Liberal Party. They have been left behind because of factional differences. For any member of the Liberal Party to come into this House and tell members of the Labor Party that people are being justly or unjustly appointed to the front bench because of different positions they may have taken within groups within the Labor Party is simply yet another example-this whole debate has been replete with them-of an inability on the part of the Opposition to distinguish between pots and kettles when it comes to blackguarding the Government. Honourable members opposite themselves, in the purest case of psychological projection, attribute to us characteristics which are thoroughly common on their side of the House. The substance of this matter of public importance in that regard is no different at all. The Leader of the Opposition might well like to come in hear and talk about Senator Bolkus. We will be happy to talk about his back bench any time he feels like imposing on us an obligation to discuss these matters. In addition to that consideration there are other elements of his lacklustre performance here in presenting his matter of public importance, his tired disinterested performance. Let us contrast the words about the greatest offences against parliamentary procedures possibly imaginable with the absence of passion in the way in which he proceeded with the presentation of his matter of public importance. We then get a real understanding of why this matter is not worthy of the consideration of the House. The Leader of the Opposition does not believe a darned thing he says. He does not believe one thing that he has presented in this House. As to the notion that he has not had a full explanation, he has had a total and complete explanation from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The fact that it has not produced reams and reams of material is simply a result of there not being reams and reams of material to produce. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) believed that, on that body that did the selection of the tender, two people voted who were not entitled to vote. He obviously believed that because he was so anxious to have one other member come forward and be consulted on the matter. The Government had a different belief in that regard. What it believed was necessary in getting that additional point of view was a requirement that all artistic members of the board be consulted. That difference in perception led the honourable member for Parramatta inadvertently to mislead this House-no more than that. The facts of the matter, both as to the documents and the obvious logic of his behaviour, indicate that to be the case. I refer to the logic of his behaviour in seeking an extra vote and the facts of the matter as outlined in one of the memos which have gone through, which clearly indicated that the Minister had in his mind an erroneous interpretation of the situation, which was that the relevant public servants who were voting on that body were not entitled to a vote when, indeed, they were. Far from being an example of a failure to uphold ministerial standards, which is what the Government stands accused of here, the honourable member for Parramatta took the ministerial standards to a point to which the Opposition was never prepared to go when it was in government, and probably beyond the point that we on this side of the House would regard as particularly appropriate. There has never been a requirement for a Minister to resign upon simply misleading the House. There has been a requirement for Ministers to resign when that misleading was deliberate. If one goes through the record of the previous Government, one finds numerous instances of Ministers being pulled up publicly and being obliged to change their lines on matters, in circumstances where the principal explanation given has been that they inadvertently misled the House and they now wish to correct their view. That is fine. In opposition in those days, we used to get up and make a few points ourselves when that type of situation occurred. We were prepared to use those issues in the cut and thrust of debate to make a few points about the Government, but the Government of the day-the Liberal-National Party Government-never took our points seriously enough to do anything about the Ministers concerned. That is fine. If, however, we apply the same standards to ourselves, we get a very different picture indeed. So it was for high motives that the honourable member for Parramatta resigned. He did so, I believe, in a way which, most unfortunately for him, clouded what were his very real contributions to this country. The growing industry in this country has unquestionably been the tourism industry under his management. Australian sporting organisations benefited extraordinarily from his benevolent attention while he was the Minister of the day. I mentioned about eight ministerial resignations in my previous speech on this matter in speaking to the motion to suspend standing orders; I could have gone through something like 22. One thing was evident in all those cases: in none of them was there the public outpouring of support for the Minister who was placed in that position as there was when the honourable member for Parramatta resigned. The honourable member for Menzies and other honourable members on the other side of the House might have one view about the honourable member for Parramatta. The thousands of people, and the organisations representing thousands of people more, who sent telegrams to him on that occasion, have a totally different view. If honourable members opposite want to say that they are in touch with this or that around the place, which they currently like to convey themselves as being, they should take note of that point. The Opposition in this chamber constitutes a motley crew of 50-odd people. The response, to which I have referred, to then Minister Brown's resignation came in from thousands. They took a different view of ministerial propriety than did the former Minister himself; they probably took the view that we on this side of the House would take in normal circumstances as to what was an appropriate course of action. It is sneered that the Prime Minister at some future date, although no undertaking has been given, might contemplate the return of the honourable member for Parramatta to the Ministry; yet the gravamen of those many communications was that he ought to be returned immediately. That was the suggestion put forward by them. Let us consider the question of returns to the front bench and the view that people have to be placed in purgatory for ever in this place once they have come in here and made a mistake. Thankfully for the Opposition, the standard it attempts to impose on us it does not impose on itself. Whilst it is making very little use of the talented ex-Ministers on its back benches, I know of at least one it has permitted on its front bench-an ex-Minister who resigned in similar circumstances-and that is the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). We do not dispute the right of the honourable member for Ryan to be there. We simply require the Opposition to apply the same standards to us when it preaches at us. Despite the many virtues of the honourable member for Ryan, his resignation certainly was not accompanied by that public outpouring of support that was given to the honourable member for Parramatta. As I said, the Prime Minister has made quite clear in this place his views on what were the facts of the matter, not only at dispute in previous days but also contained in the Press over the weekend. Even though there has been a full public statement, both in public and in this place in Question Time, as to all the relevant facts involved, again the Opposition comes at us with a second set of double standards. There is the double standard on the issue of the circumstances in which ministerial statements ought to be made to Parliament. The Opposition in its Press release today and in this House has waxed eloquent on the absolute requirement for Ministers upon resignation to make statements here. But when we look at the record of the Opposition in this regard, again we see a mixed response. Vic Garland resigned on the issue of electoral bribery; no statement. Phil Lynch resigned over allegations that he had received special consideration in profitable land deals in 1976; no ministerial statement and, incidentally, no bar on his subsequent return to the Ministry. There were no problems there. That is fine. Mr N.A. Brown —There was an inquiry. Mr BEAZLEY —But there was no statement to Parliament on that occasion. Senator Glen Sheil resigned over pro-apartheid statements; no statement to Parliament. We had the very celebrated case of Senator Reg Withers-no-one could accuse the Right Honourable Reg Withers of being a taciturn man-when he was dismissed as Minister for Administrative Services on allegations of impropriety. There was a short statement from Carrick but there was no debate and no statement from the senator from Western Australia. There were other occasions on which there were statements, but when we sit down to look at this we have to say that if there is an absolute requirement on all of these subjects, that absolute requirement has not been conformed to by the Opposition. We had the famous case of the then Minister for Finance-the week-long resignation and readmission for which no explanation was ever given in this place. What have we seen in the last week since the Parliament has been in session? We saw the Opposition charge into this place, telling the Press, telling everybody who was prepared to listen, how it would do over the Government on the subject of its alleged losing touch with its base; how it was going to make the Government stand on its head over the management of economic policy; how it was going to censure us on issues of ministerial propriety. But what have we seen in the past week and a bit? We have seen dribs and drabs, footling here, footling there. None of the issues of the day have been considered. None of the very significant matters that ought to be of concern to this Parliament have been considered. We have heard only a constant pleading for the Government to tell the Opposition something other than what the Government has repeatedly told it and which was borne out by the facts of this matter. It has pleaded with the Government to say more on something about which there is nothing to say. The Opposition has had its matter of public importance on the matter. It has made an effort to suspend Standing Orders on the matter. There is nothing more to say, and the spokesmen for the Opposition have demonstrated that amply. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.05) —In the comparative calm in this debate on the matter of public importance it is probably very suitable and appropriate to begin by asking the question: why are we concerned about the involvement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this whole matter concerning the contract for a $5m theatre in the Australian pavilion at World Expo 88? The answer is very simple, but to understand the answer we have to explain how this issue arose. The case against the former Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), was simply that in the case of a tendering process for a quite substantial Commonwealth job the Minister had interfered in the tendering process. Despite the fact that the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), for reasons best known to himself, has come out with this extraordinary proposition that it does not matter whether the Minister interferes in a tendering process, the fact is that some of us who work within this parliamentary system regard it as being traditionally very wrong and very bad if a Minister, having set up a tender panel, then seeks to impose his own will on the decision that that body might make. If the Leader of the House wants to do some research on this subject he need go back no further than a debate we had in November in this House concerning the Amann contract, the coastwatch contract. In that case the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), the then Minister for Transport, although he has reappeared as Minister for Transport and Communications Support, having been somewhat demoted, stated the principle in a way with which I believe no one disagrees. The Minister said on that occasion that if a Minister were found to be involved up to the elbows in a tendering process, trying to twist and contort things so he got out of the tendering process the result he wanted, that would be reprehensible and he would be deserving of censure. It is exactly that case the Minister portrayed that we have here. We started off, therefore, with the case against the honourable member for Parramatta that he had interfered in the tendering process and that that was reprehensible. We said that he had interfered in it twice. The first occasion was when the American company Bob Rogers and Co. was given the contract in the first place. We said also that he had interfered on a second occasion. The Government had set up a tender assessment panel to go through the whole wretched thing again. It had come out with a report. It had delivered that report and given it to the then Minister. The report said, `Give this contract to the Australian company AAV'. But the then Minister would not accept that. What we said against him was that he again interfered in the tendering process by holding back the decision and trying to get a different result out of the process than the one that had been produced. We said in support of that, `Look what he did. He took the tender assessment panel report and said, ``That's no good. I don't accept that result. Go back and do it again'', in an attempt to get the result that he wanted'. That is what the allegation was. The Minister replied, `No. It's true that I asked the tender assessment panel to go over the thing a second time, but I didn't do that to twist and contort it so that I could get the result I wanted. I did it for a very simple and understandable reason; that is, that the panel had not given me a clear recommendation. They had not done that. They just gave me a 50:50 split decision. I didn't know where I was. Was I expected to toss a coin? What did you expect me to do? I just sent it back to them and asked them to do it again'. Now, we know that he misled the Parliament when he said that because he was sprung by the Sydney Morning Herald, and I believe sprung by a Minister in the Hawke Government, who leaked that document to that newspaper. The result is that his spurious excuse was seen for exactly what it was, completely transparent. If the excuse is as transparent as it obviously is, we are left, are we not, with the conclusion I put in the first place, which is that he was interfering in the tender process and was trying to contort the results that that body came up with in an endeavour-still, at that late hour-to get this valuable contract for the American company. That, then, is the context we are working in. That is how the issue arises. That is how the issue comes to be before the Parliament. That is why it continues to preoccupy the Press and it occupies our minds. It now seems to be the object of such a fetish with the Government that even it cannot leave it alone. The Government defeated our motion to suspend the Standing and Sessional Orders only half an hour ago. Now it has given us the opportunity to raise the issue again and to pursue it even further for reasons that completely escape me. Nevertheless, here we go. At this late stage, over the weekend, the Government itself reopened the issue. We did not reopen it, the Government did. The Government reopened it via the former Minister who gave a foolish interview to the Australian which was published on Saturday in that newspaper. What has the honourable member for Parramatta done now? He has embroiled the Prime Minister in this very issue. Frankly, I am at such a stage of confusion that I do not know which of them to believe. There are so many allegations and counter-allegations flying around that it is almost impossible to make any rational assessment of what either of them believes. But out of that morass, that mess, I believe we can come to two clear conclusions and those conclusions are the basis on which we say that this House is entitled to a full explanation from both of them. We know that just as both the Prime Minister and the former Minister refused to speak before, likewise they are refusing to speak in this debate on a matter of public importance. As I said, there are two conclusions. The first conclusion is that by a Minister resigning and no statement being made in the Parliament-in this House or the Senate-either by the Prime Minister or the former Minister as to why he resigned, the Parliament has been treated with contempt. The Leader of the House-where are you now Michael Jerome Young when we really need you-trotted out a few other cases of Ministers who resigned where no statement was made to the Parliament. He says that that is the justification for no statement being made here. Let me remind him about the case of Senator Withers, which was one of the cases that he relied on. There was a royal commission into that matter; there was a thorough investigation of the case. There were court cases about at least one of the matters he raised. What we are faced with here is a Minister who has resigned. No explanation has been given to the Parliament despite the fact that the documents that have been released show clearly that the Prime Minister was involved, whereas he says he was not. That is why there is a contentious issue. That is why we are entitled to a statement in this place. The documents say that the Prime Minister was involved. There are five of those documents, some of which have been referred to in the House already. A document prepared by Mr Lleonart in the Minister's former Department says that the whole issue of the voting entitlements of the public servants was cleared with the Prime Minister's office. Another document which has so far not been referred to in this House and which I got under the Freedom of Information Act, tells us that this issue was coming up. It says: . . . suggested that the Prime Minister ask Mr Brown for a report on the current situation on the Australian pavilion. Honourable members can see that there is a blank under that statement. Material was taken out before the document was released under the Freedom of Information Act. We do not know what the Cabinet decided on this very issue. Let me tell honourable members that I have appealed against this exclusion from the document which relates to a very relevant matter on a very relevant date-10 April. My appeal has been rejected by people in the Prime Minister's own Department. What are they hiding? This issue was before the Cabinet. Bits have been taken out of a document so that we will not know what was going on. When I appealed against that, they rejected my appeal and said, `You can go whistle for it'? What are they hiding? They have refused us hundreds of documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Why are they hiding those documents? Time prevents me from going into all of the documents. But they all show that the Prime Minister was involved. He had actual knowledge of the very issue which led to the Minister's resignation. That is the reason why we, the Parliament and the public, are entitled to a statement from these two people who refused to debate this matter in a censure motion and who now refuse even to take part today in a debate of a matter of public importance. What are they hiding? We would like to know. We and the Press will continue to pursue this issue until we find out. This former Minister has presided over a complete shambles in public administration. The Government has engaged in deception from beginning to end. What do we have at the end of the day? We have a claim by an American company, which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) wrote to me about the other day and, believe it or not Mr Deputy Speaker, said, `I understand we will have to give up and admit liability'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.16) —The one compelling and accurate contribution made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) was when he said, `I am so confused, I do not know what to believe any more'. The filibuster that the Opposition has engaged in is simply that-a filibuster. Not one skerrick of new evidence or new information has been put before the House this afternoon. We have had a tedious repetition of issues that have been covered, recovered and covered again. Those matters have been addressed exhaustively not only on previous occasions in this House, but also during Question Time and in the context of the debate on the proposed suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders. It really is quite difficult from my point of view to come into the debate at this point and add anything new. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) affected his most statesmanlike pose. He referred to this debate as one that was relevant and compelling. He went on, of course, to filibuster about ministerial vacancies in the Hawke Labor Government. He was kind enough to acknowledge my potential for one of those vacancies. I might add that in so doing, he probably gave me the kiss of death. The Opposition could have brought this matter before the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) by way of censure motion. But it did not have the courage to do so. I ask why not? If all the rhetoric that the Opposition has put before the House in the last few minutes is of substance, the appropriate way to go about that matter is by censure motion. The Opposition does not have the courage to do that, and that ought to be put in some context. The Opposition has a history in this chamber of spreading censure motions around like confetti. One need only recall some of the irrelevant issues that it embraced by way of censure motion to gain a real assessment of how important the Opposition perceives this issue to be. Of course, the honourable member for Menzies, after having been demoted almost into the corridor, has latched on to this issue-and good luck to him-as his way back on to the front bench. My guess is that he will get there because of the publicity that he has generated around this issue. But he is not prepared to let it go and that to me shows a most uncharitable and vindictive streak in the honourable member for Menzies. I find that this streak comes through in many of his contributions in this House. A Minister has resigned from the Cabinet on the issue of misleading Parliament. In my view that was not required. Because this happened on the last day of Parliament, there was not the opportunity to clarify the matters that he had put before the Parliament. It is a matter of record, and is accepted by everyone in this chamber, that a Minister must answer to the Parliament by resigning for a deliberate misleading of the House. Nothing that the Opposition has put before the House would enable the construction of a case for the sacking of the then Minister in relation to this issue. The contribution that the honourable member for Parramatta has made to this House has been adequately canvassed. I will not add anything to that, except to say that I think most members of this House, when they were outside the politics of this chamber, would acknowledge the very real contribution that the then Minister made in his portfolio. As I have indicated, I think it is a particularly insensitive and uncharitable approach for the Opposition not only to pursue the resignation, which in political terms is an execution, but also to try to engage in something more like a sentence to hang, draw and quarter someone who has made a mistake in this chamber. I believe that most people who have even a rudimentary knowledge of the merits or otherwise of this case will accept that the sanction-that is, the resignation of a Cabinet Minister-is as far as one can go, in all decency, or aspire to from the Opposition's point of view. If Opposition members are to demand not only the hanging but also the drawing and quartering of someone who has not deliberately misled the House but who has acknowledged misleading the House, one ought to be able-notwithstanding the time difference-to reflect on how they embraced those issues when they were in government. Their behaviour compared with ours is like chalk and cheese. A moment ago reference was made to Senator Withers and the circumstances in which he found himself involved. The honourable member for Menzies made the point, appropriately, that those matters were subject to a royal commission. They were subjected to a royal commission because they were of the utmost import. They implied a deliberate misleading of the House and they went to the heart of the democratic process in this country. Those allegations were none other than an attempt to rort the electoral boundaries upon which the government of this nation would be based. Those matters were of enormous import. They went to a deliberate misleading of the House. They were nothing to do with a contract where a body existed to look at particular tenders and where in any event the outcome of that process would be placed before the Cabinet. The Cabinet was going to weigh the issues, take into account the advice of the committee and then, as is its responsibility, make a judgment as to what it considered to be in the best interests of this country. As has been said on previous occasions, the Cabinet is not bound to accept the lowest tender in such matters. It is not bound by some of the imputed arguments put forward by the Opposition. It is bound by that one and most compelling criterion-to take into account all the matters put before it and to make its judgment as to what it perceives to be in the best interests of this country. In the final analysis, all this rot about how many members on the committee voted one way or the other is just that. The material was sufficient to have the Minister resign for what he considered to be an inadvertent misleading of Parliament. So to that extent it was important, but it ought not to be blown out of all proportion. It ought not be grist for an argument that the issues go right to the heart of the Cabinet as it now is. That is just utter rot. When one goes over the previous Government's record, as has been canvassed briefly in this House, it is instructive to go through not only the number of Ministers who have resigned in unfortunate circumstances-to put it very kindly-but also the range of issues in which they were involved. I do not want to drag into this House the names of people who are no longer members of Parliament and I shall not do so. However, let me put it this way: there were some 22 resignations, either forced or otherwise, during the seven years of the Fraser Government. Against that our record stands very well. However, our record stands up even more when one takes into account the quality, or the severity, of the issues involved in those circumstances. I have already indicated one-the old toecutter. He has dished it out in his day and I am sure that he would not mind my referring to him in that way. The issues involved not who got a relatively minor contract, on which Cabinet would make the final decision in any event; they were matters that went to the heart of how this Parliament and the Government ought to conduct their affairs. They went, in crude terms, to the rorting of Federal electorate boundaries for the purpose of achieving an advantage for a particular political party. No-one on either side of this chamber would have the temerity to argue that those matters were not of great import. I could go chapter and verse through all those resignations. I am constrained from doing so because I think that it is inappropriate, given that some of those involved are no longer members of this place and do not have an opportunity to answer. I conclude on this note: the Minister resigned for misleading Parliament. He did not resign for deliberately misleading Parliament. If that is the sanction that is required of anyone who comes into this chamber, those hypocrites opposite ought to come in and canvass all the misleading of Parliament that their colleagues and they no doubt did in their time in government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The discussion is now concluded. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the first and second reports of the Committee for 1988, relating to the construction of a new telephone exchange building at Charlotte Street, Brisbane, and the construction of the State Head Office, Australia Post, Prince Alfred Park Centre, 219-41 Cleveland Street, Redfern, New South Wales, respectively. Ordered that the reports be printed. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Blunt 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: (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'. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.27) —In continuation of my remarks last Thursday, I will summarise the effect of the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The final paragraph of the Opposition's amendment mentions privatisation. Last Thursday I reminded the House that customers have far from benefited from privatisation and deregulation in other countries. I instanced the doubling of public telephone charges, the ending of free emergency repairs, the removal of exchanges, far higher payouts by both business and residential customers, chaotic services and poor country services in countries in which privatisation and deregulation have taken place. I urge the Opposition to join the Government in its caution in proceeding towards privatisation and deregulation. The amendment mentions a number of industrial issues. I wish to make a few points in that respect because I feel that the Opposition is trying to take us to the position of British Telecom which has seen widespread problems for customers and widespread hazards for staff. There has been a reduction in resources devoted to safety in Britain. At national levels staff numbers in British Telecom's safety division have been cut. The union safety representatives who are appointed are not being trained within the six months specified in the relevant agreement. Most seriously of all, the accident situation in British Telecom is worse now than it has been for many years. Accidents now total 16,000 a year at a cost of some #6.5m. The first year of privatisation, 1985, was particularly bad. After four years with no fatal accidents, four employees were killed at work. It was the worst year for deaths since 1974. In the same year, British Telecom was twice prosecuted successfully by the Health and Safety Executive for breaches of the health and safety at work legislation. That is nothing like the outstanding record of British Telecom before privatisation, nor is it like the outstanding record of Telecom Australia. The amendment goes on to talk about the superannuation regime. I remind the Opposition that the existing British Telecom pension scheme will not apply to new employees. Instead, they will have to join a new, significantly worse scheme. The new scheme will provide them with less valuable benefits. British Telecom has never been able to justify this move. The move will cost the firm precisely the same amount of money. Now British Telecom admits that that was done only to bring its pension scheme down to the level of the private sector. With regard to staffing, pay, conditions and pensions it is clear to staff in Australia that the privatisation of British Telecom was bad news there. This Bill will streamline the contract procedures for the delightfully successful and very efficient Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC)-a world leader in communication-and for the other great participants in Australia's development: Australia Post and Telecom. Today we need to allow more freedom to OTC, Telecom and Australia Post to enter into a hedging contract as soon as a trading contract is negotiated. This legislation will enable that. By removing the obligation to require securities issued by Australia Post and Telecom to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth, it will enable services to become more flexible. When honourable members vote on this Bill they will make an economically and socially sound decision to reduce the risk of dangerous goods, in conjunction with comprehensive preventative programs worked out by Australia Post with the unions. In the increasing complexity of radio communications this Bill will ensure that manufacturers will able to obtain certification that the equipment they are about to place on the market has no undesirable effect on radio communications. That, of course, is much better than finding that out later. Other changes to be made by the Bill will include the practice of type testing of radio communications equipment being placed on a statutory basis. Further, the Bill will provide a statutory power to prohibit the supply or operation, or possession for the purposes of supply or operation, of devices intended to cause interference with the legitimate use of the radio frequency spectrum; or likely to cause interference with radio communications in such a way as to endanger life or property. The Bill represents further evidence of the Government's commitment to efficiency and sound commercial practice for major government business enterprises such as OTC, Australia Post and Telecom. It is significant that the first honourable member for Eden-Monaro, in 1901, Austin Chapman, became Postmaster-General during his parliamentary term. He was one of the pioneers of the great communications services that have contributed much to the development of our nation. Now this Bill will take into account the safety of Australia Post employees, and legitimate users of postal services, with regard to the efficient and equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum, which is a scarce and valuable resource. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(4.33) —I disagree entirely with what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) has said about this Bill being an example of the Government's commitment to a prosperous and efficient statutory enterprise, or set of statutory enterprises. In one sense the Bill is welcomed, but it certainly does not contribute at all to those objectives. On the contrary, a series of other Government practices and policies contribute to the opposite, by way of intervening in the effective management of those various statutory authorities. I direct my remarks to two main parts of the Bill: allowance of various communications bodies to enter into hedging contracts; and removal of the need for compulsory government guarantees for certain borrowings. The sense in which I have said that the Bill is welcomed is that it provides greater freedom and flexibility for Telecom, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) and Australia Post with regard to some of their financial affairs and administrative arrangements. However, these measures are belated. For the last several years those bodies have been asking the Government for these very powers-but they do not go far enough. OTC in particular frequently has requested the ability to enter into hedging contracts in order to minimise the risk of changing exchange rates and future prices. When the Government floated the exchange rate it was necessary for those authorities that have to borrow overseas to have the authority to indemnify themselves against violent fluctuations in the Australian dollar-or in whatever currency they were borrowing. It is a great shame that it has taken such a long time for business enterprises as important to the economy of this country as OTC and Telecom to be granted the right to indemnify themselves. I should be interested to know how much money OTC has lost as a result of its exposure to fluctuating exchange rates that were introduced by this Government, and price rises since then. That would reflect just how belated indeed this measure is. Welcome, though belated, as this measure is, it touches only the surface of the problems experienced by the Australian communication authorities covered by this Bill. Instead of proposing this omnibus Bill of unrelated amendments to various Acts of this Parliament, I should have thought that the Government would have worked hard at stripping away the costly, outmoded, and burdensome rules and petty regulations that, for a number of years, have saddled Telecom, OTC and Australia Post. The Government promised those authorities that it would do precisely what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro claimed the Bill does, that is, enable them to operate as efficient managers in public statutory authorities. However, it still has not done that. On the contrary, some time ago the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) proposed a Green Paper which would have done the reverse; far from making them more independent, self-managed, and able to meet the obligations that individual statutes of Parliament imposed on their board of directors, it would have been more intrusive and made them more accountable to the Department of Finance, the Department of Administrative Services, the Crown Solicitor, and various other bodies to whom they are now obliged to report. Even in the most petty matters that do not involve large sums of money, compared with the turnover of those enterprises, they have had to report as though they were still members of the Postmaster-General's Department. They have been hamstrung by meddling delays of petty bureaucratic procedures, instead of being given freedom to move. They certainly have not been given scope to be as efficient as they want to be. On the contrary, Senator Walsh, in his Green Paper, at least intended to impose more burdens upon them. When the Green Paper was released it was rightly ridiculed by all parties, except of course Senator Walsh's Department of Finance. Seminars were held around Australia, at which the chairmen of the various boards made public their views. At the time there were even rumours that the boards of those authorities had threatened to resign if the bureaucratic intervention was increased. At the same time that this debate took place-and it continued for a long time, during which Senator Walsh's paper was rewritten several times-the Government, in a succession of Budgets and mini-Budgets, was milking these profitable authorities, especially OTC and Telecom, under the guise of imposing new sales taxes, and putting up interest rates or asking for repayment of capital funds in an arbitrary fashion. Certainly some moneys are owed. However, the management of those bodies had planned on the basis of arrangements entered into legally with the Government when they were created in 1975. In fairness it should be said that the previous Government also was guilty of that. Though this Government claims not to do those things it has set about time and again, in each Budget and mini-Budget, milking these profitable authorities. The result is that they have had less to invest in capital investment, research and development unless they borrowed. That brings me back to one aspect of the Bill. When the authorities borrowed, they were not able to hedge their debts. Another aspect is that when they borrowed they did so allegedly with a government guarantee, which might have given them a rate of interest marginally better than that available in the private sector. That advantage has been taken away. As a result, when they borrow now they do so at a rate of interest higher than previously, thus increasing their indebtedness as well as the national indebtedness, and increasing the price to the consumer. The Government has shown no signs of removing the administrative and costly burdens that it imposes on those authorities, and no signs of removing its temptation to milk them. When we come to the mini-Budget in May we will find again that another impost, over and above that which has been contracted, will be imposed on these organisations. I believe the reason why Telecom Australia started a program for introducing locally timed calls was really a game of bluff with the Government with a view to trying to minimise the damage that would be done in the forthcoming May statement. Telecom would never have believed that the Prime Minister would have actually endorsed the arrangements, but he did so and we know what happened subsequently. This has been the pattern. Despite all the debates engendered by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who is the appropriate Minister, and all the discussions taking place publicly and privately between the two authorities and the Government, the Bill is silent and no attention has been paid to these vexed matters which bear heavily on the organisations' capacity to be efficient. They are efficient within the ambit allowed by the Government but they could be even more efficient, and again one wonders about the hidden agenda. When the Green Paper was released in 1986, the respected economic journalist Maximilian Walsh called it a hidden agenda. He said: While the politicians hold party conferences and map out grand strategies, there is a power game being played within the bureaucracy. Ever so rarely a window opens . . . It was this prospect which drew me back to the Green Paper of the proposed policy guidelines for statutory authorities and Government business enterprises. To ensure that it did nothing to disturb the politicians, it was tabled on 6 June with comment being invited over the following months; three months which included the ALP National Conference, the Liberal Federal Council and the most controversial budget in half a century. I believe that that comment was undeniably correct. I remember the former Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, and I having debates on that issue in this House and both of us regretting the way in which a succession of Budgets had milked these organisations. Nothing in this Bill cures that and we have no assurance that it will be cured. Although Senator Walsh has had to back away from many of the things he put in his Green Paper now that he has produced his White Paper, he is still imposing many burdens on these organisations. Again, if one becomes a little conspiratorial, one has to ask: what is the hidden agenda? Why is the Government not doing the very thing that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro just claimed it is doing? Why is the Government putting obstacles in the way of efficiency in these organisations? Does it want to run them down to the extent where the only real alternative is to privatise them, flog them off, and flog them off at relatively bargain basement prices-the very criticism that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro made of the British Telecom sale? If this is done which stockbrokers will get the work? Will it be the Whitlam Turnbull group, Rene Rivkin or John Singleton? These are the people-friends of the Government-who are likely to be purchasers and beneficiaries of commissions if this privatisation of a run-down organisation goes ahead. Since this Government came to power, OTC has paid around 70 per cent of its net profits to the Federal Government, whereas other commercial companies have paid around 39 per cent. Telecom has paid 50.5 per cent whereas its communications counterparts in Japan and Canada have paid only 11.6 per cent and 12.5 per cent respectively. By the end of the 1980s Telecom, Australia Post and OTC will pay nearly $1 billion between them to the Government. Yet in 1986 the Government was advised that there was already a $300m shortfall in the telecommunications capital works program, with a 10 to 15 per cent increase needed over the next few years to keep pace with demand for technological developments. We know how critical the development of telecommunications is in Australia-a country so far from anywhere and needing communications across two huge oceans. Australia simply cannot afford to have any barriers put in the way of research and development and the purchase and installation of new infra- structure. Yet this Government, particularly, has placed barriers in that way and nothing in this Bill does anything to improve that situation. So the Government cannot claim for itself what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro has just claimed. In fact, this is not a Bill that rectifies the areas where there is now insufficient competition in value-added services in telecommunications. For five years the Government has baulked at subjecting Telecom to greater competition. Telecom is well and truly prepared-administratively and psychologically-for these challenges. The Government has prevented competition in the installation and maintenance area and it does not subject Telecom to the Trade Practices Act. What reforms has the Government in fact introduced? This Bill is peripheral to what is really needed-that is, a much more adventurous examination of the way in which value-added services are provided on the main network provided by OTC or Telecom. After this Bill and the White Paper have been introduced, sadly I find still relevant my remarks made on the Green Paper on 4 September 1986 to a graduate school of management seminar at Sydney University. On that occasion I said: In the first five years of this decade, OTC paid taxes and dividends to the Commonwealth totalling $238m leaving only $55m with which to finance essential government works program. Over that time, OTC paid 76 per cent of its net profits to the Federal Government whereas companies listed on the Sydney Stock Exchange paid out only 39 per cent over the same period. The payout ratio for Telecom was not much better, being 50.5 per cent in the same period that BHP paid out 32.8 per cent of net profits in dividends and taxes. Telecom's counterparts in Canada and Japan paid 12.5 per cent and 11.6 per cent respectively. In the last financial year, Telecom, OTC and Australia Post paid around $800m between them to the Federal Government and this year, as a result of the Budget, the figure will be even higher. That is a sad indictment of the Government. It commissioned a report by Dr Henry Ergas, who pointed out very clearly what was needed, in terms of Australia's well-being, for investment in telecommunications. In fact, the Ergas report said that there was that $300m shortfall to which I referred and that we needed to increase our investment by some 10 per cent to 15 per cent to keep up with world trends. Being starved of funds and having a regime of external controls imposed upon their programming requirements-which is what the Minister for Finance wanted-the authorities would have found more inhibition on them to do what is demonstrably needed in terms of our interests. The fact is that there is a knowledge-intensive appetite in Australia. If we are to be competitive on world markets, we have to move into those activities which use the services provided by improved and sophisticated technological communications equipment. If we are to export substantially and be a big export earner, it must be in areas which are knowledge related-value-added technology services, information services and the like. It is very sad that a country which is now seeing the demise of much of its manufacturing, has seen the decline of a lot of its rural industries and is seeing difficulties with its tourism-a fickle industry to rely upon-is not taking any steps to move into these knowledge-based industries and give the freedom that should be given to Telecom and particularly to OTC. I return to my disappointment about this Bill. What does it really do? It belatedly enables the authorities to hedge contracts in the event of there being wild fluctuations in the exchange rate-that is good but it is too late. In removing the need for compulsory government guarantees for certain borrowings, the Government has kowtowed to certain views expressed frequently by financiers and by certain members of the private sector. But it does not matter very much, in practice, whether government guarantees are given to a statutory authority. Interest rates may be slightly lower if the government guarantee is given. Does anyone seriously think that, firstly, Telecom or OTC would go broke or, secondly, that any Australian government would allow them to? Of course not. It is inconceivable that an Australian government would welsh on the debts incurred legitimately in accordance with the law of this country by the boards of Telecom or OTC. In those circumstances this Bill does not mean much except that it is a gesture of the private sector to say that it will borrow on the same terms. For those on marginally higher interest rates it worsens their indebtedness and their capacity to invest more without charging their consumers more. In the process it slightly increases our own national debt and does nothing whatever to rectify the administrative problems which would make providers of those services more efficient which every one of our productive industries requires. Therefore, while welcoming the Bill with qualifications, I put that challenge to the Government. Much more remains to be done. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.51) —I rise to support the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and to oppose the Opposition's amendment. I always enjoy listening to the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) because he always puts forward his sincerely held views honestly and frankly. Naturally, I do not always agree with the comments he makes in this chamber and outside. I was certainly very interested in his comments that perhaps the Government has listened too much to some people in private enterprise in regard to the changes which this Bill proposes to implement. However, I take issue with his suggestion that the Government is milking government enterprises to such an extent that it intends to sell off these great government operations and that perhaps stockbroking companies such as Whitlam Turnbull-of course, Turnbull is a former candidate for Liberal Party of Australia preselection in the seat of Wentworth-Rene Rivkin, John Singleton or perhaps other stock exchange companies are going to profit as a result of some future Government decision. I doubt that the honourable member has any evidence for those claims. If he had I am sure that he would have produced and tabled it in the House. It does the House no credit to make those sorts of allegations when, in fact, he is stating something which is, in the end, a figment of his imagination. I do not think it is fair to the people whom he has named. It is most important for us to realise what the legislation does. As the honourable member for Goldstein pointed out, it allows Telecom Australia, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and Australia Post to enter into hedging contracts. That allows those government bodies to be put on a more commercial basis. I think that is good for the organisations concerned. Of course, since the Government took the historic decision to float the Australian dollar and allow the market to set an appropriate level we have seen it fluctuate day to day and week to week as Australia's economic conditions have changed. Whilst that introduces an element of instability into the Australian economy I think that almost all economic commentators accept that on the whole that has been good for Australia. Our dollar has risen and fallen to its natural level. However, because of that instability it is very important that government enterprises be able to enter into hedging contracts so that like private enterprises they can cover themselves for any wild fluctuations that occur in the exchange rate. One issue of crucial importance to Telecom which has received a lot of attention in recent days relates to the Telecom proposal to introduce time charged local telephone calls. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Goldstein, mentioned Dr Henry Ergas and the Ergas report on Telecommunications and the Australian Economy. I understand that that report went some way in advocating the introduction of time charged local telephone calls. Certainly, in an article in the Australian Financial Review Dr Ergas appeared to me to be quite supportive of the position that time charged local calls would be worthwhile. In addition, the Opposition shadow Minister for communications, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), made the following comments in his speech during the second reading debate on the Bill. He said: 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 decisions that a business enterprise would take in terms of setting its prices the way it charges for its product. I wish to know whether the shadow Minister is saying-this is what I believe he is saying-that if Telecom takes a decision this Government must be bound to implement it. If so, I take issue with that attitude to Telecom. I think that it is commendable that this Government, after a few weeks of debate on the issue, took the decision to tell Telecom that time charged local calls were simply not on. If the shadow Minister for communications thinks that it is wrong for the Government to overrule Telecom and say that it cannot introduce time charged local calls, I shudder to think what will happen if one day he ends up the Minister responsible for communications. From the comments of the honourable member for Richmond in his speech to the second reading of the Bill it appears quite clear that he supports time charged local calls. Given that he comes from north-eastern New South Wales, I suspect that he and, perhaps, other members of the National Party of Australia rural rump have no difficulties at all with time charged local calls. Mr Ian Cameron —We are already paying them under your Government; that is why. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Maranoa, by his interjection, also indicates that he supports the introduction of time charged local calls because a number of constituents in his electorate already pay for calls by time. Is he saying that everyone now has to pay for time charged local calls? Obviously, it is quite clear that the agenda of the National Party is to bring in time charged local calls for all Australians. I am very proud of the fact that this Government has told Telecom to pull its head in and will not be introducing time charged local calls. Any government which sought to bring in time charged local calls would be introducing an economic weapon which would severely disadvantage Australians, particularly the elderly and people who are isolated who depend to a very great degree on the telephone for communication with the outside world. I wish also to comment on the fact that Telecom has argued that it is necessary to bring in time charged local telephone calls because of the introduction of new technology. Telecom has argued that the increasing use of facsimile machines and slave computer terminals has meant that a large number of telephone lines have been clogged up and that, as a result, it is necessary to bring in time charging for local calls. That is a point of view which the National Party appears to be supporting. I would argue that fax machines do not clog up the telephone network. Most people who send a fax message send a couple of pages. The fax machine dials the number, the document is sent and the fax machine terminates the call because one does not know when a fax will be received. It is very important the the line be kept open. Fax machines are not clogging up the system. That is not true. I admit that there are a number of cases in which computers and some of the electronic funds transfer at point of sale machines, the EFTPOS machines, can sit on a local telephone line and clog up the system. I believe that if that is a significant problem for Telecom and its network it should look at some way of slugging the people who are manipulating the system and exploiting the fact that there is no time charge on local calls. Telecom should be smart enough to work out a way to slug those people rather than introducing time charging for every one of the five million subscribers in Australia. That is something which I and my colleagues, such as the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), will continue to oppose tooth and nail. This legislation also introduces some changes to the Postal Services Act. At the moment the Act prohibits the sending of dangerous goods through the post. Honourable members will be aware that in January last year some explosive material injured a postal worker at the Brisbane Mail Exchange-something which I am sure everyone in this House regrets very deeply. I understand that since then a training program has been introduced for staff who are responsible for handling Australia Post parcels. This legislation proposes to amend the Postal Services Act so that the sending of explosives and other prescribed dangerous goods is prohibited. In fact, the new penalties for sending explosives through the mail will be up to 10 years in gaol and/or a $20,000 fine. That is something which I support wholeheartedly. The legislation also amends the Radiocommunications Act. I am very interested in clause 16 of the Bill, which provides for the Minister to ban devices which interfere, disrupt or disturb radiocommunications. I assume the intention is to ban devices which may seek to jam or interfere with other radio traffic. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will have had constituents contact you with complaints that people using citizen band (CB) devices are interfering with their television reception or other radiocommunications equipment. I support this move. In fact, the legislation provides for a $1,000 fine if, once a device is banned, a citizen subsequently owns, supplies or possesses such a device. While I support a ban on devices that interfere with radiocommunications traffic, I believe we need to go one step further and ban some other devices. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception which reported to the Parliament in November 1986. Recommendation 7 of that report stated: With respect to the problem of illegal interception, the Committee concludes that: a. the extent of illegal interception would be lessened if the availability of devices designed solely for telecommunications interception purposes were substantially reduced; Later it recommended: a. the manufacture, importation, advertising, sale and possession, installation and use of such devices be made illegal, and subject to penalties in accordance with those prescribed for physically effecting interceptions. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in the chamber as he was also a member of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interception. The Committee report very strongly recommended that the law be changed to prohibit people from owning, selling or possessing these devices which can be used to tap people's telephones. At the moment it is an offence to use the devices; it is an offence to attach an interception device to one's telephone. Rumour has it that one or two journalists in the Press gallery may use these types of devices to help them in their work as media representatives because their shorthand is not as good as it used to be. But it is an offence for anyone, whether a journalist or not, to attach a device to a telephone to record telephone conversations. Yet, while that is an offence, it is not an offence for Dick Smith Electronics, Woolworths or anyone else to sell devices that can be used to this effect. In fact, they are quite cheap. I am told that for less than $10 one can buy a device which enables one to start recording telephone conversations. I believe that the Joint Select Committee's recommendation should be implemented. We should ban the importation of these devices. We should make it an offence for anyone to own the devices and we should also make it an offence to supply such devices. The fact that this legislation allows the Minister to ban devices which interfere with television reception is certainly commendable and should be supported. But I think that the right to have the privacy of one's telephone conversation respected, and to be assured of that total privacy, is more important than someone interfering with one's television reception through the use of a CB transmitter. I believe the Minister should consider extending this ban on devices which interfere or disrupt radiocommunications to cover any devices which can be used for the interception of telephone conversations. While I am on the subject of communications matters, the report also recommended that the Government bring in legislation to prohibit the use of listening devices in the Australia Capital Territory. It is certainly a gap in the law of the land at the moment. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) in the chamber at the moment. There is certainly a hole in the statute law. In most States there is legislation which controls the use of listening devices, but there is no legislation which prohibits the use of listening devices in the Australian Capital Territory. I was very disturbed last week when walking through one of the corridors in this building to see that one of the covers over the telephone connection boxes was unlocked and open. There was a folder listing all of the extension numbers and the titles of the people who were connected to those extension numbers. If someone had wished to place an intercept device on the telephones of those people, it would have been quite easy. Apparently, a technician had forgotten at the end of the day to restore the cover and place the padlocks on it. It is quite important that we maintain the maximum security possible on telecommunications devices in Parliament House. I assume it was an officer of Telecom Australia, as I understand it is responsible for maintaining the equipment in Parliament House. It is to be regretted that someone has behaved in this way and left open the possibility that some unauthorised person could have had access to some of the telephone lines used in this building. I repeat that I support this legislation. In the future I will be watching very closely the contribution of the shadow Minister for communications, the honourable member for Richmond, who is, of course, a member of the National Party of Australia. It will be interesting to watch how the National Party twists and turns in the coming debate on privatisation. Mr Ian Robinson —Don't you worry about that. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Page assures me that I need not worry about that. I understand that, as a former candidate for the leadership of the National Party, he has import- ant views on this and other issues. But, since the National Party now provides the shadow Minister for communications, it will be interesting to learn his view on the rural cross-subsidy when the debate is raging on whether the city and outer metropolitan areas should continue to provide a cross-subsidy for rural areas. It will be interesting to see what the National Party's attitude will be. We know that the economic rationalists in the Liberal Party will be arguing that the rural cross-subsidy should be abolished. We know that the dries in the Liberal Party will be arguing that Telecom should not continue to provide this subsidy for rural areas. It will be very interesting to watch the attitude of the National Party and in particular to read very carefully the words of the shadow Minister, representing all of the Opposition, not just the National Party. It will be interesting to see what his view will be on whether the rural cross-subsidy should continue. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation and in opposing the Opposition's amendment. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.10) —I wish to support the amendment. Before doing so, I would like to bring the House's attention to the statements of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) about Telecom Australia and other such bodies. I have never before heard so much hypocrisy, even from Old Silver here. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not here today but he did-- Mr Humphreys —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask that the honourable member for Maranoa be directed to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I support the point of order. Members in this chamber have appropriate titles, and I direct the honourable member for Maranoa to use them accordingly. Mr IAN CAMERON —I put a question to the Prime Minister only last week about the time charging arrangements for telephone calls that this Government introduced in country Australia two years ago. The sheer hypocrisy of some of the statements that have been coming from the Labor side of the House absolutely amazes me. For honourable members opposite to get up in the House and say that there will not be any time charging of telephone calls is a blatant lie. If the honourable member for Dobell cares to go back to his office and pull out every country phone book for Australia he will find that rural producers are time charged not for all their local calls but for most of them. The maximum charge is 7c per minute with a minimum charge of 20c. If one speaks for longer than the three minutes, for which there is a charge of 20c, one is charged 7c per minute after that. But a person living in the Countrywide Calling zone and outside the 32 kilometre circle who picks up a phone to ring his neighbour is charged at a rate of 7c per minute. Whether he uses that phone for one minute or three minutes, he will pay a minimum of 20c. If he calls from one zone to another-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa referred to the honourable member for Dobell as telling a blatant lie. I ask that remark to be withdrawn. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not referring to the honourable member for Dobell; I was referring to all members of the Australian Labor Party, including the Prime Minister, who say to this nation that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member withdrawing? The Chair seeks an immediate withdrawal. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not not name the honourable member for Dobell as lying. Perhaps you wish me to withdraw my reference to the whole of the Labor Government as lying about this position of time charged calls, the charging system that Telecom imposes. I do not wish to call anybody a liar. All I will say is that members of the Labor Party have told untruths about the situation. Already for the past two years we have been paying-- Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If you ask a member to withdraw, that member must withdraw without qualification. I ask that you ask the honourable member for Maranoa to withdraw his comments in the terms that you proposed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am asking the honourable member for Maranoa to withdraw. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, initially you asked me to withdraw a remark that the honourable member for Dobell was a liar. I did not say that the honourable member for Dobell was a liar. I said that members of the Government and the Labor Party were all lying about the time charging of telephone calls. If you wish me to withdraw, I will do so to allow me to get on and to ram home the point that I am trying to make to members of the Government, particularly the honourable member for Dobell and others in the House, including the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). I am trying to get home the point that rural Australia has been, and is at this very minute, time charged for telephone calls. A person phoning from one zone to the next is charged at an even higher rate. He is charged at 20c per minute with a minimum charge. It is absolutely gross nonsense to talk about not introducing the time charging of phone calls, because presently the whole of inland Australia is being charged in that fashion. The honourable member for Dobell talked about cross-subsidisation of Telecom. We in the National Party believe that it has been one way for the whole of Australia to get a decent subscriber trunk dialling telephone system. In effect, the only people who are paying for the cross-subsidisation, or at least getting a benefit from it, are those without businesses, those who live at the end of a street in a small country town and who have a personal phone. Anybody with a business in country Australia does not cross-subsidise Telecom; in effect, they actually help Telecom make a profit. Not only do they pay their business bill but also they bring a lot of phone calls into the system. The people who argue against the cross-subsidisation that is in place never take into consideration the number of phone calls that businesses in inland or country Australia attract to the system. They only talk about charging in the country; they do not talk about the amount of business that is generated for Telecom from the bigger cities and the capital cities that rural subscribers are doing business with. If we are going to talk about cross-subsidisation, what about the buses here in Canberra which run around in giddy circles with three people sitting in the back of them, at a cost to the taxpayer and Consolidated Revenue of $18m a year? What about the Commonwealth railways, which run at a $50m loss? What about every State railway department that runs at a loss of billions of dollars, part of which rural taxpayers in this country have to bear? Australia is a big country. Those of us who live and work in it and travel across it will see that it is not only public enterprise which cross-subsidises. So does private enterprise, including the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. All companies of any size cross-subsidise to help one business against the other, and at the end of the day the overall system is helped. That is the sort of system that we have built up in this country. Telecom has a mandate from this Parliament to give a phone to every Australian who wants one. It still has that mandate, and that is what is has to do. If it has to cross-subsidise to do it, so be it. The same applies to the bodies listed in the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). A number of communications bodies, et cetera have been mentioned. I am only sorry that this afternoon what I hope is one of the better ones, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), is not being used to broadcast this debate. Most of my constituents hear only the ABC, and it is a great pity that they cannot hear me giving them some support about their telephones and letting them know that they are the only people being time charged for their calls. People living in the capital cities who are whingeing and whining about having to pay for time charged calls ought to think about those who are already paying. We are contributing towards the Telecom system over and above the people of the capital cities. That is the unjust system that is now in place. I call upon the Prime Minister, as I called upon him last week, to direct Telecom to withdraw the time charging method which has been in place in the Countrywide Calling system for the last two years. But what has he done about it? Nothing. He walks out of this place with his tail between his legs and does nothing about it. This Bill, among other things, affects the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Radiocommunications Act 1983 and the Telecommunications Act 1975. It deals with hedging contracts. Telecommunications bodies are now able to hedge. I warn them that the Queensland Graingrowers Association, of which I am a member, went bankrupt by hedging. It lost $30m in hedging contracts and bankrupted itself. I assure this House that hedging is not quite the rose garden that people think it is. I warn these bodies, as I did previously in the legislation that went through this House concerning the Australian Wool Board, that one can lose money by hedging just as easily as one can lose money by playing the stock market. Mr Humphreys —Do you play the stock market? Mr IAN CAMERON —Sometimes. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. That applies to all of us, I guess, who have a bit of a go in this country. That is what we ought to be able to do. The Minister knows that. In a free country we ought to be able to get up and have a bit of a go, and if we make a bit of a profit, so be it. But what do the blokes opposite do? As soon as anyone makes a profit in this country, they want to tax it. Every time the Prime Minister stands up in this House he introduces a new tax. It is shocking. What is he talking about now? He wants to tax superannuation. People who have worked their guts out for the last 30 or 40 years turn around and find that the Prime Minister wants to tax them at 20 or 30 per cent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just getting off the track a bit, but the Minister did-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Maranoa to resume his eat. There is a point of order. Mr Cleeland —Mr Deputy Speaker, that was my point of order. The honourable member was straying and the remarks he was making were not relevant to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must agree with the point of order. I ask the honourable member for Maranoa to confine his remarks to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry that not everybody can agree with my point of view. These ever increasing taxes were mentioned not by me but the Minister. However, I will get back to the Bill. It provides for changes relating to the clarification and strengthening of the law relating to the sending of explosives and other dangerous goods through the mail. Obviously, it is important that people working in the mail exchanges, the post office and what not, be protected. Prison sentences are to be increased and fines of $20,000 for an individual or $100,000 for a body corporate will be imposed. The Minister has the power to test equipment and issue licences under the Radio Communications Act. There will also be a testing fee. It is proposed that a type approval certificate will be issued when the Minister is satisfied, for licensing purposes, that the devices do not have an adverse effect on radio communications. I should like to touch on a couple of problems regarding the ABC. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to stray slightly from the subject of the Bill. I was very disappointed that the ABC was not prepared to telecast the great wool parade we had at the Opera House in Sydney a few weeks ago. The Channel 10 organisation offered the ABC full coverage of this spectacular event for nothing, yet the ABC was not prepared to do it. I think that the ABC programmers have a little to answer for. They want to run some weird, and wonderful, strange programs, yet when we are doing something for this country and presenting something to the world they do not wish to get involved. This is the sort of thing that is happening with the ABC. It has to be prepared to give the people more of what they want, otherwise it will go out of business. That ought to be made quite clear to the Chairman of the ABC. I contacted him about this matter. I tried over a couple of days to get the ABC to telecast this event but it would not. An offer was made but it did not accept it. It used the excuse that it did not have time on its satellites, et cetera, but I do not believe that. The ABC tends to home in on particular issues, and I mentioned one a couple of weeks ago. It seems to home in on particular social and socialistic issues and belt us around the ears with them. I want to make it plain to the House and to the community that many people have no choice but to listen to the ABC. After copping ABC radio all day and listening to television all night, one gets a bit sick of some of the programs it runs and the fact that it is becoming less regionalised and more centralised. Programmers run their pet hobby horses on a feast of issues such as South Africa and Aborigines that they go on and on with. Those of us who live in country Australia get sick of having to listen continually to this propaganda. This debate gives me the opportunity to tell the ABC to lift its game, get back to the grass roots and give us something we want to listen to. The same applies to television. The Countrywide program started off helping and educating primary producers. However, it has turned out to be a greenies program that does not do any good for us at all. We have to cop this nonsense every Sunday night. These specialised programs originally were shown on ABC television to help country Australia but eventually the programs are turned around and they are of no help at all. I have mentioned time charging of local phone calls. I now wish to deal with postal charges. It has been mentioned that Australia Post will introduce the user pays concept. Honourable members opposite want the user pays concept to be applied to telephones-it does not apply to Canberra buses-and also to postage. What will it cost to send a letter to Birdsville, at the back end of my electorate? Will it cost $50 to $100 a letter? That is about what it will cost if we do away with the standard postage stamp which the characters opposite wish to do. Mr Lee —That is rubbish. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. If we apply the user pays concept to postage it will cost up to $50, I imagine, to send a letter to some parts of Australia. Even if it cost $10 it would be far too much. Mr Price —Rubbish. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, those opposite are all going down the track of pulling out any cross-subsidisation we have in some of the great instrumentalities that have been built up over the years to supply services to people across Australia. Government members want to wreck it. They have lost touch with the grass roots. Why do they think the Australian Labor Party lost the by-election the other week? All its supporters are saying that it has totally lost touch with the grass roots, the people it is supposed to represent. Those opposite are a hopeless lot. They have lost any contact they ever had with the grass roots. The Government wants to time charge telephone calls; it wants to extend the time charging methods it introduced under the Countrywide Calling system and apply the charge to everybody. That is what those opposite are on about. They make all sorts of excuses, but Telecom Australia was about to introduce the system until the Government lost a by-election and then it was a different story. Hawke did not say that he was against the time charging of local calls until the Government lost the by-election. He did not say it before the by-election; he said it afterwards. The Government is running scared. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is at the table, knows that he has lost touch with his grass roots supporters. He knows that as well as anybody. He is a grass roots man and he knows the Government has lost contact with its supporters. He should face up to it and be honest. Mr Humphreys —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you to require the honourable member to refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister and not in the way he has been referring to him. I would also like to point out that I have not lost touch with the grass roots and neither has the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —I ask the honourable member for Maranoa to refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, that was not a point of order, as you well know. The Minister at the table and the Prime Minister know very well why they lost the by-election. They will lose the next by-election in Port Adelaide. We need a 17 per cent swing to win that seat and we will win it. The Government will lose because it has lost touch with the people it purports to represent. Those opposite are a hopeless lot. It is time they were thrown out of Government. They have no hope of winning any of the by-elections. The other problem I wish to raise concerns commercial television. We have been trying to get commercial television in Queensland for a long while-ever since the satellite was launched at great cost to the taxpayer. That is another thing that has been cross-subsidised. The satellite system cost in excess of $350m. The Parry Corporation Ltd was going to give us commercial television but, unfortunately, it played the stock market. It was winning for a long while but it seems now to have lost a few dollars, so it cannot give us a commercial signal in western Queensland through the commercial satellite, QNET, which it was going to take over. However, I continue to represent the people of western Queensland and I ask the Government to see whether it can help a private company. We may have to do that in order to get this thing going, in the same way as we have helped companies in the past. We set up Trans Australia Airlines, as it was then called, to help Australia get some sort of an air service. I do not see why we should not be using taxpayers' funds to help inland Australia get a commercial television signal. We have the ABC on the satellite; it was put up for that purpose. It costs the taxpayers millions of dollars but it is not being fully utilised. It is time we had commercial television across the south-east footprint, the north-east print and the central footprint. It is important to note that people in inland Australia have only one choice-the ABC. They are not able to get another station. I congratulate the Government for unencoding the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) signal. We have an extra signal being broadcast but it is difficult to pick up because it is transmitted on a 12-watt transponder. The Government encoded the signal for some strange reason-a reason beyond my thinking-a couple of years ago, but at least the Minister has had the foresight to unencode it. At long last we are able to pick up the SBS signal and we can use that as a second signal. I support the amendment before the House. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(5.28) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to see you in the chair. Unlike the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), I am sure you appreciate the competing interests and the real need there is in Australia to service not only the cities and the big provincial centres but also rural Australia. In terms of Telecom Australia, that is not an easy task, and I do not think it has been aided at all by any of the contributions made by the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr Ian Cameron —A good member. Mr PRICE —I note that the honourable member endorses himself. I thoroughly enjoyed the contributions made by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), and I appreciated the sincerity of their comments. I point out to the honourable member for Goldstein that I do not believe that Telecom is not subject to the Trade Practices Act, as he suggested. As to his comments regarding Dr Ergas's report, Telecommunications and the Australian Economy, one of the real difficulties in assessing the Government cutbacks as far as capital is concerned is that, unfortunately, the investment proposals Telecom prepares are made from an engineering viewpoint rather than from a commercial viewpoint, so we can see the real cost benefit or loss of not proceeding with some of these projects. I think the honourable member for Goldstein, in talking about Telecom, acknowledged that some of the actions of the previous Government were similar to those of this Government. He was specifically referring to the amounts of money and the constraints that governments have imposed on the organisation. I concur with him in that view. But I think what has been overlooked in this debate, and certainly what has been overlooked in the amendment moved by the Opposition, is the fact that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has moved for a wide ranging review of Telecom. Indeed, that review will cover four aspects: namely, the nature and extent of telecommunications monopoly; possible private sector involvement; extent of government controls and effects on competition; and the economic and technical regulation of the industry. Opposition members have complained bitterly that this omnibus Bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, does not present real progress in terms of consideration of those changes. It would be entirely inappropriate, in the midst of a fairly fundamental and thoroughgoing review, to incorporate some of those changes in an omnibus Bill. I also point out that some of the options for change would require a great deal of legislation. Of course, this would involve a delay. Others merely indicate a change in Government policy and could be announced by the Minister. I repeat that it would be singularly inappropriate in this omnibus Bill to be indicating the Government's position in relation to the review announced by the Minister, Senator Gareth Evans. I understand that it is still planned that a ministerial statement will be made next month. So it is inappropriate that anything should be done at the moment. The last element in the Opposition's amendment concerns privatisation. The amendment states: 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. I find that very ironic, relating, as it does, to a Bill concerning the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC), Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Very early in the piece the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) ruled out any privatisation of these organisations-that is, the transferring of ownership of all or parts of them to private enterprise. But one might ask: What is the Opposition's position on privatisation? I would like to quote part-and I acknowledge that it is only part-of a radio interview in Adelaide on 29 January between the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and Keith Conlon of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Conlon asked the question: You're saying he just put it off? He was referring to timed local calls. The honourable member for Kooyong answered: Oh, yeah, you vote Labor, you get time charges from Telecom. Conlon asked: And you vote Liberal and it gets privatised? The honourable member answered: Well, we will want to break it up. I mean, this is the problem-the monopoly. I say sincerely to members of the National Party of Australia seeking to represent portions of provincial and rural Australia, `Is that what you want to see in respect of Telecom? Do you really want to see a privatisation of Telecom? Do you really want to see a privatisation and break-up of this monopoly?'. Mr Ian Cameron —We just want a telephone. Mr PRICE —The honourable member for Maranoa interjects. I think it is a matter of regret that the Deputy Speaker had to call on him to withdraw what was a rather intemperate remark. But in attacking the Australian Labor Party, I ask him whether he identifies with these remarks: The Government should end the wasteful, inefficient and unfair practice of cross-subsidies which are such a feature of the outmoded structure of major public trading enterprises such as Telecom and Australia Post. Does the honourable member agree with those remarks; does he disagree with them? I notice that the honourable member for Maranoa is nodding his head. The statement from which I am reading continues: The artificially subsidised provision of service to politically sensitive community groups is not just a case of pork-barrelling politics. It is very bad economics. For my part, I do not agree with these remarks. Further, the document states: Telecom's self-imposed practice of providing universal service at an affordable price involves not merely subsidised access for rural and remote users, irrespective of capacity to pay. I do not agree with those remarks at all. I invite the honourable member for Maranoa and other National Party members to take them up with the author. The author, as he describes himself-- Mr Lee —Who is it? Mr PRICE —He describes himself in his own Press release as Senator Alston, a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration and the Opposition back bench committee on transport and communications. Mr Lee —He must be a Liberal. Mr PRICE —He is a Liberal. He is one of the real dries. I think members of the National Party have a real dilemma. The shadow spokesman on transport and communications is Senator Tony Messner. What is his track record? Right up until the last Federal election I used to sit in this chamber, as did my colleague the honourable member for Dobell and listen to Opposition spokesmen saying that they agreed essentially with the Government's industry policy. But there was a complete backflip on their position in the election policy speech. Senator Tony Messner, the current shadow spokesman on transport and communications, said, `Not only do we not agree, but also all forms of assistance to industry should be removed'. I can wave in front of honourable members opposite announcements by Senator Messner that he believes in rural cross-subsidy. But will this last till the next election day; will it last till a policy speech is delivered? I think the answer is that no, it will not, and I think that is regrettable. In relation to the outrageous remarks made by the honourable member for Maranoa about postage, there was not a hairier hare let go than that by the honourable member for Menzies who suggested that the Government was contemplating varying current postal charges. That is absolute rubbish. It was a two- or three-day wonder. What concerns me is that the sorts of statements made by the honourable member for Menzies and the honourable member for Maranoa cause tremendous concern in the community, not only in rural and provincial Australia but also in metropolitan Australia and usually amongst people who can least afford to bear any changes. I regret that this appears to be a standard practice in politics. I want to assure the people of Australia, and certainly my constituents, that the Government is not considering varying postal charges. That is one of the more dishonest things that I have heard. Mr Connolly —Australia Post didn't say that. Mr PRICE —The suggestion has been made that Australia Post did not say that. Australia Post said, after this matter had been raised by the honourable member for Menzies, that it could not rule out such a thing should its monopoly be taken away from it. I think it is a little unfortunate when public authorities use those sorts of opportunities to push their own barrows. There was no proposal before the Government-the Minister has said that-and there is no proposal before the Government. Such a claim should decently be put to rest. The honourable member for Maranoa in his speech consistently talked about Countrywide Calling. I think what he calls Countrywide Calling is actually community access. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is a lot of nonsense. I will get the telephone book and will point to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —That is not a point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —I have tabled-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Maranoa to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr Lee —It was mixed up with a TV show. Mr PRICE —Perhaps there was a mix up with a television show. The point I wish to make is that community access calls and charges apply to the outer metropolitan areas of capital cities and provincial centres as much as they do to rural Australia. To that extent I think that the honourable member was less than accurate in what he said. The Bill, as I have said, is an omnibus Bill. The principal changes involve streamlining the procedures by which OTC, Australia Post and Telecom can enter into hedging contracts, which I think is an important and long overdue move. Other changes will enable Australia Post and Telecom to issue securities not guaranteed by the Commonwealth. As has already been pointed out by the honourable member for Dobell, the honourable member for Goldstein made a very good point when he suggested that statutory authorities should be given inherent advantages and that advantages such as government guaranteed securities should remain and not be removed at the behest of private interests. Perhaps we ought to rethink that. Nevertheless, generally speaking, I am satisfied that this is a good proposal. The proposal for Australia Post which strengthens the law regarding sending explosives and other dangerous goods through the mail is a welcome introduction. I say in conclusion-Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that you have been very tolerant regarding my contribution to the debate-that it is ironic that the Opposition should have run such an intensive campaign against Telecom in the Adelaide by-election. I do not think that anyone challenges my position on untimed telephone calls, but I found it ironic that the Opposition presented an amendment with a series of points seeking to portray it as the great protector of Telecom, particularly when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, as recently as 29 January, has repeated consistently the Liberal Party's refrain that Telecom ought to be broken from its monopoly position. The Government is undertaking a thorough review of Telecom and, unless there has been a delay, the Minister will make a statement at the end of March. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.43) —The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is an omnibus Bill covering a vast number of matters affecting Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC). The Bill virtually opens pandora's box on the whole gambit of the future of those three vital services to the Australian community. The debate has been very wide-ranging. It follows a very confused and lamentable political debate in the public arena over the last few months on the future of Telecom, Australia Post and the OTC. Its highlight was the support by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for time charging. Then, as a consequence of the political pressures that he felt-the cold winds from the Adelaide by-election-he backed off and said, `No, it's not on. We've learnt our lesson'. Yet, within the first few days of the sitting of this House, we are confronted with legislation that re-opens the whole issue. The issue has been re-opened because the fundamentals of the legislation relate to the financial structure of Telecom particularly, Australia Post to a lesser extent and OTC significantly. That financial structure is related directly to the debate that has gone on in the Australian Labor Party, the Caucus, and the very great concern expressed by the people of this country-the commercial sector and in particular ordinary householders-about Telecom's future. It is a future that is indeed a worry for all of us. On this side of the House there is a very great desire to ensure that we preserve one of the greatest services to the community that has ever been built up in any country. Ours is one of the most efficient and reliable telephone services in the world and it has been within the reach of the various sectors of the community to pay for it. I refer, first of all, to the ordinary householder. Despite the fact that the charges are no longer cheap, one would have to regard them as reasonable in comparison with what they might well have been if the by-election had not turned up, a result that scared hell out of the Prime Minister-I will put it as strongly as that-so much so that, as I said earlier, he backed off because he had to do so. There was no way before then that he would listen in a rational manner to the concern of his backbenchers. I mention particularly the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) and the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). They and many others tried and failed to get recognition of the problem confronting that side of the House on this issue. Today in this place they are being very careful because they can see more trouble down the track regarding the future of Telecom, OTC and Australia Post. Any attempt to side track and to say that this side of the House is confused about future policies will not get them off the hook. We must recognise that the May mini-Budget of 1986 was the first serious blow to cause the winds of change for Telecom. The introduction in that May mini-Budget of charges on the importation of equipment, which was a form of taxation of Telecom, for the first time, amounted to no less than $500m in the first year. We now learn that in the current financial year there is a short fall to the order of $300m. The truth is that under the present Government Telecom has become yet another avenue of heavy taxation. The figures given by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) earlier in the debate should be heeded by every Australian, every telephone user and every member of this House. It is patently clear that Telecom is being turned into a tax collection agency. If that is to be part and parcel of Telecom's future, all the issues about privatisation, time charging and differentiation-that is, country versus city; cross-subsidisation-are insignificant. They are insignificant to the philosphy of turning Telecom into a taxing agency. Until there is a turnaround in that it does not matter what we do. We will end up with a botch, a mess, and we will see an extension of the kinds of things I will mention briefly in the short time at my disposal. Since the last Budget Telecom has very quietly introduced new charges for the provision of new telephone services. One of the most blatant heavy charges being introduced-to enable it to be a greater tax gathering source for this Government-is a charge for the installation of telephone lines on a property once the first section of the line goes beyond 300 metres. There are many, many instances of that in every electorate outside metropolitan areas. As a result of the imposition of this new charge, charges can run to $700, $800, $900 or even $1,200 for a single telephone service to an ordinary home in Australia. However, it is not only the principle of the charge that concerns my constituents and me and my colleagues such as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). We are concerned also that the charge is imposed on a notional basis. A positive estimate or costing is not done. The charge is calculated on the basis of someone sitting in an office and saying that the installation will require a dozer, a grader, and this that or the other, to put in this section of line; and therefore the cost will be estimated on that notional basis. Then the applicant is advised of the charge and he has to pay it before any action proceeds, before Telecom makes the slightest move to commence constructing the new line. I instance a business enterprise in my electorate that in the last few weeks required a telephone service to be installed over the very short distance of a couple of kilometres. This company has invested a substantial amount of money, approximately $3.5m, and is very conscious of cost factors. As the company would provide local employment, it needed a telephone service. The company was told that under the new arrangements it would have to be charged for the construction of the line into the office in which it conducts its business. Quite consciously and objectively the company informed Telecom that it had cleared the line, the roadway was cleared, and the installation involved simply a matter of getting the line constructed and the equipment installed. The company was given a quote of $40,000 to put in that short distance of telephone line. No clearing was involved, as that had been done. I think the installation took a day and a half. No matter how one considers it, whether on the basis of the number of men engaged, the plant used, or the equipment finally installed, one would require a vivid imagination to determine how the amount finally charged could be justified. I have asked Telecom Australia to give me some positive response as to how it arrived at that figure, and what was the basis of the charge imposed. I have not yet received even an acknowledgment of my representations, but I shall certainly follow them up. I believe that the examples I have quoted, together with many other matters, provide a very sound reason for the people of Australia to become very alarmed about the administration of Telecom in terms of what it is now required to do by this Government. I believe that Telecom has been well managed, and continues to be well managed. However, it is now being shackled and being required to meet obligations that place it under financial strictures that are far too severe. My colleague the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) referred to some aspects of the cost of telephones outside metropolitan areas. We certainly know that cross-subsidisation has been an essential element of the development of telephone networks in this country. However, would any Australian want to see the disintegration of this great service to this country? I am sure he would not. If one thinks back, it is only a short time ago that if one made a call from the eastern States to Perth, or vice versa, one would have to wait to be connected, would have a problem with heavy traffic and getting through, and the quality of the connection often was not satisfactory. As part of an overall network expansion, all of our capital cities were linked so that there was an immediate service and an immediate connection with, really, no limits. The traffic is now carried adequately. That involved the construction of a cable system and the advent of new technology and the use of systems that were installed during the past decade or so throughout country areas of Australia to serve not only the metropolitan areas but also every other Australian community. Improved services were provided to the great north-west of this country, to the far-flung sectors of Queensland and western New South Wales. Through all the areas on the fringe of heavy population centres, our major cities, whether in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, or any of the other States and Territories, a network has been built up without providing a burden in any way, shape or form on the taxpayers of this country. Now, because there is a very efficient system, the Government has decided that it has to obtain revenue from it, to throw into the general pool of taxation, into the extravagant spending spree that this Government undertook. The consequence has been to seek ways and means of a form of privatisation. The debate that has taken place in Caucus about telephone time charging will pale into insignificance when Caucus faces up to the reality of what privatisation really entails under the present Government's policies. To suggest that the Opposition does not know where it is at with regard to this policy is sheer rubbish. Perhaps there have been statements by a senator or two; perhaps there have been odd comments by one or two who are not directly experienced in this matter. However, I can assure the House that on the Opposition side of this House, and certainly within the National Party, there are those who will not let down Australia with regard to the future of Telecom, Australia Post, or OTC. For that reason the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) deserves the attention of honourable members on both sides of the House. It raises pertinent points about where we are going on the whole policy issue of the future of Telecom, Australia Post, and OTC. Despite what has been said by the Minister who introduced this legislation and by those honourable members who have spoken in support of it on behalf of the Government, both in another place and in this chamber, the future of those three organisations is still shrouded in mystery. That shroud will be removed only if people such as the honourable member for Chifley-who asserted that there was some lack of understanding on this side of the House, and that protection of the service in the future will come from that side of the House-make clear what is the Government's real policy on privatisation not only of Telecom but also of a number of other instrumentalities in this country. If the truth be known, it seems without doubt that the real purpose, the hidden agenda, is to raise more revenue for the Government. We have seen that, of course, as one consequence of the last Budget. We are yet to see, in a few weeks time, the contents of the promised May mini-Budget. Perhaps then we will learn the real truth. The sell-off of many of the assets referred to in the Budget Speech, to make it possible for the Budget to be balanced, has run into pretty rough water. A few difficulties for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) are beginning to emerge, about which not much has been said. There is no doubt that with regard to this matter the debate has ranged merely over the surface of the real issues relating to privatisation. We need to get our feet on the ground and to ensure that the consequences of what is being engineered are not detrimental to commercial interests and to the householders of this nation. On this side of the House it will be our task to make assessments and judgments. We will do that and we will not need any reminding about our attitude to policy. There will not be any question of shifting around. We will have a positive approach. I ask the Government to come clean about its intentions. This is its opportunity to do so. It has legislation before the Parliament, so this is the time to come out and tell us its proposition on these few matters that are being opened up. In particular, we should heed the warning of the honourable member for Maranoa about the dangers in hedging as far as borrowing is concerned. There are real issues there that should not be allowed to go through without adequate explanation because the financial status of Australia in the borrowing field today is of great concern to all of us. We know that our borrowing commitment has grown-quite apart from what the Budget tells us-because the figures speak for themselves. We have the greatest debt ever and the cost of servicing it, likewise, has gone out of all proportion to what the taxpayers of this country should be expected to carry. Much of that comes down to the issue of priorities in spending. If the milking cow approach, which is used to try to solve some of these unwise government policies, hits Telecom, OTC and Australia Post, and then directly the users of those services, it is just not good enough. I support the amendments that have been proposed and I deplore the Government's lack or real sincerity in relation to the issues raised in this legislation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.03) —I begin my remarks by taking up a couple of issues that were raised by the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson). One concerns the question of time charging and cost recovery. We made a very clear statement, which came out of Caucus last week, that this Government would not proceed with the time charging of local calls. All honourable members who are following this debate should be aware that it is very clear that the time charging of local calls will not be proceeded with. Those who are looking at the issue in the context of the New South Wales election should ask members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia to enunciate their policy. Is their policy one of cost recovery? If it is one of cost recovery, and an attempt to move towards the `user pays' principle, which the Liberal Party has endorsed, then those people can well expect pressure for time charging from Liberal and National Party members. Certainly, if electors are trying to make up their minds about the New South Wales election, they should be reminded that the decision of the Federal parliamentary Labor Party is to oppose time charging of local calls and that that decision is clearly supported by the Unsworth Government in New South Wales. They should also be reminded that the Unsworth Government is concerned about the welfare of ordinary individuals and that the Federal parliamentary Labor Party is aware of the needs of ordinary people in New South Wales, and in Sydney in particular. There are many excellent members in this House representing those seats, two of whom spoke before me in the debate. We heard the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). Even earlier, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) spoke. All those members represent their electorates with considerable concern for their constituents and they are anxious to point out to them that they oppose time charging of local calls. At this stage, the question still unresolved is the one concerning the user pays principle, which has been endorsed by the Liberal Party and which carries with it the recognition of time charging of local calls. That is a considerable dilemma that faces the electors of New South Wales. To resolve that dilemma, I point out that it has been made clear by the Federal parliamentary Labor Party that we oppose time charging local calls. I wish to develop this point further. It has been recognised by speakers on both sides that time charging poses problems. One of the difficulties was that, in effect, Telecom Australia was saying, without understanding the nature of the community, that suddenly its telephone system was being clogged up by facsimile machines and computers. Yet it was clear to ordinary telephone subscribers that they had never asked for that movement in technology. In fact, ordinary telephone subscribers in the electorate simply want cheap, reliable telephones. Most telephone subscribers have not asked for the sophisticated technology that has been introduced more recently. Therefore, it is fair to say that they ought not have their charging basis changed because Telecom has found that its network is clogged up by these other activities. I take up the point raised by the honourable member for Dobell. I am yet to be convinced, by Telecom or by anyone else for that matter, that a facsimile machine ties up a telephone line for an extended period. It is not true. Facsimile machines, if anything, tend to minimise the impact upon the telephone system because a lot of voice communication is now sent in the form of facsimile documents. Certainly, between my office in Perth and the office in Canberra, we use the facsimile machine in place of telephone calls. It minimises the amount of time that a telephone line is tied up. I take very strong issue with Telecom when it makes such allegations. Also, I do not think that Telecom understands what is meant by disadvantaged people in this community because its definition of `disadvantaged' is too narrow. It tends to see only pensioners as being disadvantaged. I put to Telecom and to the community in general, that there are many people on very modest superannuation payouts, for example, some of them in the Federal Public Service and others in the private sector, who in real terms are no better off than a pensioner who has all the fringe benefits. If those people were faced with time charging of local calls, they would be considerably disadvantaged. But nowhere in the literature that was put out by Telecom is there any mention of superannuants. Yet, as I say, many of those who are on modest superannuation are very often as economically disadvantaged as those on a full pension. There is also no attention paid, for example, to the benefit a telephone provides for a woman at home with three small children. It is clear that, in those circumstances, where a woman at home has children in their very early years the chance of that woman getting out and about in the community is minimised because of the demands of the children. Very often, the telephone provides the only form of communication for her. I am not being sexist and saying that there are no men at home who look after their children, but it is true that the majority of child care in this country is still carried on by women at home. In those circumstances, how does one deal with the social disadvantage if that woman has to pay for the length of time she is on the telephone? She is not perhaps economically disadvantaged, but if she were discouraged from using the telephone she would clearly become socially disadvantaged. That is unacceptable to me and my colleagues on this side of the House, such as the honourable member for Chifley. Telecom should understand something of the social processes in this community. Many women with children in their early years find that the telephone is the only source of communication, particularly if they live in outer suburbs and do not drive or have access to a vehicle. They then find that the telephone is very important to communicate with their friends. To impose time charging upon them would impose a severe social disadvantage. Let me elaborate further. Telecom showed its inability to understand the nature of the community when it spoke of giving a discounted rate in the evening for people to make telephone calls. It stated that many of the older people in the community would find that they would be helped by that discount. In fact, if Telecom understood anything at all about elderly people, it would realise that this was not so. If I ring my mother at 8.30 p.m. or 8.45 p.m., she thinks that my children are sick. Many elderly people who take phone calls at night or in the early morning think there is sickness in the family. Therefore, why would they use the discounted phone system? They would not use it. Telecom shows a complete lack of understanding of its consumers. Old people do not use telephones at night. It is a waste of time offering them discounts because, very simply, they do not make calls at night except in emergencies. Therefore, it is no good coming up with a brochure which says, `We will give you a cheaper rate at night' because elderly people will not use that service at night. For those three reasons, let alone the many others, the time charging system is not on. I am pleased that my colleagues from New South Wales have very strongly supported that position. I say to voters in New South Wales: Think carefully, because on this issue we are clear. The Federal parliamentary Labor Party and the Government as a whole are opposed to time charging for local calls. That cannot be said of the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia. If one is looking at this situation from the perspective of the New South Wales State election it is clear that the interests of telephone subscribers in New South Wales will be protected by the Australian Labor Party and the Unsworth Labor Government, not by the choices being offered by the Liberal and National parties or by the Greiner Opposition. The next point I want to deal with in this debate relates to my concern about the signal distribution for AM radio stations in Perth. The second reading speech on the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) referred to the radio frequency spectrum being a limited resource. There is a very severe technical and commercial problem facing AM radio stations in Perth. I refer specifically to radio stations 6PM, 6IX, 6KY and 6PR which all operate with two-kilowatt transmitters. The nature of the soil condition in metropolitan Perth, which has a sandy soil base with very little rock substratum is vastly different from that in Sydney, for example, where there is a substratum of sandstone and granite; Melbourne, where there is basalt and granite; or Brisbane, which also has a rock base. Those conditions in Perth are rather unusual. As a result, it is very difficult to distribute an AM radio signal. In fact, what happens is that it simply fades out; it does not bounce over the surface of the earth. There is a very rapidly expanding population in Perth. Like every other city in Australia, people are moving into the outer suburbs. In Perth they are moving into the northern outer suburbs, into the electorates of my colleagues the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). It is also true to say that a lot of those people can no longer clearly receive AM radio signals from stations 6PM, 6IX, 6KY and 6PR. These stations have a problem commercially as well. How do they reach an audience if their signals cannot be received by that audience? Vis-a-vis radio stations such as 96FM, which has no problem with air radio distribution, the AM stations are faced with an immense problem. This has been dealt with by debate and discussion for a number of years. So far there has not been a satisfactory resolution. There are three possible solutions. One solution is to upgrade the power of the transmitters. For example, 6WF or Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio 1 in Perth has a 50-kilowatt transmitter. There are very few distribution problems and, in fact, one can pick up its signal right across metropolitan Perth and in nearby country areas. Radio station 6WA Wagin also has a 50-kilowatt transmitter and has no difficulty in distributing its signal. However, the AM radio stations in Perth do have a distribution problem because they are on a much lower power. The first option is to upgrade the power of the transmitter. However, unless it is upgraded from two kilowatts to something like 20 kilowatts there would still be difficulty in distributing the signal. The second option is to install relays so that the AM radio signal that is distributed initially is picked up by a relay and transmitted on. That is a possibility. However, it involves a technical difficulty because, once again, the AM spectrum is being clogged up. It is not easy for radio station broadcasts and other services to be carried on the AM band if relays are installed. The third and most effective solution to the problem is, in fact, to allow the AM radio stations to convert to the FM band. There would then be no difficulties in signal distribution because the FM band has a much easier technical distribution basis. That is not without commercial consequences because in metropolitan Australia those FM radio stations are very profitable. Those stations took the risk and became FM stations. The FM radio stations in cities around Australia tend to be at the top of the ratings and are doing very well commercially. It is also true to say that a lot of the AM radio stations are being left behind in terms of both the quality of their signal and its distribution. That is most severe in Perth. I am acknowledging in my comments that there is a technical solution to the problem which is to allow all the AM radio stations to convert to FM. Obviously, there is also a commercial consequence in Perth, that is that 96FM will suddenly find itself with four commercial competitors. This Government recognises that a decision of that magnitude is not easy. In fact, I have put the proposition that we ought to consider Perth to be a special case. We should allow the AM radio stations in Perth to overcome the distribution problem. Clearly, I think we can make a case for allowing Western Australia and Perth in particular to do that immediately because stations there are suffering enormous problems. The boundary of my electorate is North Beach Road which is not very far from the centre of Perth-in old terms it is probably about seven miles. If one drives a bit further north one can barely receive the four AM radio stations. People will understand the consequences of that. Once one travels 10 kilometres beyond the transmitter the signal almost disappears whereas 96FM can be received very strongly further north. I recognise that radio station 96FM took the risk, and it has succeeded. But the AM radio stations are still clearly disadvantaged. I believe that the Government should address this problem as a priority. If it does not agree to general conversion of radio stations to FM at least it should agree to the particular conversion of radio stations in Perth. I believe it is important. I now move to the third issue I wish to raise which concerns the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Recently, there have been a number of complaints about the advertising of Havana cigars on radio and television in Perth. The Broadcasting Tribunal has been very legalistic about this and said, `We will not ban the advertising of cigars because we believe that it is outside the scope of section 100 (5a) of the relevant legislation'. However, it is my view that the Tribunal is ducking the issue. It has been determined by health Ministers and admitted by the tobacco industry that smoking is harmful to health. There has been an agreement concerning the limitation of cigarette advertising on television and radio. However, there has not been a willingness by the Tribunal to face up to the reality that cigars are just as harmful and have just the same impact on people's health. The only technical difference is that cigars are made from uncut tobacco, whereas cigarettes are made from cut tobacco. However, the Tribunal has the nerve to say that it has an opinion from the Attorney-General's Department which says that cigars are outside the scope of the Act. Clearly, cigars are capable of injuring people but, the Tribunal is saying that they are outside the scope of the Act. That is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory from my point of view and it is certainly not satisfactory from the point of view of many constituents. I acknowledge the work of a gentleman called Adrian Chambers in the community newspapers in Perth who has been drawing this matter to the attention of a large number of people in the community. For people who hear television or radio advertising for cigars and who, as a consequence consume that product, there is no difference whatsoever in terms of their health between cigars and cigarettes. In fact, both cigarettes and cigars have been determined as being harmful to health. The tobacco industry acknowledges that both are harmful to health. Therefore, why is the Tribunal not courageous enough to say that cigars come within section 100 (5a) of the Act? I do not believe that it is good enough for the Tribunal to hide behind an opinion previously given by the Attorney-General's Department based on an interpretation of the Act that reference to cigars is outside the scope of section 100 (5a) since that provision deals only with advertisements for cigarettes or cigarette tobacco. Cigars are made from cigarette tobacco, except that the tobacco is not cut. What a nonsense it is in terms of the way in which the Tribunal is dealing with its social responsibility. I take up the issue of social responsibility. We have allowed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to deregulate the number of advertisements per hour that television stations are allowed to transmit. What is happening already is that television stations are abusing that deregulation. People have complained to me. I believe that what we as backbenchers might have to begin to do is to monitor what television stations are doing in this respect. Clearly, they are bunching up lots of advertisements. I am not without some sympathy for the television stations but if they run 23 minutes of commercials per hour in the middle of a particularly good program one can challenge whether those television stations are fulfilling their social responsibility. It is not satisfactory for them to say that they will operate in a deregulated environment and block out an hour with a substantial number of ads. I believe that the Government might well need to ask the Tribunal to produce some figures very soon-I understand that the Tribunal is commencing monitoring-so that people on both sides of the House can see whether their communities are being served by the new deregulated scenario of television advertising. I return to my initial point that I do not believe it is good enough for the industry to be allowed to get away with advertising cigars on radio and television because the Tribunal takes what I regard as a legalistic definition of section 100 (5a) instead of taking a responsible view which says, `We recognise that cigars are made from cigarette tobacco'. What nonsense it is to pretend that they are not. Therefore, the health consequences are the same and the Tribunal should say, `You cannot advertise. We will apply the same sanctions or strictures as we currently do to the advertising of cigarettes, because they represent one of the major health problems facing the community'. The Tribunal ought to recognise its responsibilities. If it does not, we in this chamber ought to remind it and the industry of their responsibilities. We have talked about interfering with signals. There is a big problem for electors in the Perth suburb of Scarborough in my electorate. People will know that the Observation City Resort Hotel, a very large building built by Bond Corporation Pty Ltd, has deprived hundreds of residents of Scarborough of a television signal. It is one thing to talk about interference from other devices, but what happened was that the local government authority, the City of Stirling, was unable in its planning to take account of the fact that a large building may interfere with people's amenity. The State Government planning authority was unable to take account of that because its definition of planning was too narrow. It was concerned only with the engineering constraints, not the social constraints. This Government ought to be saying that television reception is an amenity for the general community and we ought to ensure that that amenity is provided. If developers can go ahead and build high rise buildings which interfere with people's reception of a basic amenity like television, the planning processes have to be challenged. We ought to be prepared to insert in legislation before this chamber a clause which enables us, if necessary, to talk to the planning authorities at the State and local level and direct them accordingly to protect the television reception of our constituents. I am pleased to commend the legislation to the House. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(6.22) —In summing up the contributions made by honourable members to this debate I remind the House that the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 is essentially an omnibus miscellaneous provisions Bill designed to introduce some minor amendments in the area of communications. It is clear from the nature of the debate that the provisions are generally quite unexceptional and I think it is true to say that no honourable member expressed any difficulties with the Bill as a Bill. However, as one would expect, honourable members used the breadth of the Bill to range over a number of issues relevant to communications in Australia. A number of statements will have to be answered at some little length because, if they are allowed to remain uncorrected, they will cause not merely confusion and misunderstanding but also concern in many parts of Australia. The first of those statements was made by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) when he said that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) had claimed-the honourable member for Maranoa subsequently claimed this in his speech-that time charge arrangements apply in rural Australia for most but not all calls. He endeavoured to challenge the very clear commitment given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government-and indeed subsequently endorsed in the strongest of terms by the parliamentary Labor Party in its Caucus meeting-that the Government will not go down the track of timed local calls. He has confused that situation with a situation which was created some time ago by Telecom Australia. Let me place on the record, so that there can be no misunderstanding, that local calls in western Queensland are charged at a flat rate, as they are everywhere else in Australia. Local calls are calls made within a 32-kilometre radius of an exchange in rural areas. The community call rate, which is currently 20c for three minutes or about 7c a minute, applies in extended charging zones beyond local call areas. Many of those zones exceed 10,000 square kilometres and some exceed 100,000 square kilometres. The community call rate also applies as part of Telecom's Access 80 scheme to country areas where local call access was not formerly available to a serviced town. In the case of an electorate like Maranoa, which is very large, or an electorate like Kalgoorlie, which takes up a huge geographic area, what Telecom did was to ensure that people living in those rural situations were able to get access to their local exchange; and for that they paid the community call rate as it applies universally. Clearly, one cannot expect to make a call over a large geographic area at the local call rate. The electorate of Maranoa seems to go virtually from one side of Queensland to the other. The normal subscriber trunk dialling (STD) charges apply there. That is the reality. To try to interpret that as somehow representing a grave injustice to people living within that electorate, or to imply that there is some kind of hidden agenda which belies the commitment given by the Government and the Prime Minister on time charged calls, is either to be entirely ignorant of the system that has been put in to the benefit of rural users, or to be politically mischievous. I will leave it to the House to determine which of those aspects applies to the honourable member for Richmond and to the honourable member for Maranoa. I come back to the point that, if one lives as I do in the metropolitan area of Melbourne and wants to make a call to Mildura, Ballarat or Bendigo, that is an STD call. Someone living in one part of Maranoa ringing across the extremities of the electorate would be in exactly the same position as a Melbourne resident ringing a country STD area. Telecom introduced the system so as not to disadvantage people living in isolated rural communities who needed to be able to get the same benefits as the average user. Although they may be living some distance from their local exchange, they get the benefit of the community telephone call charge. That is something that needs to be understood. It is simply not true to suggest, as the honourable member for Maranoa suggested, that there is some hidden agenda by which this Government is proposing to abolish the cross-subsidy which provides an equality of usage and availability to people living in remote areas. It does not aid the debate that needs to take place about how effectively our communications system can and should operate to perpetuate that sort of argument. No-one in the Government and no-one in Telecom is talking about an abandonment of cross-subsidy. What is true is that, if one were to take a simplistic assertion in favour of privatisation and use it in the way in which it is used by members of the Opposition, as a panacea to solve all our problems, and if Telecom were given to a private company whose function it was to make a profit, one of the very effective ways of making very handsome profits would be to abandon the whole concept of cross-subsidisation. The first duty of a director in a private company is to ensure that the profits are maximised for the benefit of shareholders. That is one of the distinctions between Telecom and a private company. Telecom has a public duty and that public duty has manifested itself in its general approach to the development of effective telecommunications services throughout Australia. The other proposal which I want to deal with is the suggestion, which came also from the honourable member for Maranoa; and from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), that Australia Post proposes to adopt the policy of charging for the delivery of post on the basis of distance. That is a nonsense proposition. It was first asserted by the honourable member for Menzies on the basis of a report he had received. Mr Connolly —The union agreed. It had been looked at. Mr HOLDING —I was about to inform the honourable gentleman that the government which sought advice on this proposal was the Fraser Government and the Minister at the time who received that report, which was provided, presumably, at the request of his Government, was the honourable member for Menzies. Let us not have any doubt at all about the origins of this proposition. On the basis of that, an action of a previous government, the honourable member for Menzies floated the proposition that this was part of the current or hidden agenda of Australia Post. That was specifically and publicly denied. I say, as the Minister who was involved in that area, that there was no truth in the assertion that that proposition is anywhere on the agenda, either of those who run Australia Post or of this Government. If the honourable member for Menzies wants to have his flights of fancy, he is entitled to do that. He may, if he wants, mislead his own colleagues and distort the situation, in clear conflict with the very clear denials that have been made in this matter by the Government and by the relevant officers who have responsibility in this matter. They have made it perfectly clear that, so long as the monopoly that is held by Australia Post continues, this is not in any way on the political agenda. The honourable member for Menzies knows that. It was his Government that sought the report. It was part of the ongoing philosophy of those opposite which flows from their preparedness to sell off anything they can in the absence of an economic policy. I repudiate the proposition on behalf of the Government. 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. Sitting suspended from 6.34 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 10 December 1987, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.00) —On the whole the Opposition is quite happy with the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1987 as it attempts to streamline the Teaching Service and, therefore, make it more efficient. It is mainly an administrative Bill that amends the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 so that the areas of promotions, transfers, appeals, forfeiture of office and attachment of salary will be subject to similar conditions as those that apply under the Public Service Act. The Bill also makes provision for the transfer of staff from the Service to certain Commonwealth authorities if required. This provision has been made to make way for the expected transfer of staff from the Canberra technical and further education colleges, the Canberra School of Art and the Canberra School of Music to the proposed Australian Capital Territory Institute of TAFE and the proposed Canberra Institute of the Arts once it has been established. This provision also enables officers to be transferred to other statutory authorities in the future if it is deemed necessary. The Bill also provides for technical changes to remove inconsistencies from the Act. The proposed new section 28 deals with the selection on merit of officers for promotion or transfer. The new procedure will be that the Service will select from those officers the officer who is, in the opinion of the relevant authority, the most efficient. The Service will take into account the abilities, qualifications, experience, standard of work performance, and personal qualities of each officer to the extent that the relevant authority considers that those matters are relevant to the performance of duties of the position. Proposed new section 28 (3) states: For the purposes of subsection (2), an officer who is a returned soldier or who is or has been absent on specified defence service shall be treated as having the abilities, qualifications, experience, standard of work performance, personal qualities, potential for future career development in the Service, or ability to perform the duties of the positions concerned that, in the opinion of the relevant authority, the officer would have had but for the absence of the officer on active service or on specified defence service. The Opposition has the firm opinion that promotion should be on merit, not just on seniority. That is what this Bill takes into account. There are expected to be no additional costs involved and, in fact, some minor savings may occur through the reduction in the number of appeals required to be determined by the promotions appeal boards. However, we are not happy about clause 7 of the Bill, which may leave applicants open to discrimination and which we propose to amend. Clause 7 deals with joint selection committees. At present, a joint selection committee may refuse to consider an application on the basis that the applicant is not a member of a staff organisation. We wish to make provision to prevent such discrimination and also to prevent a joint selection committee or a member of a joint selection committee, when assessing the claims of the applicants, taking into consideration whether an applicant is a member of a relevant staff organisation. The Opposition does not consider it relevant or necessary that the applicant be a member of a union and we want to ensure that those applicants are protected from any such discrimination, otherwise this Bill will institutionalise compulsory unionism. Although the Government has insisted that this is not the case, there are so many ways in which compulsory unionism exists in fact although not in legislation. This is the one area of the legislation that we oppose and we will be moving amendments to that aspect of the Bill at the committee stage. That is the main problem we have with the Bill. Other than that, the Opposition is satisfied that the Bill will bring out improvements in the administration of the Teaching Service and allow for greater efficiency in the Service. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(8.05) —As an ex-member of the Commonwealth Teaching Service and as a former employee of the Northern Territory Teaching Service, I support the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill 1987 and I oppose the Opposition's proposed amendments. The Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 originally provided the legislative framework for the employment of teachers in Commonwealth schools and certain other schools. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) technical and further education sector provided teachers for preschools, primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and TAFE colleges. It originally provided teachers for the Northern Territory, but with the transfer of powers to the Northern Territory Government in 1978 and the setting up of the Northern Territory Teaching Service in 1981 this was no longer necessary. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, as the relevant authority under the Act, maintains responsibility for providing teachers to Christmas Island, which is also in my electorate. On 12 December 1985 the Governor-General approved administrative arrangements which allocated responsibility for the administration of the Act between the Minister for Education and the Minister for Territories. On 12 December 1985 the Minister for Territories assumed responsibility for preschool, primary and secondary education in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Education continues to maintain responsibility for all matters other than those specified for the Minister for Territories, and this includes retention of responsibility for the Office of Australian Capital Territory Further Education. The Public Service Board continues to determine terms and conditions of employment. In the case of Australian Capital Territory government schools, the Chief Education Officer of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is the relevant authority under the Act responsible for making teachers available. Both Ministers also have the power to direct relevant authorities under certain circumstances to provide teachers to teach in schools conducted by other countries or in cases where a State or State authority makes a teacher available to a Commonwealth school. Funds for the administration of the Act are not appropriated separately, but are provided mainly from the appropriations of the Commonwealth Department of Education and the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. The current amendments to the Act, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) pointed out, are aimed at streamlining the administration of the Act and were originally foreshadowed in the 1986 annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, which in part said: Amendments to certain sections of the Act are in preparation to bring conditions of officers of the Service more into line with those of officers in the Australian Public Service, particularly on matters covered in the public service streamlining legislation. Some of the proposed changes are the removal of seniority as a factor for consideration in promotions, amendment of the definition of efficiency, and provision for the formation of joint selection committees and for the limitation of appeal rights in the promotion process. The Bill puts those foreshadowed proposals in place, with the principal amendment bringing the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act into line with the Public Service Act 1922 as amended by the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986. This was pointed out in the second reading speech. In the area of promotions, transfers, appeals and forfeiture of office and attachment of salary, provision is also made for the transfer of staff from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to certain other Commonwealth authorities. I will not repeat what the then Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories said in his second reading speech about the matter of promotions and appeals mechanisms; suffice it to say that they are seen by all parties as an improvement on the present system. Two significant points arise from this legislation. As far as the detail of the Bill is concerned, the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation was consulted about the form of the amendments and through this process agreement was reached. In contrast to the archaic approach to industrial relations that typifies the attitude of the Opposition, this Government has shown its preparedness to involve its employees in a meaningful and positive way in the development of its policies. The amendments also demonstrate a preparedness of the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation to look at existing practices and improve them in a way which will release resources tied up in complicated administrative procedures and allow those resources to apply to education. The only time the Opposition parties tried to streamline the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act was when it applied the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act to teachers in 1982. At that time they were not being given a decent hearing on salaries. The Fraser Government overreacted to some industrial action and sacked most of the teachers under this draconian legislation. This only served to unite the teaching service, and the then Government was forced to back off quicker than a lion tamer without a whip. The public education system in the ACT has a lot to be proud of. In speaking to this Bill, I would like to place on record my total support for the public education system not only here in the ACT but elsewhere in Australia. The ACT education system has recorded some very impressive results. It has the highest retention rates in Australia with 90 per cent of it, public school students completing year 12. That rate is higher than any other system, public or private, in Australia. It is twice the national average. In addition, 86 per cent of government secondary college students seeking admission to universities and colleges of advanced education are accepted. Most normal aged graduates who win Australian National University medals are from ACT secondary colleges. The high school and college courses are structured to encourage continuation at school until year 12. There are programs for students with special needs. New courses, programs and policies are being introduced as the need arises in areas such as computing, Asian languages, employment courses at secondary colleges, encouragement for girls to study maths and science, early literacy and special primary reading programs, enrichment programs for gifted students, equal opportunity in education programs, gender equity, new discipline processes and work experience. In addition to that, the needs of the community are met in terms of the structure of school boards where the chairperson is usually a parent and the board develops a school's philosophy and policies and approves the education programs. In the ACT the public sector gets value for money. The voluntary contribution each year in public schools is around $25 a head at primary schools, $50 at high schools and $100 at colleges. The alternative would cost thousands of dollars. With what is saved from using public education one could buy one's child a computer, build up a large reference or fiction library, take one's child to the theatre, buy one's child a musical instrument, take the child on educational trips in Australian or abroad or help support him or her later at college or university. The current head of the ACT Schools Authority, Eric Willmot, in an article on 2 February 1988 in the Canberra Times, said: Australian public school systems have been able to create virtually universal literacy in a continent of deterring geographical difficulties. I would like to emphasise the importance of that statement for people not only in the ACT but elsewhere in Australia who send their children to public sector schools. He went on to say: Whereas secondary education once served almost solely those who were aiming for higher education, schools now prepare students for all kinds of career paths. The results and statistics show that the ACT public school system is doing this more successfully than any other kinds of schools in Australia. . . . . Parents in the ACT are fortunate in having the public school system they possess, not in terms of the level of resources provided, but in the quality of the system. The quality of the system depends on the quality of the teachers. In my view the Commonwealth Teaching Service is and has been extremely well served by the present teachers and those who formerly were employed. By contrast, the sister service of the Commonwealth Teaching Service that grew out of that body-the Northern Territory Teaching Service, does not have such a record. It is not because the Northern Territory teachers are any less dedicated or any less able. But, unfortunately, there is a crisis of confidence in the way in which the Northern Territory Minister for Education and the Northern Territory Government generally are administering their responsibilities in relation to education. The education service in the Northern Territory is renowned for the lack of consultation about aspects of education with the school community generally and with teachers in particular. The Northern Territory Minister responsible for education finds that he can better use his time by attacking teachers, suggesting that they should spend more time in the classroom addressing their school duties and less on political interests because they have the temerity to argue about the education programs that the Northern Territory Teaching Service is offering. The Minister for Education in the Northern Territory Government could take a leaf out of the document of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) entitled Democratic Decision-making in the Work Force, which points out quite clearly that people must be involved in things which give them the opportunity to influence the outcome, and this means consultation with people in the workplace. In this instance, it means proper and adequate consultation with teachers in the Teaching Service who have the job of delivering the education system to our students. This is very important at a time when needs are changing, when demands on the Teaching Service are increasing and where teachers are expected to produce a higher return. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I emphasise once again that it is important to recognise the role of ACT Teachers and public sector teachers generally in the way they carry out their duties. I applaud the legislation before the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.16) —Although the Opposition intends to move amendments at the committee stage, which the shadow Minister has outlined, the Opposition in general supports the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1987. I would like to make a couple of comments on the contribution made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). Other than the rather raw and unnecessary attacks that he delivered against the Opposition parties and apart from the attack he made on the Northern Territory Minister for Education, there is probably a lot in what he said that members on this side of the House would agree with. The theme or centrepiece of the Bill is to ensure that efficiency is the sole determinant in promotions. The definition of efficiency has itself been broadened to allow a relevant authority to consider an applicant's potential for future career development and his or her ability to perform the duties of other positions at the same level. Those words are taken from the second reading speech of the then Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. If we are to judge an applicant's potential for future career development and his or her ability to perform the duties of other positions at the same level, I believe that it is also appropriate that we look at the plight of those who wish to become teachers. Madam Speaker, the honourable member for the Northern Territory was allowed to make a fairly wide-ranging speech. I do not wish to be provocative in any way, which I will not be. Let us look at the parameters that confront somebody who wants to become a teacher. Madam Speaker, if you view my comments in that context I think you will feel a lot more easy. I want to talk about an Austudy anomaly. A person who wants to qualify for an independent Austudy benefit has to have worked for three out of the last four years, or 156 out of 280 weeks. The definition of `work' includes real work, sick leave, recreation leave, being on the unemployment benefit or the sole-parent benefit or Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) registration. One also qualifies if one has performed real work, been unemployed or been registered with the CES for the past three years. These requirements are designed for somebody who wants to get into the Commonwealth Teaching Service. Let us consider the following case: Jack has a full-time job in 1984. He is on the dole in 1985 and 1986 and for the first six months of 1987 when he then gets a job. This means that in 1984 he had 52 weeks of real work; in 1985, 52 weeks on the unemployment benefit; in 1986, 52 weeks on the benefit; in 1987, 26 weeks on the benefit and 26 weeks in real work. That means 78 weeks of real work and 130 weeks on the benefit out of a total of 208 weeks. Jack is now eligible to get Austudy as a full time student, obtain independent status and get benefits for, say, three years. Between 1984 and 1990 Jack will have worked for only 78 weeks in seven years. He will have spent three years at university or at teachers college on Austudy, 1 1/2 years doing real work and 2 1/2 years on the unemployment benefit. Let us take the case of Jill. Jill also wants to become a Commonwealth teacher. She worked full time throughout 1985, 1986 and most of 1987. For the last four weeks of 1987 she was out of work but did not receive an unemployment benefit and was not registered at the CES. Let us look at Jill's chances of becoming a teacher, particularly in view of the lines in the former Minister's second reading speech about future career development in accordance with ability, et cetera. What has Jill done? In 1985, she had 52 weeks of real work; in 1986, 52 weeks of real work; and, in 1987, 48 weeks of real work and four weeks when she was not on the dole on a benefit registered as unemployed, et cetera. She may well have thought that she was just having an unpaid holiday. So what it amounted to was 152 weeks of real work and four weeks not on any benefit. Jack spent 130 weeks on the dole, which is considered as work. Only one month did Jill not work and never in three years did she claim any form of benefit. In fact, she never once drew upon Commonwealth support in the whole time. She paid taxes which actually supported Jack. Jack can now go to the Commonwealth teachers training college to become a Commonwealth teacher, in accordance with the Bill, but Jill cannot go because she is four weeks short of qualifying for independent status Austudy benefit. I use the debate on this legislation to raise what I regard as a very unfair anomaly. If we are about higher education for people in future, it is absolutely ridiculous that people who have contributed to the community so meaningfully can be excluded in that way. The honourable member for the Northern Territory spoke about the excellence of the Australian Capital Territory is of a very high standard. I have often said to people that although I would not live in this place, if I had kids-which I do-I would not mind sending them to school in the Australian Capital Territory. One cannot help thinking that it has its advantages. It certainly has its advantages. A few minutes ago the honourable member for the Northern Territory indulged in an attack on the poor, defenceless Opposition. I will reciprocate with an attack on the Hawke Government. If one is born in the Australian Capital Territory, goes to school in the Australian Capital Territory and wants to go on to higher education, one has three times more chance of making it than if one goes through secondary school in Queensland. I believe that the Federal Government has deprived and thieved from the young people of Queensland. It has deprived them of opportunities of higher education. The money must be going somewhere. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Dawson, said, `Hear, hear!'. One suspects that the money is being poured into New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Because Queensland has gone through a period of having a rather extraordinary, I might say, non-Labor government, its young people have been made to suffer and bear the burden as a form of punishment. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), who is at the table, is new to the job, is young and has an open mind. I ask him to please examine the availability of higher education places on a State by State basis. He will find that what I have said in terms of a person having to be three times as clever to reach higher education in Queensland as he needs to be in the Australian Capital Territory is absolutely right. I do not say that it is 1,000 per cent Federal Government induced, but I do say that the Government has a lot to do with it. If it has a conscience and an attitude of all Australians being equal and deserving of equal opportunity, the Minister will bring his influence to bear to rectify a situation which simply cannot be allowed to continue. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.26) —At the risk of boring the House, I will return to the purpose of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill and that is to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act in line with a number of procedures on which the Government is keen in the areas of promotion, transfers, appeals, forfeiture of office and attachment of salary, as well as the transfer of certain teaching staff. The transfer of teaching staff is very important at the moment in the Australian Capital Territory because the Bill makes a provision for the transfer of teaching staff from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the newly created institutes of arts and technical and further education (TAFE). While the Institute of Arts is geared to transfer its staff upon the Bill becoming law, the Institute of TAFE is still involved in some negotiations with the relevant unions. In that context I wish to point out to the House a number of the Bill's benefits. Effectively, the Bill streamlines the local education system in the Australian Capital Territory as regards staff. Firstly, in the area of promotions and appeals, seniority has been removed as a factor in determining who is the most suitable person for a job. That leaves efficiency as the one determinant, and rightly so. The definition of efficiency, I might add, has also been broadened to give the relevant authority the potential to consider an applicant's future career development and/or his raw native abilities for other duties at the same level. Also, we will have a component which provides the option of promoting or transferring an officer on the advice of a joint selection committee comprising an independent chairperson and two or three other members as agreed between the authority and the union. Also in that context, we have introduced measures to reduce the number of appeals. The appeal process itself has been streamlined by removing the need for a promotions appeal tribunal, which is characteristic of so many Public Service situations. A full assessment of the claims of the different parties to an appeal will be made but the relevant board will be required to make only such inquiries as are necessary to enable it to form an opinion as to the most efficient of the applicants for the job. It is expected that these changes to the promotions and appeals system will reduce the time taken to fill positions and there should be, in general, less recourse to an increasingly lengthy and costly appeal process. The Bill contains a number of other matters but I do not want to delay the House for too long tonight by going through them. I raise those items in the context of the Opposition's proposed amendments, which the Government rejects. I am sure the Opposition will not find that any great surprise. The first, second and third amendments-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Minister may leave the consideration of the amendments to the committee stage. Mr PUNCH —I simply want to go on the record as saying that we reject the amendments. I will deal with those at a later stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.30) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 7, page 6, line 5, omit ``Subject to subsection (2),''. (2) Clause 7, page 6, at end of proposed paragraph 32 (1) (b) add '', after consultation with the relevant staff organisation''. (3) Clause 7, page 6, proposed section 32, omit subsection (2). (4) Clause 7, page 7, at the end of proposed section 33 add the following subsections: `` `(6) A Joint Selection Committee shall not refuse to consider an application on the basis that the applicant is not a member of a relevant staff organisation. `(7) A Joint Selection Committee, or a member of a Joint Selection Committee, shall not, in assessing the claims of applicants in accordance with subsection (1), take into consideration whether an applicant is a member of a relevant staff organisation.''. It distresses me a little that on a prior occasion the Minister saw fit to say that he would not accept the amendments without listening to the debate. That is unfortunate because history would indicate that there are people within Australia who would believe that this Government is dominated by union pressures in one way or another. So, we find it very disconcerting to have this measure further installed within this Act. I recall quite a few years ago, when dealing with a Commonwealth compensation Bill, the intention in miscellaneous amendments was to ensure that compensation should be applicable to public servants who were union officials addressing a union meeting out of working hours. Due to the vigilance of the Opposition, we prevented that. This legislation smacks of the same type of thing. My first amendment seeks to delete from proposed new section 32 (1) the words `Subject to sub-section (2)'. Proposed new section 32 (2) states: A person shall not be appointed- I emphasise, `shall not be appointed'- under paragraph (1) (b) unless the relevant staff organisation consents to the appointment of that person. If that particular person was not a union member it is more than obvious that the relevant staff organisation would not give that consent. That is the first step. However, we do not believe it is not necessary to have consultation with the relevant staff organisation. Therefore we intend that proposed new section 32 (1) (b) would read: Not fewer than 2 and not more than 3 other persons appointed by the relevant authority, after consultation with the relevant staff organisation. We see nothing offensive about that. We are not trying to shut out the union altogether. However, we do say that proposed sub-section (2) gives no opportunity to a person who is not a union member, seeking an appeal, and who does not have the consent of the relevant staff organisation to the appointment of that person. I believe that is quite abhorrent to what we would think is a democratic system under the laws of this country. It appears to me that more and more in legislation being introduced by the Government in this House the views of the unions are taken into account much more than are the views of individuals, or teachers, who would be affected by this Bill. If a teacher who sought an appeal did not have the authority or the backing of a staff organisation, one can understand what would be the result of that appeal. My fourth amendment seeks, at the end of proposed section 33, to add new subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) would read: (6) A Joint Selection Committee shall not refuse to consider an application on the basis that the applicant is not a member of a relevant staff organisation. It is important to understand that so often we are told by the Government that there is no compulsory unionism in Australia. Yet, unless this subsection is added, protection will not be afforded to people who are not union members. Proposed new subsection (7) would read: A Joint Selection Committee, or a member of a Joint Selection Committee, shall not, in assessing the claims of applicants in accordance with subsection (1), take into consideration whether an applicant is a member of a relevant staff organisation. I return to my concern for compulsory unionism in Australia. I have had many cases put to me of people desperately wanting to leave a union, or wanting to know what are their opportunities and arrangements if they seek employment in a place where union preference is given. The advice has been that if one is a union member, one must pay any back fees before he can get out of the union. That is compulsory under industrial laws not only of the Commonwealth but also of the States. However, a person, not being a union member, seeking employment in a union factory or a business that offers preferential employment to unionists, will find it quite impossible to proceed. Even then, he does so at the utmost risk of the company with whom he is trying to work being blackballed and blacklisted, with all of their consequences. I ask the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) to review what he said at the end of the speech on the second reading and say that there is a case that the Government presents. We have gone so far as to say that we believe that the Bill is good from the point of view of its merits in overcoming seniority problems within the Public Service. However, in this respect the Bill gives too much say, emphasis, and control to the unions involved. We would like to have that matter clarified in proposed new sections 32 and 33. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.37) —I apologise for launching into the amendments at the end of my speech on the second reading. That reflects a little inexperience on my part, which I do not mind publicly admitting. The Government opposes the amendments for all the reasons that I began to outline. This Bill will enable the education authorities concerned with Commonwealth teaching to be far more flexible in staffing arrangements than previously has been the case. Negotiations are still under way with the relevant technical and further education unions. I put to the House, and I put squarely to the Opposition, that when one attempts to change managerial perspectives, and attempts to do a number of things as the relevant employer authority, goodwill is needed on both sides. For argument's sake, if the Government were to adopt the Opposition's amendments, I could think of no other material that would more inflame the local industrial relations system with regard to the teaching service. I shall explore the amendments in detail. The first, second, and third amendments are designed to remove the veto that the relevant staff organisation has with regard to the composition of the joint selection committees. That is not a veto with regard to the actual decision of the various appointment processes, but a veto as to the composition of joint selection committees. It must be said that the first three amendments would be contrary to an agreement that has been realised with a union. That agreement is in line with current industrial relations practices and is also consistent with the Public Service Act, which sets out normal public sector requirements in this area. I put to the Committee, first and foremost, that these measures in the Bill are consistent with current practice, and, secondly, that they are in an industrial relations framework that is positive. That positive industrial relations framework is not something that we should, by the movement of this amendment for arguably no good reason, put at risk. It is simply not worth the cost, pain and inconvenience to pupils and their parents, both in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and arguably the islands under the Territories portfolio. I suspect that the fourth amendment is designed to ensure that union membership is not relevant when a joint selection committee is considering applications for promotion or transfer. I put to the Opposition that these amendments are not necessary. The Bill requires a joint selection committee to be guided solely on the grounds of efficiency in considering applicants. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. In fact one could extend the argument to say that such an amendment could be discriminatory against unionists. Indeed, one could extend it further and say that the problems the Opposition seems to fear do not appear to be happening-certainly they have not been drawn to my attention-but could themselves encounter legal difficulties associated with that approach. All things considered, these amendments are firstly inflammatory in an industrial relations sense and, secondly, most likely totally unnecessary. I repeat that much has been accomplished in this Bill in terms of promotions, transfers and the removal of seniority, which is so coveted in other industries. This is very important and I urge the Opposition to reconsider what it has put forward. Finally, I noted the comments of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who claimed that a student in Queensland had to be three times cleverer than a student in the ACT in order to get a place in higher education. I sympathise with him and I trust that he has imparted this knowledge to his State Liberal colleagues in respect of the National Party Government in Queensland. While I am the Minister for the ACT and Territories generally, I have great sympathy for the predicament of young people in Queensland who are searching for higher education. If the honourable member for Moreton were to urge his Party colleagues in Queensland to get behind the Australian Labor Party at the next election the problem of which he complains would not occur in Queensland. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.42) —I cannot let those last few remarks go unchallenged. It is obvious that they were made by an honourable member whose political affiliation is not with the Government of Queensland. Therefore the comments he made carried a lot more merit, particularly when he qualified them by saying that the fault was not just the Commonwealth's but should be borne right across the States in some degree. The lack of parity was the main emphasis. When one considers other States and particularly the Australian Capital Territory, it would be very difficult to persuade any Queenslander-Labor voter or otherwise-that the ACT does not get a superior deal to Queensland in many of the services provided by the Commonwealth. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) said that our amendments would be inflammatory. It appears that it is okay to have inflammatory legislation from this place, provided it does not inflame the unions. This was obvious with the fringe benefits tax. Here the tax was imposed on employers. It was okay to inflame the employers and make them pay but it was not at all necessary to inflame the unions. I can remember the comment made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at the time when he said that a fringe benefits tax would be imposed on the employee for the fringe benefits that he derived. The next day Mr Dolan, the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, obviously having looked at his own entitlements and fringe benefits, said `No'. The day after that, the Treasurer said, `Righto, we cannot inflame Cliff Dolan and the unions; let's inflame the employers and make them pay up'. That has been the sad and sordid history of this Government-it brings in legislation which says that one is more equal if one is a unionist that if one is not. I think this is a very important point. The Minister commented that the first three amendments allowed for flexibility. We are all for flexibility. We have said that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill has many good points, but flexibility is not the criterion here. Far from being flexible, the Government has institutionalised unionism within this legislation. Anybody who tells me that institutionalisation is flexibility had better show me another dictionary because I firmly believe that in this case the Government is binding the hands of the teachers or people on transfer, forcing them to become unionists before they can go ahead. I thought that the Government was about introducing people's Bills, not union Bills. This Bill is about teachers and individuals wanting transfers on merit. If the Government is to provide the flexibility that is required in such a situation, I suggest that those first three amendments be looked at. In connection with the last aspect, I cannot see that our suggestion is discriminatory against unionists. All we are putting in is a simple condition that a person who is not a unionist would not be discriminated against. Mr McGauran —What's wrong with that? Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is what I ask. But the Minister said it was discriminatory. As far as I am concerned, we are bringing about a better interpretation and more flexibility. The Minister said there would be a legal problem but did not indicate what it would be. I ask the Minister to enunciate, for my benefit and that of other Opposition members', what that particular problem is. Mr McGauran —I think he is bluffing. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I, too, think he is bluffing. There has been a lot of bluffing going on in this House over the last week or so. I will just mention this aspect of discrimination. I remember the Australian Bill of Rights Bill that was brought into this House by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). It was supposed to give everybody equal rights. If I recall correctly, it was a person's right to belong to a union but it was not a person's right not to belong to a union. This goes to the heart of what we are talking about. Does the person who does not believe in unionism have any rights under this Bill? We could go further if we wanted to. The Industrial Relations Bill, which was brought into this House last May and immediately abandoned because of the better opportunity of going to an election without it being on the books, discriminated most unfavourably against those people who did not want to belong to unions. Here we have another attempt by somebody within the Minister's Department or by the Government to bring in yet another piece of legislation, which we support except for its failure to allow the flexibility, as we would call it, for people who are non-unionist to know that they will get justice under the merit conditions. I suggest that section 33 of the principal Act does not reinforce those merit conditions. We believe that the addition of those two subsections proposed in our amendment would make the matter clear. It would enable us to say that the Bill is non-discriminatory and that, for once, the Government has acted in the cause of people and not particular parties. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 February. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(8.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Following agreement of both Houses of Parliament, notice of termination of the 1981 airlines agreement was issued on 30 October 1987. An essential element of the deregulation environment after termination of the two airlines agreement will be a strong, viable and efficient Australian Airlines which will be able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. The Bill now before the House represents an important first step in the process of preparing Australian for its future role by: establishing the airline as a public company; providing for reorganisation of the airline into a more appropriate structure prior to incorporation; and removing detailed Government controls on the airline's operations. The legislation will establish the airline as a company in the most efficient way possible, by providing for the Commission to be deemed to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1981 on a day to be proclaimed. Secondly, the legislation provides for a reorganisation of the Commission prior to deeming. The Commission is seeking to establish a group structure which provides it with maximum flexibility to prepare for the more competitive environment facing the airline over the next few years and following deregulation. The legislation therefore makes provision for the reorganisation of the Commission prior to incorporation to ensure that the new company can operate from the outset on a proper commercial basis. Thirdly, the legislation provides for removal of existing statutory controls on the airline which are embodied in the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 through deletion of all substantive sections of that Act. The removal of these statutory controls will occur at the time of deeming the airline to be a company. As announced previously, the Government is giving consideration to the scope for removal of other broader controls, such as subjection of borrowings to Loan Council, in the context of the structural adjustment committee. Decisions on these controls are expected to be taken in the near future. I now wish to address the major provisions in the Bill in more detail. Deeming The Bill provides in Part IV for the conversion of the Australian National Airlines Commission to a public company. In particular, Clause 15 deems the Commission to have been immediately before the transition, and to be, at the transition a corporation within the meaning of the Companies Act and provides for the Commission to be registered as a company under the Australian Capital Territory Companies legislation. A major benefit of the deeming approach is that the company maintains the same corporate entity as the Commission. Because there is no change in the corporate entity there is no need: to transfer assets and liabilities from the Commission to a new body corporate; for novation of overseas contracts of the Commission, because there would be no new party to those contracts; to transfer any tax losses or the benefit of capital gains tax exemptions for pre-20 September 1985 assets to a new corporation; or for any change to existing Commonwealth loan guarantees, which would remain in place. The deeming approach therefore avoids the administrative costs and time which would be involved in resolving these matters under alternative legislative approaches. All contracts, agreements and arrangements entered into by or on behalf of the Commission and which are in force immediately before transition, including the 1981 airlines agreement, will apply to the deemed company. All the shares in the deemed company will be held either directly by the Commonwealth, or by a Commonwealth wholly owned holding company. Staffing Matters Related to Conversion On transition each staff member of the Commission will become an employee of the company on the same terms and conditions as applied to his or her employment by the Commission. Entitlements such as long service and recreation leave, and eligibility for sick leave, will be preserved. There will be no entitlement to any payments in lieu of leave entitlements. The legislation enables the company to become a `prescribed authority' for purposes of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. Those staff who have rights under the repealed Officers Rights Declaration Act 1928, or Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 will retain those rights. On transition the existing provisions covering superannuation for staff who are members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme-(some 950 employees-will be maintained and the company will become an `approved authority' for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976. These provisions are necessary to avoid any industrial difficulties which could arise if the terms and conditions of staff on transition were left open. The airline has proposed that, as a corporation, and subject to industrial agreement, it should have the ability to withdraw from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and to transfer CSS staff to existing airline plans. This proposal is to be considered by the structural adjustment committee. The timing of conversion to a public company does not need to be decided at this stage. However it is expected that the transition will take place on 31 March 1988. Company Structure The airline has indicated it wishes to reorganise its activities into a holding company/subsidiary company structure, and views this as an essential part of the changes required in establishing the airline as a fully competitive public company, and to avoid any adverse legacy of its previous statutory authority form. This new structure would also allow greater devolution of management responsibilities and assist management to focus on activities where performance may need to be improved. The Bill provides flexibility in the way in which the final group structure is to be achieved. One such way would be for the deemed company to assume the role of holding company. The other would be for the new holding company to be incorporated by the Commonwealth and for the deemed company to become a subsidiary undertaking the major airline operation activities. Staff Matters Related to the Reorganisation The Bill, by amending the appropriate provisions of applicable legislation, enables new companies created before commencing day as part of the group reorganisation, also to be covered by the provisions of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Where existing employees of the Commission are contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme or have rights relating to Public Service employment under the repealed Offices Rights Declaration Act 1928 and part IV of the Public Service Act 1922, those rights and entitlements will also be preserved irrespective of transfer to any company in the group. Transfers of Assets and Liabilities Given that there will be no change in beneficial ownership by the Commonwealth, all transfers of assets and liabilities from the Commission to other companies within the group as part of this reorganisation, and for any related transfer of shares, should not be subject to Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes and duties. The Bill therefore provides for transfers to be exempt from such taxes and duties but restricts these exemptions, to transfers related directly to the reorganisation which takes place within the period between royal asset and transition day. Taxation The Bill will also ensure that the group reorganisation will be `tax neutral', with the overall taxation position of the companies involved being the same as would otherwise have applied to the Commission. Removal of Government Controls In his statement of 7 October 1987 outlining the Government's domestic aviation policy, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) announced the removal of a number of day-to-day controls over Australian Airline's commercial operations to help streamline management decision making and place increased responsibility with the airline's board where it properly belongs. These controls included: all but exceptionally significant expenditure decisions, for example those requiring additional equity capital; detailed terms and conditions of borrowings and leasing arrangements; investment of surplus moneys; choice of auditor; dividend recommendations; and provision for insurance against risk. The deletion of all substantive sections of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 will give effect to the Government's decision. Further, as indicated earlier, the Government through the Structural Adjustment Committee will be examining the scope for removal of other broader controls over Australian Airlines' operations. These controls include: Loan Council borrowing limits; Remuneration Tribunal determination of board member and senior executive salaries; Industrial relations arrangements being subject to Government oversight and co-ordination; Restrictions on superannuation arrangements; and Application of the offsets policy to purchases of aircraft and related spares. Once the position on the broader controls has been settled, the Government will address the form of memorandum and articles of association, together with appropriate guidelines to directors of the company to ensure that the airline continues to be subject to appropriate minimum levels of controls, and so that there is an ongoing basis for establishing the airline's financial target and corporate planning responsibilities previously contained in the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. Intrastate Operations It has been necessary to retain section 19a of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 to enable the Commonwealth to hold shares in a company operating intrastate air services in those States to which that section applies-currently Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia. The Bill ensures that a group company will be able to carry on business in all States and Territories under names which have been protected in accordance with provisions of the Bill. Amendments to Related Legislation As required by the proposed reorganisation, the Bill amends definitions in the Airlines Equipment Act 1958 and the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, which play an integral role in the operation of the existing airlines agreement, to extend the application of those Acts to cover all companies in the reorganised group. Additional legislative provisions are necessary to apply the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 to the group of companies. For constitutional reasons these provisions will be contained in a separate Bill, which will be introduced separately in the House. Financial Impact Statement The Bill does not involve additional expenditure by the Commonwealth or additional revenue to the Commonwealth. The Bill provides for exemption from Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes on transfer of assets as part of the proposed reorganisation of the airline, in recognition of the fact that there will be no change in the Commonwealth's beneficial ownership. Conclusion In future, there will be greater opportunities for the aviation environment to become more competitive as aviation specific economic regulatory controls are removed. There have already been developments in the domestic aviation industry which impinge on the extent and form of future competition. Following the recent take- over of East-West Airlines by News Corporation Ltd and TNT Ltd, Australian Airlines faces the prospect of greater competition from, on the one hand, Ansett Airlines of Australia in traditional markets and, on the other, East-West Airlines in the growing price sensitive leisure and tourism markets. Australian Airlines is therefore confronted in all areas of the domestic market by strong commercial competitors backed by extensive financial resources. In these circumstances, this Bill represents an important first step on the part of the Government towards improved competitiveness of the airline by giving the management of Australian the flexibility to structure the airline in the most effective manner to meet the current and future challenges and the ability to run the airline without the hindrance of detailed bureaucratic controls. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.03) —I welcome the presence of the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan). I would like to say to him that I hope we do not have a repeat of the ministerial shuffle that occurred last week when we debated the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1987 dealing with superannuation. That Bill was supposed to be carried by the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), to whom I will refer again in a moment. In the event, the blue sheet stated that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) would carry the second reading. But it turned out not to be him, but the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) who introduced the second reading. He then left the chamber and, after the debate concluded, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) stood and said to the House that she appreciated the contribution that all members had made, but did not make any attempt to deal in any way with the very substantial arguments that had been raised on both sides of the House. Today the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill was supposed to be introduced by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Instead, we had the Minister for Employment and Education Services. I hope that he will undertake to stay in the House through the debate, listen to the various points that are made in the debate, sum up at the end and give the Government's response to the various points that are raised not only by the Opposition but by speakers from his side of the House. I said that I wanted to refer briefly to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, who is ill. In making my speech on 17 February on the second reading of the Australian Airlines superannuation Bill I said, `We do not have the Minister who is responsible for this legislation in the House'. Four lines later I said: I wish the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), who is responsible for this Department, a speedy recovery from his illness. I raise this matter because my comments about the Minister not being in the House were the subject of some rather inappropriate comments by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price). I notice that he will be speaking in this debate and therefore will have a chance to apologise to me about that matter. I would like to refer briefly again to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. It will be interesting to have him back in the portfolio from which he was summarily dismissed some months ago. In the interim the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment and Education Services, has done some of the work assisting Senator Evans. Then the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs came in and had a go. In fact, the shuffling that is going on is further indication of how out of touch this Government is with what is going on out in the real world. The claim to fame of the Minister at the table is that he picked up the mess that was left by his predecessor and was responsible in the House at the time that the Amann-Coastwatch fiasco was going on. Government members should remember the Amann-Coastwatch fiasco because that was no doubt one of the reasons why the Minis- ter at the table was shifted. The Ministers go past me like flies. We did not really get a chance to understand from this Minister what happened in the Coastwatch fiasco. But now that Mr Morris is back, we will no doubt have an opportunity to pursue him. Mr Morris, that venerable guardian of Australian Labor Party-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Minister by his title. Mr BEALE —I refer to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. It is so hard, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Government keeps changing not only the Ministers but also their titles. Mr Martin —You keep changing your office. Mr BEALE —The reason that that happens is that all of these Ministers keep drifting past like ships in the night. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support, that venerable guardian of the Labor Party's transport and aviation policies over many years as shadow Minister, and nearly three as the Minister-that was until he did not move quickly enough and had to be shunted aside-now returns as the junior Minister for Senator Evans. It will certainly make life interesting for the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) not only to have to fight for privatisation on his front but also to have to protect his back against the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, who is well known for his complete opposition to privatisation. That was probably another reason why he was shuffled sideways and why we have seen so much energy in the transport and aviation portfolio over the past few months. It is a sad reflection that the Government has to resort to shuffling people like cards until it finds a suitably pliable line-up to fit in with its intentions. It just demonstrates how undemocratic the Labor Party has become. The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 is in spirit no stranger to this place. Similar legislation was introduced in 1981 by the Liberal-National Party Government with the aim of increasing the amount of flexibility afforded to the management of Australian Airlines, or Trans Australia Airlines as it was then. I would like to quote from the two second reading speeches-the one by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in 1981 and the one that we have heard from the Minister for Employment and Education Services today. In 1981 the honourable member for Gwydir, in moving the second reading, said: The introduction of this Bill is a further step by the Government to ensure that Trans-Australia Airlines operates as a competitive, commercially oriented airline. The Minister used very similar words today. He said of Australian Airlines: . . . will be a strong, viable and efficient Australian Airlines which will be able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. There we have it. The coalition parties in 1981, in introducing similar legislation-- Mr Jull —Seven years too late. Mr BEALE —As my friend the honourable member for Fadden says, that was seven long years ago, and today in this House we have heard the same sort of comment from the Minister at the table in moving the second reading of this Bill. Mr Martin —What happened between 1981 and 1984? Mr BEALE —I will tell the honourable member what happened. Honourable members opposite sat on their hands between 1983 and 1988 and did nothing about the matter when it was competently the thing to do. This legislation was repealed in 1984 by the present Labor Government. The relevant Hansards certainly make very interesting reading. I want to go back to the Sunday program last Sunday week when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was talking to two journalists, Laurie Oakes and Alan Ramsay. The Prime Minister was talking about the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). This is what he said: . . . Alan, I think Kim Beazley is again another obvious future leadership candidate, a man of outstanding capacities . . . He is so completely master of the portfolio in all respects. He said further: I haven't heard anyone, any commentator, that wouldn't endorse that endorsement. `Endorse that endorsement' is another prime ministerial tautology. That is what the Prime Minister said two Sundays ago about the Minister for Defence. But this is what the then Minister for Aviation, now the Minister for Defence and, would you believe it, now Leader of the House, said in 1984 when discussing the legislation that repealed the Bill that the coalition had introduced in 1981, that Bill being similar to the one that is before us for discussion today. We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming the Commission into a company . . . Nor can we justify to the taxpayer the very significant costs that would be incurred in such a transformation. That was said only four years ago, in 1984, when the Minister for Defence, the then Minister for Aviation, was talking on a Bill to repeal legislation that is virtually identical to the legislation that the Government has brought before us tonight. He went on to say: This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority. In that it can then remain an arm of government policy to ensure that the best interests of the consumers are serviced. What a complete reversal. And he was not alone. We can go back to what the now Minister for Transport and Communication Support had to say in 1981 when the coalition introduced legislation virtually identical to the legislation that the Government has brought before the House today. I notice that the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) has stopped interjecting. He has that sinking feeling in this stomach that he has to follow this speech and he is going to find a lot of difficulty in dealing with what I have to say. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support said: The formation of TAA into a public company is an ill conceived, expensive and unnecessary gimmick. Mr Martin —Who said that? Mr BEALE —The Minister for Transport and Communication Support, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), said that in 1981, when opposing legislation that he should have had the carriage of today. He went on: The legislation constitutes a squandering of public resources by the Prime Minister. It is for that reason, and because of the extraordinary double-dealing which is now the trademark of this weary, out of touch and arrogant government, that the Opposition moves the following amendment in relation to this Bill: 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 condemns the Government for: (1) its double standards in introducing legislation similar to that which the previous Coalition Government passed to convert the then Trans-Australia Airlines into a company and which this Government repealed; (2) its failure to take into account the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Australian Airline's future capital requirements; (3) its failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines; (4) creating continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future; and (5) the continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure'. I just take the House back to what the now Minister for Defence had to say as Minister for Aviation in 1984 when he introduced legislation to repeal the coalition's Bill. He said. We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation . . . That is relevant to the statement in our amendment that the Government has created continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines employees. In the Senate, during the second reading debate on this Bill, Senator Gareth Evans made reference to paragraph 4 in a similar amendment which was moved and passed by the coalition in the Senate. He said that there will not be any trouble with Australian Airlines employees, that their entitlements are protected and that there is no real difference for them; they are just moving from an authority to a company. That is entirely inconsistent with what the then Minister for Aviation, now the Minister for Defence, said in 1984. He said: We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming the Commission into a company. The coalition parties do not oppose this Government legislation. In fact, if it were not for the narrow-minded repealing of similar legislation in 1984 by those opposite, Australian Airlines would certainly be in a better position and more able to deal with the commercial realities of the world today. The hypocrisy of the Government is now a standing joke in the community. Here we see that all the mouthing and rhetoric of the Labor Party in opposition to this Bill in 1984 was hollow. It is now forced to face up to the real world, a world in which the Liberal and National parties' aviation policy was formed. Need I say that what the Government is proposing today and what it is going to propose in terms of transferring the ownership of Australian Airlines, maybe partially, maybe fully, from the public sector to the private sector, is a direct steal from the coalition's aviation policy. It demonstrates that that policy was correct all along. The Advisory Group on Australian Airlines has been ignored. Not only is this Government hypocritical but also it is increasingly cynical. The Advisory Group is due to report in March. That is a week away. Why would not the Government wait a week to find out what the Advisory Group is going to tell it about the future capital requirements and the future financing requirements of Australian Airlines? Without waiting for the advisory group's Committee's report, this legislation will lock everybody in, and the Government is cynical in ignoring what the report will say. The Government's failure to announce its intention to privatise Australian Airlines is another monument to its lack of honesty. Its strategic delaying on this issue in order to deal with its internal factional problems will be the undoing of some of its members. I referred to the membership of the Advisory Group on Australian Airlines and I should like to do so briefly again tonight to demonstrate how the Government is attempting to lock in everybody so that everybody will agree with the conclusions to which the Advisory Group comes. I should say that we all know what conclusions it will come to because we have all seen now the leaked document on Australian Airlines. It is a discussion paper prepared by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications, dated February 1988. It was leaked last week presumably by some kind soul in the Caucus who wanted to have this matter out for public discussion. Where else would it have come from? The paper said: The purchase of these aircraft and associated equipment, together with other essential expenditure, means that the airline's capital expenditure requirement over the period to 1991 is in excess of $1,000 million. It said that in order to maintain a commercially appropriate gearing ratio injections of equity capital of $250m in 1988-89 and $50m in 1989-1990 would be required. So the report will come to the conclusion that the money has to be given to Australian Airlines to enable it to compete effectively because even this Government does not want to see an airline monopoly develop in Australia. That is the conclusion to which this report will come. Because the Government has already said to it, `Look, we haven't got any money; you are going to have to find the money from other sources', the conclusion to which this report will come is that a portion of the ownership of Australian Airlines must be transferred from the public sector to the private sector. The leaked report also sets that out as one of the scenarios. I refer again to those people who are on the Advisory Group on Australian Airlines. Mr Harris is Chairman; he is the new Chairman of Australian Airlines. As I said in the speech on superannuation, all of us, I am sure, wish him well in that job as it will be a very difficult job. The most difficult aspect will be dealing with the Australian Labor Party factionalism. However, we wish Mr Harris well. Once the report comes to the conclusion to which it will inevitably come, the airline will be locked in because Mr Harris is Chairman of the airline. Mr Kelty is on the Advisory Group. Once the report comes to the conclusion to which it will come, Mr Kelty's endorsement will lock in the trade union movement. Dr Wilenski, the head of the Department, is on the Advisory Group. Once the Advisory Group comes to its inevitable conclusion that will lock in the Department. Mr Redlich, a former President of the Labor Party in Victoria, is on the Group, and once the Group reports in the way it inevitably will report that will lock in all those difficult members of the Labor Party left wing in Victoria who will give the Government the most trouble on privatisation. I now want to go back to some references made by the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) in answer to a question from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) on 23 August 1985. I wonder what the honourable member for Macarthur, who was given the dorothy dixer, is going to say about this. Mr Martin —What was the question? Mr BEALE —I will tell the honourable member what the question was. The question referred to the Opposition's confused policy of threatening to sell off successful government enterprises. The Minister replied: I thank the honourable member for his question. Those who talk about privatisation really are trotting out a very tired old piece of ideology which has been around for a long time. In answer to another question from the honourable member for Macarthur-- Mr Martin —I am the man. Mr BEALE —The honourable member really gets fed the mickey mousers-the Minister replied: I can assure the honourable member that the Government's policy is that both Qantas and Trans-Australia Airlines will remain in full public ownership. The Opposition's proposal is that they be sold off to a group of privileged Australians rather than that they should belong to all Australians, as is the case at the moment. The amendments which the coalition seeks to have added were, in fact, accepted by the Minister in the Senate. The Minister knows full well that Australian Airlines and a range of other government instrumentalities must be made more commercial, given more flexible arrangements. With a shrug of admission and guilt the Minister in the Senate said, `All right, if you want your second reading amendment', which was very similar to the one we proposed today, `you can have it'. With a shrug of admission and guilt, he accepted the amendment. To him, all this business of a full and open debate about the future of Australian Airlines is a game. It is a numbers game and a waiting game. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and Senator Evans are all playing the numbers and waiting games, waiting for the factionalism to die down so that they can get their policy on privatisation through. Maybe by threatening Caucus with a whole host of privatisation plans and then accepting only the ones they want-and let us make no mistake about it, this leaked paper on Australian Airlines demonstrates that Australian Airlines is one they want to privatise-that is one they will get. The left wing of this out of touch Government will be rolled on the conference floor in June, and if it is not then Australian Airlines will die a slow death and we will end up with a private monopoly, a private monopoly over which this Government has no control. It will have created that monopoly as surely as if it had passed legislation to do so. Again, I want to go back to what the present Minister for Transport and Communications Support said in the House in 1981 in opposing legislation virtually identical with the legislation that has been brought forward today. He said: It is the policy of the Labor Party to ensure that TAA remains a 100 per cent government owned enterprise. He went on to say that, if not, that would produce a private monopoly for the provision of major air services. He went on-I am sure the House will enjoy this-to say: Converting TAA into a public company will simplify its sale and it meets the prime demands of this Government's backers, the multi-millionaire proprietors of Ansett. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support said that converting TAA into a company, which we proposed in 1981, would suit the demands of the Government's backers-that is the coalition Government's backers-the multi-millionaire proprietors of Ansett. If a duopoly is bad, a monopoly is worse. One of the dangers of the Government's handling of its airline policy is that at the end of the day we could see one company dominating the domestic aviation market. As readers of the Times on Sunday and the Sydney Morning Herald would know, that prospect probably does not unduly upset the Prime Minister and probably does not unduly upset the Unsworth Government, but it should concern the Parliament. It does concern the Opposition and it does concern the people of Australia. The restrictions and regulations which created our cosy two-airline system have long outlived any usefulness which they may have had. In removing these archaic regulations, the Opposition does not want to see one company corner the market. The shuffling and bumbling of the Government at present has already allowed one airline to become the dominant market leader. The swallowing up of East-West Airlines Ltd has made that company even stronger in relation to the Government's own domestic airline. The protection of the public interest lies in the competition provided by a genuine market. The opposite of a market is a monopoly. The Government is allowing this danger to arise because of its prevarication over the funding of Australian Airlines. Is the Government going to allow Australian Airlines to be adequately funded, or is it not? I invite the Minister at the table, the Minister for Employment and Education Services, in his response to the second reading debate, to tell us what the Government's plans are for adequate funding of Australian Airlines and not to say, `Oh, we have to wait for the advisory group to report to us in March', which is one week away. I ask the Minister at the table to answer the question yes or no. If his answer is no, the Government will be condemning Australian Airlines to the role of a minor player and creating a de facto monopoly in the Australian domestic airline industry with sad consequences for the Australian travelling public and consumer. Australian Airlines desperately needs an injection of funds to widen its capital base and allow it to be more competitive by buying the aeroplanes and the equipment that it needs. The Government's miserable treatment of Australian Airlines raises the question of who stands to gain commercial advantage. The Government has not satisfactorily answered that question. I invite the Minister at the table, in his second reading response, to answer that question in the interests of the Australian travelling public. Australian Airlines should be allowed to become a proper commercial entity. In line with the Opposition's policy, its ownership should be transferred from the public sector to its employees and private sector investors with the provisos on ownership that are already outlined in the coalition's aviation policy. It should be sold to its executives, its staff and the Australian public. Why is the Government so reluctant to allow the Australian public to own part of this great airline? Anyone who wants to take a crash course in the voodoo ideology of the Left should read the mysterious speeches of Senator Bolkus which are recorded in the Senate Hansard. It is interesting to note that the honourable senator still has on notice in the Senate a question criticising this Government's aviation policy. Mr Jull —But he is a Minister. Mr BEALE —Well, he is now. He would not have been allowed to put that question on notice if he had been a Minister at the time. Years ago the Opposition pointed the way by showing the benefits to the airline and the Australian people by bringing forward legislation very similar to the legislation that is before us today. The coalition has shown us the way on this matter. The Government is implementing the coalition's aviation policy. The Opposition does not object to this legislation and I commend the amendment to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Jull —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will have the right to speak at a later point in the debate. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.34) —During the contribution that we have just heard from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the shadow spokesman on aviation matters, a number of challenges were issued both personally to me and to other Government members in general to rebut some comments that have been made in previous contributions on aviation policy in this place by members of the Government. I hope that he will not be disappointed in the responses that I direct to both him individually and to Opposition members on the very important issue that is before us tonight. Because we are talking about one of the most important and fundamental public enterprises that are operating in Australia today-that is Australian Airlines-we need to look at the contribution that this airline makes to the Australian economy. The honourable member for Deakin made some comments about how this Government has miserably treated Australian Airlines, how the airline needs an injection of funds and comments of that nature. In fact during 1986-87 Australian Airlines carried something like five million passengers and had a turnover of $878m. If one looks at its record over the last couple of years in terms of the profits it has generated, one can see that in 1983-84 the net profit of Australian Airlines, or Trans-Australia Airlines as it was then, was a mere $3.9m. In 1985-86 that figure increased to $37.8m. In 1986-87 it was reduced to $24.9m because of one-off losses that were associated with the closure of the Air Queensland subsidiary. So, taking all that into consideration, we are talking about a rather significant contributor to the Australian economy. Australian Airlines is a major employer with some 9,600 employees being associated with it. As I have indicated, the airline makes a significant contribution to the revenue which is generated for the Government. A point was raised with respect to the need for an injection of capital for Australian Airlines. Pre-1983, Australian Airlines was in an absolutely decimated condition. I put to the honourable member for Deakin that that was probably a result of several decades of policies followed by a variety of governments with respect to Australia's aviation industry. I am talking here about the two-airline policy, and I will say a little more about that in a moment. Quite clearly, Australian Airlines, which is owned by the Australian people, was being allowed to run down. All that changed in 1983. A decision was taken to inject capital into Australian Airlines. Indeed, $25m was approved by the previous coalition Government out of a total of something like $115m. So quite clearly, there was a recognition by this Government of the need to inject further capital into Australian Airlines to enable it to remain viable and meet commitments which existed under the two-airline policy. The two-airline policy is quite interesting because the grandfather clause relating to it was put in place not by this Government but by a previous coalition Government-by the people who are now talking down the fact that there is a two-airline policy and that changes need to be made in a deregulated environment. Although this Government has, in fact, as a result of the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation, made a considered response and has given formal notice that Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia will have to terminate the two-airline policy, we still get the nonsense being spoken that we need in some way still to prop up Australian Airlines because of the coming deregulated environment. It is fact-and the honourable member for Deakin quoted from some documents which had been drafted in response to requests from within the Australian Labor Party-that there is a need for capital injection for the future. No-one can dispute that. I find myself in agreement with the honourable member when he says that he does not want to see a monopoly or a one-airline policy in this country. I agree 100 per cent with that. In fact, it has been mooted in a variety of circles that perhaps one way we could get around that, one way in which we could see Australian Airlines operated in a more efficient manner than it presently is, would be an amalgamation with Qantas Airways Ltd. I raise that as an issue-one publicly owned company, Qantas and Australian together, competing against Ansett at the moment and, after deregulation in 1990, against whatever small or larger companies might come on the scene. I notice that the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) is shaking his head about that as an option. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is an option that will be followed, but I am suggesting to him that it is an option that is being discussed freely within the community. It raises some interesting points because it goes to the support that came some months ago when the whole privatisation debate was under way whereby Ansett, for example, was supportive of the privatisation of Australian Airlines. It said, `What a great idea; put it in the public forum. Let's have capital injection going in from private enterprise'. There was the myth of Australian people buying into it. How can they buy into something which they already own? I find that terribly difficult to understand. Those were some of the views that were put around. Very quickly, that view was changed and was turned around when somebody suggested that one way we could get around it was for Qantas to take over Australian Airlines. With its bigger aircraft-jumbos-and capacity to operate around Australia, one can imagine the effect it would have on Ansett. That may not be a reasonable solution to the problem. It may not even stand the test of time or the test of scrutiny as to whether it is economically feasible, but nevertheless it is an issue that has been raised. I wonder whether, in their examination of the whole series of issues that have been raised in privatisation debates and so on, those Opposition members who are supportive of this would care to look into that in some detail. The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill which is before us this evening, proposes to convert Australian Airlines to a public company for a variety of reasons. The honourable member for Deakin went to great lengths to point out that similar legislation was put in place by the previous Government, that the present Government saw fit to change it and that now we are going back to an original proposition which is not altogether different from what had been put in place. I have said in this House on a number of occasions that I do not find a great deal of difficulty in accepting that, if facts can be put before a government of the day which suggest that a decision taken a number of years previously perhaps is no longer suitable for the climate of the day, that decision should be altered. I have no problem in going out and selling that decision on behalf of the Government. I have no problem in going out into the marketplace and saying: `Australian Airlines is to be converted to a public company to remove some of the constraints that might exist for a statutory authority or a public enterprise of some description'. I have no worries about that at all. I am sure, having heard the contribution of the honourable member for Deakin, that he has no real worries about it either. He has moved an amendment, but the terms of the amendment are simply to press home some perceived political advantage in this. Nevertheless, the Opposition is not disposed to object to the legislation being read a second time. I think it is important when we talk about Australian Airlines becoming a public company to give some thought to those people working in the airline industry. We have to give some thought also to Mr James Strong, the Managing Director of Australian Airlines, who was brought in some years ago to give it a lift, to try to make it more competitive with Ansett. We have to talk about some of the other people who have turned around the management enterprises of, as some would say, a tired old flagship of Australian aviation. We have seen the results of that. We have seen some competition again being injected into the system. We have seen Australian Airlines wanting to buy the most modern jets available to put on its service routes. We can see, as the honourable member for Deakin indicated through reference to a document on Australian Airlines-a discussion paper by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications, dated February 1988-that there is a need for an injection of some $1 billion and additional funds to come after that, because the replacement of the Airbus and other types of aircraft does not come cheap. If the airline is to remain competitive, if it is to become competitive once we reach that deregulated stage, obviously it needs the best equipment available so it can compete on a fair, equal and reasonable basis with other airlines. The Bill, as I have indicated, establishes a public company incorporated under the Companies Act 1981. It does a number of other things as well. It restructures the airline to ensure that the new company can operate on a proper commercial basis. Those words have been used previously. Perhaps more importantly these days, it removes detailed government controls on airline operation to help streamline management decision making and places increased responsibility on the airline's board. I have no real objection to that. The airline itself remains within the ownership of the people of Australia. It is Australian-owned already. It is seen as the government airline but, nevertheless, it is owned for and on behalf of the people of Australia. As the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) pointed out in his second reading speech, recent developments in the industry, which impinge on the extent and form of future competition, mean in some respects that there is a need for strong commercial competitors backed by extensive financial resources. That is exactly what the Government proposes here. The honourable member for Deakin put forward an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. The amendment was in five parts. The first talked about the double standards of this Government in introducing legislation. I have made some comments about that. In my view, if circumstances change and there has been a major review of the airline industry, which there has-the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation was a major review of the airline industry in this country and the findings of that have substantiated the view that there was a need to make Australian Airlines a public company and divorce it from its present controls-I have no worries with supporting such legislation. The second part of the amendment-this is where I find myself at great odds with the honourable member for Deakin-states: its failure to take into account the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Australian Airline's future capital requirements; In my view, the honourable member for Deakin maligned the members of that review group by suggesting that their riding instructions had already been published through the release of a document which was to be a Caucus discussion document on the future of Australian Airlines and an number of options that might exist. What people in this place have to get into their minds is that when experts in their field, whether industrial relations, aviation policy or whatever-as I believe are represented on the review committee-are drawn together, one should not automatically assume that they will report in a way which is predisposed to reflecting predetermined government policy or outcome. I believe, as I have indicated, that the honourable member for Deakin has maligned those people on that committee. As he indicated, the report has not yet been released. The Committee is not due to hand down its recommendations for another few weeks. Yet he went to great pains to say that, because of the make-up of that committee, it will simply reinforce what is contained in the document and that that will reinforce what is contained in the legislation before us tonight. The third point which the honourable member for Deakin raised in his amendment concerned the privatisation issue. Obviously, this is an issue which has exercised the minds of all honourable members for the last couple of years. I have spoken in a number of debates on privatisation. I would have preferred that the honourable member for Deakin had quoted in full any questions I may have directed to the Minister of the time responsible for aviation when he chose to quote selectively from some of the answers that were given to my questions. He may have found that what I proposed and what I was attempting to draw from the then Minister's answers reflected personal views that I hold on privatisation in general but particularly privatisation of Australian Airlines. I do not believe that there has been any failure on the part of this Government to make up its mind on privatising Australian Airlines. Quite simply, it is an issue that is fundamental to this political party. It will go through all the forums available for discussion and determination before a final policy is arrived at. We believe that is the most appropriate and democratic way of doing so. The fourth amendment refers to unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines employees as to their future. Personally, I believe that is rubbish; that is an emotive part of the amendment put in perhaps to frighten some people. On this side of the House we have seen how those sorts of issues are thrown up from time to time with the specific aim of frightening certain groups in the community. We have heard about reds under the beds, and hiding one's money under one's bed because the Government might take it. We have have heard a whole range of other diatribes trotted out at various times. None of them have come true, and I see no reason why this particular issue will come true either. Finally, reference was made to continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure. If there has been such poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure, how is it that there has been major developments of Brisbane Airport, upgrading of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport-not before time, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) would say-and other improvements around Australia at different locations. As I have said, there has been an injection of capital into Australian Airlines; the purchase of modern equipment by Australian Airlines and by Ansett Airlines of Australia; a major review of the aviation industry embarked upon in this country; and the determination that a deregulated environment would best suit Australia's needs into the future; and so on. Quite clearly, I do not believe that the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Deakin in his contribution tonight can be sustained in any way. In conclusion I say that this legislation deals with a fundamental position that the Government advocates. That fundamental position is that Australian Airlines is a public company, owned by Australians, and operated by Australians. The talk that there is in some way a need for privatisation is being thrown up at the present time simply because of the times and the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. I have said that one option that might be available, the amalgamation of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, might provide some economic rationality to this argument. However, that amalgamation might result in something that is too super-big or too superefficient, which in some respects would frighten the living daylights out of some honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House. Nevertheless, this legislation will guarantee that under a conversion to a public company, the employees will be protected, as will their rights. The legislation will guarantee that the company can operate more effectively and, more important, take responsibility for the management decisions of the board which, after all, is appointed to regulate the operations of Australian Airlines. For all those reasons I believe that the legislation should be supported. I certainly hope that I have been able to rise to the challenge issued by my friend on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Deakin, and answer some of the questions that he raised in the debate tonight. Though I am sure that some honourable members on this side of the House might like to, I cannot bring myself to support the amendment proposed by the honourable gentleman. Therefore I commend the legislation as it stands to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.54) —It would be very easy for me tonight to take some joy in the embarrassment that obviously is being felt by the Government in introducing this particular legislation tonight, especially in the light of its history. As we have heard from both contributors to the debate, in 1981 this legislation was introduced by the then Liberal-National Party Government. In 1984 it was withdrawn by the Labor Party Government. In 1987 it was re-introduced; and in 1988 we are debating it. As I say, we can make great political capital out of that, and I suppose we will all feel good about it. However, the sad point is that this legislation is at least seven years too late, and the only people who have been affected by it have been the long-suffering public who, quite frankly, for the past seven years, have had to pay far too much for their domestic air fares. We should really return to the very roots of the problem that we have in the domestic aviation scene today-to the establishment of Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), as it was then called, in 1945. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) was perfectly correct. Although he did not go into great detail, he did allude to the fact that one of the big problems in the Australian aviation industry has been the undercapi- talisation of TAA-now Australian Airlines. That problem goes back to 1945. After that there was the emergence of the two airlines system in the early 1950s. There was sufficient protection then for both airlines to survive. However, by the mid-1970s the market was right to be opened up to provide some competition in Australia. However, no government was prepared to take it on at that time. In 1976, not long after I entered this House, I can remember in a speech putting forward the proposition that the privatisation of TAA-as it then was-really was the only way we could proceed if we were to have true competition and truly competitive air fares in Australia for, as I have said, the long suffering Australian travelling public. In 1981 another two airlines agreement Bill was introduced. Quite proudly, on that occasion I voted against my Government. My friend, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) was one of the 13, I believe, who crossed the floor against the Government on that night, because of the solid recognition that something had to change. We said that we did not want that legislation, and we went very close to defeating it. That was seven years ago. Today we are still no closer to being able to introduce a truly competitive airline system. One of the sad things that resulted from the under capitalisation of TAA and Australian Airlines has simply been the fact that air fares in this country have for so long been set on the least efficient operator in the industry. Not necessarily through any fault of its own, that has fallen on the TAA-Australian Airlines combination of recent years. The fares have had to be set that way, and in fact we have created a very soft and comfortable featherbed for Australian Airlines' major competitor, Ansett Airlines. That is certainly not intended to deride the performance of Ansett, which has proven itself to be one of the great airlines of the world. One must pay due regard to the tremendous expansion that Ansett Airlines has undertaken in the past eight or nine years, since the takeover of that particular company by TNT and News Ltd. That takeover has expanded Ansett Airlines to a point where it now effectively has 60 per cent of the aviation business in Australia; it has one of the biggest worldwide aviation leasing companies; it is operating airlines around the world; and it now holds a major stake of some 20 per cent in American West Airlines. As a result, Australia really has been able to make itself felt in world aviation circles. Unfortunately TAA has been restricted, Australian Airlines has been restricted, and the people who have suffered have been the travelling public of Australia. We have heard arguments from the honourable member for Macarthur as to what we must do. He has also admitted that there must be a major injection of capital into Australian Airlines. As I say, that company really has been undercapitalised since 1945. The honourable member for Macarthur spoke of large sums of money, for example $250m. That particular injection could well end up coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Australia. Other funds have been injected into TAA to try to get it to the situation where it could be competitive. A few years ago I remember that we had to bolster TAA's superannuation fund, to keep it viable. That money came out of the pockets of the taxpayers. There was really no necessity for this situation to evolve. What really scared the socks off me in the speech by the honourable member for Macarthur was the proposition that perhaps one solution would be an amalgamation of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines. Apart from the fact that Senator Gareth Evans said that that amalgamation is not on, I suggest that the honourable member for Macarthur should make a study of the aviation industry overseas. One of the greatest debacles in the aviation industry in the early 1970s was the amalgamation of the then British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways. That involved two government instrumentalities, an international operator and virtually a domestic operator operating within Europe, come together with all the problems that that created, including separate reservation systems. We had a situation in which the then British Airways, as the combine became known, was overstaffed to the tune of almost 30,000. Over the years it has been a very painful procedure for British Airways to cut back on its staff numbers until it got to the stage where it now has between 25,000 and 29,000 staff. That airline lost hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds over the years trying to get itself into some semblance of order. It really did not get itself into some semblance of order until the infrastructure was set up to enable the whole British airline system to be privatised. That process is under way now and British Airways is one of the most highly profitable airlines in the world. It has taken the airline about 17 or 18 years to get to that point and as a government-owned instrumentality it could not achieve that. It had to get out into the private sector in order to achieve flexibility-the capacity to get capital and the capacity to make good business decisions in order to run as a viable commercial enterprise before it got back on top. Now, of course, it is beginning to do very well indeed. It is interesting that around the world there are major airlines that have been government-owned but which are now going out to be privatised because that is the future. Close to home, there is Singapore Airlines Ltd. Look at what that airline has done in the international market with those business principles and the flexibility that they have provided. Look what is happening in Malaysia and Thailand. Look what is happening in Korea. Look what has happened to Japan Air Lines, which also had the dead hand of government sitting on it for so long. Now Japan Air Lines is out there; it is being privatised and is becoming most competitive. A whole new regime, including one for air fares, is coming into the Japanese market, which was one of the most highly regulated in aviation history. I do not believe that there is any real chance for an amalgamation of Qantas and Australian Airlines to work in a market such as Australia because of the two airlines comparative sizes. I hope that we do not look at that possibility. In fact, it would be very difficult to bring that about. One of the most fascinating amalgamations in recent times-and Australian Airlines has been caught in this regard too-has been the coming together of Ansett Airlines and Qantas. They have a commercial agreement to share reservations offices around the world. One can well imagine that most of the domestic travel that is booked through those Qantas offices around the world goes to Ansett. It certainly does not go to Australian Airlines. I know that Australian Airlines has some tie-up with Air New Zealand Ltd. Although that is a very good predator airline, it is still pretty small fry. If one were able to obtain the figures it would be very interesting to compare how much money Air New Zealand is pouring into Australian Airlines vis-a-vis how much goes from the Qantas offices world wide into Ansett and vice versa. Thus, the amalgamation of Qantas and Australian is really not a proposition for this country. Although this legislation is being welcomed now, it is far too late. We have paid too much money for our domestic air fares for a long time now. I was delighted to hear the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) refer to the elevation of Mr James Strong as General Manager of Australian Airlines. James Strong has been like a breath of fresh air through that organisation. I have spoken to him at some length over some of the difficulties he encountered in taking over an operation such as that airline-the difficulties he has had in getting Australian Airlines onto the best commercial basis, the very real problems he had in the industrial relations field and in getting recognition by some of the staff-- Mr Beale —We are not going to get a second reading response, are we? We asked for it but now the Minister is leaving the chamber. Mr JULL —The Minister is walking out; that is really a bit sad because it illustrates the contempt that this Government shows on an issue as vital as this. We can only be sorry that the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) is away ill this week because I would have been delighted to hear some of his responses in the light of his previous comments. James Strong has tried hard and I believe that if we can get a commercial set up for Australian Airlines it might have some remote chance of competing. My real concern is that the neglect of the Australian domestic airline scene has gone so far now that it might be almost impossible to get any real sense of competition back into that market. Ansett Airlines has effectively 60 per cent of the business at present. Australian Airlines is in there and it is trying very hard. This legislation is part of the overall program to ensure that when we get into the 1990s and the two-airline agreement finishes, we can have open competition in the Australian market. Is that too late too? Will any other carrier have the capacity to get into that market when we have such a tight closed shop? The Government should also be condemned because, in delaying this legislation, it has caused a real problem for Australian Airlines in its re-equipment program. Some years ago it put in an initial order with Airbus Industrie for the supply of a number of A320 aircraft to replace the ageing fleet of 727s. This order was worth about $650m. It included a whole lot of infrastructure that was required for the introduction of a new aircraft type. That order has now been cancelled. Ansett has its A320s coming into Australia in August and September of this year. Once again we have that remarkable situation of some years ago where, in a commercial or advertising sense, Ansett had the capacity to completely denigrate the TAA DC9s with its new 737 technology. This had a tremendous effect on the travelling public. What will happen now? Will Australian Airlines be saddled with the label `second best' because it does not have the capacity to re-equip? It is to the Government's shame that it has allowed this legislation to lapse for so long. It should have been brought in at least seven years ago. I refer to a couple of points made by the honourable member for Macarthur when he gave his justification for the non-privatisation of government instrumentalities. The reason that we have such high air fares is not necessarily just the monopoly situation or the particular financial situation in which Australian Airlines finds itself. The whole infrastructure of Australia needs some radical changing. I am not convinced, as yet, that we will get it with the new Airports Authority. I wonder whether some of the more far-searching people on the Government benches may be looking towards the privatisation of aerodromes. The honourable member for Macarthur rightly mentioned the disaster that is Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Everybody acknowledges the very real difficulties there. We all know the debate that is going on about the new Brisbane Airport, which, incidentally, was a Liberal Party initiative that went back to 1969. It was cancelled by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973 and brought back by the Liberals in 1977. The airport is now being constructed without an international terminal. It is really quite sad. But the potential is there for new projects, such as Brisbane Airport, to loosen up and get rid of the dead hand of the bureaucracy. I think there is a very good argument for Australia looking at the possibility of privatising our international airports. We can see what has been achieved in the United States of America and even in Great Britain, with an airport such as Manchester. Those airports have got away from the civil aviation authorities of those countries and have been allowed to go out there in a commercial sense and compete with other airports around the world. They have been able to provide infrastructure, which is very much high financing of the operations of a particular airport. If we look at these airports we get some indication of what we could achieve in Australia if we had this major revolution in the aviation industry. If some of the more far-searching members of the Government benches turned their minds to what could happen, we could see some real cost savings as a result of privatising those airports. I sincerely hope that future Liberal governments would look at bringing our airport operations into the 1990s and to the year 2000 and beyond by allowing them to open up so that we never have a situation such as the one we have in Sydney, or the one in Brisbane at the moment with the bungling that has gone on there. I also say that I support the amendment moved by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), this evening. There is no doubt that ultimately Australian Airlines, if it is going to survive, will have to be privatised. It will have to be privatised if it is going to get the capital and have the full capacity to go out and compete in a very tight market. There has also been some uncertainty among Australian Airlines employees about what their future might really be. It is interesting to talk not only to the most senior members of Australian Airlines but also to quite a number of the less senior staff who are saying that they recognise that there has to be privatisation of Australian Airlines if it is to reach its full potential. I was at a function last Friday night and speaking to some middle management people of Australian Airlines. They brought that home to me very clearly indeed. They stated outright that what they wanted to see was a complete loosening up of Australian Airlines so it could be privatised to enable it to go out and compete and not have to be second best, as it is perceived to be at the moment. The fifth part of the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin concerning the continuing poor administration of Australian Airlines infrastructure is so true. I mentioned the situation at airports. We can see the same situation in regard to maintenance, all the way down. Unless we get some very clear guidelines on how the Federal Airports Corporation is to operate, unless we get some very real innovation into the administration of the aviation industry in Australia, I do not think that we will see a day when the Australian travelling public get that fair deal. There is an expectation in the community that we should be getting to a stage where people can travel more cheaply than they are travelling at the moment. People acknowledge that the two airlines system is binding things up. People are concerned that the takeover of East-West Airlines Ltd could well mean that the only alternative to the two majors will be swallowed up. I think that the real condemnation of the air fare regime in Australia and the restrictions that have been placed on the domestic aviation industry is registered in one simple fact: only 14 per cent of Australians have flown. Mr Beale —Only 14 per cent? Mr JULL —I think perhaps 14.7 per cent of people have been in an aircraft. If we look at the reasons why that remaining 85 per cent of people have not been in aircraft the biggest factor is cost-and no other reason. Unless we get those costs down we will not see the full utilisation of our infrastructure. We will not see the capacity of Australian Airlines to expand fulfilled. We will not see the most useful utilisation of the airline services. After all, here in Australia, flying is an essential; it is not a luxury any more. What we must do in this place is to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to provide an efficient, safe and relatively inexpensive form of travel for the Australian public. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.13) —I rise tonight to support the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill. In doing so, firstly, I would like to reject some of the notions contained in the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). Tonight the honourable member for Deakin, in his usual theatrical manner, with a great degree of flair, put a case, perhaps a wee bit too earnestly. It is to be noted that he spent much of the first five minutes of his speech worrying about the Government's ministerial arrangements. He then got into a great discussion of the way the Australian Labor Party factions work. I think he would be very intrigued to know how we really work and how we have been able to work together in government. It has been one of the great strengths of this Government that in an organisation that is acknowledged as an umbrella organisation-an organisation in which there are divergent views-we have been able to work together in government. I would like to dwell on one thing. In the first part of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin he talked about double standards in introducing legislation similar to that earlier legislation. At least later on in his speech to the second reading debate he admitted that the legislation was `virtually similar'. He then changed his phrase to `very similar'. Let us look at the legislation introduced in 1981 about which there was no suggestion or indication by the honourable member as to what happened. Even when the honourable member for Deakin was invited to do so by interjection from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) he gave no suggestion or explanation of why the legislation was never proclaimed. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.15) —On Thursday last this House was treated to a rather unusual situation when the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) rose to make a statement in connection with the progress report on the new Parliament House. That statement was made and was responded to by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Then an unusual situation occurred-the first time I have seen it in this House. The Minister rose to speak again, not with leave but by proposing a motion that the House take note of the paper. He then proceeded not only to rebuke the shadow Minister but also to add new material. The unusual aspect of this is that as the debate has been adjourned, unless the matter is raised in the House, honourable members have no real opportunity to speak on the additional material which the Minister raised in his speech; nor, indeed, is there an opportunity for us to speak on the subject of the new Parliament House. The new material raised by the Minister in his second speech was in connection with the rainforest timbers from north Queensland and what was happening with the progress of the new Parliament House in that respect. I suggest that there is a history in connection with the questioning of the Parliament House Construction Authority on the effect of the ban on rainforest timbers. For instance, a rather lengthy question was asked in the Senate on 18 December. It contained many parts in connection with compensation, additional costs and whether timber would be imported as an alternative. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) replied that he could not give an answer, but that he would seek advice from the Minister for Administrative Services in the other place and provide the information later. It is now 22 February and I understand that that information has not yet been received. In this House the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) asked whether the value of claims to be submitted to the Construction Authority in connection with the banning of rainforest timbers was still $500,000. He also asked what additional costs were being borne by the Parliament House Construction Authority because of the ban on the north Queensland rainforest timbers and whether the alternatives to the Queensland timbers were being supplied locally or imported? The Minister raised the ante from the $500,000 which he cited in a Press statement to $900,000. That was quite a remarkable increase. It was not quite 100 per cent, but almost that, in the space of two weeks. The Minister did not then address himself to the question of the additional cost. I suggest that the additional cost to the Parliament House Construction Authority includes not only the cost of compensation for the timbers contracted for which have not been delivered because of the restrictions caused by the World Heritage listing but also the cost of trying to get replacement timbers of the high quality required by the Construction Authority and to get these timbers on time and at the same price contracted for before. Therefore, there is an additional cost in that regard. The other matter about which information was sought which the Minister refused to give was the additional cost in connection with ascertaining whether the timber was logged and machined before or after 11 August. Information was sought also as to the cost to the Government of employing clerks to make sure that every contract and invoice that came in was perused. In fact, I think the honourable senator who asked the question in the Senate suggested that, as a result of information that had been received, this could amount to an additional cost of $10m to $15m. The Minister has not addressed himself to those claims. All he has done is come into this House and on one occasion say that there would be no imported timber. In his response on Thursday he said he thought only 7 per cent of the timber used in the furniture for the new Parliament House would be imported. He did not say whether that would be an alternative. If it is an alternative, the Government stands condemned for what it has done in not allowing its own timbers to be logged from Australian forests but being prepared to take them from overseas for the same purpose. All these questions remain unanswered. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.20) —Tonight I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliament a very serious incident involving a young man working on a rural cattle property in south-west Queensland which will probably shock those listening because of its similarity to the recent Western Australian tragedy involving two young station hands, Simon Amos and James Annetts, which is the subject of the current Kununurra inquest. My office was in contact at the end of last week with Mr Roger Brown, the father of Matthew Brown, the 17-year-old young man involved in the incident. Some six weeks ago Matthew applied for a job as a station hand on the cattle property `Nockatunga', which is some 100 kilometres west of Thargomindah in the south-west of Queensland. A business names search has revealed that this property is owned by Nockatunga Pastoral Co. which in turn is owned by Simon Gore, Harold Hughes and Christopher Hughes, all of South Australia. Matthew was no doubt attracted by the image of rugged individualism and adventure associated with working as a station hand-the same image which lures many inexperienced people to the bush at what is really still a very young age. Matthew's father is acutely aware of this, as he himself is a property owner-fortunately a more responsible employer than the Hugheses and Mr Gore. Matthew made it abundantly clear in his written application that he had very limited experience on the land and was told over the telephone that this was not a problem. He commenced work on 8 January this year. During Matthew's first week of work the manager left and the property was left in the care of a neighbour. On the morning of 12 January, a mere four days later, Matthew was directed to go with another employee to repair a water pump on the property. The other uncoupled a polythene pipe, but did not warn Matthew that there may be the possibility of an escape of boiling water under pressure. This did happen and Matthew received serious burns to this stomach, both thighs, his groin and right arm. Matthew was fortunate, if you could call it that, because at the time he was crouching over. Had it not been for that, he may have lost his sight. It is incredible to think that the manager of a property would leave a 17-year-old boy to do dangerous work like that, in the company of someone who obviously did not know what he was doing. It is even more incredible to think that the owners of the property allow that sort of work practice to exist on their property. The circumstances surrounding the accident itself are atrocious in the degree of negligence shown, but the details of Matthew's treatment after the accident are approaching criminal. It was the sort of treatment that you would have expected to find in an eighteenth century English sweatshop, not twentieth century Australia. He was taken back to the workers quarters, but no medical attention was offered. At Matthew's request a paramedic was summoned from the nearby Jackson oilfield. According to Matthew the people on the property showed little interest in his condition and it was only at the insistence of the Jackson oilfield paramedic that Matthew was flown to Brisbane for urgent medical treatment for second and third degree burns. It is worthy to note that it was the paramedic from the Jackson oilfield who accompanied Matthew to Brisbane. Neither the manager nor anyone else from the property bothered to travel to Brisbane with Matthew. Mr Lavarch —Shocking. Mr SCIACCA —It is shocking, as the honourable Member for Fisher points out. The Jackson oilfield paramedic commented to Matthew's father that it was the worst case of neglect of an employee that he had ever encountered. This is a serious claim coming from a medical officer who works on an oilfield and who would see hundreds of injuries each year. Madam Speaker, not only has the pastoral company refused to complete the necessary documentation for Matthew to obtain workers compensation, which is every worker's right, but it has also refused to pay Matthew for the days worked prior to the accident. In fact, the Workers Compensation Board in Toowoomba has written to the Nockatunga Pastoral Co. on no fewer than three occasions and has not even received a reply or acknowledgment of the letter. Neither the Hugheses nor Mr Gore, the owners of the Nockatunga Pastoral Co., have even had the common decency to phone and inquire about Matthew's health at the time of the accident or subsequently. So not only was Matthew treated badly immediately after the accident occurred but as well the people responsible for this shameful treatment do not even appear to be in the least bit concerned about the pain and suffering they have caused, physically to Matthew and emotionally to his family. There has been not even a phone call. As a point of interest, Madam Speaker, I am informed that the agent for Nockatunga Pastoral Co. is Elders Pastoral, a subsidiary company of the giant Elders IXL group headed by none other than the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott. I suggest to Mr Elliott that he personally investigate this matter. If his reported early move into this House for the purposes of replacing the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is to have any chance of success, he should ensure that no company under his control is involved either directly or indirectly with this disgraceful incident. After hearing stories like Matthew's it is incredulous to hear the Opposition and its New Right puppeteers claim that unions have outlived their usefulness and have achieved too much power. It is the absence of proper union influence in the rural areas of Australia and in some other specific industries which has allowed this sort of insidious exploitation to occur. Matthew's story and the tragic story of the two young Western Australian property hands are no doubt only the tip of the iceberg. The scandalous treatment of workers like animals, as in Matthew's case, is typical of deregulated industrial systems. This is the sort of industrial system advocated by the Opposition-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.25) —Last Friday, in my capacity as shadow Minister for employment, training and youth affairs, I was privileged to visit the twenty-ninth international Youth Skill Olympics, which are currently being conducted at the Darling Harbour Exhibition Centre in Sydney. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr SHACK —I might say to the `hear, hears' of my colleagues opposite that it was excellent to see that exhibition centre open and in operation. It is fitting that for the first time the Skill Olympics should be held in the Southern Hemisphere in Australia's bicentennial year and in our premier city, Sydney. I rise tonight to say a few words about this event because it is worth talking about and publicising. The Skill Olympics is obviously not well known in this House or around the country. What is the Skill Olympics? It is a trade competition between young people from countries around the world in much the same way as we have the sporting Olympics with which we are all familiar. The Skill Olympics work in this way: each event consists of carrying out a specified work project over a four-day period which is issued at the start of the competition. Each competitor is supplied with the same equipment and materials but uses his or her own tools. The competition projects have a set marking scale, with each component of the job contributing to the overall mark. The international panel of judges in each category spends two days examining the finished work. The measurements must be spot-on or else no marks are awarded. At the twenty-ninth Skill Olympics currently going on in Sydney, with the prizes to be awarded this Wednesday, there are 34 work skill categories, with another 11 categories being demonstrated in the Sydney Olympics for the first time. There are 400 competitors from 19 nations and every day for the past couple of days skilled workers aged between 18 and 23 have been doing their very best in their respective fields. The fields of endeavour cover a wide range of trades, from automotive mechanics, bricklaying, cabinet making, carpentry, construction steel work right through to toolmaking, turning, waiting on tables and wood pattern making. What was fascinating about the day that I was privileged to witness was to stand in that exhibition hall, look down from the mezzanine level and see these 400 competitors, in their roped off areas for their trades, going flat out competing against one another under the very keen and watchful eye of international judges. If that was significant, exciting and fascinating, what was even more exciting was the sight of probably 10,000 school children from Sydney and rural New South Wales who had the opportunity to visit the Skill Olympics walking down the aisles and alleyways watching their peers, who could not have been more than a couple of years older than them, competing in the Skill Olympics. The Skill Olympics in Australia have been sponsored by the Work Skill Australia Foundation, which is an industry, corporation and union led organisation backed and supported by the Commonwealth and State governments. What is important is that a significant amount of its funding comes from both corporate and union Australia. The rationale behind Work Skill Australia is to promote the concepts of skill and excellence and promote the vocations that commonly occupy the trades as we understand them. There is a great deal of work going on in Australia at the moment to increase and improve the participation rates in high school education. It is obvious that, as we increase those participation rates, not every young boy or girl will go on to university or college. Many will have their eyes opened for the first time to a vocational or trade career. The Skill Olympics, and the work of Work Skill Australia, are important in trying to lift the status of the vocational trades in Australia. We currently have a shortage of skilled trades men and women. We are resorting to migration, regrettably in that sense, to try to make up for our labour force deficiencies. We have a high rate of youth unemployment with something like 150,000 young people out of work and, if we can turn them to the trades, all the better. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.30) —Tonight I would like to call on the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, to ask his Department to ensure that Queensland local authorities are receiving the full benefit of Federal Government grants designed to assist them. Since the 1983-84 Budget, payments paid directly to Queensland local authorities by the Federal Government have increased from $5.98m to $24.2m in 1987-88. This is a massive increase in assistance to local government in Queensland. In per capita terms, Queensland local authorities received the highest direct payments of any State of $9.09 per capita, compared with an Australian total of $7.03 per capita. Quite properly, from my point of view, Queensland local authorities appear to be being well assisted by the Federal Government. My concern is that this assistance is not being passed on to the communities for which it is intended. I refer to the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, conducted by Professor Peter Self. Professor Self and his committee, which included Tony Philbrick, the former Town Clerk of Brisbane, who would have been a National Party candidate for the State seat of Sherwood and a National Party candidate at the last Federal election in the division of Forde-- Mr Lee —What went wrong? Mr COURTICE —He forgot to nominate. He alluded to a briefing from the Department of Finance which said: There is evidence that not only has the Commonwealth general purpose assistance led to a reduction in the real level of assistance to local government by those States (Queensland) but, for their own budgetary reasons, by increasing the taxes, duties and so on, that impact on local government of these States have further diminished the real resources available to local government authorities. The Self committee then said that Queensland local government experienced a substantial increase in transfer payments to other government authorities from 1978-79 to 1982-83. Levies alone more than doubled in Queensland between 1978-79 and 1979-80 and continued their upward trend until 1981-82. The Committee then referred to a table entitled `Transfer Payments by Local Government to Other Government Authorities 1976-77 to 1982-83'. The table is quite revealing for Queensland. It shows that Queensland local authorities paid $6m to other government authorities in 1976-77 and this had climbed to $17m by 1982-83-an increase of a staggering 183.3 per cent. This compared with a minus figure in all other States except Victoria. So, under the Fraser Government, the Queensland National and Liberal State government in Queensland was engaged in the most blatant rip-off of the local government authorities in Queensland. The reason I ask the Minister to investigate whether this is still happening is this: If such a scandal was perpetrated by the coalition against its own coalition Federal Government, we must consider what must be going on now that the National Party is governing in its own right. I have received many representations from local authorities in my own area calling for more Federal assistance. Who can blame them, especially when the Queensland Government appears to be engaged in usury? However, it is essential, in my view, if the Federal Government is to provide money to local authorities, that this money be of genuine assistance. It cannot and should not be a way of indirect payments to the States, as has clearly been the case in Queensland. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.35) —Much is spoken about the relationship between Asia and Australia, but there is an aspect that is never really discussed in this House. I would like to touch on it briefly tonight. I do not understand why the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) hates Queensland so much. He will probably be very temporary with it, but never mind. In the 25 years up to 1975, the total world population increased from just under 2,500 million to over 4,000 million. By the year 2000 it is expected to reach 6,200 million, of which four-fifths will be in the developing countries, with the substantial majority living in desperate poverty. We hear much talk in this House about Australia and its present situation, but I should imagine that the people of Asia would look at Australia and note that it is approaching a zero population growth rate, which it is expected to reach by the year 2000, and that we abort roughly 100,000 babies each year. There is even talk in some circles about euthanasia. So the people of Asia must look at Australia and ask themselves, `What really gives in that wonderful country?'. When we think that of the four-fifths of the world's total population in the developing countries, many of them are living in substantial, desperate poverty, the implication of population increases are staggering. In the developing countries between now and the end of the century 800 million additional jobs will need to be created. We have heard the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) talk about jobs in Australia and we have high unemployment, but when we think that 700 million additional jobs will need to be created in the developing countries, the thought is absolutely staggering. Millions of people must be affected by this. We read of and we see the desperate poverty in certain countries in Africa and we often ask ourselves what we can do. We hear of all the aid that is sent to those countries but we still see the misery and the number of people who die as a result of not having enough food to eat and, of course, no jobs. In the developing countries, per capita consumption of resources, so much higher than in the developing world, has been the cause of much pollution, waste and environmental degradation. It has also contributed to worldwide shortages in resources. The problem is horrific. An increasing population means that more food and other resources necessary for people to live and survive are needed. Instead of evening out, the situation is going backwards rapidly. What can we do about it? Many people in Australia say that we should look after ourselves, that we have our own problems. They ask, `Why should we help anybody else?'. But this problem is getting so horrific and so close to us that I think we need to talk more about it. Parliamentarians meet on occasions and talk about the world population. If we do not talk about it, all of a sudden one of these days, one of those countries may say, `Look Australia, you have a lot. You have more than enough; we want a bit of it'. That thought is staggering, too. Other countries could come after us. They could say, `We want it. If you do not give it to us we will take it by force'. We should always keep it in mind that there are many other people far worse off than we are. They need our help and attention and I think at times we should give it. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.38) —Honourable members will recall that in the adjournment of 7 December last I raised my concerns and those of many of my constituents regarding the possible introduction of an FM commercial radio station, its service area being the whole of the Latrobe Valley; in other words, a superstation which would gobble up the overlapping service areas of radio stations 3TR and 3UL but exclude the hinterland, if you like, of those existing service areas. Let me recap what I said, because it is an issue of tremendous importance to Gippslanders. Gippsland is served principally by two commercial radio stations: 3UL, which has its station located at Warragul and has a large service area which takes in the Latrobe Valley; and 3TR, located at Sale, which takes in all of East Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. The principal population body is centred in the Latrobe Valley. In other words, the major part of both those radio stations' service areas is centred in the Latrobe Valley. Therefore-I risk stating the obvious-the national advertisers particularly, as well as many of the larger local advertisers, direct their advertising to the Latrobe Valley. That is the situation in a nutshell. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) indicated in a statement released on 3 October 1987 that it is the Government's intention to circulate planning information for a new commercial radio station in the Latrobe Valley in February 1990 and to call for applications in May of the same year. So there will be a new FM commercial radio station at some time, all things being equal, in 1990 or soon thereafter. My concern is that it will be centred in the Latrobe Valley and will take up as its service area an area not extending much beyond the La-trobe Valley. That will weaken, if not destroy, radio stations 3UL and 3TR on the AM band. Those radio stations must remain profitable and viable if the people in the far flung areas-south Gippsland, east Gippsland and west Gippsland-are to continue to be served. If this superstation is located only in the Latrobe Valley it will, to a very large extent, destroy 3UL and 3TR. It is a very simple problem, but this Minister has so far failed to address the concerns not just of myself, or for that matter of 3TR and 3UL, but also of many Gippslanders who live in the more remote areas who can see themselves, if a superstation is created in the Latrobe Valley, being deprived of commercial radio services. It is a tremendously serious problem which I have raised before in this House and in correspondence with the various Ministers. There has been such a turnover, at least of junior Ministers, in the communications portfolio that it is difficult to get any sort of sensible reply from the Minister. Given the importance of the issue, I will, however, continue to raise the matter in the House. The Minister must reassure us that an FM commercial superstation will not be created with a service area only in the Latrobe Valley because of the effects that will have on 3TR and 3UL. By all means, the Government should require that the offices of the successful applicant for the FM licence be located in the Latrobe Valley, but it should not by any means draw up a service area to include only the La- trobe Valley. The successful applicant or applicants must have the same service areas as 3UL and 3TR if those two AM stations are to remain in existence and if all Gippslanders are to receive the same access to AM and FM commercial radio. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.43) —I take this opportunity to mention a few things about an organisation that started in Frankston in June 1974. At that time it was called the Frankston Welsh Male Voice Choir. It has now changed its name to the Australian Welsh Male Choir. This is an organisation of well over 100 men who have banded together on a voluntary basis and go all over Victoria singing Welsh songs. Being a Cornishman-I believe Cornwall is classed in Wales as south Wales-I am, naturally, supportive of the achievements of this choir and what it is doing. Mr Punch —Are they as good as the Irish? Mr CHYNOWETH —They are better than the Irish. On Friday this week the choir is travelling to London to take part in a 1,000 male choir event in the Albert Hall. The theme it is adopting is `Happy birthday, Australia'. It is going over there to present a bicentennial gift to the United Kingdom. Members of the choir are paying their own fares and have fitted themselves out with their own money. They have been working very hard for the past 18 months to raise enough money to go there. Some of their wives are travelling also to the United Kingdom with them. The highlight of the trip will be on 5 March, which is a very auspicious date, as you would be aware, Madam Speaker, being the date of the election of the first Hawke Labor Government. The choir will be singing at the Albert Hall. About 6,000 people will be attending and I believe it will be telecast all over the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. The choir is also going to Flint, which is at the top of Wales, where there will be an official reception and concert. There will be a twinning between the cities of Frankston and Flint. This will be on St David's Day, which is another great day in Welsh history. I bring this to the attention of the House because of the great work these people are doing as ambassadors for our country. As I said, there will be 100 people from around the Mornington, Frankston and surrounding areas not representing our country but acting as unofficial ambassadors for Australia in the United Kingdom. They will be travelling all over the United Kingdom for at least three weeks. I believe that the High Commissioner, Mr Doug McClelland, ex-President of the Senate, will be attending the concert on 5 March. I remember him singing in this place on many occasions. I am quite certain that it will be a good night. I will also have the privilege of being there at that time. I am taking the opportunity of going to the United Kingdom, and I will also be visiting a nuclear power plant, looking at some employment schemes and having discussions on various matters that are happening in the United Kingdom that I am interested in. Congratulations should go to the Welsh choir for the excellent work it has done in raising this money to make certain that it will give a present to the United Kingdom. This is a little unusual-usually it is people who come here who give us presents-but the choir is going there to do its best to represent Australia at a very important function on 5 March. I will be thinking of the celebrations taking place back here on 5 March. I know that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) will have a great celebration in the Walter Burley Griffin Incinerator in his electorate. I do not know whether you have been invited, Madam Speaker, but I hear that it will be quite a hot night in Melbourne. Once again, I congratulate all those involved with the Australian Welsh Male Choir for the great work they have done and the great work they will do in the next few weeks in England, making certain that everybody knows that not just the Welshmen in Wales can sing but that there are plenty of Welshmen and others who are members of the choir in Australia who are carrying on that fine tradition here. Madam SPEAKER —I can tell the honourable member for Dunkley that I have heard the choir on a number of occasions and it really is magnificent. I call the honourable member for Bass. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.48) —Well done, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —I always have trouble remembering the honourable member's electorate. Mr Punch —It is because he is so temporary. Madam SPEAKER —That is not my reason; the reason is that there are two Tasmanian members I always mix up. They understand. Mr SMITH —We will be here for a long time so there will be plenty of opportunities to sort us out. I was not going to speak tonight but I thought I would take a brief moment, seeing that there was a little time to mention an event which took place last week that passed without comment by any member of this House. It was the tabling in this House of the 1986-87 report of the Department of Science. Interestingly enough, that was the last report of the Department of Science that will be tabled in the course of the Hawke Government. The Department of Science is now no longer and I think that fact needs to be lamented. In my role as spokesman for science I would, of course, have liked there to be a Department of Science that I could watch over and on which I could actively pursue the Minister. But we have a Minister for Science in name only in this Government and I think that fact needs to be lamented. While science is something that perhaps does not capture the minds of many of the journalists because we tend to deal with day to day matters in this chamber, it is one of those areas of government and, indeed, of human endeavour that is extremely important for the long term future of this country. Science, together with the other area of my responsibility, energy, which is in a similar vein to science I think, being more of a long term issue than a short term issue, is something that seems to have been downgraded. Interestingly, all of the elements of the former Department of Science have been scattered to the four winds. We had in this country a Department of Science for some 15 years. Now it has gone. Vital bodies such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science have now gone to different departments. Many honourable members would be aware that Australia leads the world in astrophysics. They would also be aware of the development of the Anglo-Australian telescope ability. This function has now disappeared into the broader Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) stays with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), but primarily it is now within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It is my view that it will not be long before a senior representative from that Department is on the CSIRO board. That raises a very interesting point because there is quite a strong debate going on in the science community at present about what is happening to science and what is happening with regard to basic research and applied research. One move by the Government, which has some support within industry but is being viewed with some concern in the academic community, involves relating all science activity to what the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business described as a slot machine process-one puts a dollar in, pulls a lever and wants to see an automatic result. That approach, of course, has dangers. An article which I was browsing through this evening contains an interesting quote from Professor David Penington, who is now the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. He says this: Sudden, radical change could damage Australia's scientific and research base in a manner from which it might take many years to recover. I think we ought to take cognisance of those who are active in the science area, take heed of that warning and not go too far. There needs to be a balance-and I have said that in this place before-between the requirements of basic science and the requirements of applied science. We need to recognise that science is extremely important in providing us with some of the ways out of our current economic difficulties. It does not matter where we sit in this House, all of us recognise that we have major challenges to face with regard to our economy. There is a need to refocus, certainly on developing our added value industries in the manufacturing area, as we have never done before. At the same time, we need to recognise that bodies such as the CSIRO have had a vital role to play in the past. Certainly in the rural area, the National Farmers Federation has had a lot to say about the reordering of priorities in the CSIRO. All I ask is that there be a recognition by the Government of the importance of science. The people who were in the former Department of Science need to be congratulated for the focus that they brought to science in this country. I refer in particular to the immediate past Secretary, Dr Greg Tegart. He and his officers, under the guidance of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business-and we give him some credit because he focused attention on science in this nation-should be congratulated for the work that they have done. Let us hope that that good work is not lost to this nation. Science is extremely important. It involves thinking today about the ways that we will deal with problems tomorrow. It would be a very sad day if the Government concentrated only on today's issues and forgot about tomorrow's. Science is one of those areas that we need to be looking at far more closely. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 February 1988: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority-Report for 1986-87. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations- 1987-No. 8. 1988-Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Determinations- 1987-No. 93-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance and other allowances. 1988- No. 1-Salary of Permanent Force Members and Pay of Reserve Force Members and other allowances. No. 2-Child Care Reimbursement Allowance. No. 3-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1988-Postal-Amendment No. 1. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 16 February 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 93) Mr Langmore asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) What emergency financial assistance is available to assist persons or families in the ACT in unusual or crisis situations. (2) Under what conditions is this assistance available. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2)-People in crisis or unusual situations needing emergency financial assistance usually approach either the Welfare Services Branch of my Department, or one of the major non-government agencies such as the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, or the Smith Family. Welfare Services Branch provides emergency financial assistance to- People who have no cash to provide essential services or goods to ensure the well being of themselves or their dependants if they have no access to other sources of assistance; or where their situation is threatened by deferral of expenses or when time payments of accounts cannot be negotiated in all cases the Director of Welfare or her delegates have the discretion to approve assistance to applicants assistance might include cash for food, shelter, electricity or travel. Funding for this service comes from a government appropriation. The St Vincent de Paul Society provides emergency financial assistance to individuals or families in need. They can also provide assistance in kind, such as food parcels or vouchers. The Society receives funding from the ACT Community Development Fund for these purposes. The Salvation Army also provides emergency financial assistance to people presenting as being in need. Cash assistance might be to help with electricity bills, rent or rental bonds, bus travel or clothing. Assistance through vouchers for essential items such as clothing is also available. The Smith Family mainly assist people needing emergency food relief but can also assist people needing electricity, gas, fares or accommodation assistance. The Smith Family look at people's budgets to assess how much money they have to buy food and therefore how much assistance they will need. Funding of the Salvation Army and the Smith Family for these services comes from the Community Development Fund and from the Department of Community Services and Health's Emergency Relief Program. (Question No. 368) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 November 1987: (1) Will he provide details of loans made by the Government to the Governments of Nicaragua and Cuba or their agencies, including (a) the sum of the loans (b) the purpose for which the loans were made (c) the period of the loans and repayment details (d) the interest charged on the loans (e) the security for the loans and (f) whether the loan agreements are being fulfilled in all respects.'' (2) Have loans been made to other Central or South American nations; if so, will he provide similar details.'' Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. Loans have been made by AUSTRADE. The payment risk rests with the Government under the National Interest provisions of the AUSTRADE Act. Nicaragua (a) US$2,338,350 (one loan) (b) To support the sale of sugar cane harvesting equipment and spare parts (c) Payment terms specified 15% downpayment, with the balance repayable over five years at six monthly intervals. (d) 7.4% p.a. This accords with the rate determined by the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits at the time the loan was made. (e) Unconditional guarantee by Central Bank of Nicaragua. (f) The required down-payment has been made. The first loan re-payment (US$296,057) which was due on 15 January 1988 has not been paid. Recovery action is underway. Cuba (a) $A14,842,127 (four loans) (b) To support the sale of sugar cane harvesting equipment and spare parts (c) 15% downpayment with balance over five years in ten instalments (d) 10.35% p.a. for the first three loans ($6,971,654) 10.7% p.a. for the fourth loan ($7,870,473). These rates accord with the rates determined by the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits at the time the loans were made (e) Unconditional guarantee by Central Bank of Cuba (f) Cuba's payments performance had been satisfactory until September 1986. Since then it has failed to meet five repayments totalling $6,078,000. It is expected that Cuba will seek a multilateral debt rescheduling agreement through the Paris Club. 2. AUSTRADE has made loans to a number of Latin American countries. Details of those loans are set out below. In each case AUSTRADE has carried the payment risk on its own account. Chile (i) Borrower: Aerolineas Cordillera LTDA. Value of Loan: A$366,500. Purpose: To purchase one N22B Nomad Aircraft. Repayment: Specified repayment period 6 years however, fully repaid in 3. Interest: 8.75% p.a. payable on reducing balance. Security: Loan guaranteed by Corporation De Fomento De La Production. (ii) Borrower: Compania De Consumidores De Gas De Santiago SA. Value of Loan: A$3,397,311. Purpose: Provision of equipment and supervision of construction of reforming towns gas plant. Repayment: 6 monthly instalments over six years. Fully repaid. Interest: 8% pa. payable on reducing balance. Security: Loan guaranteed by National Bank of Australasia Ltd. Mexico (i) Borrower: Mexicana De Cobre SA. Value of Loan: A$6,002,260. Purpose: Supply, erection and commissioning of conveyor system for use of borrower in La Canidad project. Repayment: 16 six monthly instalments. over 8 years-Fully Repaid. Interest: 9% pa. payable on reducing balance. Security: Loan guaranteed by National Financiera SA. (ii) Borrower: Companie Minera De Canenaea. Value of Loan: A$1,246,560. Purpose: Purchase Copper Refining Equipment. Repayment: 10% then 1/2 yearly instalments over 5 years. July 1987-January 1992. Interest: 8.75% pa. payable on reducing balance. Security: Loan guaranteed by National Financiera SNC. Brazil (i) Borrower: RIB--Rutilo and Ilmentitado. Value of Loan: A$598,444. Purpose: Purchase of wet gravity mining equipment. Repayment: 10% then half yearly instalments from April 1986 to October 1990. Interest: 10.35% pa. payable on reducing balance. Security: Guarantor: Lloyds Bank International. Peru (i) Borrower: Corporation Financiera De Desorrono. Value of Loan: A$1,100,007 Line of credits. Purpose: To assist buyers in Peru to conclude contracts for supply of goods and services relating to those contracts. Repayment: 10 six monthly instalments. November 1979-June 1984 Fully repaid. Interest: 9 1/4% pa. payable on reducing balance. Security: not applicable. (Question No. 372) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 12 November 1987: What have been the total costs incurred since the appointment of the Ambassador for Disarmament in Geneva associated with the (A) salary and allowance of (I) the Ambassador, (II) diplomatic staff and (III) non-diplomatic staff, (B) salaries of (I) domestic servants and (II) any additional locally engaged staff, (C) costs of local transport provided by the Commonwealth, including vehicles (D) rental of (I) the Ambassador's residence and (II) accommodation for other staff, (E) maintenance costs of the Ambassador's residence and (F) Ambassador's international travel costs. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Ambassador took up his appointment on 3 September 1983. All payments to him and/or for supporting personnel have been in accord with appropriate provisions of relevant awards and conditions. A(I) $443,144, A(II) $535,900, A(III) $158,761, B(I) $497 455, B(II) $211,461, C $41,950, D(I) $690,783, D(II) $367,483, E $13,053, F $220,292. (Question No. 440) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) What were the travelling costs of the Ambassador for Disarmament in (a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986 and (d) 1987, to date. (2) Which countries has the Ambassador for Disarmament visited since assuming his post. (3) How many days has he spent out of Geneva since assuming his post. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $39,842, (b) $46,471, (c) $75,349, (d) 58,630. (2) Australia, Austria, Canada, China, Egypt, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA and USSR. (3) 651 days. (Question No. 441) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: Is there any Government-stated policy for Australian Embassies, High Commissions, Consulates-General and Consulates to buy Australian goods for our overseas missions, official residences and other staff accommodation. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is Commonwealth Government purchasing policy for all Commonwealth departments and authorities to give preference in procurement to goods of Australian origin or of relatively greater Australian content. The Department of Administrative Services Purchasing Manual sets down a policy of preference for Australian made goods and this policy applies to purchases by or on behalf of Australian diplomatic and consular missions, whether the purchase is arranged direct or made by the Department of Administrative Services. (Question No. 482) Mr McArthur asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Is it the intention of the Government to adopt the IAC recommendation for the removal of the tariff on imported grain harvesting machinery; if so, when will this take effect. (2) Will the 20% tariff currently imposed on imported potato harvesting machinery be removed; if so, from what date will this be effective. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Grain harvesters have entered Australia duty free since August 1985. This resulted from the Government's decision, announced on 27 November 1985, on the IAC's report covering grain harvesters. Duty free entry was backdated to August 1985 for imported grain harvesters. (2) The Industries Assistance Commission is currently examining the assistance requirements for a wide range of agricultural machinery. The Commission's final report is scheduled to be submitted to the Government in mid 1988. On receipt of the report decisions will be taken on the long term assistance requirements for products such as potato harvesters. (Question No. 485) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: Are export inspection services carried out by Government agents or contractors on exported (a) high alloy bar products, including stainless steel flat products, quenched and tempered steel plate, cold rolled steel sheet, welded steel pipe and tubes, (b) ships or boats, (c) certain advanced machine tools, including robots, lasers and gas operated machinery which are eligible for payments under the Metal Working Machines and Robots Assistance Scheme and (d) motor vehicles and components; if so, for each product, what is the (i) expense in dollar terms incurred by (A) exporters and (B) the Commonwealth, (ii) total cost of export inspection services and (iii) average percentage cost of export inspection borne by exporters and the Commonwealth. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised that no Government agency within my portfolio conducts, or contracts out of conduct of, export inspection services on the goods referred to by the honourable member. (Question No. 541) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) What reports have been prepared concerning the sharing of functions between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Government Solicitor's Office with regard to functions under (a) paragraph 6 (1) (fa), (b) paragraph 6 (1) (h) and (c) paragraph 6 (1) (g), of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. (2) What were the staffing establishments and actual staffing levels in each Office in relation to these functions as at (a) 30 June 1986, (b) 30 June 1987 and (c) 30 November 1987. (3) How many litigation proceedings were instituted pursuant to these functions during (a) 1985-86, (b) 1986-87 and (c) 1 July 1987 to 30 November 1987. (4) In relation to each of the proceedings referred to in part (3), how many (a) inter-office conferences were held, (b) Commonwealth employees attended each conference, indicating the employing agency and salary level in each case, (c) court days were involved and (d) Commonwealth employees attended court on each day, indicating the employing agency and salary level in each case. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The principal public report containing material concerning the sharing of functions between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Government Solicitor's Office with regard to functions under (a) 6 (1) (fa), (b) paragraph 6 (1) (h) and (c) paragraph 6 (1) (g), of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act is the Director of Public Prosecution's ``Civil Remedies Report 1985-86'' tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1987. The Director of Public Prosecution's Annual Reports for 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 and my Department's Reports for 1984-85 and 1985-86, all of which are publicly available documents, also report on the civil remedies initiatives. Many other documents which may fit the description of ``reports concerning the sharing of functions between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Government Solicitor's Office'' with regard to the functions under the several paragraphs of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act referred to have been prepared. To detail each and every one of those documents would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the resources of my Department and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I am not prepared to authorize the time and effort involved. (2) The staffing establishments and actual staffing levels in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: (a) as at 30 June 1986, were 33 and 39, respectively; (b) as at 30 June 1987, were 38 and 43, respectively; and (c) as at 30 November 1987 were 39 and 42, respectively. Taxation offences within the meaning of section 8a (1) of the Taxation Administration Act which have been the subject of an instrument under paragraph 6 (1) (g) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act are usually prosecuted in a court of summary jurisdiction by general prosecution sections with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; they are not directly part of the range of initiatives used to recover the proceeds of criminal activity. Statistics on these prosecutions are not included in numbers of staff or litigation proceedings instituted. The staffing establishment and actual staffing levels in the Australian Government Solicitor's Offices: (a) as at 30 June 1986, were 27 and 21, respectively; (b) as at 30 June 1987, were 35 and 23, respectively; and (c) as at 30 November 1987 were 35 and 25, respectively. (3) The following litigation proceedings were instituted pursuant to the functions referred to: 6 (1) (fa) 6 (1) (g) 6 (1) (h) 1985-86 ... 60 3 8 1986-87 ... 123 10 25 July-Nov. 1987 ... 21 2 12 Total ... 204 15 45 Proceedings listed cover all major litigation steps taken in the recovery process including issuing a writ for recovery, major interlocutory steps such as obtaining mareva injunctions, enforcement of judgments and bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings. The paragraph 6 (1) (fa) figures include 27 actions in Sydney under section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which were transmitted to the Supreme Court pursuant to Part V of that Act. Paragraph 6 (1) (g) matters listed are actions under Division 3 of Part XIII of the Customs Act 1901. (4) In the course of any proceedings there are numerous contacts, of varying degrees of formality between the agencies involved. To provide the detail requested in relation to each of the proceedings referred to in Part 3 of the Question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the resources of my Department and of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I am not prepared to authorize the time and effort entailed. (Question No. 550) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: Is the endorsement given to the concept of comparable worth by the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the 1985-86 annual report of the Human Rights Commission, consistent with Government policy on wage setting; if so, (a) what studies and research work were undertaken by the Government into the concept prior to a decision being taken on its support and (b) were any cost evaluations undertaken to assess the impact on the economy and the capacity of employers to pay. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commonwealth Government supported the full application of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's 1972 equal pay decision and the procedures for implementation as set out therein. It did not support any new procedures or concepts relating to the implementation of equal pay which would have the effect of going beyond the scope of the 1972 decision. The Commonwealth Government submitted to the Commission that ``comparable worth'' as it applied overseas was not relevant to Australian wage fixation and that the term should be approached in a manner consistent with Australian wage fixation principles and practice regarding equal pay. (a) The former Department of Employment and Industrial Relations carried out research into the implementation of equal pay both in Australia and overseas, including the development of the concept of comparable worth in a range of countries. (b) The Commonwealth Government submitted that any claims for the implementation of the 1972 equal pay decision should be capable of being processed as anomalies. Such instances would consequently be rare and isolated and the overall labour impact of claims would accordingly be expected to be small.