Wednesday, 24 February 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr FIFE(Hume) —Madam Speaker, may I have your indulgence to ask the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before Question Time today to make a statement to this House concerning a very serious matter regarding the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. Mr Beazley —There will be no statement. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.02) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister forthwith advising the House of what action he proposes to take concerning the Minister for Community Services and Health. It is about time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got off the golf course and attended to the affairs of this country. We would all like to be on the golf course today. I bet the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) would like to be on the golf course today. The Minister for Community Services and Health, if the Prime Minister does his duty, will have plenty of time for the golf course after today. The issue before the Parliament this morning is very clear and simple: whether the Prime Minister is going to attend to his duty as the Leader of the Government, whether the Prime Minister, in relation to the Minister for Community Services and Health, is going to enforce a standard of ministerial conduct that he failed woefully to enforce in relation to the former Leader of the House, the current Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), the current Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) when he was the Minister for Trade, and a whole host of other Ministers who should have been removed from this Government because of their improprieties. The impropriety that we allege against the Minister for Community Services and Health is a very simple, succinct and lethal charge: that this Minister has been involved, either alone or in concert with other people, in a breach of the law. I remind the Parliament that the law we believe has been breached on this occasion is a law that is in exactly the same terms as section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which is the secrecy provision of the income tax legislation. It will not be good enough for the Minister to try to burn the Health Insurance Commissioner. It will not be good enough for the Minister to try to burn the members of his own personal staff. We can already see the propaganda and the myth machine of the Government at work. We can already see the line being put out, and it is very important that this be understood by the Parliament and by the Australian people, that it was not the Minister's fault. The Minister washes his hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of any responsibilities and says, `It's not my fault. At all times I behaved in a bona fide fashion. At all times I behaved in good faith. It is the fault of the Health Insurance Commission or it is the fault of my personal staff'. Let us understand what happened on this occasion. The Minister was no innocent bystander. He was the major moving force in a course of conduct designed to leak confidential information to embarrass the medical profession. In the process of this political exercise, this Minister has been caught red-handed. If he comes into this Parliament, or if anyone on his behalf comes into this Parliament, and tries to say that it was all the fault of his staff, or it was all the fault of the Health Insurance Commission, they should be totally misbelieved. Is he seriously saying that ministerial staff act as independent agents in our system of government? When his staff sat down with the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) who said, `How do we get the doctor? Can you get me some information from the Health Insurance Commission?', is the Minister seriously arguing that those staff members were acting at large, that they were independent agents? They were not. They were acting under his instructions. Ministerial staff only act under instructions from Ministers. They do not have any independent existence of their own. The Minister knows that. Anybody who has taken an oath of office under the Westminster system knows that to be the situation. That is point No. 1 of the feeble defence that has been offered on behalf of the Minister. Last night we had the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), the bush lawyer from the west, telling us, `Oh, you don't have to worry about it'. He said, `It is statistics. There is an exemption in the Act and it is perfectly okay if anything is released by way of statistics'. When we have a look at the relevant section of the Act, we realise what a pathetically ill-informed explanation that was. The statistics that are referred to as enabling the obligation under the Act to be avoided are in the form of official statistics put out by the Government or the Australian Statistician. For the Leader of the House to expect us and the Australian public to swallow that one is akin to his saying that at any time the Treasurer of this country could get information from the Australian Taxation Office that could enable taxpayers to be identified, he could fling that information around and then put a cloak around himself and say, `Oh, it is only statistics and I am not liable under section 16 of the Act'. That is the kind of argument that the Leader of the House was advancing last night, and that argument will not wash either because it does not explain the conduct of the Minister. I hope that we hear from the Minister for Community Services and Health as well as from the Prime Minister. I hope that this morning he does not hide behind the skirts of the Leader of the House. I hope that he has the courage to get on his hind legs and explain to the Parliament why he should not immediately be dismissed from his position as a Minister. He knows the sequence of events. I note that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) is nodding. I know that the Left would like his job. Well may the honourable member for Hindmarsh nod his head. I would not vote for him. I would vote for Gordon, but the honourable member would not have a hope. What we want from the Minister for Community Services and Health this morning is a simple candid explanation of why this Parliament should accept that somebody who sets out on a deliberate course of action as a Minister of the Government should not have handed in his resignation last night. In concert with one of his parliamentary colleagues, he set out to use information confidentially obtained by an agency of the Government to advance a political argument against the medical profession and in the process of a course of conduct of which he was the principal engineer, information was disclosed that could breach that confidentiality. On his own admission, information concerning provider numbers has been supplied. Anybody in Australia who gets a medical bill knows that a provider number is now placed on the top of every bill from any medical practitioner in Australia. It is very easy to establish the identity of individual doctors if that information gets into anybody's hands. It will not be good enough for the honourable member for Canning to say that he has not provided any of the numbers. What reliance can we place on that? If the law has been broken once, when will it be broken again? What earthly explanation does the Minister have as the person responsible for his personal staff? How can he explain away the communication of that information to the honourable member for Canning? He should get on his hind legs when I have finished speaking and tell me how that is not a breach of the law. He should tell me how this particular provision of the Health Insurance Act, which is in exactly the same terms as that laid down in section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, has not been breached. In that explanation he should not try to cast the blame onto the Public Service or his own personal staff. If he clings to office by trying to burn his personal staff and the bureaucrats in his Department, he will have no moral authority in this House whatsoever. The Minister should not seek to cling to office with the miserable excuse that, `Oh, it wasn't my fault, it was my idea and while it is going well I will take all the credit for it but as soon as it starts to go wrong it is someone else's fault'. That explanation is not only in breach of the Westminster tradition, but also at the bar of public opinion in this Parliament it simply will not wash. On this occasion the Minister set out deliberately and in a calculated fashion on a course of conduct, in co-operation with one of his parliamentary colleagues, to use confidentially obtained information. In the process of doing that he was caught out. There has been a breach of the law and he has no respectable alternative than to resign. He should have resigned last night and if he is still here by lunchtime the Prime Minister ought to dismiss him before Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr Beazley —On a point of order: may I have the status of this matter? There is no amendment before the Chair as far as I am aware; it is a motion. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry; that is my mistake. Is the motion seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.12) —I second the motion. This motion is to allow the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) forthwith to advise the House what action he proposes to take. I will tell you what action he proposes to take at the moment. He is saying, `I think I'll use a 5-iron for this shot'. The Prime Minister of Australia has a responsibility for his staff not only to this Parliament but to the people of Australia. His staff happen to be the people who occupy the front bench, the people whom he has told Australia are the best Ministry in the history of Australia. Last night's performance by the new Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) puts that statement under considerable question. It was never true. It is a government of self-congratulation, and again the Prime Minister is not even here in Parliament to deal with a matter that is as serious as a breach of the laws of Australia. Last night we got a defence and we heard the message. We have seen the thought police working on the Press Gallery today. On this issue it will be interesting to see how successful the Government's thought police are on the people who claim to be independent up there. I am sure of their independence, I just wonder about their susceptibility to hypnotism. The point is that the thought police have spread the message this morning that it was none of the wrongdoing of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and it was only a statistic. I can tell honourable members that I have a legal opinion that deals specifically with statistics. The other point we now have on the Minister's own admission last night is that he published, and that is the word, provider numbers to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). We have to look at what the Health Insurance Act says about statistics. Section 130 (5) of that Act says: Nothing in this section prohibits the publication of statistics by the Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth Statistician but such statistics shall not be published in a manner which enables- and I repeat `enables'- the identification of an individual patient or an individual practitioner. That blows the statistics argument right out of the window. Yet the Prime Minister, I am sure, does not understand that. I believe that he had some legal training but never used it. The fact of life is that they are out there telling themselves stories. The Prime Minister should demand the standing down of his Minister, at the very minimum, whilst a form of police inquiry is conducted. I hear on the radio that the Minister thinks we might have one; I have formally demanded one, and I tell the Minister and the Federal Police that if they cannot get it right, I will take personal action against the Minister, against the honourable member for Canning and against the Health Insurance Commission-and I can afford it. I will spend my money if the Federal Police cannot get it right this time. Let us understand clearly where we stand on this issue. Section 130 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 was put there to protect the Australian people from the sort of activities that have been practised by this Minister and by his expendable, self-appointed chairman of the national price watch network. It is there to make sure that people's confidentiality is protected, and the Minister has quite deliberately moved to do that. Coming back to the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, let us look at the log of disaster of his Ministry: the now Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, and spy flights over Tasmania; Mr Young, once a Minister of this place, and the Ivanov affair; Mr Young again, and the Paddington Bear affair; the now Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, and the Coomel affair; the Dawkins family and their share ownership in the Bell Group, and the participation of that Minister and Senate Button on a secret-- Mr Chynoweth —What about your sand mine? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —The bottom of the sandpit is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dunkley is not helping the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Milan appointment; the Jeromy Cordeaux situation and the now departed Mr Hurford; the travelling allowance of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), an ongoing scandal yet to be resolved, even though pressure is being put on the Remuneration Tribunal. The Prime Minister has a Minister called a Treasurer who failed to lodge two tax returns and we have the one-time Minister, now the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), and the airline tickets; and we have the same gentleman's overseas junkets. We have three persons, Evans, Duncan and Morris, and the Amann affair. We have, of course, the pitiful performance of the Minister who was the Minister for Communications and has now gone and, of course, the Minister who was the Minister for-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(10.18) —The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) petered out-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr Cleeland —Madam Speaker, will you ask the honourable gentleman whether he will table his legal opinion for the House to peruse it? Mr Tuckey —Don't talk rubbish. Mr Cleeland —Well, will the honourable gentleman table his legal opinion? Mr Tuckey —No, I will not-but it will be used against you in court, at my cost. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. He cannot just come to the dispatch box. Mr Cleeland —Because it is non-effective. The honourable member is a phoney. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McEwen will withdraw that comment. Mr Cleeland —I do withdraw, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out that it is competent for any member of this House to raise a point of order, and it is not for the honourable member for O'Connor to seize the microphone and start shouting at the House. Would he please resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Thank you, Madam Speaker, but, on the point of order, you just warned me, and I think that it was within your competence to warn the honourable member for McEwen on account of his reaction. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I asked the honourable member to withdraw. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for O'Connor petered out in his inconsiderable speech to this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders by compounding that inconsiderable denouement with his unwillingness to table the legal opinion about which he is so enthusiastic. Naturally enough, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not come in to respond to invitations from the Opposition to make statements on this or that issue of the day. I have not heard anything that has been presented by the seconder or the proposer of this motion which would justify bringing the Prime Minister in to do that. The honourable member for O'Connor finished up with what he thought was a catalogue of disaster, as he described it, or a log of disaster. I counted all his cases very carefully and he did not make 22. When he makes 22 we will probably think that the scores even up between the Opposition's performance in government and our performance. He got to about eight-I think we could challenge about four or five of them-on the way through without any trouble at all. But what cannot be challenged is the 22, and particularly the eight, on grounds of propriety as far as the Opposition in government is concerned. Health policy has been raised by both the mover and the seconder of the motion. I suppose there is scarcely a catalogue of disaster in this place that compares remotely with the Opposition's performance on health policy in government and in opposition. A notable contribution has been made in that regard by the honourable member for O'Connor. The Opposition's health policy when it was in government-described as a shining light that we should bow down and worship in this place-was the sixth attempt in seven years to get a health policy together, and that health policy left two million Australians without any form of health insurance. Is that not a log of disaster for the Opposition? That is public policy at its very best-the exercise of ministerial prerogative with pristine purity. That log of disaster was there for all to see when the Opposition was in government. The Opposition might say, `That was five years ago and, really, we are a lot better now. The fact that we are bumbling, fatuous incompetents when we happen to be in government is neither here nor there because we have suddenly converted ourselves into geniuses since we have been in Opposition'. Let us go to their performance on health policy since they have been in Opposition. We had three health policies for the 1984 election and two health policies for the most recent one. Well do we remember in the 1987 campaign the activities of the honourable member for O'Connor in announcing his health policy. He has not come out with one since, and we are not surprised. However, he did make an effort, and that is very unusual for the Opposition because it is not too keen on coming into this place with policies. He made an effort to come up with a health policy during the last election campaign, and I will quote from a delightful Press release by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on that subject. Actually, it is more recent than the last election; it is dated 5 November 1987. I have inadvertently misled the House! I apologise. The Press release, in fact has nothing to do with the election campaign; it is a recent effort by the honourable member for O'Connor to devise a health policy. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do so in the context that half the Minister's time has gone. The Standing Orders require relevance. The motion before us is `that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister'-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has the motion before it. The honourable member will resume his seat. Both the mover and the seconder of the motion ranged fairly widely. The Chair will give the same leniency to the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —It is no great surprise that honourable members opposite find this difficult. The Leader of the Opposition said: I wish to make it absolutely clear that there are absolutely no circumstances in which any future health policy of the Liberal and National Parties will discriminate in this fashion against the elderly. I have discussed the matter with the Opposition health spokesman, Mr Tuckey. He fully accepts and agrees that this condition will govern his revision of the Opposition health policy. I guess that must be the tenth revision. The Opposition's health policy is beginning to get positively biblical. It is a load of nonsense. I established quite clearly in this place last night when we discussed the detail of the statement by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) explaining his inadvertent misleading of the House yesterday that he had relied not on the advice of his staff but on the advice of the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission, who said: Last year the Commission supplied your office with information about the charging behaviour of a sample of different specialist groups and this information was the basis of Mr Gear's public statements. The information supplied to your office did not identify either the doctors or their patients. It was in the form of statistical data which may be released by the Commission where the information does not identify an individual patient or practitioner (Section 130 (5) of the Health Insurance Act refers). This is the section under which statistical information is provided to requesting organisations including the Australian Medical Association. The Minister for Community Services Health in every aspect of his behaviour has operated with propriety. In providing information to the public on this matter he has not sought to identify the particular doctors concerned. That that was his motive all along is obviously attested to by the statement of the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission. That statement was not made under pressure in this House; it is not a view that was produced today; it is not a product of the honourable member for O'Connor, or anyone else, coming into this place at the first opportunity at the beginning of a session and raising a matter. This is opinion that goes back to January. There is absolutely no requirement on the part of the Minister for Community Services and Health to answer any questions with regard to his handling of this matter. That has, throughout, been perfectly proper. The Opposition seeks in this House to mount a defence of the indefensible. What we on this side of the House would like to hear from the Opposition is whether it supports overcharging. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time for this debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N.A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.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 Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.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. (Teller) Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Beale 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 condemns the Government for: (1) its double standard 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'. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.37) —It is a pleasure to be able to return to this debate after the interruption of some 36 hours since I commenced my contribution on Monday evening. Perhaps the events that have intervened just go to show that a day is a long time in politics. On Monday evening I indicated my disgust at the way in which the shadow spokesperson, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), had introduced a furphy regarding the 1981 legislation and its subsequent repeal in 1984 by the Government. At this crucial time in Australia's aviation history, when there is a need for full debate on all the issues, I suggest that it would have been better if the honourable member for Deakin had looked at the reasons why the 1981 legislation was never proclaimed. That legislation was debated in this House and the other chamber in May and June of 1981 and gained royal assent on 18 August that year. But there were severe problems with the legislation that led to its getting bogged down and not being proclaimed. Some of those problems inherent in the 1981 legislation were, firstly, its effect on employee terms of service; secondly, the liability for State taxation with the creation of a corporation; thirdly, the requirement for the airline's loans to be renegotiated, with a likely increase in interest charges; and, fourthly, the requirement for specific legislation to allow certain of the corporation's intrastate services. By comparison, the approach taken in the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 is that it simply deems the airline, as a statutory authority, to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act on a day to be proclaimed. This legislation ensures that any transfer of assets will not be subject to State stamp duties. There is no need for novation of the airline's overseas contracts. There are no changes to the formulation of staff terms and conditions of employment and there is no need for changes to existing Commonwealth loans and guarantees. So there are quite marked differences between this legislation and the legislation that was put through the House in 1981. Perhaps I should indicate that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), in summing up the debate in the other House, had the last word on this issue. In the Senate, as in this House, there was some suggestion that the introduction of a Bill to convert Australian Airlines to a public company was hypocritical. In the other place Senator Evans said: I do not think it is hypocrisy to take a position on one occasion and then change one's mind if further and better information and argument comes to hand and a better Bill with it. That is not a sign of hypocrisy; that is a sign of maturity in Government. Certainly there have been things that have changed in regard to Australia's aviation scenario. We had the move late last year to deregulation. It is important that we look at some Australian Airlines responses to the changing climate. Australian Airlines said in its response to the report of the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation in March 1987: Australian Airlines is prepared to compete on its merits and be judged by its shareholders- that is, the Australian public- and its customers on its performance and efficiency. It is prepared to accept full responsibility for its commercial judgment in the market place and be fully accountable to the Australian people. Australian Airlines believes that its ownership is not relevant in any consideration of changes to the regulatory system. The response document went on to outline a number of suggested changes to the structure of the organisation which it considered would allow it to compete vigorously and effectively under any regulatory regime. These included, firstly, the conversion of Australian Airlines to a company, owned or controlled by the Government; secondly, the exemption from Loan Council restrictions on commercial borrowings; and thirdly, the establishment and maintenance of an adequate capital base appropriate to the scale of the airline's business operations. This has been accepted in the thinking of government. In the Australian newspaper of Tuesday, 16 February, the Minister was quoted as saying: The major factors necessary to ensure Australian Airlines provides effective competition in the post-1990 deregulated environment are the removal of constraints on its management, flexibility and effectiveness, and the provision of an adequate capital base. I suppose that it is the provision of an adequate capital base that has led to some debate in the wider community about privatisation or partial privatisation of the airline. The Minister has indicated that the Government is moving to turn the Australian National Airlines Commission into a company incorporated under the Companies Act in the ordinary way to remove immediately a whole variety of controls over day to day management and operations. In fact, not only is this legislation a part of that effort, but there are also a number of issues that will be discussed by the structural adjustment committee of Cabinet, which will look at further issues such as the Loan Council borrowing limits, Remuneration Tribunal determinations of board members' and senior executives' salaries, industrial relations arrangements, restrictions on superannuation arrangements, and the application of the offsets policy to the purchase of aircraft and related spares. They will be important points in further discussions of the airline's future. Let us look at the Opposition's notion of privatisation. As I said, neither the Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Deakin nor the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) has used this debate to canvass fully their viewpoints on suggested policies for the airline. In fact, only brief reference was made to the way in which the Opposition would put in place the privatisation of Australian Airlines. The honourable member for Deakin made brief reference to the claim that such a measure put in place by the Opposition would involve the selling off of the airline to employees and private investors. I just want to dwell on the involvement of employees in any sale. I am not sure that this is seen as some sort of soft option, some option that can be more easily sold to the Australian public. Perhaps we should look at the experience overseas where such arrangements have been put in place for government business enterprises. Perhaps the most striking example is what happened when British Telecom was sold in such a manner. The 2.1 million initial shareholders shrank to 1.7 million in 10 days. By 1986 employees held less than 5 per cent of the initial shares while 3,600 shareholders owned 87 per cent of the stock. So whilst there was an immediate attraction for employees to take out shares, slowly but surely the numbers shrank and now less than 5 per cent are involved. There are other examples of not only decreasing numbers of employees being involved but also a greater concentration of ownership as a result of privatisation. British Aerospace and Amersham International have had similar experience to British Telecom. Both companies were privatised in 1981. After two years, the number of shareholders of the former had fallen from 158,000 to 26,000 and with the latter, from 65,000 to 7,500. There is no reason to believe that the Australian experience would not be similar. One of the words repeatedly associated with the concept of privatisation is competition. Surely the greatest danger that would result from the sale of Australian Airlines in a deregulated airline environment would be the tendency to a monopoly. The record speaks for itself. Since the late 1950s, Ansett Transport Industries has taken over a whole array of small airlines. In 1957 Australian National Airways was taken over to create Ansett-ANA. It took over Butler Air Transport, including Queensland Airlines, in 1958; Guinea Airways in 1959; MacRobertson-Miller Aviation, including Western Australian Airlines, in 1963; and East-West Airlines Ltd, including Connellan Airways, in 1987. It might well be argued that the best mechanism for ensuring competition is continued government ownership of Australian Airlines. As an article in Australian Society, October 1987, makes clear, the long term trend in both the United States of America and Canada after deregulation has been towards less competition. Take the example of the city of St Louis, as reported in the Wall Street Journal of 20 July 1987. Prior to deregulation in 1978, five big airlines handled most of the passenger traffic in and out of St Louis International Airport. After deregulation, nine additional airlines invaded the market, but now most of the traffic is handled by one airline-Trans World Airlines-which has 82 per cent of the market. Its 312 departures a day dwarf those of its nearest rival which has only 22. With this type of virtual monopoly have come the inevitable price increases. One estimates claims an increase of 33 per cent in the average ticket between May 1986 and May 1987. The same is true of many other American cities. The tendency to monopoly has also resulted in a reduction in service. A University of Denver transport specialist, Paul Dempsey, was quoted in the Guardian newspaper of 9 August last year as saying that an estimated 100 smaller American cities will soon have no air service at all. That a similar loss of service would occur in Australia was recognised by Mr Anthony, the then Leader of the National Party, who was also the Deputy Prime Minister. In April 1981, speaking regarding the sale of Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA), Mr Anthony said: If such a sale went ahead, the realities of commercial competition would make it inevitable that the more costly and less profitable routes now operated by TAA would be dropped. This would mean great hardship for a great many Australians outside the major cities. It is interesting to look at a document put around by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council entitled Privatisation: The Consumer Perspective. In this document, when talking about the argument that increased competition and privatisation of Australian Airlines will reduce cost to the consumer, that organisation says: It appears unlikely that consumers living in remote localities will receive the same service for the price they now pay unless, of course, the Government regulates to force the airlines to do so. That organisation would argue that only some consumers would get reduced costs. In the United States inefficiency also appears to have resulted from deregulation. The United States Federal Aviation Administration has estimated that delays climbed by over 30 per cent in the first seven months of 1986. What is of more concern is the admission in July 1986 by Eastern Airlines that it has averaged 39 cancellations of 1,500 daily flights due to lagging maintenance. The American air industry, despite carrying twice the passenger load, employs fewer mechanics than in 1975. The safety record of Australian Airlines is among the best in the world. These arguments are not to decry deregulation. I simply highlight the problems which should be avoided and which would be exacerbated by the privatisation of Australian Airlines in a deregulated climate. The Opposition claims that privatisation should follow logically from deregulation. Yet, a great deal of the commentary on experiments and experiences in privatisation overseas show that far from being complementary, privatisation and deregulation have been contradictory. The problem that many right-wing think tanks have not been able to solve is that regulation has an explicit value. It has been estimated that possibly over half of British Airways market valuation prior to its sale represented capitalised profits from regulation. For the Thatcher Government, the choice was a thorny one that forced it to choose between its ideological preference for market forces and the quick cash sale. According to the theory, the introduction of competition was the best means to achieve efficiency. However, the introduction of competition via deregulation would have effectively reduced the value of the asset. So the Thatcher Government flogged off British Airways without deregulation. It took the quick cash sale. Given this Government's decision to end the two-airline agreement in 1990, privatisation is perhaps the most inappropriate next step that could be contemplated. As we all know, Australian Airlines was set up by the Chifley Labour Government in 1946. In addition to its superb safety record and its record of service to Australians in more remote areas, it has a consistent record of annual increases in both its profit and in its dividend to the Commonwealth. Certainly, the capital needs of Australian Airlines require urgent attention, particularly in the light of the Government's decision to end the two-airline agreement in 1990. The point is that there are many alternative ways by which these needs can be addressed. Indeed, far from being the only logical alternative, as those opposite would have it, privatisation appears to be by far the least attractive option and one which is clearly out of step with the long term national interest. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.55) —The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1988 is a further step in the history of aviation in Australia. Legislation with respect to the formation of Trans-Australia Airlines came into the Parliament in only 1945. That legislation was acceptable because Australia was then only a very young country. Many rural and outback areas of Australia had not been settled and we did not have the number of people that we have today. This country has certainly made great progress since the advent of aviation and the updating of aircraft. As I say, the Bill before Parliament today illustrates that. I listened to the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). He had a very well researched speech indeed and it is evident that he does not favour privatisation. In fact, I assume that he would oppose or would like to oppose the legislation presently before the House. Of course, he never told us what the alternatives were, how one will finance Australian Airlines and give it the opportunity of updating to be able to live in the competitive world of today. I am sorry he did not do that because I am sure that every member of the Opposition and certainly the Australian consuming public would like to know what those alternatives are. The two-airline agreement came in at a later date and of course by 1990, as indicated by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), there will be deregulation of airlines within Australia. There will be some effect, of course, on many of the interstate and intrastate routes that exist today. Many of us from country electorates of Australia are naturally interested to see what these effects will be. I do want to say something later about the effect in New South Wales of the takeover by Ansett Airlines of Australia of East-West Airlines Ltd and the divesting of certain runs in that area. This Bill makes a public company of Australian Airlines, something that is quite acceptable to the Opposition. It was quite acceptable when we brought in the legislation ourselves in 1981 because we realised that Australian aviation had grown up and it had reached a stage when it was necessary to provide the extra capital so essential to enable a government-owned enterprise to compete with private enterprise in the field. This is evident with the Australian National Line, I suppose with Qantas Airways Ltd, and with Australian National Railways. They are all in the same situation. This was made quite clear the other day by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) when he indicated the billion or more dollars that were necessary in the following one or two years to enable these companies to compete adequately in their particular fields. Last year Australian Airlines was unable to proceed with its intention to buy the Airbus. An expenditure of $650m was necessary by about 1990 to be able to update, to update its staff and update the facilities that go with these new types of aircraft. It was unable to do this so it had to discard the idea. How can the honourable member for Scullin say this morning that privatisation is not the answer when he does not explain where this money is to come from or whether he will commit this Government to supply the extra finance to Australian Airlines to enable it to carry on? Mr Braithwaite —It is vastly undercapitalised at the moment. Mr COWAN —That is right. Four issues concern me in this debate. These are the things that have happened since the legislation we introduced in 1981 was scrapped by the present Government. First of all, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) remarked a while ago, the fact is that Australian Airlines has languished. It has not had the money to be able to compete. That is one point. Another point is that without adequate competition in the Australian aviation field, the one that cops it at the end of the line is the consuming public wishing to travel. This has been the case in Australia. All of us have been critical at some time or other that the cost of air travel in this country-north, south, east and west-is far too high. When one books a fare to the west coast of the United States of America, Honolulu, Fiji, New Zealand or somewhere else, one may find it is cheaper to travel to those places than to Perth. This is a funny situation and we must be aware of it. It has all been brought about by the fact that there has not been sufficient competition within Australia. Of course, there is the growth of Ansett. I do not condemn Ansett or Sir Peter Abeles in any way because they are people of business ability. I am pleased the honourable member for Scullin mentioned the takeovers Ansett has made over a period of time, and they are enormous when one thinks about them. They have cast aside their competition, airlines with a potential to develop and become competitive with Australian Airlines. Unfortunately, while all this has been happening Australian Airlines has been hamstrung for finance, hamstrung for initiative and vigour to go ahead because of its strangulation by government and the availability of funds. That is the fault of not only the Government in power-I will be quite fair-but of all governments in the past who have not been able to make funds available for competition. So it is that Ansett has been able to grow and is providing a service today within Australia. No doubt it desires to go off the shores of Australia, further than New Zealand, to open up in Asia and other parts of the world. The sad thing in many respects has been the recent takeover of East-West Airlines by Ansett-TNT-News Ltd. This was quietly done. Honourable members must cast their minds back to the time when Amann Aviation Pty Ltd was awarded the contract for the surveillance of the north of Australia. There was a lot of messing about on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Transport at that time about what would occur there. The outcome of this venture was that Amann eventually had its licence taken from it. In the interim East-West Airlines was purchased by Ansett-TNT-News Ltd. Overnight it was stopped from becoming the third competitive airline on the Australian scene. Once one of the bigger boys takes over one of the smaller airlines with the initiative to go ahead and build itself up and lower the cost of travel in Australia, immediately it controls the price of air travel throughout Australia. Later in my speech I shall refer to something that concerns New South Wales. Australian Airlines is undercapitalised. The Minister himself has said that it will take a billion dollars within three years to equip it properly to compete. A private or public company is answerable to its shareholders and they will see that the industry is run effectively, whereas a government instrumentality is a different type of enterprise. It is dependent upon the sympathy it receives. It is subject to the regulations imposed by government legislation either Federal or State. So it is hamstrung in being able to extend itself. When one talks about other government enterprises within Australia one must look at the Australian National Line. That has been an absolute disgrace to Australia, to all governments over a long period of time. It is unable to find the seamen to man the ships. The cost of its freight is so much greater than all its competitors. It cannot get its goods across the wharves. I had an instance in my electorate the other day where a person was waiting for more than two months for textiles, was unable to get them and had to put off staff. This is a sin. I am sure every member of this House will agree with me. This is the situation we are in now. This country has reached the stage in its growth where these enterprises must be sold out and given to people who are able to compete and expand them for the good of this country. It is no use saying that we are still pioneering in many aspects of industry, travel or freight. We are competing with every other country, in our coal, beef, wool, manufactured goods and everything about which we speak. We are competing in tourism. All of us in this chamber can talk about tourism for hours. There was a 32 per cent growth in the September quarter over the previous comparable period, and that is an enormous growth for Australia to experience. But many people cannot get into Australia. They want to come into Sydney but they cannot land there because Sydney airport can only take so many aircraft. We are hamstrung with what we can do, and travel within this country is so expensive. Most of the countries that want their people to come to Australia as tourists are countries such as Japan and those in Europe, and the United States. Perhaps at this stage of tourism in Australia the people want to visit only those very important points such as Ayers Rock, Sydney, and Melbourne, and places elsewhere that they have read about in brochures. But we ought to look beyond this. I represent part of the Hunter Valley, in New South Wales. I hope I am correct when I say that I do not think that there is an aircraft bigger than a Fokker Friendship presently flying into Newcastle. I do not hear honourable members who represent parts of that area and who are members of the Government saying, `Right, we want an influx of tourism into the Hunter Valley'. The vineyards there, such as the Pokolbin wineries, will bring in $104m this year. We have the steelworks, too, and there is tremendous potential in areas around Newcastle. They are the honourable members who should be looking to the encouragement of flying people from Japan or America into the Hunter Valley. Instead of that, visitors are going into Cairns and Townsville. Good luck to them. Basically, Queensland has three international airports established. If we put Customs into Coolangatta, that will be the fourth. Do not tell us that Queensland has not had vision over the years as to what it could do with tourism. Of course it has had the vision. People there know that they have the State. The Queensland members are in the chamber this morning. They know this, and so they have put on the pressure to build international airports in Queensland. That is what has occurred, and Queensland is getting the bulk of tourism in Australia. That is going on, and we all hope that it will continue over the years to come. But we are talking about our domestic airline system, and that is the important thing so far as we are concerned. I was a member of the Expenditure Committee when Mr Dick Smith, a man of great initiative, an aviator, came forward a year or so ago with his book Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), was a member of that Committee at the time. Mrs Kelly —I was Chairman of that Committee. Mr COWAN —Yes. Anyway, we had that inquiry and over 800 submissions came before the Committee. Normally such a committee would receive between 60 and 80 submissions at most. It was an indication of concern on the part of many sections of the Australian public about the future of aviation in Australia and the regulations and restrictions. It was not so much about the safety of our aircraft. Our safety record is as good as that of any other country. But Dick Smith came out and said, `These are the anomalies that governments should be looking at to see what ought to be done'. As to privatisation, we should recognise that this country has grown up. Those instrumentalities that we have will have to be made available to the public. If Opposition members were on the treasury bench they would have to do the same. There is money in Australia. This Government has encouraged the influx of foreign money. There are extra banks here now. We have the money to be able to do things. Our little people, those who want their superannuation to be not taxed but invested in a little bit of interest in their own country, will take up the shares and buy out and assist in the running of these enterprises. Let us put them on a competitive basis with the rest of free enterprise throughout Australia; but let us do it carefully. I was never opposed to deregulation completely. I have always believed that there must be some form of cross-subsidisation where necessary. Primarily that has been the responsibility of government-owned enterprises, because we have managed them. There is some responsibility when it comes to cross-subsidisation in private enterprise. Maybe the Trade Practices Commission can have some kind of influence or say on this matter; government legislation certainly can. I do not think that we want to get away completely from a reasonable point of view. This has been a very wide-ranging debate, so I shall conclude my remarks by commenting on the Ansett takeover of East-West Airlines. The Trade Practices Commission has told Ansett that it must divest itself of at least five services in New South Wales-Armidale, Grafton, Kempsey, Port Macquarie and Taree. I am particularly interested in Port Macquarie and Taree, and my friends the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) are certainly interested in Grafton and the other services concerned. The fact is that it was well over three months ago that Ansett was told that it had to dispose of those services. The local people want to know what is happening. We want to know what is happening. We have spoken with the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, Commissioner McComas. Undoubtedly all the honourable members concerned have spoken with Australian Airlines and the executive of Ansett-I have done so-and other airlines that may be interested, and have conferred with their local authorities with respect to these runs. The Trade Practices Commission itself wished Australian Airlines to take them over. Australian Airlines was, I believe, not enthusiastic about taking them over because it could not see itself clear in acquiring the aircraft and running the services. So today it is perhaps supporting another smaller line that will feed into it to be able to provide the services. As my time is short, let me sum this matter up by saying that the important factor about it is that there might not be any of those particular runs that will pay for themselves and provide a profit at present. That is why I raise the matter of some form of cross-subsidisation. There is a potential in the years to come, with efficient management, for those lines to become viable. That is the important thing. They will be viable. I am sure that the services to Grafton, Port Macquarie Taree and Kempsey will be viable because of the great growth of population and people who want to use air facilities. Their cost is high at present, but if they are viable and there is a bit of competition around, I am sure that prices will come down in time. Mr Braithwaite —The same as the Whitsundays. Mr COWAN —That is right-the Whitsunday Passage area, in Queensland. We want the matter finalised. We want our local services. To some degree the Bill relates to this. Ansett would like to keep these services. Many of us would be extremely happy for Ansett to keep them because we believe that it is geared up to be able to expand the lines and give service with decent aircraft. The quality of the aircraft is very important. So I hope that it will not be long before this matter of those services is finalised and that someone is licensed by the New South Wales authority responsible, because what I am talking about is a very important part of tourism and development in this country. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.15) —There were several points of confusion and inconsistency in the remarks of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). I shall mention a couple. He rested his case for privatisation principally on the need for Australian Airlines and other major public authorities to borrow money to build up their investments. It is extraordinary that anyone should see a difference between public trading enterprises borrowing for investment which will yield a satisfactory rate of return and private corporations borrowing in exactly the same way. There is no difference whatsoever in the impact on the capital market when Australian Airlines or Qantas Airways Ltd borrows to buy new aircraft which are justified by the demand for air travel, and when Ansett Airlines or some other international airline borrows for exactly the same purpose. I will return to that point in a minute. The other inconsistency in the honourable member's remarks relates to his support for cross-subsidisation. I do not know how he imagines that a privately owned Australian Airlines would be able to provide a cross-subsidised service for his rural voters. It is only through a publicly owned trading enterprise that cross-subsidisation of this kind is likely to occur. Which government will give a subsidy to a private corporation in order to provide subsidised services? It will not happen. It would not happen if the coalition were in government and it will not happen while this Government is in power. I think that the honourable member for Lyne undermined his own case by supporting cross-subsidisation. The honourable member also added to some confusion by his description of what the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill is about. The Bill is simply about establishing Australian Airlines as a public company. I shall repeat the description of the Bill by the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who introduced it in this House a couple of days ago, because it is important to be clear on its purposes. He said: 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 . . . Thirdly, the legislation provides for removal of existing statutory controls on the airline . . . through deletion of all substantive sections of that Act. The Bill is about establishing the airline as a public company, not about clearing the way for privatisation. The Bill's purpose is to change the corporate status of Australian Airlines. The advantage of that legal change is that it clarifies the nature of the responsibilities of the Board and the company's functions and puts it on the same basis as Qantas. It will contribute a little to the growth of accountability and to the continuing improvement in the efficiency of Australian Airlines. It is not a step towards privatisation because it involves no change in the pattern of ownership; nor does it make any difference to the ease with which that can be achieved. After the Bill is proclaimed Australian Airlines will remain in full public ownership. Australian Airlines was established in 1945 as a wholly owned government enterprise. Amongst others, the purposes of the airline were to encourage trade and commerce between the States and to increase the intensity of competition within the domestic airlines industry. I will return to that point in a minute. The airline also has subsidiary objectives: to contribute to defence purposes by providing its services when they are needed for defence purposes to contribute to the development of the Territories; and to provide for carriage of air mail. At present, Australian Airlines carries about half the passengers on domestic routes and about 40 per cent of domestic air freight. Its functions also include providing ground servicing operations for international aircraft and catering services for several international airlines. Through subsidiary and associated companies, it also provides travel reservation systems and operates holiday resorts. It employs about 9,600 people, of whom 8,900 are employed directly on airline operations. In the last full financial year-1986-87-Australian Airlines carried over five million passengers and had a turnover of $878m. Australian Airlines' financial performance has been quite satisfactory in recent years. In fact, it has been better than that; it has been quite excellent in the last three years. In 1983-84, the net profit after tax was just under $4m, which was a disappointing performance, but of course that was at the time of the recession and air travel was depressed. By 1985-86, net profit had risen to nearly $38m and in 1987-88 was almost $25m. The latter figure, for the most recent financial year, was reduced by losses associated with the closure of Air Queensland, a subsidiary of Australian Airlines. The airline was making losses and the Board judged that it was appropriate to close it down. Those profits have yielded good rates of return on shareholders' funds. In 1983-84 the rate of return was only 3.7 per cent because of depressed air travel, but in the following year-1984-85-the rate of return on shareholders' funds was 22 per cent; in 1985-86 it was almost the same at 21.7 per cent; and in 1986-87 it was 13.2 per cent, which was still very satisfactory. In comparison, the rates of return of Ansett in the two most recent years for which figures are available-1984-85 and 1985-86-were 23.5 per cent and 16.9 per cent. For the most recent years in which comparisons can be made, the average rate of return on shareholders' funds was higher for Australian Airlines than for Ansett. Dividends have not been paid in most recent years because of depressed profits in the early 1980s, but more recently to allow Australian Airlines to build up reserves for investment. However, in 1986-87 dividends totalling $13.3m were declared. In recent years, the Board and management have been working hard to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the airline-through, for example, better utilisation of aircraft, fleet rationalisation, training programs, and greater flexibility in fare structures and management-so Australian Airlines has developed a more commercial and aggressive performance. Attempts to compare the efficiency of Australian Airlines with that of Ansett have been made but are difficult because of the lack of information about Ansett, or the airline operations part of Ansett, because of the greater diversity of its activities. There are certainly differences of opinion in the community about the relative efficiency of the two airlines. As someone who travels fairly frequently using both airlines, my experience is that both airlines are efficient. Both airlines provide good quality service-certainly both airlines provide better quality service than is available in the United States-and to that extent the present system is serving Australians well. The changes that have been made to the pattern of regulation, which were announced late last year, are designed to increase the intensity of competition and are likely to do so as they reduce the level of regulation without reducing the requirements imposed on both airlines to ensure that they operate safely. Everyone concerned about airlines in Australia, or transport or business in the public sector, must know that at present a very vigorous debate about privatisation is raging; for example, whether Australian Airlines should be sold so that it will cease to be a wholly owned public trading enterprise and become a wholly or partially privately owned airline. There are both conceptual and practical aspects of this discussion. The most obvious feature of the domestic airlines market in Australia is that it is a duopoly. That is, there are two enterprises operating in the main part of the market. The domestic airlines industry is a severely flawed market. There is a great danger of market failure. Therefore, it is probably necessary for the Government to intervene in the domestic airlines market in order to increase the intensity of competition so as to prevent exploitation of market power. When only two enterprises operate there is clearly a strong temptation for them to collude, either explicitly or implicitly, and so to reduce the efficiency of the market in the provision of services. One of the best ways the Government has of intervening effectively is to operate one of the enterprises itself because that ensures that it has a window in the market, it ensures that it is well-informed about the way in which the market operates, and it ensures a greater intensity of competition than would occur simply through the operation of one enterprise or than would be likely to happen if there were two private enterprises. It is quite clear at present, for example, that Ansett Transport Industries concentrates a lot of its effort in the provision of the high fare sections of the market, the first and business class sections of the market. Resources have been wastefully put into luxurious waiting rooms and luxurious quality of service on planes, which has diverted attention from the larger, lower fare section of the market. The fact that the owners of Ansett Transport Industries are amongst the principal advocates of the sale of Australian Airlines must lead anyone concerned about the quality and accessibility of airline services for the public to be sceptical about the proposal to sell Australian Airlines. The principal argument, though, which is being used to support the proposal to privatise all or part of the Australian Airlines, the one put by the honourable member for Lyne, is that the airline has major needs for new investment in the coming years. Certainly it does have major needs for investment. Australian Airlines estimates that it needs an injection of equity capital of around $250m in 1988-89, and about $50m in 1989-90. Obviously those requirements are not absolute, but it is quite clear that it would be in the best interests of the financial situation of Australian Airlines that there be an equity injection of around $300m over the next two or three years, so as to ensure a gearing ratio at a sound level, which would allow flexibility for future borrowing. As well, the airline will need to borrow around $200m a year in each of the next three years for further investment. It is true that if Australian Airlines were wholly privatised such borrowings would be by a private corporation rather than a public one. However, that is absolutely irrelevant to the effect on the capital market. Whether Australian Airlines is publicly or privately owned, it must borrow more in order to purchase new planes and offer an efficient and effective service. As long as that borrowing is used for investment which yields a satisfactory rate of return, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the borrowing is by a public trading enterprise or by a private corporation. It has been suggested that the capital market would be influenced by an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement caused by an increase in borrowing by a public trading authority like Australian Airlines. But for that to be true, it requires the capital market to be absolutely incompetent because financial dealers would have to be influenced not by the realities of the purposes for which funds are borrowed, but simply by the ownership of the enterprise involved in the borrowing. There may be some financial market operators who are sufficiently ignorant for this to influence them, but it seems unlikely that most are not sufficiently well informed and pragmatic to recognise the irrelevance of such factors. In any case, the practice of recording borrowing by public trading enterprises as part of the public sector borrowing requirement is simply an accounting convention. It is the convention recommended by the International Monetary Fund, but it is not that recommended by the United Nations System of National Accounting, which also has been adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Many major Western countries do not treat borrowing by public trading enterprises as part of the public sector borrowing requirement. So, at the very least, equally strong authority exists for excluding the borrowings of public trading enterprises from the measure of general government borrowing. If that occurred, the realities could be more readily discerned by financial markets. In order for Australian Airlines to be able to operate in a fully competitive manner, it needs to be freed of the restrictions on its borrowing so that it can increase its borrowing for investment and so expand its services as demand justifies. It would be absurd to deny a public trading enterprise the opportunity to invest simply because it is publicly owned. That would be to retard economic growth for simply doctrinaire reasons, or even reasons that are less significant than doctrine, such as those to do with accounting classifications. That would be to significantly damage Australia's growth prospects. As it is highly likely that Australian Airlines is at least as efficient-if not more so-as Ansett, as public ownership of Australian Airlines is likely to contribute to increasing the intensity of competition and therefore the efficiency of the whole industry, and as there is no sound reason why Australian Airlines should not be allowed to borrow the funds it needs to expand its activities, in the interests of providing an adequate airline service, and a satisfactory rate of economic return, I hope that the current debate about the future ownership of the airline will conclude with the decision to retain Australian Airlines in full public ownership. There has been a suggestion that a minority shareholding could be sold so as to reduce the requirement for government equity. However, that is a dangerous proposition because it would leave the way open for a strategic shareholding by another large corporate group, which would alter the ownership and so the priorities of Australian Airlines. A strategic shareholding of, for example, 20 per cent by another major transport group would undoubtedly influence the policies of Australian Airlines in ways which would be in the interests of the minority shareholder. Those interests would not necessarily be identical with the interests of the whole community. It has been shown by past experience that strategic minority shareholdings are quite adequate to have a strong impact on corporate policy. Therefore, scepticism of the proposal that a minority shareholding in Australian Airlines should be sold, is quite justified. This Bill is not about privatisation, however, as that aspect has been raised during this debate, it has been worth while talking about some aspects of that issue. The Bill is simply about the legal corporate status of Australian Airlines. I support the Bill and hope it is clear to those who are listening to the debate that it has nothing to do with the proposal to privatise, and that there are very strong arguments against the privatisation of Australian Airlines. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(11.32) —It is a pleasure for me to speak on the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill because potentially it is a very important piece of legislation. It offers a framework for a potentially significant improvement in the efficiency of one of Australia's major government-owned business enterprises, that is Australian Airlines. Unfortunately we are left in considerable doubt as to whether that potential will ever be realised. The Government not only still has to make up its mind on many of the details of this legislation, but also, of course, has not yet developed any policy on privatisation, and has no particular policy yet on how to deal with some of the major problems confronting enterprises such as Australian Airlines. The most important of these problems is the extent of regulation curtailing the activities of that airline, and the significant need for adequate capital in the course of the next several years. The Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) said in the memorandum accompanying the legislation that the Bill has three aims: firstly, to establish Australian Airlines as a public company; secondly, to facilitate its reorganisation; and thirdly, to remove statutory controls. It is true that the legislation clearly does create an opportunity to achieve all three aims. However, as I said, it is unfortunate that the legislation leaves us `high and dry' as to precisely what, if anything, will actually happen. Indeed, when one reads this fairly brief Bill one gets the feeling of being very much cheated. This is very much a Clayton's Bill. Effectively, it calls on honourable members to trust the Government to fill in the detail subsequently, without having any idea of what is the Government's policy on much of this issue. I shall provide a couple of specific examples. We are told that the Bill will `allow the Commission to establish a group structure which offers maximum operating flexibility'. But then we are told, `The final group structure has not yet been decided'. As a second example, we are told that the Bill `provides for the removal of existing statutory controls on the airlines'. However, we are not told which `controls' will be removed. Indeed, what we are told is that `any controls which the Government decides should remain over the airline will be specified in either the memorandum and articles of the new company or in the guidelines to directors'. Of course, we are given neither of those documents. That lack of substance is particularly disturbing to me, and especially so, given the current and prospective situations facing Australian Airlines, which, I suggest to the House, are very serious. Australian Airlines is already in a very difficult competitive position. Its market share has declined to somewhere around 40 per cent and its competitive position is still deteriorating. It desperately needs a sizeable injection of capital and it desperately needs to be deregulated and freed up from a lot of the Government's decision-making rigidities. Of course, it will have to be able to cope with the market situation which will develop in the early 1990s when the airline industry is deregulated. Australian Airlines is not an isolated example; in effect, it is something of a test case because a whole host of government enterprises are in a similar position. They are all being forced to wait while this Government makes up its mind, settles some of its factional disputes, works out its ideological position and reaches some sort of internal consensus on the issue of privatisation. The House should be in no doubt that there is a very real urgency to these problems; they need to be addressed as soon as possible and this Bill does very little about them at this stage. With such serious problems how can we simply trust the Government to put the detail in this type of legislation when it does not yet have any clear policies on the issue. Obviously, the Government is in a real mess over privatisation and the factional disputes which are continuing are particularly disturbing because there is very little chance of a clear government decision emerging in the near future. One has only to look at the number of contributions from Government spokesmen so far in this debate and the way in which they have carefully skirted the issue while trying to put some of their particular factional points of view on the record. Also, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he is not playing golf, is running around trying to be all things to all people on this issue too. On some occasions he tries to look after his mates at Ansett Airlines of Australia. On other occasions he claims to be trying to create a level playing field so that the issue of privatisation can have a reasonable hearing. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) takes a quite different tack on the issue. It is interesting to note that he has had pretty much of a Damascus road conversion on this issue. Back in 1978 he was hell-bent on attacking us for giving even a hint of privatising Trans Australia Airlines, as it was then, but now the shoe is on the other foot. As the Australian Labor Party's New Right leader, he is now more worried about Budget outcomes. He is particularly worried about getting the revenue from privatisation to make his Budget add up. He is worried about the need to put our fiscal house in order, to reduce capital claims on the Budget, to reduce public borrowing, to deal with our banana republic levels of debt and so on. He, at least, has a sense of urgency in this debate, but unfortunately he has gone off half-cocked, as is evidenced by his announcements in the last Budget. He announced the quick sale of a couple of embassies and other assets simply for a quick quid. If one looks at what has happened in those sales, one will see that there has been no consideration or rational assessment of the sale. For example, with the sale of our embassy in Tokyo, there was apparently no consideration of the most effective way to rationalise our presence in that very important international post. The emphasis has simply been on pushing the sale through in order to get the cash, irrespective of the proprieties. Another major participant in this debate is, of course, Senator Evans. Buoyed by his success in Tasmania, Biggles now wants to blast away at yet another issue; this time he wants to make his mark on the airline industry. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Wentworth should refer to the Minister by his correct title. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I am sure the honourable member will do that. Dr HEWSON —Senator Evans wants to privatise and deregulate. His contribution to this debate is most welcome-he wants to deregulate the industry, inject competition and privatise. He is to be congratulated on the contribution that he has made both directly and indirectly, by making available documents such as `Australian Airlines: Caucus Discussion Paper No. 2'. The Left and Centre Left are also participants in the internal privatisation debate. Already we have heard from one or two members of those factions. It is difficult to know what the motivations of these groups are. Clearly, some of them are simply running amuck. They are frustrated by the fact that certain sections of the Government have run ahead with what most of us would consider to be a fairly rational approach to economic management and that they have been cast aside in this process. Therefore, some of these people are simply taking pot shots on this issue at both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Of course, there are a few who have genuine ideological concerns and hang-ups that they are trying to inject into the debate. The tragedy in all this is that the issue of privatisation and the plight of institutions such as Australian Airlines is unlikely to get a full, fair and rational hearing for some time as this debating process within the Government has a very long way to go. I shudder to think what will happen to this factional debate when the Australian Labor Party (ALP) loses the New South Wales election next month. It will probably spell the end to any semblance of rationality from this Government on this or any other economic issue. I will now focus more specifically on the plight of Australian Airlines and make some comments in relation to the legislation. The situation of Australian Airlines should be of genuine concern to all Australians. Indeed, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his ministerial statement on 7 October last year: An essential element of the deregulated environment after 1990 will be a strong, viable, efficient Australian Airlines, able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. This means it is essential that the constraints on the airline's management flexibility and effectiveness are minimised and that it has an adequate capital base. The Minister is dead right. But unfortunately at this stage nothing is being done about those key aspects of the current situation of Australian Airlines. As I said before, the airline is in poor shape and in a deteriorating competitive position. It is being forced to compete with a much more efficient and dominant private competitor which has, in effect, been given the jump on it as a result of the delay by the ALP in making up its mind on this issue. Essentially, Australian Airlines is being made to compete from behind and with both hands tied behind its back; with limited capital, excessive regulation and the impediments of government regulatory and decision-making processes. If one compares Australian Airlines and Ansett one sees a very interesting series of important differences: Ansett is much more diversified as an enterprise; Ansett clearly dominates intrastate airline services; Ansett can borrow free of Loan Council restrictions and operate without government approval processes; Ansett operates without government constraints on its remuneration levels and structures; Ansett is not tied by government policy in the handling of its industrial relations issues; and Ansett has a more experienced, relevant and innovative board and management. So, not surprisingly, Ansett has generally outperformed Australian Airlines on a number of key efficiency tests. For example, in the evidence provided by Travers Morgan Pty Ltd, Ansett outperformed Australian Airlines, in four out of five of the then identified efficiency tests. Perhaps the most important restriction facing Australian Airlines at present is in relation to capital. I wish to make some comments on this point. Capital, of course, has always been a problem to government enterprises but it has been crucial for Australian Airlines since the early 1980s. Australian Airlines has only got by so far this decade as a result of a combination of three things. First, a government capital injection in 1983 totalling about $115m. Secondly, the Government went without its dividend in 1984-85 and 1985-86 which helped to build up reserves and facilitate the purchase of 12 Boeing 737-300 aircraft; a dividend was paid in 1986-87 of about $13.3m and this was the first since 1981-82. The third factor has been additional borrowing on the part of Australian Airlines. Commonwealth equity in Australian Airlines in June 1987 was about $190m, up from about $130m in 1983. If one looks at Ansett, I believe one will see that the capital base is at least double that. The debt to equity ratio of Australian Airlines is about 80.2 per cent; Ansett's is about 76.2 per cent-according to Senator Evans's wonderfully informative document. While the present situation for Australian Airlines is difficult, the future for it will be much bleaker unless some fundamental decisions are taken soon. In particular, something must be done about the nature of this capital problem and the injection of additional capital. I read with interest in Senator Evans's document that considerable capital expenditure will be needed through to June 1991. Australian Airlines estimates it will need an additional four Boeing 737-300 aircraft by the end of 1989 and a further six aircraft by June 1991, totalling about $1 billion in capital expenditure between now and then. The question I pose to the House is: How can we expect Australian Airlines to get those funds to cope with that sort of capital expenditure in the space of the next few years? A couple of alternatives have been put forward. Senator Evans has in one way or another in his document considered those alternatives. Firstly, Australian Airlines could simply borrow the money and, effectively, continue to run a non-commercial gearing ratio. The estimate is that it would have to borrow about $1,400m by 1991, which is not an inconsiderable amount of money in the circumstances and would represent a significant further deterioration in the gearing ratio of Australian Airlines. The gearing ratio would probably jump to between 86 and 88, depending on prospective industry conditions such as demand, passenger fare levels and so on. It should also be noted, therefore, in that regard that the commercially appropriate gearing ratio would be something nearer 70 rather than the middle 80s as projected. Of course, a number of problems would emerge for the airline if it were to continue to run a non-commercial gearing ratio. Senator Evans has helpfully identified some of the more important ones. There are probably three that should be drawn to the attention of the House. Firstly, management flexibility would be significantly reduced. The airline would probably be unable to take advantage of commercial opportunities as they came along without on each occasion having to go cap in hand to the Government to get approval. Secondly, there would be the perception in financial markets that it was a non-commercial enterprise, which would significantly distort performance assessments. Thirdly, it would be difficult to maintain the management's own perception of Australian Airlines as a commercial enterprise, with considerable consequences for the operation of that entity in those circumstances. So, against that background, I am quite amazed at some of the reported comments from members of the Left or Centre Left about this being a fairly viable option for Australian Airlines. I am sure it is true that Australian Airlines could get by by borrowing in this way-but at what price? At what further effect on the competitive position of Australian Airlines? At what significant further cost to the airline beyond 1991 when it is forced to continue on that basis in a then deregulated aviation market? A second alternative for Australian Airlines would be to have a direct capital injection. There are two options here: the capital could come from the Government or from the private sector. If we were to work with a more commercially appropriate gearing ratio and to allow for reasonable levels of dividend, it has been estimated by Australian Airlines, as reported in Senator Evans's document, that the airline would probably need an injection of about $250m additional capital in 1988-89 and a further $50m in 1989-90. Given the magnitude of that injection, it is important to consider whether it is reasonable to expect that the Government could make that sort of capital injection or whether it would have to come from the private sector. If one takes a realistic assessment of the fiscal outlook confronting this Government, and the fact that the crude oil revenue will be declining and that activity and therefore the revenue base are likely to flatten out significantly in a post-crash environment, and if we recognise that we are not looking at only one government enterprise, Australian Airlines, but at a whole host of them-Senator Evans has variously estimated that at least $1 billion will be required by four major government enterprises-it is difficult to see how the Government could contemplate injecting any further significant capital into enterprises such as Australian Airlines. This then raises the question: Why not go private? Why not privatise Australian Airlines either partially or completely? Senator Evans has very usefully estimated that, given that shareholders' funds are presently around $190m, the Government could inject about $182m and still keep a 51 per cent equity and retain control. On this basis his document believes that by 1990-91 Australian Airlines could raise the $250m required, given reasonable earnings and a reasonable retained earnings policy. He suggests that maybe more could be raised if the private issues were done at a premium. This approval would represent a significant advantage to Australian Airlines, as Senator Evans clearly identifies-it would have a number of additional benefits. Lower capital injections would be required by the Commonwealth in subsequent years, as well as the initial saving. The activities of the company could be monitored by organisations such as the Australian Stock Exchange. The remuneration of directors could be more realistic and linked more directly to company performance. Of course, there would also be considerable scope for employee participation in the ownership of the airline. The case I put to the House today is that the situation facing Australian Airlines, together with a host of other government owned enterprises, is a very serious one. The need for significant capital injections over the next few years is a very real one. Therefore, the urgency with which the Government should consider the issue of privatisation should not be underestimated. Of course, when we look at partial privatisation, as in Senator Evans's example of 49 per cent private ownership, we beg the question: Why does the Government not consider going all the way? If the benefits apply at 49 per cent, why do they not apply more significantly as we move towards 100 per cent? Of course, it should also be recognised that the concept of privatisation is not simply the Treasurer's concept of flogging government assets and businesses. It also has a number of very significant dimensions, including deregulation and liberalisation. That point was made by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and other speakers. There is also the possibility of contracting out a whole range of services presently provided in government. The issue of privatisation is a very important one. It must be addressed as quickly as possible. Institutions like Australian Airlines desperately need capital. But for this to happen this Government will have to get its act in order. It will have to run the privatisation debate as fast as possible. The factional disputes will have to be settled. I see little practical alternative to the privatisation of Australian Airlines. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.52) —I rise to support the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. Let me say that this is an important step that the Government is taking in relation to this government owned airline and in reviewing all of its operations. The contributions from Opposition members have not acknowledged the thoroughgoing review that is currently being undertaken in all government business enterprises. Members of the Opposition keep on talking about the so-called problems of factionalism on the Government side in relation to privatisation. I just want to highlight for the House the very narrow view taken by the Opposition on privatisation and government enterprises. Members of the Opposition believe philosophically-it is a firmly held view-that one cannot have a successful government enterprise; it does not matter whether it is Telecom Australia, Australia Post, Qantas Airways Ltd or Australian Airlines. They believe that it is contradictory to talk about an efficient and effective government enterprise. When members of the Opposition talk about privatisation they really mean the wholesale breaking up of government enterprises, or alternatively the complete transfer of ownership into private hands, believing that this will somehow lead to greater efficiency. Let me take some of the statistics cited by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) in his contribution. He said that Australian Airlines' market share was some 40 per cent. What he did not say was that in head to head competition on those routes services by both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines it is lineball, with Ansett marginally ahead; the situation varies week by week. What he did not go on to say was that Ansett has considerable advantages. It has a presence in the regional and feeder services. Australian Airlines had a presence only in Queensland, which was not a successful operation, and in Tasmania. It was denied opportunities in the other States. That situation has been rectified. I am trying to say that we ought to compare apples with apples. In the areas where Australian Airlines is competing with Ansett Airlines it is lineball; it varies from week to week. There is no medal there that suggests that one airline is superior to the other merely because one is privately owned and one is publicly owned. The Government has a different perspective of trading enterprises. Our perspective is that Australia is a vast and unique continent, that there is no point in comparing ourselves with some other geographical area. We have special needs and a special commitment to serve all Australians, to ensure, for example, that people from Western Australia are not disadvantaged in terms of access to Government enterprises, whether postal, telephone, information or, indeed, airline services. We believe that all Australians must be serviced-the Opposition does not share that view-and therefore we say that it is very appropriate to ensure this social need through government enterprise. As I pointed out to the House in a previous speech, the real history of the two-airline policy is one where the shackles were put on Australian Airlines. Australian National Airways (ANA) was able to limp along but then crashed and had to be taken over. It was helped by the conservative governments. The conservative governments helped their mates who owned ANA, and then allowed Ansett to take it over. Mr White —You talk about helping your mates! Mr PRICE —Of course you did. Just look at the legislation the Victorian Government put in place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr PRICE —The Opposition ought to reflect on the legislation that Sir Henry Bolte and the Liberal Government in Victoria put in place to protect Ansett Transport Industries Ltd from takeover. Its manipulation of the two-airline policy has been a sorry history of restricting the efficiency that has been gained by the government-owned airline, putting shackles on it while it propped up a series of mates, whether ANA or Ansett Transport Industries. History shows that. In fact, I can table a document that shows the inquiries it had and the legislation it brought in to ensure that it gave effect to that policy. It shackled that company in quite a number of ways. When ANA made bad equipment choices it insisted that both airlines had to buy common equipment. The Opposition has a love of privatisation and breaking up government enterprises and destroying the future. What does the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), have to say about the last extension of the two-airline policy? Opposition members say, `The Labor Government will deregulate the airlines', but these so-called free marketeers were the ones who entrenched the legislation. Let me tell the House what my perspective is on the capital requirements of Australian Airlines and compare my views, coming from the electorate of Chifley, with those of someone who comes from another electorate, say the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). One of the highest priorities in the electorate of Chifley is education. We have the Nepean College of Advanced Education in the electorate of Lindsay, and more recently the Chifley University has been set in train, something which the Liberal-National Party Opposition refused to endorse in the last election. Let us consider the perceptions of someone in the ACT and maybe I will be able to explain the different views I have in looking at the capital requirements of Australian Airlines. The ACT has some of the wealthiest electors in Australia. It has the highest education retention rates and they are increasing. It has a magnificent university and college of advanced education (CAE), and that university gets top level recurrent funding. The CAE in my area is subject to rapid growth but it is operating on a shoestring. We have a new university which requires some $600m in funding, but we have one of the lowest retention rates in secondary and higher education. I do not deny, as the paper that has been distributed by the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) suggests, that Australian Airlines requires a capital injection. My perspective is that I do not want to see my constituents suffer in terms of their access to education, whether it be secondary or university, because of a decision made to fund Trans-Australia Airlines and not to fund or to cut back on the university capital works that are required. It is important that we continue Australian Airlines in government ownership, but I cannot see any difficulty in the proposition-and this is yet to be decided-that we ought to explore other opportunities for the injection of capital. On the issue of government controls, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Wentworth, this is a serious question in relation to quite a number of statutory authorities and trading authorities. It is clear that if we want board accountability, if we want efficiency and effectiveness in the services delivered by these organisations we have to lift some of these controls. It is interesting to note that in all the years of conservative government those opposite never really had a rational approach to government trading enterprises. It is this Government that has undertaken a thorough review of these bodies, and in particular I refer to the review on the impact of these controls on successful operations. I have much sympathy for what the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) suggested in his speech on 22 February when he talked about the need to examine the scope for removal of other broader controls on the operations of Australian Airlines. He ran through Loan Council borrowings, industrial relation co-ordination, restriction on superannuation arrangements, and the tying of executives' salaries to the Remuneration Tribunal. We have to understand and to come to grips with the fact that we cannot lay down some solution that will fit every trading authority. We need to examine and consider this issue case by case. Certainly, Ansett's current success-and I acknowledge its success; I have talked about market share-is broadly a function of its vertical and horizontal integration of other services. It is doing that very well and this gives it an advantage. There is competition at the moment and there will be further competition when we deregulate and open up the airline industry. It is clear to me that there has to be a significant movement for Australian Airlines on the issue of controls. I am suggesting that the incorporation of Australian Airlines into a company is a very important step because it signals some of the changes the Government will make. Unlike Opposition members, I point out that an advisory committee is reviewing this matter. The shadow Minister for Transport and Communications never fails to denigrate this committee, which is due to report in March. It is regrettable that the Opposition denigrates the individuals on this committee because, clearly, in order to be successful, any government, whether Labor or conservative, requires people to serve in advisory capacities on a number of committees. People certainly give of their time and expertise to make a valuable input. I think it is unhelpful for members of this House, and certainly shadow Ministers, to denigrate the character and integrity of those people. I am confident, unlike the Opposition and the shadow spokesman, that this report will be a significant one and that it will assist the Government to come to grips with some of the issues that it has to face in relation to Australian Airlines and further deregulation. I may be wrong, but I suspect that no member of the Opposition, in wishing to denigrate the position of Australian Airlines and in suggesting that the only successful model is completely to sell off Australian Airlines lock, stock and barrel, has mentioned East-West Airlines Ltd. That airline certainly provided some cheaper fares. Of course, what has not been said is that the airline was forced to sell out because it was losing money at quite a significant rate. I make the point that the companies that have failed since the Australian National Airlines Commission, or Trans-Australia Airlines, was set up, have always been in the private sector. They are the companies that successively have had to be bailed out. Australian National Airways-the old ANA-was bailed out by Ansett because it was losing money and had gone broke. Special legislation was rushed through the Victorian Parliament so that Ansett could not be taken over by TNT Ltd. Finally, TNT and News Corporation Ltd got together to buy that company out. I am quite happy to acknowledge that the management that has been put into Ansett Airlines of Australia has resulted in Ansett certainly being a much better performing company now than it was under the old management. I guess we are trying in this Bill to free up Australian Airlines to allow it to compete on equal terms. I would like to refer again to the capital requirement of Australian Airlines. Because I come from an electorate in the western suburbs of Sydney, I may have a slightly different perspective on the issue of capital injection. But it is entirely appropriate that the Government should not make any decisions on this issue until it has heard from its advisory committee in March. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(12.08) —I will not disappoint the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), who has just resumed his seat. I will be referring to East-West Airlines Ltd in a context that will reflect no credit on the Government. The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 seeks to remove certain government controls, and that is good as far as it goes. The Bill refers to a number of transitional arrangements which will be needed to be made in stage 2 by a structural adjustment committee. Of course, those arrangements are more important than the stages contained in this Bill. However, the management of Australian Airlines will now have to make other transitional arrangements, especially in respect of superannuation, which is a crucial issue. The superannuation structure of Australian Airlines is not competitive with that of Ansett. Two critical issues have not been addressed by the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) in his second reading speech or elsewhere. In fact, the Minister's second reading speech leaves one apprehensive for the future of Australian Airlines. The Minister refers in his speech to the work which will be done by a structural adjustment committee. That committee will look at things such as controls over the Loan Council borrowing limits, the effect of the Remuneration Tribunal, industrial relations arrangements, the restrictions on superannuation arrangements and the application of the offsets policy. I would have thought that those issues would be so vital that the board of Australian Airlines would not be able to plan ahead for its own requirements until those matters are resolved. Yet, the Minister is silent on the timetable for the resolution of those matters. That is a very important matter, because the Minister went on to say in his speech: Once the position on the broader controls has been settled, the Government will address the form of memorandum and articles of association . . . Again, I urge that there is no point in our agreeing to the incorporation of this airline if in fact there is going to be a long delay in resolving those most important matters. This must be dealt with before the airline can even begin to think of being competitive with Ansett Airlines of Australia. The conclusion of the Minister's speech also causes me concern. The Minister said: Following the recent takeover 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 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 a 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 certainly applaud the removal of those bureaucratic controls which are the subject of this Bill. But they are minor compared with those that are yet to be resolved. The magnitude of the task facing Australian Airlines, even once the other hindrances are removed, is massive. I refer here especially to the question of capital injection. There are massive problems facing the airline. I would not like to be a shareholder or part of the management of Australian Airlines which is facing not only what the Minister confidently says is fair competition with East-West-which, as he says, is owned by the News Corporation and TNT Ltd, which in turn own Ansett-but competition with Ansett itself. I acknowledge that Ansett is well managed. But Australian Airlines is being let loose, cut adrift as it were, at a time and in circumstances in which it cannot possibly be competitive. The interrelationship between News Corporation and TNT is such throughout the world that they have tremendous facilities for financing their expansion, which are not open to Australian Airlines. So Australian Airlines will not be able to compete on equal terms. The Government will need to give it particular attention if it is to have a chance of doing so. It will need an injection of additional equity and one must ask where this will come from. All of these things will need to be resolved quickly. I ask the Minister to address those issues when he replies at the conclusion of this debate. I wish to dwell on the issues and deal, firstly, with the takeover of East-West Airlines. Under the two-airline policy, there were effectively three airlines. Unless Australian Airlines is assisted greatly and soon in the next stages to which I have referred, the abolition of the two-airline policy will result in a mere monopoly for the TNT-News Corporation, led by Sir Peter Abeles and Mr Rupert Murdoch. The Government's famous open skies policy could become one of closed skies. From the Coles-Myer merger onwards, the Trade Practices Commission has been seen as a toothless tiger. The glaring weakness of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act must be apparent to all and should have been apparent to the Government long before this. It should have been amended so that the takeover of East-West Airlines was not possible. We have in Australia the biggest retailing conglomerate per head of population of any democracy. We also have the biggest concentration of media ownership of any democracy. In my view, the print media concentration, again by Mr Murdoch, was made possible by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) maladministering the foreign takeovers legislation and allowing the bid to proceed. Of course, when he did that, the Trade Practices Commission was apparently powerless to stop it. So, just as they now have overwhelming dominance of the skies, the same interests have overwhelming dominance of the print media. By legislation initiated by this Government there is a similar concentration of ownership in the electronic media. Now we have substantially lessened competition in the aviation industry. In November last year the Trade Practices Commission gave approval for the takeover of East-West Airlines Ltd by the TNT-News Ltd group provided that the latter divested itself of some of the routes in New South Wales and Western Australia and reduced its stake in one other regional operator, Lloyds Jet Charter Pty Ltd in Queensland. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) turned from being a harsh critic of the Trade Practices Act to being a stern defender of it. When it suited him he was indeed a harsh critic and without any changes of substance to the Act he has now become quite content with its operation. Some astute commentators recognised at once the travesty that occurred when East-West Airlines was taken over in that way. Tony Harrington, the aviation writer for the Australian Financial Review, on 11 November last year, almost immediately the takeover was sanctioned, was reported as saying: On closer inspection the decision has done nothing to maintain East-West as an independent opponent of Ansett and Australian Airlines. (The moves by the Trade Practices Commission) are not nearly as tough on TNT-News as the TPC would have the public believe. East-West will end its long alliance with Australian Airlines which includes the use of Australian terminals in Melbourne and Sydney. For Australian, that is the loss of business worth millions of dollars a year. For TNT-News, that is a multi-million dollar gain. Other changes demanded will have little effect on TNT-News. So there it is. TNT-News Ltd was forced to sell off the less profitable East-West routes in the hope that its other major competitor, Australian Airlines, would buy them. I think the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) made that point clearly in his contribution to the debate. It is notable that the Australian Airlines board did not think that the routes were economically viable. Ken Davidson in the Age of 11 November said: TNT had to divest the least profitable routes of East-West which were losing some $30m to $50m a year. These losses are overwhelming by comparison with Australian Airlines profit of $40m a year. Let us ask what has happened with the East-West takeover by TNT-News Ltd. Where are the major divestments that the Trade Practices Commission promised would occur within one month? Where are the buyers under the Government's open skies policy? Where has the Trade Practices Commission shown that it is not a toothless tiger? It is now 3 1/2 months since approval was given for the takeover and Australian Airlines has said it does not want the unprofitable routes. Why should it? It is now 3 1/2 months since the Trade Practices Commission ordered TNT-News Ltd to divest, yet nothing has happened. What will happen to the commuters on the non-economic routes in the event that buyers cannot be found? What is the Government's intention? The Minister is silent on all these vital issues. What is the Government's intention in regard to those routes in the event that Australian Airlines is sold off after the Australian Labor Party National Conference? It is extra- ordinary to see that Senator Evans gave in-principle support for the Government's funding Australian Airlines' purchase of TNT's divested services following the Trade Practices Commission's announcement. He also said to the Canberra Times: It would be very healthy if Australian Airlines were able to pick up these regional routes as feeders for its mainstream domestic operations. Certainly the board of Australian Airlines does not think that. Not only is it incorrect and inappropriate for the Trade Practices Commission to act on some sort of de facto licenser or aviation authority, that is expressing a preference as to who should take up the divested routes, but also it is incredible that the Minister, Senator Evans, and this Government should expect the taxpayer to come to the rescue, by way of subsidy, of what is a very flawed approval process for a takeover that should never have occurred. East-West was operating very well and very effectively; it was, in effect, cross-subsidising certain routes and providing a service to people on otherwise unprofitable routes. As a result of this takeover those people will not get the service or the Australian taxpayer will have to pay for the service which was otherwise being provided under the policy. It is bad enough for the Government to give its blessing to undermining competition by allowing an already dominant player to take over a company which could have become a major third force in the aviation industry, as East-West was becoming, but it is an absolute scandal that it is apparently expecting the ordinary taxpayer to subsidise the non- economic regional air services that arose because of that takeover. Senator Evans should look up Hansard and refresh his own memory about his attitude to section 50 and the mergers provisions that have allowed this takeover to take place. He would remember that it was he who suggested major amendments because he considered the present section was unworkable. He presented a Green Paper in an endeavour to reform the section, at total variance with the philosophy behind the trade practices legislation. To say that the Trade Practices Commission has adequate powers, as he now says, is to repudiate his own argument. He was correct before and is wrong now. As with the media takeovers, the Government has chosen to protect its friends and to sell the public interest short. It is no wonder there is a widespread feeling that the Government is arrogant and out of touch with the average Australian. So, the incorporation of Australian Airlines will do nothing about the competitive environment of the aviation industry. The Trade Practices Commission and the Act it administers have failed the Australian public. Just as News Ltd held de facto control of so-called divested newspaper assets in Queensland and then subsequently forced the closure of another newspaper, the Telegraph in Brisbane, TNT-News Ltd is in the same position in regional New South Wales and elsewhere in aviation. I ask: Just how long do we have to wait for the ownership of the so-called divested assets of East-West to revert to the original predator takeover company, that is the News Ltd-TNT group, at some later date? It is continuing to operate them now in spite of the stated wishes of the Trade Practices Commission. One is not talking with the benefit of hindsight regarding the Trade Practices Commission's decision on aviation or on media matters. I and others have been arguing consistently that the section 50 mergers provision is totally inadequate to protect competition in the marketplace. Instead it has sanctioned great concentrations of economic power and misshaped the Australian economy in the process. I warned about the Trade Practices Commission giving approval for a lopsided duopoly to exist in the media, and others have provided similar warnings regarding the aviation industry. It is the potential for what might occur at some later date which is so important. To ignore the possibilities of monopoly in significant non-export oriented industries, while not suggesting or asking for reform of an inadequate merger section, is basically to turn one's back on the reasons and the whole philosophy behind competition law. That is what this Minister has done, a Minister who regards himself highly as a lawyer, as a civil libertarian and as a democrat. He has tolerated a law that he previously correctly found fault with and he now actually goes so far as to say it is doing a good job. What about Qantas Airways Ltd, one may ask? Is Qantas also to be allowed private equity capital? Is it to be privatised? Could it be invited to provide some domestic competition? Could we rectify the problem that is now emerging by having Qantas operate as a domestic airline as well as an international airline-that is to a greater extent than it does with its so-called interlining access? What of competition from other international airlines? Would TNT-News Ltd tolerate such competition? Of course not. Those who believe in competition are the first to deny it when they have a chance of getting a monopoly. This was exemplified recently in an editorial in the Australian. It is extremely important to realise that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) suggested that with the Government opting for the policy of deregulation, or open skies as it calls it, it should consider the entry of foreign carriers to compete on domestic routes. What did the Australian do? What did the voice of Murdoch and Abeles say? Straightaway it launched a scathing attack on the Leader of the Opposition in its leading editorial saying that his idea was irresponsible and offensive to the business community and that it amounted to `economic treachery'. It further stated: He must reconsider his position or risk untold damage to an industry with enormous potential. How interesting it is. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, talks of possibly allowing, if we cannot set up another airline or make Australian seriously competitive, international carriers to have services here. Ansett is seeking to do that in New Zealand, and we have heard allegations from the Opposition in New Zealand about Ansett's behaviour there. And what do we find when it is suggested by a responsible Leader of the Opposition that we might have a bit of competition from that quarter? They say, purporting to speak on behalf of the entire Australian business community, that this is `irresponsible and offensive' and `economic treachery'. That is extraordinary language. When one of them, the owner of that newspaper, an American citizen, wanted to buy more of the Australian Press than he already owned and get about 60 per cent of the Australian print media, there was not a word along those lines, not a word of condemnation in parallel argument by that newspaper or, indeed, by anything else that was owned by News Corporation. So, whether one agrees or disagrees with the editorial, it again proves the power of these business interests when they own not just media but so many other services and business activities so vital to the economy that make them so powerful when they are dealing with governments. We have here a rapacious appetite for monopoly on the part of both Mr Murdoch and Sir Peter Abeles, catered for amply by this Government. One imagines that the next step will be then for Australian Airlines to be sold. It is estimated that Australian Airlines alone will require an injection of some $200m to $300m to re-equip its fleet. It seems inevitable that that will not come from the Government, from the Budget, in the current circumstances, and that means that it will go to private hands, private equity investment. Will the whole ownership and control go to private hands? If the equity investment is not made, the airline has no chance of being competitive. This Bill, whilst being a small step in the right direction, really begs the serious questions that are now facing us. Australian Airlines is in a most serious plight as a result of action and inaction by this Government and action by the friends of this Government who are monopolist predators, and I think it is extremely important that the community know what is happening and especially that those in the uneconomic routes know that they will not be getting the service that they were getting under the previous Government's policies. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(12.28) —Today I rise to support the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. The changes proposed will make a very good airline, Australian Airlines, a great airline in the present market and future deregulated market after 1990. Australian Airlines is to be established as a public company wholly owned by the Commonwealth Government. The Government will be the only shareholder. I support this legislation because it will lead to greater job security and career opportunities for the 9,600 staff currently employed by the Australian National Airlines Commission, which operates Australian Airlines. A considerable number of these people are employed at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and many live in my electorate of St George. I do not know how many pilots or other highly paid executives there are among my neighbours in St George, but I know that a great number of other workers who live there rely on the aviation industry for their livelihood. There are approaching 15,000 pay packets coming out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, and any legislation that improves employment opportunities without affecting the amenity of the community will receive my support. The Bill will provide significant advantages for the employees of Australian Airlines. The House is by now familiar with the main provisions of the Bill, so I shall concentrate on the effects that it will have on the employees of Australian Airlines. The Government has given notice that the two-airline agreement will terminate in 1990. The domestic aviation industry will then be required to meet Australia's needs without the restrictions that governments in the past and the present Government have placed on it. If the changes in this Bill had not been proposed-I am confident that they will be introduced-Australian Airlines would have been placed at a distinct disadvantage in the years ahead. Not only is Australia a country that is far removed from the rest of the world, but we also suffer the tyranny of distance within Australia. Our major population centres are some distance apart, and, given our small population of 16 million, the aviation industry faces some unique challenges. The regulations and structures that may have been appropriate decades ago are today a hindrance. I want to reassure the employees of Australian Airlines that they will not be adversely affected by the changes proposed in this legislation. I am informed that these changes will take place at the end of next month. Unfortunately, some baseless rumours have been circulating amongst staff at Australian Airlines concerning their superannuation entitlements and security of employment. The Bill provides that each staff member of the present Commission will become an employee of the company on exactly the same terms and conditions as he or she previously had with the Commission. There will be no change. Superannuation rights will be preserved. The 950 or so employees who are members of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme will continue to enjoy the same entitlement. Other conditions of employment and entitlements, such as long service leave and recreation leave and eligibility for sick leave, will be preserved. Of course, there will be no entitlement to any payment in lieu of leave entitlement, simply because of the continuity of employment with the new company. These provisions should reassure staff members that their conditions of employment and their jobs are secure and that they have nothing to fear from the change to a public company. I particularly want to address some of the employees' concerns about their future in a government-owned public company operating in a deregulated environment after 1990. The question of safety has always been of great importance to airline employees. Australia's air safety record is second to none, and safety is not negotiable. Australian Airlines, operating as a public company, will not be less safe than it was as a commission. The change to a public company will have no impact whatever on the safe operations that have characterised all airlines in Australia, and that includes not only Australian but also Qantas Airways Ltd, which is a government-owned company, and Ansett Airlines of Australia, which is a privately-owned company. A revitalised Australian Airlines will ensure that there is competition in the market-place. This competition would have diminished had we not taken these steps. The benefits for staff will be employment security, the security that only a viable company operating in a profitable industry can provide. Given Australia's growth in tourism, the future prospects for this industry are quite bright. As a public company Australian Airlines will be free to pay market prices for labour-that is, it will not be restricted to Public Service rates and conditions. It will be able to match and compete with its major competitor, Ansett. It will also enjoy the flexibility to quickly settle industrial disputes. It is worth repeating the Government's objective in ending the two-airline agreement-that is, to create an environment that will foster increased responsiveness by airlines to consumer needs, a wider range of fares and types of services to provide enhanced travel opportunities, increased competition and pricing flexibility, leading to greater economic efficiency in the industry, and a continuation of Australia's world renowned aviation safety record. Compatible with this objective is employment security and enhanced career opportunities for the employees in the industry, especially those at Australian Airlines. I again want to reassure the airline's employees that they have nothing to fear for their future. They can look forward to some exciting developments in their industry and to solid growth in their own company. I am confident that Mr Strong and his team at Australian Airlines will build their company into one of the great airlines of the world. I wish them well for the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(12.35) —The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill raises once again the vexed question of the future of airlines in Australia. It is a vexed question because for about a decade there has been a great deal of indecision as to the future of this country's airline system. The history of the two-airline policy, if traversed in detail, would reveal that there have been many misunderstandings, misconceptions, and indeed very great confusion about the operation of the air services for the Australian public. One must recall that the wise counsel which introduced the two-airline system intended that, paramount in that, there would be recognition of the need to serve the community; that it would be possible to have a competitive but nonetheless soundly structured airline system. For the first 20 years that was achieved. Then the great issue of deregulation arose and over the past decade the debate has raged without any clear determination of how that could be achieved effectively. We now have an announcement from the Government that it proposes to deregulate totally by 1990. I am fearful of the future because of the nature of that decision. Firstly, we must recognise that the infrastructure facilities provided by governments over the years, through the financing of airports, the aviation installations and all the safety requirements, have given us one of the best records of air transportation safety of any country in the world. We must ensure that that record is not lost. I am in sympathy with Australian Airlines because of the indecision of the present Government and previous governments as to its capacity to expand its operation effectively over the last few years. Perhaps there were some unwise decisions in respect of aircraft purchased. Perhaps the decision to purchase the Airbus was not the right decision at the right time. Its competitor, Ansett Airlines of Australia, decided to buy a different type of aircraft, and, as a consequence, I think it got a competitive edge on Australia's trunk routes. From time to time in this chamber we have considered the great issue of air fares and the need for greater competition, the great issue of flight schedules. Those of us coming to and from Canberra over the years have seen changes which are not for the better in terms of schedules making services available for more effective movement in and out of Canberra. There has been an incredible increase in air fares. On the major trunk routes there has been a similar proliferation of high fares and difficulties in terms of catering for the tourist industry. Another airline, East-West Airlines Ltd, attempted to create a means of filling the vacuum. It did so, I believe, with considerable success and without detriment to the other two airlines. Unfortunately, in the last three years its ambitious approach to extending well beyond the base upon which it was founded led it to provide cut-rate fares to tourist areas such as the Hobart casino, holiday resorts on the coast of Queensland, Ayers Rock and Perth. Undoubtedly it did so believing that the prospect of licensing to compete with the other two airlines was imminent. In so doing-I expressed this worry from time to time in my area because of my concern for intrastate services-the basic structure of the service very often was secondary in its operation; yet a degree of cross-subsidisation was inescapable if it was to maintain intrastate services. It was not very long before we became conscious of the fact that an enormous loss was being incurred. About the middle of last year it became known that the loss was running in the order of $30m to $50m annually. It came as no surprise to me that a takeover occurred. The kind of operation that was being conducted could not continue, certainly on that basis of loss. As other speakers, particularly the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), have said, the Trade Practices Commission approved a takeover with certain conditions. Those conditions spelt out that the intrastate service in New South Wales, particularly those to my electorate and the electorates of my neighbours, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), would be divested. It was suggested that the form of divestment would be for Australian Airlines, the subject of this legislation, to pick up that section of the East-West service, no doubt with the intention that it would purchase. Australian Airlines said no, it would not purchase, and that remains the vexed question at this time. The divestment has not taken place and Australian Airlines has said that it will not purchase. The only alternative is for this network to be licensed for second level airline operation. I understand that there are expressions of interest from that sector of the aviation industry. But let me say right away that we want nothing less than a licensed airline to run services into Grafton, Kempsey, Armidale, Inverell, Taree and Port Macquarie. Those are the key ports in northern New South Wales whose future is now in limbo. Australian Airlines said that it would not purchase because they were not enormously viable routes once the whole structure of East-West was split and there was no longer Tamworth and Albury, which were the main passenger throughputs for that airline's intrastate services in New South Wales. We know that many routes in the west under Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, which was owned by the same company, are also in limbo. No-one knows what is to become of them. We have the classic example of a government instrumentality determining a certain situation, another which is unable to recognise the deficiencies as a consequence, and the impost that falls upon the travelling public. It is an impost which threatens an increase in fares, a lowering of service standards and an inability to get a licensed airline capable of using the aircraft traditionally used-F27 and, for that matter, F28 jets-on those services to create a viable alternative to what is now directed to be divested from the present owners. We are dealing with some legislation today that opens up the whole question of effective policy, effective Government determinations in this area, and a very unsatisfactory situation for the travelling public. I believe that nothing short of a ministerial statement covering these issues by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), perhaps with some reference to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is responsible for the Trade Practices Commission, is the fair requirement. It is a fair proposition that this House at least ought to be given some hint of what is happening at the same time as the legislation is being considered. When I continue my remarks on the resumption of this debate I will explain the reason for my comment in that regard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. When did the Minister, by his agreement and through his instructions, first provide the honourable member for Canning and/or other persons with information and material from the Health Insurance Commission? What was the nature of the information provided to the honourable member for Canning? Before this information was first provided to the honourable member for Canning did the Minister seek and obtain from the Health Insurance Commission any advice on protection of individual privacy required under the Health Insurance Commission Act? If not, why not? What sections of the Act did the Minister consider were necessary under his responsibility? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, the honourable member for Canning collected information from a wide range of sources, including patients, experts in the field, and bodies outside government. As I have said before, I regret that on this single occasion there was a breakdown of procedure concerning statistical information. In relation to the particular document involved, I did not see this specific material prior to its going to the honourable member for Canning; nor did I personally forward it to him. What I did was to authorise my office to assist the honourable member for Canning from time to time in the inquiry that his committee was making into medical overcharging. As I pointed out to the House yesterday, this was done under the standing office instruction that no statistical information be provided which identified any individual. As I also pointed out yesterday, the Health Insurance Commission's oral and written advice was unequivocal that that had not occurred in this particular case. I pointed out that in four years of providing information in a very controversial area out of my personal office, never before has there been any suggestion that any information from my office identified in any way a doctor or patient. That, may I say, compares very favourably with the Opposition's record. Amidst all this cant about privacy I remind the Opposition that four years ago it was prepared to put my daughter's name and details of her operation in every newspaper in this country. I did not complain, and nor did she; she is tough enough to take it. However, I can say that in the 10 years that I have been a member of this House I have never attacked any honourable member through his spouse or child. Mr FREE —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister inform the House of the impact of publicity launched by the Department of Social Security in New South Wales this month to promote the Government's new family allowance supplement? Mr HOWE —There has been a particularly strong response in New South Wales to the School Outreach Campaign launched this month by the Department of Social Security. In the past two weeks alone, more than 4,000 families have been granted package payments. Indeed, I believe that all honourable members will be interested to know that at the present time the Department is paying claims at the rate of 400 a day. On family package payday this Thursday the Department will pay $3.5m to low income, working families in New South Wales. The total number of families receiving the Family allowance supplement in New South Wales is now 27,000, which is just over double the number of families that received the former family income supplement. I believe that the benefits of the family package are being understood more and more throughout Australia, and particularly in New South Wales. The Government is delivering substantial family benefits, thus continuing its policy of matching social with economic responsibilities. The Government has been able to do that and provide assistance to low income families, despite the very considerable fiscal restraint which has marked this Government's period in office. The family package alone costs something of the order of $500m in a full year. To maintain the real level of pensions and to achieve an 8.4 per cent real increase, costs $1 billion a year. I believe that the Government has made a very substantial contribution, not only to sustaining the real incomes of low income families throughout Australia and particularly New South Wales, but also to achieving a genuine improvement. I shall refer to a hypothetical family as an illustration of the extent of the improvements in the real income of pensioner families in Australia. I take the example of a sole parent, renting private accommodation, with one child aged 12 years and a student child aged 16 years. I think honourable members would agree that that would not be an atypical family in the social security system. In March 1983 that family received $77.25 on the standard rate of pension. In February 1988 that part of the payment was $116.10-an 8.4 per cent real increase. The additional mothers' and guardians' allowance increased from $26 in March 1983 to $39 now-an 8.2 per cent real increase. Rent assistance has increased from $10 in 1983 to $15 now-an 8.3 per cent increase. The student support allowance has increased from $16.75 to $50-an increase of 115 per cent. In overall terms, that family's income has increased in four years from $130 to $220-an increase of 22.1 per cent in real terms. The family package is not a one-off package. It is part of a program. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the Minister has been a member of this House long enough to know-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr Aldred —That the procedures of the House provide for ministerial statements to be made, but not at Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is answering the question. Mr HOWE —When it suits them, honourable members opposite are prepared to refer to problems that the Australian Labor Party may have with its traditional base. However, let me say that despite the economic circumstances, pensioners in Australia have got out of this Government-- Mr Blunt —On a point of order: the honourable member for Lindsay asked the Minister to inform the House about the advertising campaign. The Minister should inform the House of the amount of money it spent on the advertising-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is in order. Mr Keating —On a point of order: this week the Combined Pensioners Association of New South Wales has been in Canberra, and the Minister is responding to a topical issue. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has ruled the Minister in order. Mr Keating —Yes. However, the point of order is that points of order taken by the Opposition to disrupt Ministers should be dealt with expeditiously. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will now ask the House to come to order. I do not intend to continually ask individual members to come to order. If honourable members continue to be disorderly I shall take the unusual step of naming honourable members without first warning them. Mr HOWE —The family assistance package, which is currently being publicised throughout Australia to achieve the maximum take-up, should be understood. Honourable members opposite should understand that the Government's record in relation to pensioner families compares with the record of any postwar government. Pensioner families have had a 22 per cent real increase during a period in which we have seen a decline in real wages and, as I suggested earlier, that is a measure of the social responsibility which matches the economic responsibility of this Government, as opposed to the continuing irresponsibility of the Opposition. Mr SINCLAIR —I address a question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. He will recall the document that he tabled in this House which was a minute to him from Mr C. R. Wilcox, dated 7 January 1988, which he noted six weeks later on 15 February 1988 as having been noted by him. This document has now been used twice by the Leader of the House in defence of the Minister. The Minister will recall that attached to that minute was a letter to be addressed to Dr Allan Passmore. Was that letter ever sent? If it was not sent, was it not dispatched because the Minister was not able to fulfil the assurance he gave in the last paragraph? That assurance was: You have my assurance that no data identifying either doctors or their patients was provided by my office or the Commission to Mr Gear. Mr Hawke —Another rush to judgment. Dr BLEWETT —As the Prime Minister says, that is another rush to judgment. The matter is quite simple. I was absent overseas all of January. In addition, as the right honourable member notes from the document from which he quoted, this was a routine matter and given that one of my Ministers had appendicitis and that I had a new assistant Minister, there was quite a lot to do in that first fortnight back. The reason the letter has not been sent is quite simple. I wanted to ensure that the answer to the Australian Medical Association added two points of additional information-namely, that material was provided to Mr Gear after an approach by him in his capacity as chairman of the prices network and, secondly, that Mr Gear was in receipt of information direct from patients all round the country. The reply was in the process of being redrafted to reflect these additional points and would have been signed this week. Mr WRIGHT —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware of claims that funding for Catholic education has been significantly reduced by this Government? Will the Minister advise the House of the true situation relating to this Government's financial support for the Catholic education system? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and his continuing interest in this important matter. I am aware of some erroneous claims that there has been a reduction in government support for the Catholic education system. I assume that they are either based on misinformation or being used to cover up for the fact that, at least in Queensland, there have been reductions in funding for these schools. Under this Government there have been substantial real increases in support for government and non-government schools. In the case of the Catholic systemic schools, in common with most other non-government schools, they have received from the Government increases in their general recurrent funding each year. In 1988 almost $1,000 will be provided for every primary student and $1,500 for every secondary student in the system. The Government will provide about $890m to the non-government school sector in Australia and of this, about $520m will to the Catholic education system. In the honourable member's own State of Queensland between 1985 and 1988 primary schools had real increases of nearly 13 per cent and secondary schools had increases of 8 1/2 per cent. In 1988 there will be a $2m increase in Queensland to the Catholic systemic system to reach $63m. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that there has been an increase in real terms in the support that we have provided for these schools, along with increased support for the government school sector as well. The principal issue involved here is that in Queensland the catholic school system has found itself in a position where it has had to increase its fees for 1988. This is not as a result of Commonwealth cuts, but rather a reduction in the real level of support from the Government of Queensland. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering when the Australian Labor Party might be put back in the dark because we are getting sick of the bright lights in our eyes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The arrangement was made and the Party leaders and Whips were notified that there would be a 20-minute upgrading of the film today. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Community Services and Health whether it is a fact that, in obtaining information from the Health Insurance Commission and conveying that information to the honourable member for Canning, his private office staff were at all times acting under his authority. Dr BLEWETT —I indicated to the House last night and in an answer to a question I gave today that I had authorised my staff to respond to and assist the honourable member for Canning in his initiatives. As I said last night, in some ways I wish that my staff had been a little more vigorous in this matter, but, as I also pointed out quite clearly last night, they had followed the practice of the office to check out any material that was forwarded to ensure that it did not in any way identify patients or doctors. They received a clear verbal report from the Health Insurance Commission that there was nothing in these documents that identified doctors or patients. The document I tabled last night was a later follow-up document which reinforced the view taken by the Health Insurance Commission. Mr FITZGIBBON —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House of recent trends in farm prices and costs, and their implications for Government policy? Mr KERIN —The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics yesterday released estimates of farm price and cost movements for the December quarter. These estimates confirm the current strong recovery in rural sector conditions. At the earlier Rural Outlook conference this year the same Bureau put forward projections for 1987-88 that farm incomes would increase by up to 68 per cent; farm cash operating surplus by up to 44 per cent and the net value of rural production by up to 22 per cent for the year ahead. In relation to the honourable gentleman's question, there was no change in the index of prices in the December quarter paid by farmers because of lower interest rates and lower fuel prices. In the year to the December quarter, the index of prices paid rose by only 2.9 per cent due to the very large fall in interest rates last year. This figure is well below the general inflation rate and a long way below the 11 per cent rate of increase we inherited from our predecessors. Honourable members may also be interested to know which States had the lowest rate of farm cost increase last year. Western Australia and New South Wales were the only States to record a below average rate of farm cost inflation; the reason being that those States had a lower rate of increase in rates and taxes. Honourable members should compare the increase in rates and taxes of less than 5 per cent in New South Wales with that of 7 1/2 per cent in Queensland with a National Party Government. I might tell the honourable member for Dawson that the farmers in New South Wales-the largest agricultural producing State-have every reason to be pleased with the record of their State Government as opposed to that of the National Party Government in Queensland. Over the year average prices received by farmers rose by 10.9 per cent-nearly four times the increase in farm costs-and that is why average farm incomes are rising strongly in this country, subject of course to the qualifications varying across commodities, regions and individuals. The policy implications of this are quite clear. They are that the present Government's policies have been entirely vindicated. It is our policies that have increased the international competitiveness of Australian industry by 33 per cent. It is our policies, our marketing reforms, that are enabling Australian agriculture to take full advantage of market opportunities. It is our policies that have brought farm cost inflation down. It is our policy to deregulate the crude oil industry that has also brought fuel prices down further this year. Mr TUCKEY —Does the Minister for Community Services and Health seriously assert that the material passed to the honourable member for Canning or his committee was statistics within the meaning of section 130 (5) of the Health Insurance Act? Dr BLEWETT —The level of ignorance displayed throughout the last two days on these general issues by the honourable member for O'Connor was clearly shown in the allegations he has made of some kind of conspiracy between the honourable member for Canning and me-that somehow we are concerned with reducing the Medicare bill. That is what he said. Of course, that shows his total ignorance of Medicare because, if the price watch committee were seeking to reduce the Medicare bill by pressuring overcharging doctors to reduce their charges, that would do nothing to reduce the Medicare bill. Mr Tuckey —What about your participating doctors scheme? Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the question. It is as nonsensical as the remarks made last night. Medicare saves nothing if doctors reduce their fees. The only beneficiaries of a reduction in fees are the patients. That is what the price watch committee is all about. It is about time the members of the Opposition realised that there is a growing anger out in the community about that minority of doctors who are charging excessively above the schedule fee. Ordinary working people in this country have had restraint of wages over the last few years, and yet they see this small element within the medical profession often charging three, four and five times the schedule fee. There is a real anger about that, and that is being addressed by the price watch committee. I was asked by the honourable member for O'Connor whether I believed that the information was statistical information. Mr Tuckey —Did you seriously assert? Dr BLEWETT —I was asked whether I seriously asserted that it was statistical information. Not only do I assert that; the advice that was given to me by the Health Insurance Commission on 7 January 1988 stated-I will read it again: It was in the form of statistical data which may be released by the Commission where the information does not identify an individual patient or practitioner (Section 130 (5) of the Health Insurance Act refers). This is the section under which statistical information is provided to requesting organisations including the Australian Medical Association. So, the advice I was clearly given was that it was statistical information under section 130 (5) of the Act. Mr CHARLES —Has the Minister for Defence seen newspaper reports which state that the Department of Defence will underspend on capital equipment by some $300m and which quote the Opposition spokesman on defence as saying that it is the Royal Australian Navy that will hurt the most? Is this a fact? If not, will the Minister inform the House of the actual situation? Mr BEAZLEY —I have seen a vast number of assertions from the Opposition from time to time over the last couple of weeks suggesting ways in which we might increase the defence budget by spending more money. But the Opposition does not give the appropriate attached statement on precisely how it would do it. Every single piece of that advice is absolute nonsense. As to the specifics of this question: with large local projects, as opposed to off the shelf overseas purchases, it is hard to control the achievement of precise financial results in individual projects. We have recognised this and have developed arrangements with contractors and internally to manage the changes that come from doing much more of our business in Australia. Further, within the capital program as a whole and within the defence portfolio more widely, there is sufficient flexibility to ensure that financial commitments and equipment, operational training and other priorities are met. I am advised, therefore, that there will not be a significant underspending this financial year. To go to the more general part of the question asked by the honourable member for Isaacs: the statement about the Navy suffering follows a lengthy series of presentations about the situation of the armed services, including one suggesting that the defence forces, including the Navy and the Army, need to do more overseas on the ground that they are bored. I thought there was a considerable amount of jealousy when the Opposition confronted our proposals on what we will be doing to increase our activity in South East Asia and the South Pacific in the light of those claims. I conclude by quoting from Major-General Jeffery on the subject of whether moneys are being properly expended to permit experience and activity overseas. He said: Soldiers of this division have never been so productively and professionally employed. For example, in the past year we have trained in Canada, California, Hawaii, the UK, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and Brunei. That is not bad. He concluded: There is simply no comparison between the variety, relevance and realism of training today and the travel opportunities available to the modern young soldier, compared with the days when Peter White and I were infantry subalterns together, advancing once every two years down the Colo-Putty Road in New South Wales, with five rounds of blank ammunition apiece, a gas rattle to simulate machine gun fire and interminable boredom the inevitable result. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I remind the Minister of the claim made by the honourable member for Canning, and also I think by the Minister and the Leader of the House, that, notwithstanding the disclosure of provider numbers by the Health Insurance Commission, there was no danger to privacy in that those numbers were unintelligible because of the large number of doctors and, therefore, the large number of provider numbers and the inability of anybody to match them. Is it not a fact that one of the examples of alleged overcharging published by the honourable member for Canning was in relation to open heart surgery? Is it also a fact that there are fewer than 100 medical practitioners in the entire country who are capable of undertaking that procedure? Does the Minister therefore not agree that the assertions of the honourable member for Canning cannot be substantiated and that the possibility of breaching confidentiality in that case is very high indeed? Dr BLEWETT —I have not asserted anything about the relative danger of the disclosure of provider numbers. I made it quite clear, when I came back to the House last night and gave the correction to my answer, that I regarded the provider number as a serious issue. That is why I returned to the House to make that explanation. It is true that there are a vast number of provider numbers and that the probabilities of identifying doctors are not high in any area. But I have to admit that I was concerned, and that is why I returned to the House to make that clarification. An important point to make is that some people have said that the Minister was found out. That is not true. I gave an answer on the evidence that had been provided to me by the Health Insurance Commission. When I found out that that evidence was incorrect, I felt it an obligation as a Minister to return to the House as soon as possible and explain that. I gave it that attention because I do regret the use of provider numbers in that material. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Has the Prime Minister sought legal advice on the allegations made by the Opposition against the Minister for Community Services and Health? Mr HAWKE —I believe that members of this House-and not just those confined to the Government side-would be distressed by this repetition of the rush to judgment that the Leader of the Opposition and some of those honourable members behind him undertake with monotonous regularity now in the absence of any capacity they have to attack this Government on issues of substance. In the last 24 hours we have seen a totally pathetic attempt to discredit an outstanding individual and an outstanding Minister. In view of this rush to judgment on the part of the Opposition and references made to legal opinions I asked to be advised of the position of the Minister for Community Services and Health in relation to this matter on the basis of the information that is publicly available. I am in a position to inform the House that I have now been advised by the Solicitor-General that, on that information, it is his opinion that the Minister has not breached the secrecy requirements of the relevant provisions of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act-not that I really needed that advice in any sense to change any doubts I had because I did not have them. May I say that the confidence I have, have always had and continue to have in this Minister is totally unshaken. I am now about to table this legal advice I have which makes it completely clear that the Minister is guilty of no offence. I wonder whether the honourable member for O'Connor and anyone else on the other side who has been parading around in this chamber on the basis of purported legal opinions will table their legal advice. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer him to his constant reference today and previously to the honourable member for Canning as the chairman of the national price watch network. What is the formal status of the national price watch network? Is it established under legislation so as to qualify as, and I quote from the Act, `a prescribed authority' under section 130 (3) (b) of the Health Insurance Commission Act in order to be eligible for receipt of-I might add, but not the right to distribute-confidential Medicare information? Dr BLEWETT —The status of the national price watch committee is as an important committee which has been active in trying to inform consumers in this country and help them play a role in minimising inflation in this society. Many Ministers of this Government have co-operated with the committee, and I have co-operated with it, on the advice in these matters of the Health Insurance Commission, so that any material supplied to them was within the Act. Mr BLANCHARD —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Can he inform the House of the implications of the Child Support Bill for the welfare of Australian families? Mr HOWE —The Bill was passed last night by the Senate. It was strongly supported by the Australian Democrats and generally supported, both in this chamber and in the Senate, by the Opposition. The Bill is part of the child support scheme which will deliver substantial increases in secure regular income to 55,000 families in the first year of operation. The scheme will establish a new system for collecting child maintenance ordered by the courts. The new agency operating as part of the Australian Taxation Office will deduct child maintenance from the salaries and wages of non-custodial parents in cases where effective voluntary arrangements have not been made. Maintenance collected in this way will be paid to custodial parents by the Department of Social Security. If the non-custodial parent is not a pay as you earn taxpayer he or she will have to make a direct monthly payment to the child support agency. The child support scheme delivers secure private maintenance to custodians and their children regularly, on time, every month. The scheme means that custodians will have some security that their maintenance will come through each month, so they can set up their households relying on this as part of their real income. I acknowledge the energy and the commitment of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers for developing the scheme to this point. The scheme is historic for the level of co-operation and co-ordination required and achieved between different departments. The Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, the Attorney-General's Department, the Family Court of Australia and State courts will be involved in delivering the scheme. The co-ordination of all these agencies has brought about what I believe is a new deal for the children of separated parents. Mr MOORE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Acting Attorney- General. Does the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) have the resources to act on the legal opinion gained this week from Mr Alex Chernov, QC, stating that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) settlement, in which nearly 20 per cent of its shares were bought back, might be illegal but that it would take one or more appeals to higher courts to establish the fact? If the regulatory authority meant to monitor such situations is unable to fund challenges to the courts against highly technical yet highly questionable corporate deals lying at the very fringe of the law, how does the Attorney-General-the Acting Attorney-General in this case-propose that the NCSC get on with its job of acting as Australia's corporate policeman? Mr HOLDING —The position is that the National Companies and Securities Commission has prime responsibility for any decision whether to take action in a particular case, including the BHP proposal. That is not a responsibility of either the Federal Attorney-General or any State Attorney-General acting independently. The National Companies and Securities Commission has been investigating the matter and is in possession of the relevant facts. It is entirely proper for it to make the decision on the BHP proposal. The Ministerial Council does have the power to direct the NCSC on individual cases but that power has not been invoked here so far. Mr Bosch, the Chairman of the NCSC, has sought from the Federal Attorney-General, a member of the Ministerial Council, and all other State Attorneys-General, the other members of the Ministerial Council, comments on the BHP proposal in the light of an opinion of counsel obtained by the NCSC. The Attorney-General-or the Acting Attorney-General-is considering the matters that have been raised by Mr Bosch. Mr MARTIN —Can the Treasurer provide information on the partial indicators on the economy presented since the last sitting session of parliament? Mr KEATING —Since the last sittings of parliament we have had the November, December and January balance of payments statistics from the Australian Statistician. We have had the publication of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's world outlook, the December quarter consumer price index, the employment growth figures for November, December and January, the national wage case, and a raft of leading and partial indicators of economic activity generally. In the second last day of the sitting of the House of Representatives last year Senator Walsh and I released the 1987-88 Forward Estimates of outlays for 1988-89 to 1990-91. Four weeks ago I announced the Industries Assistance Commission's comprehensive two-year forward work program. Despite all of these leading and partial indicators on the economy, the Opposition has not asked the Prime Minister or me one question on the economy in the second week of the parliamentary sittings. All we see is, as has happened today, dispirited attempts to try to besmirch the reputation of Ministers with weak questions designed to draw out Question Time as though there were some matter of moment. In fact, the questions are so facile and immature that they do not rank being asked by a major party in this Parliament. We have had not one question from the Opposition about the economy. In January the Leader of the Opposition was going to present the Liberal vision. All of the journalists were tipped off that the Liberal vision was being presented. The great Liberal vision on the economy boiled down to being freedom, incentive and excellence. Is it any wonder that he copped such a mauling from the Press the next day? An article in the Australian Financial Review, under the heading `Howard-once again, too little, too late', said: It is certainly honest of Mr Howard to make the point that it really is an astonishing political party that is forever searching for its core values and, apparently, is forever unable to produce them in coherent form. The article went on to say: The waste of effort, the sheer banality of what is being presented to voters as an `alternative' must surely discourage any young Liberal with even a gram of independent scepticism. That is the judgment of the leading economic daily newspaper in this country about the Liberal vision delivered to the Young Liberal Conference by the Leader of the Opposition on economic issues when this country has faced a terms of trade crisis and a terms of trade decline of enormous proportions. Adjustments in this country are of massive scale in proportion and quality and have impacted upon the economy and the community. Yet, despite all of these leading and partial indicators, we have not had one question, not one peep out of members of the Opposition, about any issue of substance. Yesterday I was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the financial liabilities of the New South Wales Government Insurance Office. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Obviously the Treasurer is trying to filibuster. Would you ask him to return to the question. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will return to the question, please. Mr KEATING —Such devastating repartee over there! It really knocks us for a six! Although the Minister for Community Services and Health made an explanation last night, the Opposition still puts forward pathetic questions. The Opposition has asked a series of questions in regard to that matter, but it could not even keep that up. The honourable member for Ryan had to get up and put a question about Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Opposition could not even sustain Question Time on the issue that they think is of such great moment. Not only do members of the Opposition have no questions on the real issues of moment-that is, the national economy and the national economic task-but also they have no views, no policy, no perspective and no quality. Mr HOWARD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General which he tabled a few moments ago. Is it not a fact that that legal opinion is directed entirely to the position of the Minister for Community Services and Health? In seeking the legal opinion, did he ask the Solicitor-General to advise on the position of the Minister's staff and the Health Insurance Commission? If not, why not? Mr HAWKE —The position is very simple here. As I have said, in view of the Opposition's desperate rush to judgment last evening to condemn the Minister and move a censure, I asked that advice be obtained from the Solicitor-General on that issue. On the issue of whether there has been and, if so, by whom any possible breach of legislation, the Minister himself has initiated action by writing to the Acting Attorney-General and asking him in his capacity to have initiated by the Australian Federal Police the appropriate inquiries. That is the course of action that has been taken-the proper course of action. I immediately took action in regard to the Minister to get advice from the Solicitor-General. That I have tabled. The Minister himself initiated action to ensure that the proper processes were followed to ascertain whether there has been a breach of the Act by anyone else and, if there has been, by whom. If that report were to so find, that report, as the honourable gentleman knows, would go to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the normal processes would follow. The problem with this besotted lot opposite is that they are so drenched and oozing with their hatreds that they are absolutely incompetent to pursue issues of principle and matters of substance that a simple understanding of what processes are involved in a situation like this escapes them. If they had the beginning of wit, understanding and a capacity to order their priorities, they would know that the proper decisions have been taken in regard to the Minister. As was obviously going to be the case, he has been completely exonerated. He, the Minister, has initiated properly the processes to see whether there has been a breach and, if so, by whom. Mr Howard-Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Howard-It is a motion of censure on the Prime Minister about ministerial standards. Is the Leader of the House going to take it? Mr Beazley-Is it a censure motion? Mr Howard-I will read it to the Minister if he does not understand what I said. The motion is: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to-- Mr Beazley-We will take it. Leave granted. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.46) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to uphold proper ministerial standards as evidenced by his failure to dismiss the Minister for Community Services and Health. During Question Time a series of questions were directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about their conduct in regard to matters relating to the disclosure of confidential information by the Health Insurance Commission. Mr Hawke —You addressed no question to me. Mr HOWARD —I did address a question to the Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —You said a `series of questions'. Mr HOWARD —Oh, we are getting very toey. Did we not do very well on the first and second tees? I know that the Prime Minister is sensitive on the question of ministerial standards, and well may he be because in the space of something under three months we have seen his proud boast that he leads the most talented ministry since World War II reduced to absolute shreds. In the course of that time he has taken ministerial standards to a new low in this country. If evidence were needed of how much this Prime Minister discounts the concept of ministerial responsibility, we had it at Question Time today when triumphantly the Prime Minister flung down an opinion from the Solicitor-General, an opinion which he admitted went only to the liability of the Minister for Community Services and Health under the provisions of the Health Insurance Act. He flung that down with contemptuous triumph and said, `There, I have bowled you out again. Aren't I terrific? Aren't I the Rambo Prime Minister again? I have completely devastated your argument'. But in the process of doing that, he overlooked the tiny fact that there was nothing in that opinion which exonerated the staff of the Minister. Are we to have a new doctrine of ministerial responsibility in this country which says that once a Minister has said to his own personal staff, no matter what the enterprise is, no matter what the goal is, no matter what the objective is and no matter how irresponsible it is, `You go away and do that and if in the course of it you do anything wrong I am not to blame, but, of course, if there is any political mileage out of it for me, I will take all the credit'? That is the doctrine of this Prime Minister, of this man, who five years ago sat behind an Opposition Leader who said that one person in a 12,000-strong Attorney-General's Department who made an error should cause the resignation of the then Attorney-General. This man now asserts to this Parliament that the fact that the staff of the Minister for Community Services and Health may have committed an illegality in the course of carrying out an instruction for the Minister does not go at all to the ministerial responsibility and the ministerial liability of the Minister for Community Services and Health. If the Prime Minister imagines for a moment that that is sufficient exculpation of the Minister for Community Services and Health and a sufficient discharge of his responsibilities under the Westminster system, he holds that system and the concept of ministerial responsibility in even lower regard than we on this side of the House believed to be the case before this matter arose. The motion I move not only goes to the standards of the Prime Minister; it not only goes to the behaviour of the Minister for Community Services and Health-and I will come in detail to the behaviour of that Minister in a few moments-but it also goes to the attitude of mind of the Minister for Community Services and Health, and many people who sit in government with him, towards a very important and precious element of life in Australia-that is, the right to privacy. If there were a text, if there were a set of words that most aptly suited this debate, they were the words uttered by the Minister himself when he addressed the South Australian branch conference of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in 1986. Well may we all remember those words. I will read them to the House again because they really explain why it was that this Minister could give his staff carte blanche to engage in a course of conduct which, on his own admission at Question Time, could have resulted in the identification of the doctors concerned. Let us not allow the bluster of the Prime Minister and the noise of the Government to disguise the fact that at Question Time the Minister admitted that the doctors could have been identified. He made that admission, and no amount of legal opinion from the Solicitor-General or bluster from the Prime Minister can alter that fact. Let us return to the ALP conference in South Australia in 1986 when the Minister had this to say: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interest of the community that should come before the individual right. These are the relevant words: We shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. All I can say on behalf of the Liberal and National parties is that it is only a Minister who holds that attitude of mind towards privacy, it is only a Minister who is so contemptuous towards privacy, who can instruct and authorise his own staff to engage in a course of conduct which on his own admission could have resulted in a serious breach of confidentiality of the records of the Health Insurance Commission. There is nothing at all in the opinion of the Solicitor-General. It is a very narrow opinion, and a five-minute cursory reading of that opinion demonstrates that it is a narrowly based opinion on a very narrowly based set of instructions. Quite conveniently, the Prime Minister does not ask the Solicitor-General to advise on the liability of Dr Blewett's staff. Quite conveniently, he does not ask the Solicitor-General to advise on the liability of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission. Yet, this is the same man who, four or five years ago, railed that one out of 12,000 people making a mistake was enough to cause the resignation of an Attorney-General. So the charge we made last night is not destroyed by the opinion of the Solicitor-General. Or are we going to have written into the practice of this country, into the practice of parliament in this country, and into the practice of the government of this country that no matter what a staff member of a Minister does under instruction from that Minister-no matter what he does, no matter how irresponsible it is, no matter what course of conduct he is authorised to carry out-if there is any illegality committed by the staff, although they are doing it under instruction from the Minister, he can regard himself as having been completely exonerated? This censure motion is not only about the conduct of the Minister for Community Services and Health; it is not only about the conduct of a man who says the right to privacy is a bourgeois right; it is not only about the conduct of a man who says we should not get too hung up about rights of privacy because that is a very bourgeois thing which he as a socialist could not be concerned about. It is also about the ministerial standards of a Prime Minister who, six months after he became Prime Minister, in the face of the clearest evidence that a Minister in his Government was prepared to act in reckless disregard for the national security of this country, was nonetheless prepared to have that Minister back. It is also about the standards of a Prime Minister who, only two weeks ago, was trying to bring back a former Minister for tourism who had resigned from the Ministry because he had misled Parliament less than three months ago. It is only because that Minister subsequently shot himself in the foot by telling the truth about the Prime Minister and then begged journalists not to publish the truth because it might embarrass the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister's desire to bring back that Minister will probably never see fruition. The motion is also about the standards of a Prime Minister who simply will not dismiss the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) despite the fact that he has misled Parliament in a reckless and perhaps quite deliberate fashion. It is also about the standards of a Prime Minister who maintains on his front bench the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), the former Minister for Trade, who is involved in tax avoidance arrangements, who is involved in the most shameful intimidation of a public servant in Italy, and who acknowledged that he did not disclose a possible conflict of interest involving the ownership of some Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd shares by a member of his family. Given this particular episode and the apparent willingness of the Prime Minister to maintain his support for the Minister for Community Services and Health, notwithstanding the fact that he has given no explanation for the way the Minister has allowed his staff to behave in a probably illegal fashion, it is not surprising that this motion of censure should be brought by the Opposition. Beyond that, it is also not surprising that this form of conduct, this pattern of conduct, should have been indulged in by the Minister for Community Services and Health. This Minister, who is now under question and under cloud in this Parliament, is the Minister who gave us the great identity card fiasco. This Minister deserves the condemnation of Parliament, so far as that ID card fiasco is concerned, on two grounds. He deserves condemnation firstly because he was prepared-because he is indifferent to privacy, on his own admission and not on our assertion-to visit upon this country an ID card system which would have intruded into the private lives of many hundreds of thousands of citizens in Australia. Honourable members will all remember, of course, when the ID card debate was raging throughout Australia, what the Minister, what the Prime Minister and what the other people on the front bench of the Government were saying at the time. They were saying, `Oh yes, of course we will have a lot of information stored but do not worry, that information will be jealously guarded. That information will be kept confidential and no citizen in Australia need worry because I, Dr Blewett, give you a guarantee that none of you card subjects need worry at all about any confidential information that might be disclosed'. Yet, that same assurance has been given in relation to the confidential information held in the Health Insurance Commission. If the Prime Minister imagines that this Minister is off the hook because of a narrow legal opinion given on a narrowly requested issue, he has a very discounted view of the quality of ministerial standards in this country. Is the Prime Minister going to allege to the House that from now on it is all right for a Minister to authorise his staff to embark upon some kind of witch-hunt in concert with one of his colleagues against the medical profession, and if somewhere along the way confidentiality gets trampled on, if somewhere along the way some confidential information that should not be allowed into the community gets into the community, that does not matter? They may be, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, satisfactory standards, but I do not believe that they are satisfactory standards so far as the Australian public are concerned, and they ought not to be satisfactory standards so far as this Parliament is concerned. This debate started last night with the defence moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). It continued this morning, and no doubt it will continue for the duration of this debate. But throughout, there have been only two defences put forward on behalf of the Minister. The first of those defences was that it really was not his fault; it was all the fault of his staff or it was all the fault of the staff of the Health Insurance Commission. Apart from any questions of strict legality, what a cowardly attitude for a Minister to adopt before this Parliament! What a cowardly approach to ministerial responsibility! The Minister dobs in his own staff. He says to his staff, `Go and look after George Gear. Give him all the information that he wants. Talk to the Health Insurance Commission. But of course, if something goes wrong, I shall wash my hands of it. I shall sool the Australian Federal Police onto it, and I am going to stand up in the Parliament and before the public of Australia and say that I have not behaved with any impropriety because I strictly fall within the letter of the law'. That is the standard of this Minister. The Minister may think that he has a legal bill of health, but he has not got a moral bill of health on this, because he has behaved-- Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Mr HOWARD —I will not withdraw. The Minister has behaved with a completely cowardly disposition, because he is hiding behind-and this Prime Minister joins him in hiding behind it-that tissue-thin argument, `Oh, it was all the fault of my staff'. It was not the fault of a couple of people thousands of miles away. It was not the fault of a couple of members of a department that has 12,000 people in it. How many staff does the Minister have? Has he got 100? Has he got 500? No, he has probably got a staff of about eight. They work with him in close concert every day. They act under his instructions. On his own admission at Question Time today, they were at all times acting under his authority. He is asking us to take him seriously as a Minister from now on because on this particular occasion it was not him personally, so he claims, who saw the document; no, it was a member of his staff who was responsible for all of this. So I suppose that if the Solicitor-General finds that an illegality was committed by a member of his staff, that person will go through some kind of public humiliation. The Minister will publicly reprimand a member of his staff despite the fact that it was the Minister's idea and the idea of his colleague the honourable member for Canning that this enterprise be undertaken. The second argument that has been used by the Leader of the House and by the Minister for Community Services and Health in trying to defend themselves on this matter is the argument that in some way this particular information fell within the definition of statistics which is contained in the Health Insurance Commission Act. Is the Minister seriously asking the Parliament to believe that the statistics which are contemplated by that section-and they are statistics which clearly have in mind the normal official publications of the Government, the statistics that are put out by the Commonwealth Statistician, the statistics that may be from time to time published by the Health Insurance Commission itself-the information conveyed in the manner in which he conveyed it on this occasion, fall within that particular definition? Is he seriously saying that the language of section 130 when it talks of statistics has anything in contemplation other than official publications of the Statistician or of the Commonwealth Government? Is the Minister seriously saying that that section speaks of this information given out the back door to one of his colleagues, that that has the same status and that that is in contemplation under this section when we are talking about statistics? That clearly was not in the contemplation of the Parliament. It clearly is not in the contemplation of the section. For the Minister to suggest that it falls into that category is absolute nonsense. As I said at the commencement of this censure motion, the Prime Minister may well think that the tabling of a legal opinion, narrowly based and based upon, on his own admission, a very narrow question, in some way exonerates the Minister for Community Services and Health from the Opposition's charge. The reality is that it does nothing of the kind. The reality is that this Minister, on his own admission, embarked upon a course of conduct which involved authorising his staff to make available information to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) which, on his own subsequent admission, contained details which may have involved a serious breach of confidentiality. That is the charge. They are the circumstances. All the `oohs' and `ahs' from the Prime Minister, all the bluster from the Prime Minister, and all the narrow fine print of the Solicitor-General's opinion, does not alter the fact that the Minister for Community Services and Health was the prime mover in this grubby little exercise. The Minister has been caught out. He has admitted to this Parliament that information was divulged that may have seriously breached confidentiality. If the Minister for Community Services and Health clings further to his portfolio, he will have lost any moral authority that he may have had in this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.06) —We have just witnessed what must have been the worst performance of the parliamentary career of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He would not want to be facing a challenge from John Elliott at the moment, because he would go down by about 5 : 1. What an extraordinary performance we have seen from the Opposition over the first two weeks of this parliamentary session. What a virtuoso display Opposition members have given us in the area of double standards and the pursuit of side issues. As was said by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), we have spent five Question Times-now six-with virtually no question from the Opposition on any matter of substance, particularly in the area of the economy. We have wasted hours of the time of this Parliament while the Opposition has galloped up dry gulches in pursuit of non-issues seeking to nail absolutely innocent people. I suppose, after all, if we could spare the time we could sit back and contemplate Opposition members' irrelevance, their pathetic incapacities; but what has not escaped attention is that they have not had the courage when they have been pursuing the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, to take the issue to the final point of a censure motion. But now, today, apparently because the realisation of the contemptible estimation in which they are held has sunk in, they thought, `Well, gee, we shall have to have a censure motion'. If we look back over all of the censure motions that have ever been moved in this House we would never find one so insubstantially based and so unconvincingly put as the one which is currently before the House. Before I do anything else, let me establish at the outset the double standards, the sheer hypocrisy, on this question of privacy and the protection of privacy which has characterised the performance of this Opposition in this Parliament in the last two weeks. I think there will be the recollection in the minds of all honourable members of just what we went through last week. What happened last week? The Opposition pursued the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. Why did the Opposition pursue him? It was because he properly refused to disclose confidential Australian Federal Police information. That was the Minister's stance-that he had been provided with advice from the Federal Police, advice which went to the affairs of a citizen, and on all the precedent and on the strict advice of the Federal Police, Senator Tate said, `I am not going to disclose confidential information which goes to the individual'. That was the Opposition's standard of principle last week: the Minister was to be condemned because he would not disclose confidential information. Now this week it is saying that this man, this honourable Minister, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), is to be condemned and made the subject of a censure motion because he has done so. Where is the Opposition? If honourable members want at the outset some more proof of the Leader of the Opposition's pathetic hypocrisy it is this: he talked not only about law but also, would you believe it, morality. That gentleman came in and talked about morality. Impliedly criticising the Solicitor-General for the meanness and tightness of his script, he says, `You may have been saved by a Solicitor-General who is not competent, but if you have been saved by an incompetent Solicitor-General you stand condemned on moral grounds'. So says the Leader of the Opposition. Who is this man to talk of morality from this insubstantial basis and platform? Who in history of this country has gone to the people seeking to become Prime Minister on a more massive platform of lies than this gentleman did in July last year? When he was involved in the 1983 election he was associated with one of the most massive lies about the deficit facing this country. Subsequently, he was exposed as having lied, and lied massively, to this country about the extent-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr HAWKE —Can't you take it? Mr Spender —Can't you stick to the rules, little man? You don't like it when you can't get down into the gutter, do you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for North Sydney wish to raise a point of order? Mr Spender —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are we going to apply the rules? The Prime Minister has used the expression `lies' three times. It is your duty to pull him up. You know that the language is unparliamentary and he should be directed to stick to parliamentary language for once. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not need the honourable member for North Sydney to tell me what my duty is. If the honourable member for North Sydney had been listening he would have heard me call the Prime Minister to order. I was in the process of listening to the honourable member and the Prime Minister and I was drawing to the Prime Minister's attention the fact that one cannot accuse a member of lying. The Prime Minister should withdraw that imputation. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw the phrase and simply point out that the Leader of the Opposition, in his then incapacity, went into the 1983 election putting to the people of Australia propositions that were manifestly untrue and were proven to be untrue. They were incapable of being justified. In 1987, four years later, he did the same thing. A man to whom the label `unsubstantiality and unreliability' has now been nailed more securely than any other politician in the history of this country, who has sought the high office of Prime Minister, has the blatant hypocrisy to come into this place and condemn the Minister on moral grounds. It is the most abysmal hypocrisy that we have ever heard in this place. While we are on the question of double standards, I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, with seven years experience as a Minister in the previous Government, comes in here and lectures me and this Government on what should be the standards of ministerial propriety and when a Minister should go or stay. I remind the House of one instance alone. I refer, of course, to the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Honourable members who have been members of this House for some time will remember the circumstances of the Woodward Royal Commission. It was a royal commission set up by the Fraser Government. The Labor Opposition could not, and did not, set it up. Obviously, it concerned something of fundamental importance to this country. The industry is a major export earner and is centrally important to this country's economic welfare. What did the Woodward report have to say about a leading Minister in the Fraser Government, a Minister with whom the then Treasurer sat shoulder to shoulder-his mate? The report criticised the Minister responsible, Mr Nixon, about his reaction to the Kelly Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems in 1980. This is what the Royal Commissioner, and the coalition Government established the Commission, had to say about one of its Ministers: I am bound to record my view that the Minister did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively. That was the outcome of the previous Government's appointment of a royal commission. It knew that the matter was so important and so much in the public interest that it had to appoint a royal commission. The Royal Commissioner came down with a finding which by any standard, and certainly by the standard which the Opposition purports to embrace now, demanded the sacking of the Minister. Not only did the previous Government not sack him but also it proceeded, from the Prime Minister down, to denigrate its royal commissioner. What was the judgment made of the standards that the previous Government followed-not the judgment the Labor Opposition made about the standards of that Government by refusing to sack a Minister who had been found so wanting by a royal commissioner? I quote from a judgment made as to the outcome of the previous Government's refusal to accept proper ministerial standards. This is how the Washington Post put it at the time-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Opposition members have obviously read it and they do not like it. This is what the Washington Post said: As a result of the scandal, Australia has the reputation of some third rate banana republic run by a bunch of hucksters out to con everybody we can. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Opposition members do not like it. They have read it and they know what the judgment was. It was this: as a result of their behaviour, Australia had the `reputation of some third rate banana republic run by a bunch of hucksters out to con everybody they can'. That was the international judgment as to their standards of ministerial propriety. They set up a royal commission to investigate a matter, it found against their Minister, they would not get rid of him, and so they were a bunch of hucksters. They were a bunch of hucksters then and they are a bunch of hucksters now. Let me come to a couple of points made by the Leader of the Opposition, and he made only a couple. He referred to the fact that the legal opinion dealt only with the Minister. I dealt with that in Question Time. The Minister himself properly initiated the processes. I, as Prime Minister, got the opinion specifically in regard to the Minister. It was a total exoneration. In the circumstances the Minister said, properly, `I will initiate the processes'. I wonder whether the shadow Attorney-General, whoever it is, is suggesting that the Minister should have written to the Solicitor-General saying, `Look, I want you to give me a legal opinion on whether any member of my staff has been guilty of a breach of the Act'. Is the Leader of the Opposition seriously suggesting that the Minister should have written to the Solicitor-General saying, `Please, Solicitor-General, tell me whether in your opinion any member of my staff-anyone, anywhere-is guilty of a breach of the Act'? Is that the way honourable members opposite think we should go about it? Of course we do not, you nitwits. What we do is what the Minister did. He wrote to the Acting Attorney-General saying, `Will you have inquiries initiated by the Federal Police to see whether there has been a breach and, if so by whom?'. Receipt of the report from the Australian Federal Police would be the point at which action would be taken if necessary. A kindergarten child understands that that is the right course of action and it is the course of action that has been taken. The honourable member devoted half of his speech to that point-which is a measure of the total inadequacy of what he is about. I doubt whether there is any need to go over the facts of this matter. They were covered in this House last night, and they were covered in Question Time. The Opposition has subjected the Minister for Community Services and Health to a whole series of questions, and the Minister has answered them all adequately and appropriately. The simple fact is that last night the Opposition rushed to judgment. That, of course, is the Opposition's demeanour. It would not recognise a principle if it saw one. It is the master of expediency and opportunism. As I say, the Opposition would not recognise a principle if it tripped over one. Last night the Opposition rushed into judgment to condemn the Minister. However, it is perfectly clear that the Minister is without trace of blemish in this matter. Honourable members have seen that the Health Insurance Commission confirmed in writing-not simply by phone-the basis upon which the Minister's staff acted under his authority. That confirmation was absolute, in writing. Therefore honourable members do not have to depend on a suggestion that a telephone call was misunderstood. The confirmation was in writing, and is in the record of this House. The Opposition has no basis in fact upon which to attack the Minister. The Opposition, in its pathetic way, knowing that it failed and entirely missed its target in this matter, now seeks to accuse me of not having standards with regard to who should or should not remain a member of my Ministry. I remind the Opposition that in its 7 1/2 years of Government it had 22 sackings, resignations, and dismissals. My Government still stands-and not merely in comparison to the Opposition when in government-as a government of stability and integrity. The standards, integrity, and competence of the ministries that I have had the pleasure, pride, and privilege to lead compare more than favourably with any Government in the history of this country. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.23) —Nothing in the purported defence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) removes the inevitability that once again the whiff of Whitlam is in the air. Nine Ministers have gone. Two Ministers now sitting in the House should at least have immediately resigned, or been dismissed by the Prime Minister. Another four Ministers remain under very dubious circumstances. Nothing in the defence, or the purported defence, of the Prime Minister a few minutes ago should give any solace whatsoever to the person who should have tendered his resignation last night. A few moments ago all members on this side of the House heard the Prime Minister refer to the Woodward inquiry into the Australian Meat Industry. He did so when speaking about proprieties and how a government should act. We all remember that the Minister for Primary Industry at that time, Mr Nixon, tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister. It was a result of the Prime Minister's judgment that Mr Nixon remained a member of the Ministry. What has happened in this instance? I shall go through the detail because on no basis whatsoever should the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) now be a Minister of this place. Today's censure is not now of the Minister for Community Services and Health; the attack has now turned from him to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not have the intestinal fortitude that his predecessor, Mr Whitlam, showed. Mr Whitlam was at least consistent in his understanding of the necessity to meet responsibilities to this House. When Ministers misled the Parliament, such as the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) and the Minister for Community Services and Health have in this instance, Mr Whitlam at least enforced the customary practice that those Ministers should resign. For the past 10 minutes we heard the Prime Minister away on an excursion in a flight of fancy, away in a pretence that in some way he is sensitive to the responsibilities that he as Prime Minister should exercise in this House. Honourable members heard a brief, 4 1/2 minutes, pretended excuse for the Minister for Community Services and Health. I want to go to the substance of the excuse, because on this side of the House we believe not only that the Minister for Community Services and Health should resign, but also at this stage the Prime Minister should have dismissed him. I want to go through the circumstances and again point out to the House that, as a result of the very effective work of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), there is no doubt that the Minister for Community Services and Health has breached his responsibilities under the Health Insurance Act. Today the Prime Minister has tendered to this chamber an advice-no doubt hastily given-by the Solicitor-General. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, the terms of reference of that advice were narrow; its conclusions relate only to a specific inquiry and do not address the substance of the extended responsibility of the Minister. I shall begin with the way in which the Minister analysed the circumstances of this affair. Honourable members will recall the Minister's answer last night. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 553 of Hansard of 23 February. There the Minister said: A member of my staff telephoned the HIC before the material was released to the honourable member for Canning and received verbal advice that none of the material contained any information which would identify doctors or patients and specifically that did not include provider numbers. I invite honourable members to think why that member of the Minister's staff made that inquiry. I shall tell them why. If they look to page 470 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 23 August 1985 they will see that the Minister for Community Services and Health responded to a question from the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) as follows: I am not able to answer the honourable member's question because of the precluding provisions of the Health Insurance Act. Section 130 (1) of the Act provides that-- The Minister went on to explain the provisions of section 130 (1) as they relate to the Health Insurance Commission's officers. I make that point because the Minister for Community Services and Health was aware of the consequences of revealing this information. He asked his staff to gather this information, and last night we were told that the Minister received this advice, about which there has been considerable reference, from Mr C. R. Wilcox. The point of it all is that it was the Minister's staff which released the information to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). The Minister's staff operate in a very narrow sphere, and there are only a half a dozen-there might be eight or 10 members. The responsibility for any action by that staff rests with the Minister. There is no doubt that if one looks at the wording of section 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act one will see that a person shall not directly or indirectly, except in the performance of his duties, and so on, divulge or communicate to any person any information. There is no doubt that there was a doubt in the mind of the Minister, which prompted him to ask his staff to make that inquiry. The Minister should not simply have accepted the advice of Mr Wilcox, nor of his staff, in circumstances relating to the liabilities imposed by that section from him to ensure that no confidential information was passed on. The second point is that within that advice from Mr Wilcox there was reference to the letter to Dr Passmore. Honourable members heard an ineffective response about that. Sure, there had been two months delay before the advice was received by the Minister; he was overseas; and then he was busy and it was not until the middle of February that he responded. The Opposition can accept the time delay. However, how can anyone accept that Minister's explanation given in the House today that he wanted to alter the letter to Dr Passmore? The Minister said that it was in the mail; that he had not yet signed it. We have all heard about cheques being in the mail. It appears that the Minister's cheque was in the mail. The reality is that the Minister did not effectively check those documents to see whether the provider number was on them, or whether his responsibilities under the Health Insurance Act had been breached. His staff did not check either-and they are an extension of his responsibility; he is responsible for whatever they do. Beyond that, the nature of his inquiries led him to a position where he, personally, should have made sure that nothing had happened within his office, and no information was passed on to the honourable member for Canning, which could in any way have been seen to breach that section. The nature of the report from the Solicitor-General is too narrow. It does not inquire into whether the staff of the Minister or any other person acting under the directions or within the responsibility of the Minister have breached the provisions of the Act. There is another point. The Solicitor-General's report relates specifically to the legalities of the question. We all know-the Minister has told us-that there is a police inquiry. The honour- able member for O'Connor also has written to the Australian Federal Police. We know that there will be a police inquiry. This report is given in advance of any normal inquiry conducted in the process of the legal function. But there is a moral responsibility in this place and the Prime Minister does not seem to comprehend that within the dogma of ministerial responsibility it is not just a matter of whether there has been a breach of law by the Minister or his staff acting within his responsibility; it is also a matter of whether the Minister has properly exercised his duty of care to the Australian electorate and his duty of care within his oath of office. Whatever the legalities-and we seriously question them and the narrowness of the Solicitor-General's advice-there is no doubt that the Minister has breached the moral responsibility that is his as a Minister of the Crown. He admitted that in Question Time today. The Minister came into the House last night and although it might have taken a few hours to get the advice, the nature of that advice was to reveal that suddenly he had made the inquiries which he should have made months ago when the information was first passed across. There is no excuse, simply because he was asked a question in the House yesterday, for him to have suddenly found out that he had breached his responsibility. The point is that the first questions and the first inquiries into this matter came from Dr Passmore. The letters, correspondence and everything else before us show that this matter began months ago, that in October or November 1987 the genesis for the Minister exercising his duty of care began. It is no use his coming in here today and saying, `Oh, but last night I corrected it all'. The point is that his duty of care to the officer of the Australian Medical Association who wrote to him began 3 1/2 months ago. The Minister is entirely defective in his moral responsibility because he did not, at that time, initiate the inquiries to ensure that the provider numbers were not on the information provided to the honourable member for Canning his duty lay not only in his legality-that will be decided in other forums-but also in meeting the proper inquiry of Dr Allan Passmore, Secretary-General of the Australian Medical Association. It was as a result of his inquiry and his information that the Minister then put the question to his staff. The point is that all this began months ago. When the Minister approached the member of his staff to make this first inquiry his moral delictitude first fell into place, because it was then that he knew that he had breached the law. He should have immediately put a cessation on all information being provided to the honourable member for Canning. Because he did not, he has no alternative today but to resign. The Minister knew three months ago what was going on. It is no use his coming in here and telling us that he suddenly learnt what the law was when the honourable member for O'Connor asked a question yesterday. He knew when he asked his staff to inquire about provider numbers; he knew when he got that letter from Dr Allan Passmore. He should have been alerted and, if he was not, his staff knew. If his staff knew, he is culpable. The basis of our saying that the Prime Minister is now deficient in the exercise of his duty is that he has not asked the Minister to tender his resignation. He has not fired him. He came into the House and gave a totally inadequate explanation of circumstances which lie at the very crux of ministerial responsibility. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this business began because the Minister has a fetish about the medical profession. He seeks selectively to use information gleaned improperly from the Health Insurance Commission to blacken the names of members of the medical profession. This is even worse than his being derelict in his duty because he has a malicious intent to extract information and to use it through his puppet, the honourable member for Canning, to distribute and publish statistics-as he calls them-which we all know are not statistics because they are selective. Let us turn to statistics. We heard the Minister say last night that, from the advice tendered to him by Mr Wilcox, it was only a matter of statistics. In his answers today, the Minister acknowledged that in at least one example there were only a few cases conducted in Australia in that year and there would have been no difficulty in identifying them. We all know that the statistics referred to within the exemption provision of section 135 of the Health Insurance Act are in fact not the sort of figures that he gave the honourable member for Canning. They are not statistics because, had they been general statistics, they would not have given the Minister the sort of information that he needed. The statistics do not confirm that, in general, members of the medical profession abuse their responsibilities. Generally, they do not overcharge. The only way he could prove his point was by selectively using figures and any selective figures are not statistics. On every count the Minister's defence, which he has not given, falls down. He or his staff should have known three months ago that he had breached at least his moral responsibility. His legal responsibility will be judged in other places. If there is a legal responsibility, the advice tabled in the House today by the Prime Minister is inadequate. It does not in any way exempt the Minister from responsibility for those who work under him or under his direction. If his defence is on the basis of this information being statistical, he fails on that account because the information provided was not statistical under the generally understood meaning of the term. Mr Peacock —They were doctored statistics! Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, they were doctored statistics. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is now the one who is culpable. The Minister should have tendered his resignation. He has not done so. Today the Prime Minister showed that he does not even have the fortitude of his predecessor, Mr Whitlam. At least the former honourable member for Werriwa-as Mr Whitlam was-had the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. What a sad day for Australia when neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Community Services and Health can do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.37) —This censure motion is about double standards. There can be no question about that. The moral case of the Opposition has been founded on what it believes to be its strong stand in principle on the issue of rights to privacy. If the Opposition wants to take that stand, it is entitled to have examined its record in this place on that matter since it has been established as an Opposition. Virtually since the Opposition's inception it has tried to get successive Ministers to expose in this place matters of sensitivity relating to private rights of individuals. As Special Minister of State, I had occasion to experience that for month after month when Opposition members made inquiries as to the procedures of police investigations. Opposition members never accepted from me the argument that the people who were the object of those inquiries had a right to privacy until charged. In the entire three months that the questioning went on they never accepted that there was any right to privacy. Last week in the Senate the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) refused to table the results of police inquiries. He again sought to protect the rights of the individuals concerned. Was there one whit of recognition by the Opposition of a general right to privacy which it firmly upheld? Nonsense. The Opposition is opportunist. Mr Braithwaite —It was misleading the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BEAZLEY —Opposition members seek to defend the right to privacy when it suits them and seek to expose the position of individuals when it suits them. So they come into this House in this debate with absolutely no moral authority. Let it not be forgotten that, in the events that I have been talking about, at different points in time the Opposition managed to tease onto the public record the names of the individuals concerned in the process of their inquiries. They did it quite cleverly on occasions, but they did get out the names of persons concerned in those inquiries, who then got blackguarded anyway even though subsequently nothing happened to them. Of course, it has been the direct personal experience of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) that one such event occurred to his family. So, we can look at Opposition members' offences against rights to privacy. They have been successful in ensuring that privacy has been overthrown. Whatever else one may say about this situation, one thing stands absolutely clear: there was never an intention on anybody's part to expose people's private positions. There was never any intention at any point of time to expose individuals. In fact, the opposite was the case; there was a determination that the rights of people would be protected in that regard, and constant advice and assurance were sought that this would be the case. The position is that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) gets his information from a much wider variety of sources than just the Health Insurance Commission. Yet not once has the honourable member for Canning sought to bring into any public forum, either here under the right of parliamentary privilege or outside in the general community, the information that has come into his possession on specific cases of doctors involved in overcharging. In this regard, too, no exposure has been given to any matter in a public forum that would enable identification to be made of the doctors in this case. There we have the contrasting positions. We have seen the position of members of the Liberal Party Opposition on privacy when it relates to matters which it suits them to raise in this place. They will do it again; we can be absolutely certain that, before this Parliament is out in a couple of years time, there will be instances when they will come in here and argue that the right of the public to know overrides the right to privacy. They will do that as sure as night follows day. There will be a 24-hour memory applying to that, as there has been in the case before us today. So let us dismiss from the outset the sort of extreme unction with which the Opposition has pursued its policy on the issue of privacy. It is absolute cant. We now come to the question of the responsibility of Ministers and where Ministers ought to be entitled to sit while investigations are under way into matters concerning their departments. What we have here is a dramatic instance of double standards which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) sought to glide over lightly. He chose to make an exception for the position of a former Minister for Primary Ministry in the meat substitution case. He sought to glide over that by saying that in that case the Minister had tendered his resignation and had it rejected. I remind the right honourable gentleman that in this censure motion we are not discussing the position of the Minister for Community Services and Health. The reason we are not discussing the position of the Minister is that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) shot his bolt last night by moving a censure motion against him, without information, and therefore under Standing Orders the Opposition cannot move another in this place. That is how sensibly members of the Opposition pursue the parliamentary procedures. That is why that matter cannot be considered here today. The question was asked: `But what did the Prime Minister do about it?' The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did precisely nothing. Mr Sinclair —That is right. He did precisely nothing. Mr BEAZLEY —He came into this place and defended the Minister. It is a censure motion on the Prime Minister today, not a censure motion on the Minister concerned, so that point of the argument is entirely irrelevant. Mr Sinclair —That is right. That is why we are censuring him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —That is right. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —If the Opposition had stuck to the standard that it now seeks to impose on us with regard to whether Ministers should remain in place while investigations on matters concerning their portfolios are under way, there would scarcely have been a Minister in an administrative position when the Opposition was in government. Mr Sinclair —You would not have any Ministers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —You wouldn't have any Ministers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr BEAZLEY —There would scarcely have been a Minister in an administrative position for the entire 7 1/2 years the Opposition was in government. Mr Nixon was not required to stand aside when an investigation of the meat substitution scandal was under way, while that royal commission was under way. Mr Howard —He did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BEAZLEY —When the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was under way, investigating aspects of the administration of the Attorney-General's Department, Senator Durack was not required to stand aside while that investigation took place. When it became clear that the Costigan inquiry went directly to matters concerning the Treasurer's portfolio, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who was then Treasurer, was not required to stand aside while those inquiries proceeded. We have heard only cant over the last half an hour, as if Opposition members stand opposite wrapped in a white sheet of public propriety while we stand here blackened and besmeared by a failure to take appropriate action on ministerial responsibility. We are satisfied to live by the standards by which the Opposition has managed to live. We are happy enough to go through that process on the issue of privacy-although I must say we do take that slightly more seriously than the Opposition-and we are happy to be judged by the standards instituted by the Opposition on the question of ministerial responsibility when it was in government. Members of the Opposition seek to skate over the question of the statement made by the Managing Director of the Health Insurance Commission, who wrote to Minister Blewett about whether or not the material released constituted statistics in the circumstances in which they were being released. The Leader of the Opposition managed to come in here and say that the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General in no way countered anything that members of the Opposition had said in this regard last night. What nonsense! I had to sit here through their miserable performances last night. They repeatedly suggested in this place that the Minister was directly legally culpable. They were not wandering around the place saying that he was not directly legally culpable but only morally culpable-which is what they have been arguing here today. Today they do not dare argue against the position of the Solicitor-General on whether or not the Minister is legally culpable. They have decided to skid over the question of legal culpability and move to asserting that perhaps he is morally culpable for the administration of affairs in his Department. I have already dealt with that issue and where Opposition members stand on such interpretations. They have been effectively answered in that regard. They have also been answered in regard to the Minister's administration of his Department both on the question of privacy and on the sort of advice tendered to the Minister. I will go through that again because I think it is appropriate here. It is worth while reminding the House and anybody who happens to be listening of exactly what the Managing Director had to say. He said: Last year the Commission supplied your office with information about the charging behaviour of a sample of different specialist groups and this information was the basis of Mr Gear's public statements. The information supplied to your office did not identify either the doctors or their patients. It was in the form of statistical data which may be released by the Commission where the information does not identity an individual patient or practitioner (Section 135 (5) of the Health Insurance Act refers). This is the section under which statistical information is provided to requesting organisations including the Australian Medical Association. I suggest that that is not a bad position on which a Minister can stand on the question of whether he has properly exercised his responsibilities. He asked whether the data that had been passed via his office to the honourable member for Canning was appropriate within the framework of the Act under which the Health Insurance Commission operates. He got back the advice from the people concerned with this-well before it had become a matter of public dispute in this place-and the advice was that it emphatically was. This morning the Leader of the Opposition found himself dancing on the spit prepared for him by George Negus, who began to get to the nub of the matter, which is the extent to which the Leader of the Opposition ought to be taken seriously on this. The interviewer, George Negus, persistently put this point to him: But the public might like to know whether or not the information rather than the names of the doctors is true, that some doctors in fact have been charging six times the scheduled fee-isn't that in the long run as great a concern to the public as what you're saying? The Leader of the Opposition danced around that question. Negus came back with the question: Isn't it reasonable to blackguard doctors if they're charging six times the fee? Then the Leader of the Opposition said: It is reasonable to give legitimate information, but is it legitimate to selectively leak information? The Leader of the Opposition conceded to Negus that it was legitimate to give legitimate information. What advice did the Minister for Community Services and Health have? The advice was that what his office had was legitimate information. That was the position on which the Minister was operating-the fact that he had received legitimate information. The Opposition cannot get away from that fact. It was recognised by the Minister, before anybody on the other side of the chamber had recognised it, that there was a possibility that the information that had been supplied to him may have been flawed. That is why he took the action he did the other day. He took that appropriate action immediately, in a timely way, and not under pressure to ensure that his administration of the position was appropriate. In addition to that, he has put in train an appropriate investigation into affairs in his Department that will arrive at a conclusion that a Minister should, obviously, actively seek. The Prime Minister has done his duty in seeking to inform himself on whether the Minister for Community Services and Health committed any legal breaches. He has received that information. He has done all that is required of him. The Minister for Community Services and Health in this affair has done all that is required of him in his efforts to protect both the public interest and the interests of the private individuals concerned. There is no case for censure. We can dismiss this motion out of hand. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, 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.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrews, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N.A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N.A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. 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. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam SPEAKER —On 23 February the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) raised a matter concerning the failure of the air-conditioning system in Parliament House yesterday and whether legionnaire's disease had been diagnosed in part of the air-conditioning system in Parliament House. In response to the first matter, there was a failure in the air-conditioning plant during the day on 23 February which caused the loss to the system of chilled water to cool the air being circulated. While the fault was identified and rectified during the day, the temperature build-up while the system was down, because of the aged system in use in this House, was not able to be quickly rectified. The air-conditioning plant was put on override overnight and temperatures had been returned to normal levels by the morning of 24 February. In response to the second matter, tests for legionella bacteria have been undertaken on water cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning systems in Parliament House since 1981. Regular dumping of the water, scrubbing of the tanks and dosing with approved chemicals have been maintained. During tests in October 1987, very low levels of legionella bacteria-10 colony forming units per millilitre-were reported in the Prime Minister's and East Block water cooling towers. I have been informed reliably that this level was too low to pose a health hazard. The opinion was based on advice from a microbiologist and a technical information paper issued by the Mechanical Branch of the then Department of Housing and Construction in April 1987, entitled Measures to Control Legionnaire's Disease Hazards in Buildings, which advises that the maintenance procedures are satisfactory where colony counts in the order 0 to 20 colony forming units per millilitre are found. Nevertheless, upon receipt of the test results, the contents of both water cooling towers were dumped, the tanks scrubbed and further chemical dosing was carried out. Further testing was carried out during January this year and inquiries by the Parliament's chief engineer this morning chasing up the test results for this latest testing have brought to light evidence of legionella bozemanii, a non-pathogenic legionella bacteria. The microbiologist engaged by the testing firm, Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd of Sydney, stressed to the Parliament's chief engineer that legionella bozemanii is non-pathogenic and should not be confused with legionella pneumophila, which is the bacteria associated with the commonly-named legionnaire's disease. I further inform the House that the latest decontamination of the Parliament's water cooling tower system was carried out on 30 January 1988. The Parliament's chief engineer has arranged for the Water Treatment Manager of Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd of Sydney to meet with him on 25 February to see whether any further measures or procedures can be undertaken. Arrangements are also being made for an inspection and report on appropriate preventative measures to be undertaken with regard to the new Parliament House air-conditioning system. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed on the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australia-China Council-Annual Report 1986-87. Australian Institute of Sport-Annual Report 1986-87-section 38 of the Australian Institute of Sport Act 1986 and section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. The National Standards Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-section 19c of the National Measurement Act 1960. Parliament House Construction Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WHITE —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr WHITE —During Question Time the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) asked the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) a question about $300m to be returned by the Department of Defence this year and then quoted me as saying that the Navy would suffer most. I have never said a word or issued a Press release on this matter and, as is only too common these days, the Minister for Defence got it wrong again. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Griffiths,Mr Jenkins,Mr Mildren and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners request that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. by Mr Dawkins. 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 Milton and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beazley and Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that there is (other than for false declaration, or for items refused classification) no penalty for the importation of child pornography, (and other banned goods), other than confiscation; And being appalled that there is (other than for sale hire publishing or for distribution), no penalty for the possession of child pornography in private homes or premises; do ask you to: 1. Legislate through the Customs Act and Prohibited Import Regulations, and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, to establish severe penalties and imprisonment for such objectionable importation, and for such objectionable possession. 2. Restore the bans on obscenity in the A.C.T. 3. Release the Report from the Video Inquiry, for which we have waited 2 1/2 years. Because such print and audio-visual goods are promotional, and because incest is therefore increasing, and because children should have your care through strong legal deterrence, for we are all responsible for all children all the time. 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 Beazley and Dr Charlesworth. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small business and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to 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. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that Fringe Benefits Tax; Capital Gains Tax; Dividend Imputation; Negative gearing; Foreign tax credits; and Substantiation legislation be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these requests, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economic will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth that we totally oppose Telecom's plan to charge local telephone calls according to their length. That we call upon the government to reject the time charge proposal and maintain the current charging system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: The Federal Government has done nothing to ease concerns that it will support Telecom's plans to introduce timed charges for local calls; and Call upon the Government to undertake that such plans will not be implemented. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that Australian citizens are concerned at the leniency of penalties imposed on perpetrators of crimes involving traumatic injury and death to the victims. Your Petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should reintroduce a mandatory death penalty for the perpetrators of such crimes. by Dr Charlesworth. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows that the petitioners are concerned that the Minister for Health proposes to delete from the Medical Benefits Schedule those item numbers covering the treatment of sun-damaged skin and warts by specialists. They fear that those patients suffering chronically from these problems cannot always be treated successfully by a general practitioner. They protest that they will be financially disadvantaged. They also realise that their problem require early detection and expert treatment, if the petitioners are not to be exposed to increased risk of skin and other cancers. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and permit the abovementioned items in the medical schedule to be reinstated. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned by the threat to social morality and the welfare of children, posed by the unrestricted importation, distribution and sale of X-rated pornographic video material in and from the Australian Capital Territory. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should recognise our concern and reverse its amendments to 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 Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: We 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 assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That we, the undersigned, believing that Parliament should investigate: (1) the anguish caused to the general public in relation to timed local calls (2) The illogic of timed local calls in regard to general ``pleasantries'' involved in conversation (3) The public will pay for poor business management, or extension call delays, when calls are channelled through various sources (4) The trauma that the house-bound and invalids will suffer through the loss of phone contact (5) The number of suicides that may increase because Life-line calls will be ``out of reach'' (6) The indignity caused to pensioners and lower income groups who are fighting a losing battle against rising costs (7) Voluntary organisations and honorary office holders on committees will be penalised (8) The users of facsimile machines and similar services should be the ones to pay for these services Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the Government give regard to these eight reasons why timed local charge calls should not be introduced and rescind any decision to introduce timed local calls by Telecom Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. The Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. 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 operators. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned with the proposed introduction of time cost in the use of telephones which will result in the following: 1. Extra unfair cost to the private user in general-particularly the elderly who use this means of communication as a necessity of life! 2. Unjust restrictions on those who may be handicapped or lack mobility. 3. Untimely delays when obtaining information or contact with Government Departments and or businesses with the subsequent ``hold on'' or transfer time. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will take necessary measures to ensure that the Australian community-dependent on telephone communications-is in no way disadvantaged by any changes to Telecom's pricing system. And we, your petitioners as is duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the post office at 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and the assembled members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the concerned members of St John's Lutheran Church, Perth, Western Australia, respectfully brings to your attention. 1. that the Federal Government is considering the abolition of the Broadcasting Tribunal and T.V. Standards Control 2. we consider there is need for more control, not less control, over the material shown on television programmes. Your petitioners therefore pray 1. that the Federal Government reconsiders its intention to abolish the two bodies 2. the Federal Government amalgamate the two bodies and give the new body wider power to stem the flood of undesirable film and video material transmitted to television receivers in our homes. by Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable The Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament we the residents of the Division of Dobell draws to the attention of the House the fact that recipients of Social Security and Veteran's Affairs pensions are required to pay income tax once non-pension income exceeds $3.72 per week. Your petitioners request that Parliament increase the Income Tax Pensioner Rebate for Social Security and Veteran's Affairs Pensioners. by Mr Lee. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to individual privacy posed by the Hawke Government. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) 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.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright. K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N.A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Kerr, D. J. C. Halverson, R. G.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Duffy, M. J. Woodridge, M. R. L.Morris, Peter Lloyd, B.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third report of 1988, relating to the upgrade of army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr HOLLIS —by leave-The bulk of the Army's living-in accommodation is well below the 1973 services scales and standards. The proposal before the Committee was for the upgrading to the current standards of some 118 accommodation buildings in various locations Australia-wide to provide 4,568 single bedrooms. Although Defence does not have specific evidence relating standards of accommodation to morale and wastage rates, a 1986 soldier attitude opinion survey showed that some 61 per cent were less than satisfied with their living-in accommodation. The Committee is of the view that the upgrading of accommodation will help to improve soldier attitudes. While the Committee appreciates that it is difficult for the construction period to be shortened, it believes that every means should be taken to ensure completion of the program on time. The Committee intends to monitor closely the progress of these works. I commend the work to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.24) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 3 (1988). I move these proposals in terms of the printed proposals now being circulated to honourable members in an expectant and hushed House. The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1987. Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1-3 (1988) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. The changes contained in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 and 2 (1988) were operative on and from 1 January 1988-a welcome contribution to the Bicentennial. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1988) increase the excise duty on aviation gasoline by 0.5c per litre. The increase in duty is to offset the revenue foregone as a result of the revised charging arrangements for general aviation aircraft at Essendon, Coolangatta and Launceston airports. These changes were announced by the Government on 22 December 1987. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1988) contain the complementary alteration to the Customs Tariff Act 1987. These proposals also include amendments resulting from the Government's decision taken on the import parity pricing adjustment of 14 December 1987. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1988) contain a number of amendments. The first set of amendments implements the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's (IAC) reports on the glass and glassware industry, medical and scientific equipment and the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries. In each case the Government has accepted the IAC's recommendations for an industry-wide rate of 15 per cent for most products. The arrangements will be phased in on a `Tops Down Basis'. The second group introduces amendments to implement certain changes in accordance with Australia's international trade obligations. Thirdly, a series of amendments are introduced in the context of the current textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1988) reflect alterations made to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 which had not been included in the principal Act. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1988) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1988) were operative on and from 3 February 1988. These proposals provide the basis to limit the total indexation increase for August 1987 and February 1988 to around 6 per cent. This accords with the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his Ruby Hutchison Memorial Address on 13 March 1987. I commend the proposals to the House. Mr McGauran —What about the petrol strike in Victoria? What are you doing about it? Mr BARRY JONES —It is a State matter. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is one of two Bills which are being introduced to establish standby research levy arrangements for the egg industry. The intention to do so was foreshadowed last year in the second reading speech on the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987. Under current arrangements for research sponsored by the egg industry with the aid of matching Commonwealth grants, egg producers contribute towards research through a levy imposed on their operative hen quota issued under State or Territory law. While these arrangements are the least costly way of raising the funds required, they depend on State hen quota systems remaining in operation. Abolition of hen quotas by any State will render the existing levy inoperable. As a precaution against such an eventuality, it is necessary to provide an alternative mechanism for securing producer contributions to research that could be brought into operation at short notice. The mechanism agreed on with industry is a levy on chickens hatched for egg production. A similar levy on chickens hatched for meat production provides industry contributions to the chicken meat research scheme. Against that background, I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House. Under the Bill, a levy is to be imposed on laying chickens hatched after the date on which the levy is brought into operation. The levy will be payable by the proprietor of the hatchery. Laying chickens are defined as female chickens that are to be raised for egg production. In accordance with the wishes of the industry, it is provided that the standby levy will be brought into operation on a date to be set by proclamation, which is to be not earlier than recommended by the Australian Council of Egg Producers. Where a hatchery produces less than 1,000 laying chickens in a financial year levy will not be payable. Similarly, laying chickens which are destroyed or die within 48 hours of being hatched are also exempt from levy. A maximum levy rate of 10c per chicken is provided for in the Bill, with the operative level to be set by regulation after considering recommendations from the Australian Council of Egg Producers. The level set cannot exceed the recommended rate. The maximum rate of 10c per laying chicken is the same as the maximum rate per quota hen which is specified in the hen quota levy legislation. Under that legislation, the current operative rate is 3.25c per quota hen. The operative rate for the laying chicken levy would be fixed in the light of advice by the industry at the time, after consideration of research requirements. Arrangements for the collection of the proposed levy have been provided for in a separate Bill which I will presently place before the House. The sole purpose of the standby levy arrangements is to ensure that an alternative levy mechanism is ready for use if and when needed, so that the ongoing egg research program is not deprived of funding for a prolonged period. Accordingly, no new financial commitments for the Commonwealth or industry are involved, although there would be some increase in collection costs to government and clerical costs for industry. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(4.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for the collection of the levy which may need to be imposed under the Laying Chicken Levy Bill, if the occasion arises, in place of the existing levy for egg research. As mentioned in the second reading speech on the Laying Chicken Levy Bill, similar levy arrangements exist for meat chicken research funding. In the main, levy payers will be the same in both cases and provisions of this Bill are consistent with the provisions of the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act 1969. Over the years, the industry has developed highly specialised strains of poultry for meat and egg production respectively. The two types of bird are quite distinct in their characteristics, and different husbandry practices are employed in their raising from the point of hatching. It is intended that chickens of the meat strain be levied under the meat chicken levy and those of the egg strain be levied under the laying chicken levy. Like the meat chicken levy, the laying chicken levy is to be collected by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy on chickens hatched during a month, with two months being allowed for payment. Apart from this, the Bill contains administrative arrangements of a kind needed in all levy legislation. Where appropriate, the arrangements have been harmonised with industry practice. Clause 19 of the Bill is a deeming provision enabling the proceeds of the laying chicken levy to be channelled into the Poultry Research Trust Fund, which is the present repository of funds for egg research. The provision is necessary because the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 requires that where a new research levy is introduced, a research council and a trust fund be established. This is not desired in the present case as a new levy is merely to replace an old one, and it is intended to make use of the existing Poultry Research Council and Trust Fund. The deeming provision makes that possible. Since the levy on laying chickens would be paid monthly rather than twice a year, as is the case with the existing hen quota levy, its introduction would bring some increases in clerical costs for both industry and the Commonwealth. However, in many cases the levy would be paid by those already paying meat chicken levy; that is, hatchery owners producing both types of chickens, and increased administrative costs to them should be minimal because of synchronised payments and use of data already kept. Similarly, collection costs to the Government would rise only to a moderate extent. I present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill and commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(4.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 are in part II of the Bill. The primary purpose of the amendments to the National Crime Authority Act is to repeal section 63, the sunset clause. This will ensure the continued existence of the National Crime Authority (NCA) beyond 30 June 1989 and meets a commitment made as part of the Government's election platform. The decision to continue the Authority beyond 30 June 1989 is a recognition of the valuable and innovative role which the Authority has played thus far in the fight against organised crime. In the last four years, the Authority has demonstrated the effectiveness of the task force approach in this fight. This approach used teams of highly skilled lawyers, accountants and police investigators endowed with special powers beyond those available to police. The impact of the NCA has been felt in the areas of drug trafficking, white collar crime and the corruption of public officials. The other critical aspect of the NCA's operations is the support it enjoys from all States and the Northern Territory which participate in the Inter-Governmental Committee on the National Crime Authority chaired by the Commonwealth. As well as references from the Commonwealth, the Authority currently has one or more references from five States and the Northern Territory. The Government's intention to repeal the sunset clause was communicated to the State and Northern Territory ministerial representatives at the last meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee on the NCA, who expressed their continued support for the Authority and noted the need to amend their own government's underpinning legislation. Clause 4 incorporates some related and consequential amendments to the terms of office of the Chairman and members of the Authority. The Government is proposing to recommend to the Governor-General that the present Chairman of the Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, be reappointed for a period of one year from the date of the expiration of his present term of office, that is, 30 June 1988. The Government considers that the Authority will clearly benefit from continuity of leadership and direction in the period of adjustment and consolidation following the repeal of the sunset clause. Accordingly, the Government sought Mr Justice Stewart's agreement to an extension of his term of appointment. Mr Justice Stewart has agreed to the proposed reappointment on the basis that the extension would be for one year only. In proposing the reappointment, the Government is conscious of the importance of the contribution made by Mr Justice Stewart to the Authority's establishment and work thus far. It looks to him to set the Authority on a solid foundation now that its future is assured. At the same time, the Government believes that, as a general principle, the existing four-year limitation on the term of appointment of members of the Authority and the prohibition on the reappointment of members should be retained. Consequently, clause 4 contains transitional provisions which specifically provide for the reappointment of Mr Justice Stewart for one year only. These provisions also enable the reappointment of the other two members of the Authority beyond the date of effect of the sunset clause when their terms of appointment under the principal Act were to expire, provided that their total term of appointment does not exceed four years from the date of their initial appointment. This provision will similarly provide a level of continuity of experience and direction for the Authority. Clause 4 contains a further amendment which makes clear that appointments of less than four years are possible. This introduces the necessary flexibility into the Act to accommodate the possibility that a person suitably qualified to be appointed as a member may not be in a position to accept a four year term of appointment. Part III of the Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. There are two substantive amendments contained in part III. At the request of judges of the Federal Court, an amendment is to be made to section 6d, which deals with eligible judges under the Act. The amendment will ensure that eligible judges, in the performance of a function or power conferred on an eligible judge by the principal Act, will have the same protection and immunity that as a justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court. This will replace a more limited protection now provided by the sub-section, and will give eligible judges the same protection they have when sitting as judges. The other main amendment will require the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to keep certified copies of warrants, and of instruments revoking warrants, issued under part IV of the principal Act. These warrants authorise the interception of telegrams. The purpose of the amendment is to remove an apparent incompatibility in provisions dealing with the manner in which these warrants are handled. The amendments will make it clear that part IV warrants and instruments of revocation are to be delivered to the managing director of Telecom, with the AFP retaining a certified copy. Two other minor drafting amendments are also made to the principal Act. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make three amendments to the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, each resulting from developments since the last major revision of the Act in 1986. The Government continues to attach great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively achieving its aim of providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders. The first of the proposed amendments provides that a corporation, and in some cases an individual, shall not, in trade or commerce, falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. This amendment clarifies the scope of the prohibitions contained in paragraphs 53 (a) and (aa) of the Act. Justice Ryan of the Federal Court of Australia, in Ducret v. Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd (1987) ATPR 40-804, indicated that a representation as to value may be a representation as to quality as defined in existing section 53; but whether it does or not depends upon the facts of each case. This amendment should remove any doubt that section 53 prohibits false representations as to the value of goods or services. A number of States have enacted or are about to enact fair trading legislation which mirrors the provisions of part V, division 1 of the Trade Practices Act. This State legislation, promoted through the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers, extends the operation of the consumer protection provisions to cover all traders, whether corporate or not. The Government strongly supports the development of such complementary uniform legislation, and has advised the States of the proposed amendment to section 53. The second amendment proposes the repeal of section 65u of the Act. That section is a sunset clause on the application of the product safety and product information provisions in the Act to food and drink for human consumption, which will take effect on 1 July 1988. Section 65u was originally inserted at the request of some sectors of the food industry in order to give the States the opportunity to put specific food recall legislation in place. These industry sectors argued at that time that food recalls should be controlled under State food law rather than under the Trade Practices Act. Division 1a of part V of the Act is concerned with product safety standards, the banning of unsafe consumer products and the recall of consumer products with safety related defects. The essential elements of the recall provisions are mandatory notification of safety-related product recalls, and a reserve power to require further recall action if there is evidence that voluntary recall procedures have not removed the risk to consumer safety. Foods and beverages are essential consumer products and, to provide the level of consumer protection from health and safety risks which consumers reasonably expect, it is not desirable to omit foods and beverages from the reach of the Act. Unless, of course, it was clear that food and beverage safety, particularly in relation to recalls, was assured by some other protection mechanism. This is not the case. The hoped for uniform recall legislation at State level has not eventuated. I am advised that, at present, some States do not have specific food recall powers and that, in any case, existing State powers are not uniform. Food and beverage distribution is of a national character. State borders are artificial in such a national market. Even in the case of so called local food products, one can never be sure that a potentially lethal food product has not crossed a State border. Australians travel interstate extensively, and food purchased in one State may be consumed in another. Cities and towns close to borders are often supplied food and beverages from the adjoining State. If a safety-related recall becomes necessary, the recall is generally national in character and national co-ordination of such recalls is essential. If section 65u is not repealed, the Commonwealth would not necessarily even know of a food safety problem, and the recall may be conducted on a State basis with little or no co-ordination to ensure national consumer protection. As mentioned previously, not to repeal section 65u would have the effect of removing foods and beverages from the scope of division 1a of the Act entirely from 1 July 1988. That is, not only would the recall powers of the Act not apply to food and beverages, but the power to prevent the supply of unsafe food products would also be lost. This would be a cause for great concern, as it would mean that the Commonwealth would be powerless to prevent the supply of a food product clearly shown to threaten the health and safety of consumers. There is a clear and very reasonable expectation by Australians that the Commonwealth would be able to protect consumers nationally from unsafe consumer goods, including unsafe foods and beverages. This is not to say that the States do not have a legitimate role in food safety. Indeed, the States have a primary role in this regard, particularly through the adoption of the Australian food standards code, and State health and food inspection systems. However, the reserve ability to protect consumers nationally from defective foods and beverages, just as for any other product, should remain with the Commonwealth under the Trade Practices Act. The last amendment is administrative in nature, resulting from the transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of part V, division 1a of the Act from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Consistent with the practice of the Commission, the amendment will allow persons authorised by the Secretary to the Department to institute prosecutions for alleged contraventions of the Act without being required to obtain the prior consent in writing of the Minister. The usual requirement to obtain Ministerial consent ensures that private prosecutions for contraventions of the Act are only instituted in accordance with the Commonwealth's prosecution policy. There is no need for this requirement when prosecutions are commenced by officers from the Commonwealth agencies responsible for the enforcement of the Act, such as the Federal Bureau. Financial Impact Statement The proposals in this Bill will not require any additional expenditure by the Government. Any additional work involved in ensuring compliance with the amended provisions of the Act should be capable of being absorbed by existing resources. Further, the proposals will not impose any new costs on industry, as this Bill does not place any regulatory burden on business other than that which has existed since the last major revision of the Act in 1986. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Punch, and read a first time. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Norfolk Island Act to enable the Norfolk Island Government to appoint its own auditor to audit the public accounts of the Territory of Norfolk Island. At present, the Act requires the accounts to be audited by the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth. The proposed amendments will enable the Norfolk Island Administrator-on the advice of the Legislative Assembly-to appoint a person or firm to be the Norfolk Island Government Auditor and to set the terms and conditions of the Auditor's employment. Only a person who is, or a firm at least one member of which is, registered as an auditor under Commonwealth or Norfolk Island companies legislation may be appointed as Auditor. The Bill enables the Commonwealth Auditor-General or a State Auditor-General to accept appointment. The Auditor will audit the accounts of the Norfolk Island Administration and the accounts of Territory authorities, other than authorities for which separate audit requirements exist under Territory legislation. The Bill imposes appropriate duties on the Auditor and includes provisions designed to ensure the independence of the Auditor and access to relevant documents and information. The Bill also makes provision for the Legislative Assembly to set auditing standards to be complied with by the Auditor. In setting such standards the Assembly will be required to have regard to the auditing standards set by the Commonwealth Auditor-General under the Audit Act and by the relevant professional accounting bodies. The Auditor will report to the President of the Assembly, who will be required to table the report in the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor will also provide a copy of the report to the Administrator to send to the Commonwealth Minister administering the Norfolk Island Act. This latter provision will ensure that the Minister remains appropriately informed of the financial affairs of the Administration and Territory authorities. The Norfolk Island Act of 1979 established a framework for self-government in the Territory, including a Legislative Assembly and exercise of executive powers. As foreshadowed in the Act, the self-government powers of the Territory have been extended since that Act was passed. The proposed amendments will further enlarge the Territory's self-government powers in a significant area of responsibility. The proposed amendments have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(4.55) —Before lunch I called for a ministerial statement on the future of intrastate air services in New South Wales, particularly to Grafton and other northern New South Wales centres following the proposal that Australian Airlines would purchase the services previously operated by East-West Airlines Ltd. These services are part of the divestment requirement of the Trade Practices Commission. It now seems that the interest of Australian Airlines and other parties is not in fact in purchasing but merely in picking up the routes by way of State licence. This is a curious twist to the whole saga because it means that TNT-News Ltd, having purchased East-West and having then been directed by the Trade Practices Commission to divest a part of that operation, is not able to enjoy the commercial aspect of a purchaser-that is, picking up the section of the service that the Trade Practices Commission requires it to divest. Of course that must throw into the ring the whole question of the respective policies of both Federal-in respect of the Trade Practices Commission and the provision of airports and navigation services that are so essential for licensed airline operations-and State licensing. Basically, for that reason I believe that in the consideration of this legislation before the House it is timely that a comprehensive ministerial statement be made on the vexed question of the future of the intrastate airline services in New South Wales and Western Australia. There is no question that the record of the service provided by East-West Airlines for more than 20 years has now been cast aside by the bureaucrats. It has become simply a matter of suggesting that there be the bartering under a hotchpotch arrangement of part of a viable air service network. It means, in effect, that there will not be an interest on the part of any operator that could envisage a viable operation as part of a network. It merely becomes a proposition for two or three ports serving three or four communities in northern New South Wales to be taken up by some unknown party, at this stage, with Australian Airlines continuing to be given immense mention in the whole gamut of the proposition. If we are dealing with the future of Australian Airlines, this must surely be the first substantive matter that comes under attention. There is one interesting aspect: one of the requirements of the Trade Practices Commission is that about 33 per cent of the eastern airline capital should be taken over by another party because East-West Airlines previously held a 33 per cent interest. As we understand it, the party that will take that over is Australian Airlines. Again, there is no positive information as to what is really happening. My concern is that a supplementary air service can operate only small aircraft and is not permitted to operate aircraft larger than those with a capacity of about 30 seats. Freight capacity is limited by the use of small aircraft and local regional centres such as Grafton would not have the usual reliable delivery of newspapers, mail, goods, spare parts and other urgently required cargo which is the normal part of the loading of an aircraft serving such a centre. These are matters of very real concern. For example, it is a frequent requirement that consignments of blood be delivered to regional areas of New South Wales by air services. If we are to lose the traditional F27 aircraft, there will not be the cargo capacity for these essential services to country areas in that State. I deplore the whole sorry state of the present situation. Promises of greater frequency of flights may seem attractive on the part of supplementary airlines but a superficial assessment of this alone is insufficient. The real trap is in picking off these centres one by one and saying, `Oh well, you can have a supplementary airline'. That is just not good enough for major regional centres in New South Wales. It would mean that once a supplementary service was licensed there would be little hope for future growth or improvement of that service. Australian Airlines has a pretty poor record of serving regional areas in Queensland and in Western Australia. On the other hand, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has a commendable record. It is an interesting comparison. It is one that time does not permit me to traverse to a great extent this afternoon. If there is to be deregulation, let us look very seriously at what has happened in South Australia over the last few years. Services from Adelaide to the various centres in South Australia required between four and six F27 aircraft. Under deregulation a flock of small aircraft arrived. I think 11 services are now being operated by supplementary airlines. There is no sign of the larger aircraft. The unpressurised small aircraft are unable to provide the sorts of services essential for tourism and for a worthwhile commercial service to major centres. We certainly do not want that in New South Wales. A similar history applies in Queensland. There is a great lesson to be learned from the experience of deregulation in the United States of America. The consequences of deregulation there are that the major airlines have concentrated on trunk routes in great competition. It is all very well to be able to buy a ticket from New York to Los Angeles for less than $100. But look at what that competition has done to the viability of the major airlines. It has meant that they have dropped all the regional services. Others have attempted to take them over, but have not succeeded. There are now centres of population of up to 40,000 people in the United States with no air services. Where commuter services are still operating, the fares have risen enormously. The fares are well out of reach of the ordinary commuter. That is not good enough. If that is the lesson from deregulation in the United States, beware provincial Australia of what could happen if we go willy-nilly into deregulation without some recognition of the consequences: the loss of cross-subsidisation and the loss of the structuring of the air services of the sort that we have had traditionally for the last 25 or 30 years. I certainly support the legislation, and I recognise and support the amendment moved from this side of the House. But I repeat the words of caution that I expressed both before lunch and in this resumption of the debate. We have a duty to regional Australia to maintain traditional services. The same applies to parts of Tasmania. It would be a tragedy if we thought only about deregulation and great support for Australian Airlines without recognising what is required in terms of an undertaking, an arrangement, a plan, to maintain a network of effective air services in Australia because of the very great need. I hope that the Government will take seriously the current situation and endeavour to recognise the fundamental needs before it is too late. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(5.04) —Following the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, notice of termination of the 1981 airlines agreement was issued in October of last year. Of course, the Government saw as an essential element of that deregulated environment the need for a strong, viable and efficient Australian Airlines. In order to provide such effective competition across the trunk route network, this legislation has been introduced. It will allow Australian to prepare for its future role. The principal function of the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill is to establish the airline as a public company, to provide for the reorganisation of the airline into a more appropriate structure prior to that incorporation and to remove detailed government controls on the airline's operations. Of course, as a public company, Australian will come under the normal provisions of companies legislation relating to the control, performance, accountability and reporting of its activities. There are many aspects contained in this Bill which will have to be sorted out between now and the deeming of the public company, and indeed in the transitional period afterwards. There are staffing matters relating to the conversion and the reorganisation within the company. Of course, many staff members who are in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme have to be cared for. We must ensure that they are not disadvantaged by this change. There is a necessity for flexibility in the company structure to improve the efficiency of management. The transfer of assets and liabilities is an important aspect in the transitional period and this is taken into account in the legislation. On top of that, the Bill provides for the removal of a number of government day to day controls which will now allow for the streamlining of management. In addition, the legislation takes into account the setting up of a structural adjustment committee during the transitional stages which, hopefully, will remove some of the broader controls over the airline's operations, including those relating to Loan Council borrowing limits and industrial relations arrangements which presently exist. All of these things are, of course, directed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Australian Airlines. In this very wide-ranging debate we have heard much discussion about the various aspects of Australian Airlines' efficiency and past performance. Indeed, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), said that this legislation is the same as the legislation introduced in 1981 by the then Government, now the Opposition. It is important for us to say that the repeal in 1984 of the 1981 legislation took place in an entirely different environment from that in which we find ourselves now. In 1983, at a time when the airline industry was experiencing many difficulties, there was very low morale in Australian Airlines. Indeed, it was in quite a parlous state. If one looks at attachment C of Senator Evans's discussion paper, from which many people have quoted in this debate, we see that during 1982 and 1983 the performance of Australian Airlines was very disappointing. Since the capital injection and the certainty which the Government's moves in 1984 brought about, we have seen restored profitability and improved performance from Australian, making it comparable with that of Ansett. Indeed, it was believed by the Government that it was not appropriate then for Australian Airlines to become a public company. Looking towards the deregulated environment that we are approaching, and the removal of the straitjacket which effectively had been placed on the airline industry in Australia by conservative governments, we now take the view that it is an appropriate action now. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) talked about the long-suffering Australian public and how this legislation is seven years too late. Yes, I think we are paying too much for domestic air travel in this country. But, while the honourable member for Fadden may pretend to be very concerned, one needs to look only at the history of the two-airline policy from the 1950s to see that it was the collusion of successive governments of a conservative nature which saw that policy continue year after year. While it may have served a purpose at one stage, it is very difficult for us to say that that is the case now. Indeed, in May 1981, after the conservatives had been in government for nearly six years, the then Minister for Transport made this statement to the House: The Government has also decided to establish an inquiry to undertake an objective assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of deregulating the domestic aviation environment. After those opposite had been in government for six years, they decided that they would investigate the value of deregulation. These great free marketeers, these conservatives who were all for private enterprise and opening up the skies, took six years to decide to institute an inquiry. At the same time as they instituted an inquiry in 1981 they decided that the two-airline agreement would continue for another five years, plus the mandatory three years for the termination of the agreement. Effectively they were saying after six years, `We are going to consider deregulating the skies but we will lock it up for another eight years, so there's nothing to be done about it. We will make it election-proof. We will make this agreement, which is an effective straitjacket on direct competition in our airline industry, and we will put it in place for a further eight years'. If one looks at the debate in 1981 one finds honourable members on the other side taking part in a rather phoney protest, crossing the House only in sufficient numbers not to defeat the legislation but to make their protest. I notice that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) from Western Australia and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) from Western Australia unfortunately were paired when the count was taken. Had they crossed the House with their fellow Western Australians the legislation would have been defeated. Unfortunately they were not here in the House at the time. While the other Western Australians protested most vehemently about the terrible two-airline agreement, the Government of the day had its way and the vote was won 56 to 53. Had those two Western Australians, with their pairs, voted on this side of the House that legislation would have been defeated. So it was a rather phoney protest. Mr Rocher —With their pairs? Dr CHARLESWORTH —Of course, their pairs would have voted with the Opposition, but four and 53 makes 57, on my counting, and that beats 56. As I said, in a rather phoney protest at the time, they jumped up and down and said terrible things about the two-airline agreement, that they did not want it, but at the same time they locked Australia into another eight years of that agreement. It is only this Government that has had the wherewithal to turn it about. We have heard all sorts of things in this debate about deregulation. We have heard all sorts of stories about the advantages and disadvantages. Evidence can be accumulated for both sides of the argument. In the end it is this Government that, on balance, has to make the decision according to what it sees to be the value of deregulation, and we have made that decision. When we look at the experience in the United States of America, the first thing we should consider in relation to air travel is safety. We have heard all sorts of reports about the number of recent near misses and the deterioration of safety in the United States since deregulation. It is salutary for us to look at the record since deregulation in the United States. In the eight years before 1978 there were 38 crashes in the United States causing 1,455 deaths. In the nine years since deregulation there have been 26 crashes causing 960 deaths. So the evidence does not suggest that deregulation has brought about an increase in tragedy, an increase in deaths for the travelling public. Indeed, 60 per cent more people are flying now than were flying in 1978. The figures are even more compelling and suggest that, in fact, deregulation has not brought about a deterioration in safety. That point is very important and, with Australia's outstanding record so far, it is something to which we should pay great attention. Let us look at air fares in the United States and the arguments put both ways. Only 10 per cent of people in the United States pay full fare when travelling. A much greater variety in discounts and possibilities for reductions are available there. It has been mentioned in this debate that some routes are much more expensive. I understand the concern of the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) that the services to those who live in outback areas may suffer. The experience in the United States is that that has occurred in some places and we need to be concerned about that. We have to look at services. Some suggest that there are more cancellations but others suggest that there are many more routes available. The concern of the honourable member for Page and those National Party socialists from the Opposition need not be as strong as it is. Whereas in 1978, 680 small towns in the United States were receiving services, there are now over 800 small towns receiving services. Regional airlines to small towns now carry 28.4 million passengers. In 1986 they carried 28.4 million passengers compared with 1978, when they carried 11.3 million passengers. So the evidence there is that there has been an expansion of services to small places. Australia has a different population with different distances to travel and a different set of circumstances which may not provide the same sort of result following deregulation. Clearly in the United States there has been an increase in the number of jobs available since deregulation. So there is a plus there. I hope that, whatever way we go in the future, Australia will still pay very careful attention to its safety record. Indeed, that is something of which we can be very proud. I hope that people in remote areas, those in areas within smaller populations, are able to be provided with adequate services. It is certainly one of the most important driving forces behind any government moves in that area. It is also necessary for the Government to pay attention to larger planes at the lower air fare end of the market. If we can have more `no frills' service we will be able to fly more people for less. Only 14 per cent of Australians are travelling by aeroplane. It seems to me that in a country of this size and with our economic wealth, we could be encouraging many more people to fly. The Opposition is not so sure about deregulation. Members of the National Party are very concerned that there needs to be some degree of cross-subsidisation. The honourable member for Page said that he was fearful about the future. He was particularly concerned about services in his area. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) also mentioned that cross-subsidisation was important. I hope that these people will decide what they want. At one time they are happy to support the free market, at another time they are concerned about cross-subsidisation. When we talk about telephone charges in this place we get crocodile tears from members of the Opposition, who say how shocking it would be if we were to time calls in local areas, yet it would seem that at the moment people in distant areas making STD calls are subsidising those living in the metropolitan areas. I suggest that that is probably not fair. The honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) was particularly concerned about the way in which this Government is protecting its mates from Ansett Airlines of Australia. If the honourable member had looked at the two-airline agreement and the relationship between Sir Reginald Ansett and Sir Henry Bolte, I believe those sorts of arguments would not have been part of his contribution today. He talked about the Government's factionalism. In that respect he need look only at the debates of 1981, when the then member for Curtin crossed the floor. There was disarray in the Government of the time on this issue. Of course there are a disparate number of views on this issue. It is not a clear cut issue but, on balance, the Government has decided that it is appropriate for deregulation to occur and it has taken that action. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), in a very thoughtful contribution, suggested that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) believed that international airlines should be allowed to fly the internal routes in Australia. That is an absurd proposition, and until reciprocity is provided by those other countries to which Qantas flies I believe that we should never consider such a prospect. I find it amazing that the Leader of the Opposition should suggest that we in Australia allow everybody who wants to come here to fly about to do so when we are not allowed the same sort of facility in their countries. The Bill relates basically to the future of Australian Airlines. I think there is broad agreement in the debate that there will be a need for significant capital investment in Australian Airlines over the next three to four years for it to remain viable. Indeed, the debate within our Party and in the wider community relates to how in fact we can go about doing that. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) presented one view on our side. He put forward what I thought were compelling arguments, suggesting that there was no need for Australian Airlines to be privatised in any way and that the airline was in a position where it could function very adequately and provide a very important service as a public company. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) presented the view which suggested that there are competing priorities for government expenditure and those priorities need to be considered very carefully when one talks about capital investment in Australian Airlines. The decision will be made by the Government on the very best information that is available. The capital injection in 1984 gave Australian Airlines confidence. It gave it the ability to improve its profits and performance and to take up an increased market share of the trunk routes where it competes equally with Ansett which has a much larger feeder and regional network. Australian Airlines is very competitive on the trunk routes. Indeed, there are substantial advantages in operating at the lower end of the market. The improved productivity and marketing of Australian Airlines has become evident over the last year or two. It is my personal view that probably the most appropriate action for the Government would be that of a minority interest float. That is a personal view which I express at this time on the information that I have. I would see that public majority ownership and control is desirable at the moment and I understand that that would be possible within the parameters of the amount of capital that will be required for Australian Airlines over the next few years. This would allow Australian Airlines to re-equip adequately. I believe that the monitoring by the stock exchange of a company that would be part of that procedure, involving employee participation that would necessarily be part of such a package and the lower Commonwealth contributions of capital that would be necessary, are all reasons why that would perhaps be the most appropriate way for us to go. Many other options are available and I believe that the Government will be considering them over time. Initially, this legislation does not go down the track of whether or not we will privatise. It makes Australian Airlines a more viable, economic and efficient operation. It provides the environment in which the Government can clearly make a decision as to which approach it will take in the future. It removes some of the constraints under which Australian Airlines presently operates. I hope that it will provide Australian Airlines with the capacity to face the future very confidently. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.24) —The government-owned national airline which has traded as Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) and Australian Airlines since 1945 was a creation of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). It was part of a series of measures which were aimed at an extensive nationalisation of parts of Australian industry. The Australian people were saved from this disastrous path, which incidentally Britain took to her great cost, by the wisdom of our Constitution, the sound decisions of the High Court of Australia and the election of the first Liberal led Menzies Government. To the extent that the civil aviation system in Australia at present has any competition on the major trunk routes, the Liberal Party of Australia and its coalition colleagues are responsible. That is not to say that the status quo is desirable, because clearly it is not. At the same time I have to acknowledge that none of the major parties has made major changes to this undesirable situation despite each of them having had ample opportunity to do so. The impetus for change began within the Liberal Party. The privatisation of Australian Airlines, as well as an end to the two-airline policy and extensive deregulation, have been advocated within the Liberal Party for some years now. Indeed, as the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) mentioned, I can claim, along with the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and a few others who are still in this Parliament, to have voted against my own Government's legislation in 1981. That legislation resulted in an extension of the two-airline agreement. The honourable member, probably due to the fact that the he was not here at the time, made references which have no basis in truth. I would like to remind him and the House that the option I took is not open to him or to other honourable members of the Labor Party. They simply cannot follow their conscience. Under pain of disqualification from their Party, they simply cannot vote in a way which represents their views and the views of their electorates. If the ALP is now making moves, however slowly, towards deregulating aviation, it is going to be that much easier to get the support which is needed. It is curious, to the point of being amusing, to note the various reasons and rationale given by Government members for supporting this legislation, the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. It seems that none of them are prepared to commit themselves to the obvious step of privatisation in this instance, and statutory trading concerns owned by the Government in some other instances, for fear of retribution at an up-coming conference of the Australian Labor Party. Nevertheless, some progress has been made. It is long past the time when we should ask the question: what business does government have in running an airline? Certainly other companies have run or want to run a regular passenger service between the States. It seems also indisputable that if government were to set up in business wherever it thought an industry needed a little more competition, the government would own everything from steel mills to confectionary manufacturing plants. The problem with that would be the consequence that whenever government involves itself in business, it tends to create monopolies and stifle competition. In this tradition, Australian Airlines is the result of an attempt to establish a monopoly, not prevent one. The attempt backfired. Now we are burdened with the result of that attempt and our collective lethargy. Like so many areas of government monopoly-for example Australia Post and Telecom Australia in the communications area-Australian Airlines grew up with an expensive and extensive structure of regulation, which helped create and sustain a duopoly and prevented new participants entering the field. There is little doubt that this regulation would not have been nearly as extensive if the Government had not owned one of the two airlines which comprise that duopoly. We had a classic example of collusion between the two major firms in the industry which was backed up by the legislative force of the government of the day which was a party to that collusion. Of course, collusion breaks down in a free market. In the Australian Airline industry, legislation has stifled all forms of competition, both in price and aircraft, as well as even limited challenges from outside competitors. Aviation has an essential role to play in Australia. We all treasure the pioneering role of Kingsford-Smith and the Southern Cross and the romantic notions of the efforts of the Flying Doctor Service. On a more mundane level, crop spraying and travel over long distances in a reasonable time are amongst the essential benefits of aviation in Australia. Lang Hancock from my own State is said to have discovered iron ore in the Pilbara from the air. Indeed, these days, the discovery of mineral deposits depends very much on aerial prospecting in its many forms. Therefore, given the central role of aviation in Australia, it is not surprising that government has always been heavily involved in its delivery. However, this Government's involvement has not provided economic benefits to the consumer. In fact, it costs an enormous amount. On top of that, even State governments have seen fit to grant exclusive rights to one carrier on some intrastate routes. It is this enormous structure of aviation regulation that this Bill does not address, nor is this Bill part of a coherent package which will establish a deregulated environment. More importantly, this Bill maintains the original cause of that regulation. It is acknowledged that the Government has given notice of termination of the two-airline agreement. That measure is right, and the Government deserves credit for taking that action. However, we should look carefully at the regulation that will remain and what might replace the two-airline agreement. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to this Bill as being `an important first step as economic regulatory controls are removed'. It would help all concerned if we knew what the future steps were and the detail for future deregulation. This Bill is another example of partial legislation and legislation on the run. As I have already said, it will rightly terminate the two-airline agreement. The Government claims it is making efforts to have a viable Australian airline in the `more competitive environment' which will emerge, yet the Government has not revealed the nature of this environment. Indeed, it would seem that the relevant Caucus or conference battles are yet to be won. The Government has sidestepped the central issue of privatisation, at least until July, because it cannot guarantee the support of its own back bench on this issue. In times when parliamentary democracy was healthier, a government which could not guarantee a majority on the floor of the House for a measure as important to sound economic stewardship as privatisation is would have had the dignity and the obligation to resign and put the question to the people. Nowadays these issues are decided by the Caucus in the first instance but if the Executive does not have the numbers there the ultimate appeal is to the unelected, unrepresentative delegates to the Australian Labor Party National Conference. Of course, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) maintains a veto at any stage in these proceedings which are so distant from the genuine parliamentary democracy we all claim to value. It seems that some Ministers and members on the Government side are aware of the central importance of the ownership of Australian Airlines which this Bill continues to ignore. Sadly, in the ALP the numbers cannot be found for the sale of assets which the Government should arguably have never owned and which it unarguably should not now own. The senior Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has constructed an entire world view based on this central role of numbers in his little world of the Labor Party. When the coalition introduced legislation for the same purpose as that before the House today, making the then Trans-Australia Airlines a public company, it was opposed by the Labor Party. It was repealed soon after that Party gained office, by the then Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley. Now four years later, the Government presents us with legislation to do what had already been done and was already in place when it was elected. Senator Evans describes this about-turn, which is bordering on hypocrisy, as a `sign of maturity in Government.' I suggest that this mature Government, like a mature cheese, is showing a lot of mould. Some of it has been scraped off, but it is about to go bad, with the resulting aroma. The Minister has suggested that this about-face is justified because better information and argument has come to hand. In this case the only new information is that he has the numbers in Caucus. The reality of Australia's high air fares in a tightly regulated environment which restricts competition in the industry has been known for years and has been well documented. My Western Australian colleagues and I have repeatedly emphasised the relative disadvantages which cross-subsidy on fares has produced for those using long routes. Mr Tim Fischer —For decades. Mr ROCHER —For decades. As already mentioned, in 1984 the Government repealed legislation establishing a corporate structure for TAA. In 1985 a Labor Minister rejected an application by East-West Airlines Ltd to import new aircraft. It goes without saying that this Government is no paragon of virtue in deregulation in any of its forms but more particularly in the aviation industry. The Government's about-face is undoubtedly forced on it by some latent economic reality. The numbers in Caucus, however, will now not allow it to go the full way, to act. It is just not possible under the structure of the ALP. I suppose we should all be grateful for small mercies. I sympathise almost to the point of pity with those men and women whose world revolves around the numbers, factional divisions and arguments which characterise the ALP. I feel greater sorrow for our country which is subjected to the results of that state of affairs. The real world does not split along factional divisions as they are represented in the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, it is of little comfort to note that this Bill is a compromise. It avoids some of the most important issues facing the Government. All this is because of the inability of senior Ministers to convince their colleagues that Australian Airlines desperately needs private capital which government cannot and should not provide. Because of this compromise the Government, with some of its left wing colleagues, has had to argue that the issues of ownership, efficiency and regulation are independent of other considerations. Consequently, the Government is tackling each separately when it should be tackling them in a coherent manner. The Government tells us that this Bill will create a new dynamic, competitive Australian Airlines which will be at the forefront of the resurgence of Australian aviation. If only that were true. It has become fairly common for the promoters of bloated government to concede that government is inefficient and wasteful in managing business concerns. Those same people point out that any large bureaucratic organisation, public or private, is inefficient. The solution, we are told by these people, lies in new management practices, so-called industrial democracy, new and better equipment and the end of outdated work practices. All of that is true, of course, but it is a flawed argument because of the desire of a private company, whether it is of bureaucratic size to make it a bureaucracy in its own right, to make a profit; because of the need for returns to shareholders; because of the ability of shareholders to vote with their feet and withdraw capital; because of the opportunity to allow staff to share in the success of the business. For all these reasons, private firms in any form are likely to be more efficient than a government run enterprise with the same structure and management practices. There is ample evidence to support this proposition, particularly foreign examples, and they bear testimony to the concept and philosophy of privatisation. The purveyors of this new defence of the misnamed public enterprise have failed or do not want to understand what the economic implications really are. Instead, they want to reconstruct people through the types of measures the ACTU regurgitated and tried to make famous once again in its recent report on Sweden. This legislation tends to pander to that view, which seeks to salvage social democracy from the pit it had dug for itself. I have suggested that efficiency and ownership cannot be separated. The same is true for regulation. As already mentioned, aviation regulation emerged with the government airline. It made viable what otherwise might have been or might have become an uncompetitive airline. Regulation, indeed, offered cosy protection to the management and staff of the airlines in general and of TAA, or Australian Airlines, in particular. What will happen if, when the prop of regulation is removed, Australian Airlines should become a little shaky? I suggest that the pressure on this Government for reregulation would be very strong. If the Government does not have the strength to privatise Australian Airlines, how much resistance will it be able to place in the way of those demanding new regulation? Could the Government ever let its investment in billions of dollars worth of aircraft and the infrastructure of Australian Airlines be put at risk? The government-owned airline will always have a guarantee that even gross incompetence-not that such has occurred under the present management-will not be punished as it should be and would be in the market-place. What if the Government were faced at some time in the future with the choice of $1 billion to $2 billion in foreign debt or government investment to pay for new equipment, or Australian Airlines becoming uncompetitive and losing so much market share that it was not viable, or new regulations which used restrictions on imports to ensure that airlines used the same aircraft on major trunk routes? What would happen? I have no confidence that this Government would not again do an about-turn at the expense of the consumer. If Australian Airlines were privately owned, the Government would not have to face up to such a dilemma. There are many possible scenarios, but the basic truth remains. That truth is that the only effective way to deregulate aviation is to also privatise government-owned airlines. We should not forget that the point of these measures is a better, cheaper service for all Australians. Those concerned that monopoly practices might arise should turn to trade practices legislation, which applies in every industry, and not to the adhockery which has typified this Government's approach. The Government, however, should be commended for the deregulation upon which it has belatedly embarked, to the limited extent of it. The question remains as to whether it will go far enough. Will international airlines be allowed to carry domestic passengers? Will airports become private concerns catering for all carriers? The Government should give us some unequivocal answers on these questions. We must also be careful about a growing tendency amongst State and Federal governments in Australia which is continued by this Bill. The Government should not be an active participant in business but, rather, an impartial umpire and observer. Some State governments, as in my own State of Western Australia, have set up a number of public companies recently which are not accountable to the Parliament or the people. The Western Australia Development Corporation and the EXIM Corporation place Ministers and government in an untenable position of conflicting interests. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.44) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) on this occasion because I recently looked up the 1984 debate on the then repeal of the previous legislation on Australian Airlines. I found that he gave a very cogent address to the House on that occasion. I want to highlight that debate on what was then known as the Airlines Commission Retention Bill. I am not sure whether any other speaker has done so in the course of the consideration of the legislation before us now, but there are some very choice words recorded in Hansard from the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley), the then Minister for Aviation, in support of repealing the legislation which now the Government brings back into the House in a slightly different form. Of course, Labor members face an enormous dilemma because none of them has had the courage to state clearly here where he stands on privatisation of Australian Airlines. Ahead of Labor's conference I suppose that they would be brave enough to risk taking a position on that; but one would have thought that some would have had the honesty to make a declaration on that aspect of the issues before the Parliament. They have failed to do so. In that 1984 debate the honourable member for Curtin addressed the House. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) led the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It was a cognate debate which included debate on the Bill to repeal the previous coalition Government's Bill to create a public company of Australian Airlines. Then we had a very interesting situation: the honourable member for Northern Territory, Mr Reeves, who has since lost his seat, spoke in support of the Bill; the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) spoke in support of the Bill, as did the then honourable member for Canning, Ms Fatin, now the member for Brand-the Bill to repeal the previous legislation, which is once again back before this Parliament, albeit in a slightly different form. Mr Rocher —Where are they? Mr TIM FISCHER —Where are they? Why are they not up front on this issue? It is because they are very embarrassed by a very clear-cut statement made by the then Minister for Aviation, Mr Kim Beazley, in summing up that debate. He said: In terms of retaining full government ownership, the various disadvantages imposed on the organisation- namely, Australian Airlines, previously Trans-Australia Airlines- by implementing a public company under full public ownership, as opposed to a statutory authority, is not worth the candle. It is not worth the disruption. It is not worth at least the potential added cost. Those loans are required to be renegotiated. It must be said that, psychologically, in the conditions in which one would then be operating there would at least be at the back of the minds of the potential lenders the feeling that the Government might proceed at some time down to a sale of the company, as that was at least the thrust of the initial intention to create the board, and that could conceivably at some point put TAA at a disadvantage. Having decided not to proceed down the course of sale of all or part of TAA, there was no sense in the Government proceeding to implement the company structure that was proposed in the previous legislation. So, what do we have here? The same Government is back in the House four years later doing something which the previous Minister for Aviation said was `not worth the candle'. What is more, let us examine the aspect of renegotiating the loans. In the detailed speech given in the Senate, it is very interesting to see that provisions associated with this legislation have been able to be deemed, to avoid that very renegotiation of loans. So the key point of the Minister in response in 1984 evaporates this time around because a sensible course has been able to be taken in terms of the deeming provisions of this legislation, to ensure that there does not have to be complicated renegotiation of loans, with associated costs. So it is embarrassing for the Government to come back here four years later and contradict its own words of four years ago on this Bill, as recorded in Hansard. Let me explain again: what the House is doing today is reinstating legislation on Australian Airlines which this Government repealed four years ago, with only a few minor modifications. It should be seen in that way, and I am pleased to have been able to quote from Hansard of 4 June 1984, page 2807. Australian Airlines is no small entity. The 1986-87 annual report revealed that total revenue was $947.7m. The passenger revenue for that financial year was up 10.5 per cent to $743.4m. Incidentally, there has been quite a rumour around the aviation industry over the years that Australian Airlines has never been very good at getting a revenue yield from its flights. It could certainly fill its flights, but it did so at a considerable discount. I think it is fair to say that that figure for passenger revenue being up 10.5 per cent reflects considerable progress on the yield front and, perhaps, full credit to Mr James Strong and others involved in that dimension of Australian Airlines operations. However, net profit, in terms of return on shareholders' funds and the assets operated, remains at $24m. That is certainly not as good as anyone would want it to be for the 1986-87 financial year of operations. In that year, Australian Airlines carried some 5.1 million passengers. So we are dealing with a large entity. The legislation provides for its conversion from a statutory authority to a public company. It is a first step to the decisions which are inevitable and which must be taken to help pave the way for aviation in Australia. It is one which I support wholeheartedly, as I support the excellent amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) so effectively at an earlier stage of this debate. The amendment highlights the double standards maintained by the Government this second time around. It highlights the Government's double standards in not going the full distance and declaring exactly what the Government's intentions are regarding Australian Airlines, and it highlights the double standards embraced by the comments made by Labor members when speaking on the repeal Bill in 1984. I want to touch on the composition of the Board, which was referred to quite effectively by the honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge) in a debate last week on a related piece of legislation. It is relevant to ask, when one considers the fact that the Australian National Airlines Commission is to become a public company, whether the commissioners listed at the time of the 1986-87 report will be imposed on the new board of the new public company which will be deemed to operate from some date later this year. I think it is valid to register the lack of aviation experience held by many of the directors. Naturally enough, it may not be wise to have a board dominated totally by those with aviation experience, but let us track through them as they were listed as at 30 June 1987, some eight months ago. There is Mr Neil Smith, the Chairman, with no previous experience in the aviation field-at least as listed in the detail provided in the annual report. The Vice-Chairman is Mr Max Moore-Wilton, who is well known for his key role as General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board and Deputy Secretary to the former Department of Primary Industry. Again, he has no aviation experience. Mr William B. Pritchett, AO, was a former Secretary to the Department of Defence. In one sense I suppose he has some limited indirect aviation experience, but no direct experience. Mr George Polites was appointed a commissioner in 1984. He is the director of an engineering company and Chairman of the Commonwealth Employment Service Advisory Committee. He has no aviation experience-at least as listed-in a direct form. Diana Bryant from Western Australia is a member of the Barristers Board of Western Australia, the President of the Family Law Practitioners of Western Australia, and so forth. She has no aviation experience. Mr Brian Cogan was appointed a commissioner in 1985. He is a Newcastle industrial communications consultant. The Board did not need one of those, by the way, it needed two, because also on the Board is Mr John MacBean, who was appointed a commissioner on 5 June 1987. He is the Senior Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Secretary of the New South Wales Labour Council. Along with Mr Cogan, Mr MacBean has no direct aviation experience. Then there is Mr Ted Harris of Ampol and the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales. He has no direct experience listed. There is Frank Ball, who is very experienced in the industry and who is a former general manager of the airline from 1980 to 1985. I take the point, which kindly has been brought to my attention, that Neil Smith previously worked with Ansett Airlines of Australia for some years. I recall that, but I would point out that that is not listed in the report. Even so, that would still leave a vast majority of non-aviation people at the head of the Australian National Airlines Commission. I hope that when the Government goes forward with its public company deeming for Australian Airlines it will give very careful thought to the Board's construction. It has to be a very capable board, ready to meet the challenge which lies ahead for Australian Airlines. The make or break situation facing Australian Airlines can be dealt with properly and the breakthroughs achieved only if that Board is properly competent and experienced, with considerable aviation capability. I now turn to the deregulation provisions relating to the issues before the Parliament today. I draw the attention of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) to a table, which I was unable to show him earlier, and ask him to consider giving me leave to incorporate it in Hansard. I will return to that in a moment. The table, under appendix 27, shows the categories of domestic and international airlines. I believe that it should be considered by the House because it points to our safety record in 1985 and 1986. We have an excellent record. There have been no fatalities on domestic airlines and international airlines operating in our area. When one looks at the general aviation category one sees that the number of accidents and fatalities builds up. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Appendix 27 1985 Total Fatal Fatalities 1986 Total Fatal Fatalities Airlines Domestic ... - - - 1 - - International ... - - - - - - - - - 1 - - General Aviation Commuter2 ... 5 1 1 - - - Charter ... 32 4 9 21 2 3 Agricultural ... 24 - - 33 3 3 Flying training ... 23 - - 30 2 3 Other aerial work ... 20 2 2 29 4 10 Private/business ... 107 10 30 98 7 24 211 17 42 211 18 43 Gliding ... 9 1 1 22 2 2 1 The airline accident rate was calculated on the basis of scheduled hours only. 2 This category of operation includes both supplementary airlines and those operating under an exemption from ANR 203. Although supplementary airline licences were introduced in February 1983, that category of operation has not shown separately because separate activity data is not available. The calendar year 1984 is the last year for which confirmed industry activity is available. Using the aircraft accident data and industry activity data for the past ten years, and applying computer based statistical analyses of that data, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has estimated that the general aviation accident rate for 1985 was approximately 11.7 accidents per 100 000 hours flown. The actual accident rate will be released when the necessary activity data becomes available. Mr TIM FISCHER —I thank the House. The safety issue often arises with a period of deregulation and it is raised by aviation unions and pilots' organisations. It arises in the various categories in the general aviation field. I refer in particular to commuter aircraft, charter aircraft and agricultural aircraft. The argument goes that with deregulation and much leaner margins, the first thing that suffers in aircraft operation is the maintenance of those aircraft, because maintenance can be squeezed. It is not such a tangible thing; it is not a service factor up front to passengers, to clients, to the Department and, as such, it is the first thing to suffer. Some would argue, in relation to the American experience, that deregulation has led to an increase in the accident record. The counter argument is that in Australia we have a monolithic Department of Aviation, as it was previously known-its parts still exist under various Acts of Parliament-with massive powers of inspection and control regarding the maintenance of aircraft. I am concerned about airline safety, with particular reference to deregulation and the end of the two-airline policy which is fast approaching. It needs to be monitored very closely. I must say that, on balance, I do not accept the argument that deregulation per se, that ending the two-airline agreement per se, will lead to a lowering of the quite magnificent standards of air safety in this country. It is a challenge to the Department of Transport and Communications to lift its game, if need be, to ensure that the maintenance standards of aircraft are retained, that there is no lessening of those maintenance standards, and that there is comprehensive supervision on a sensible basis of aircraft operating in the categories of commuter, charter and agricultural aircraft, flying training and other aerial work. There have been continuing incidents of accidents and near misses, especially at Mascot, a situation which leaves a great deal to be desired. I could refer to those incidents in some detail, but I will not do so. We had reference again recently to inefficient radar being utilised at Mascot and endangering aircraft. We had a situation where for many years there were improved radar systems at Perth which could show the altitude and the call sign of an aircraft on the radar screen but, guess what, the Department of Aviation would not allow that system to be fully commissioned, and allow the altitude shown on the radar screen to be used by the operators. They had to revert to a different procedure, and have done so for many years. So, state of the art radar technology was not allowed to be used because of another ruling from the Government's aviation outfit, which has got it wrong in so much of the radar re-equipment for air traffic control throughout Australia. I realise that this matter is on the periphery of the legislation, which provides for the conversion of Australian Airlines to a public company. That conversion is a step towards deregulation, and the ending of the two airlines policy. Frankly, it is a step towards the privatisation of Australian Airlines, even though members of the Government may deny that. I put to the House that as we proceed down these paths it is the responsibility of the aviation authorities to ensure that airline safety is maximised, and that there is no watering down of the standards of safety of which, on balance, Australia can be quite proud. However, let us not kid ourselves. Australia is greatly helped by its weather conditions, which are so much better than those in many other parts of the world. Many countries experience a much greater density of flights and weather conditions that quite often are horrific. This creates enormous pressures and leads to much higher accident levels than we have in Australia. I support the amendment to the Bill. I welcome the conversion of Australian Airlines to a public company. I hope that the company responds to the challenge. I hope also that the Government will appoint to the company a worthwhile board that is suitably balanced in terms of the composition of its members. At the same time I remind the Government that it does look a little sheepish in reintroducing this legislation into the Parliament, given all that was said in 1984, particularly by a Minister at the time, the honourable member for Swan, who said that that legislation was not worth the candle. Well, the Bill must have been worth the candle, because the Government has now reintroduced it. Mr HOLDING(Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(6.03) —There are a number of points on which I wish to join issue with honourable members opposite. In particular I shall take up some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). Members of the Opposition, in their speeches, repeated the theme that the Government should be embarrassed by reintroducing this legislation, and referred to a debate on the 1981 Bill. That approach highlights the simplistic view of the members of the Opposition. What they said would have some veracity if this Bill were, in all respects, the same as the legislation that was introduced by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. Of course, there are significant differences in the two Bills. The members of the Opposition have failed to point out that in 1981 the previous Government, the Liberal-National Party Government, endeavoured to introduce legislation that was entitled the Australian National Airlines Repeal Bill 1981. That is the legislation to which the honourable members have referred. That legislation was passed by the Parliament and received royal assent. However, what the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Curtin, and others who pursued this line, were not prepared to explain to the House or to the people of Australia was that the legislation, having passed through the Parliament and its having obtained royal assent, was never proclaimed. When we hear all these accusations being made against members of my Party one might well ask how it is that this legislation, having proceeded through the Parliament, was not proclaimed by the Fraser Government. In 1981 that legislation set out to transform Australian Airlines into a public company by transferring all of the airline's assets, liabilities, staff, land titles, contracts and agreements, together with all other aspects associated with the airline, to a public company established for the purpose. However, there were some very real problems with the 1981 legislation. There was uncertainty as to whether the legislation would exempt the airline from the payment of State stamp duties on transfer of assets to the new company-a major problem. The legislation did not fully address the changes necessary to give effect to the intention to preserve terms and conditions of employment-again, a major problem. There was a requirement for each of the airline's loans to be renegotiated, with likely increased interest charges and further calls for Government guarantees. As a result, the incorporation process started by the previous Government in mid-981 became bogged down by technicalities and was not completed by March 1983. It was because of those difficulties that the legislation, having received royal assent, was never implemented. One of the early actions of the incoming Labor Government was to repeal the legislation. If legislation has been passed by the Parliament and has been through the whole process but cannot be made to work, the sensible thing is to repeal that legislation and start again. That is what happened. To say that the 1988 legislation is in essence the same as that earlier Bill is, of course, to indulge in a gross oversimplification of the contents of the 1988 Bill. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I completely reject the first paragraph of the amendment, which relates to double standards in introducing legislation similar to that which the coalition passed in order to convert the then Trans-Australia Airlines into a company-legislation which this Government repealed. Do honourable members opposite seriously say that if legislation cannot be made to work it should remain on the statute book, creating a situation of both economic and industrial uncertainty? That is why the 1981 Bill was repealed. Of course, by comparison the present Bill takes a much simpler approach. It simply deems the airline, as a statutory authority, to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act on a date to be proclaimed. Under this approach there is no change in the corporate entity. Therefore there is no need to transfer assets subject to State stamp duty; there is no need for assignment of the airline's overseas contracts; no changes in the formulation of the staff's terms and conditions of employment; no need for changes to existing Commonwealth loans guarantees. The deeming approach adopted in the Bill avoids the direct and administrative costs and time which would have been involved in resolving these matters under the 1981 legislative approach. In other words, all of the problems that were created by the Fraser Government's legislation have been resolved, and that Government's approach has been totally rejected. Basically we have produced an objective which the House, including honourable members opposite, deems a desirable objective. However, we have done so in a much simpler and cleaner way. If any hypocrisy has been shown in this regard, it has come from members of the Opposition who, again, go for the simplistic approach. They say it will all be easy, and all the problems confronting this major public asset will be resolved by privatisation. Similarly, the Opposition thought that all problems would be resolved by the 1981 legislation, which the Opposition messed up and could not make work and which had to be repealed. That is the simple fact of the matter. For the Opposition to come in here with an amendment that talks about `double standards' is-- Mr Ian Cameron —I thought you repealed it. Mr HOLDING —Yes, we repealed it; it should have been repealed. Does the honourable member for Maranoa believe that legislation which cannot be implemented and cannot be made to work should just lie on the statute book? As a tribute to what? To the incompetence of a previous Liberal-National Party coalition government? We did the Opposition a favour when we repealed that legislation. We did not let it stand as a continuing monument to its incapacity and incompetence. Mr Ian Cameron —You are making the same changes as we were. Mr HOLDING —This legislation will work-that is the difference. We have overcome the problems that the Opposition could not solve-and could not even comprehend. Let us look at some of the other points that have been taken up in the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. The second point in that amendment is: its failure to take into account the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Australian Airlines future capital requirements; This Bill relates to the structure of Australian Airlines and will enable a change in the airline's structure from a statutory authority to a company, fully owned by the Commonwealth. The terms of reference of the advisory group on Australian Airlines require the advisory group `to advise the Government against the possibility of either the removal or retention of broader government controls, on the extent of Australian Airlines capital requirements and options for meeting those requirements'. There is no conflict between the passage of legislation to allow incorporation of Australian Airlines and the subsequent report from the advisory group, which is expected to be received by 31 March 1988. That report addresses the question of the airline's capital requirements. Of course, detailed consideration will be given to ways of meeting the airline's capital requirements once the advisory group's report has been received. Again, we see the Opposition's simplistic approach. We are waiting to receive a report which outlines the range and nature of the problems which have to be met in considering the capital requirements of this body. Opposition members tell us that we have failed to take account of the recommendations of the advisory group. We are waiting to receive that advice. There again, the Opposition's approach is sloppy and has not been thought through. It is a simplistic approach. It does not matter what Opposition members say, they believe that privatisation will solve all the problems. Mr Ian Cameron —That is your talk. Mr HOLDING —No. We are saying that it is time that this Opposition put a bit more energy into formulating policies and producing something which approaches realistic and effective opposition on important legislation, such as this Bill, rather than wasting the time of the House, as it has over the last week, in some kind of witch hunting exercise directed at Ministers who are doing a job. Mr Ian Cameron —Doing a bad job. Mr HOLDING —I will not join issue with the honourable member because everyone knows that, although the honourable member has a considerable sense of humour, he is also a man who will say the first thing that comes into his mind. There are not that many things that pass through the honourable gentleman's mind. Often when he expresses them he does so to the embarrassment of some of his colleagues, but we treat him with consummate good humour and we wish him well. We then move to the next assertion by the Opposition in its second reading amendment: its failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines; The Government has already made clear its intention. It has stated: An essential element of the deregulated environment after 1990 will be a strong, viable and efficient Australian Airlines, able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. Establishing the airline as a public company, giving it exactly the same corporate structure and status as Qantas Airways Ltd, is an important step in this direction. We have already announced our intention to remove specified day to day controls on the airline which will mean streamlining management decision making. The advisory group is to report, again at the end of March, on the airline's capital requirements and options for meeting those requirements. It is well known that consideration has been given to the means by which the airline can become more efficient in government ownership, including the possibility of the removal of some remaining controls. The Government is therefore taking all the necessary steps to ensure that the airline will be a strong and effective competitor in the 1990s when it will face a range of challenges in order to maintain the most effective networking service for the Australian public. We now move to part 4 of the second reading amendment: creating continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future; What nonsense. The Bill before the House does not in any way create uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future. On transition to a company, each staff member of the Australian National Airlines 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. More broadly, the Government has made quite clear its intention that Australian Airlines will be a strong, viable and effective competitor in this industry. Australian Airlines therefore supports the Government's steps to incorporate the airline and to place it on a more commercial footing. I have looked at the arguments put forward by Opposition members. Where is there one tittle of evidence to show that there is uncertainty amongst Australian Airlines' employees as to their future as a result of the provisions of this Bill? The structure of this legislation makes their future more certain and clear and is in marked contrast to the mess that was created by the Fraser Government when it introduced the legislation which it could not implement. The final allegation in the second reading amendment states that we are to be condemned for: the continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure. The fact is that this Government has taken positive steps to improve aviation arrangements and administration over the past five years. Firstly, the Government moved very quickly to implement the Bosch Report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery for the use of aviation infrastructure. This ended the subsidisation by taxpayers of aviation infrastructure which prevailed until that time. Secondly, the Government has moved to end the two-airline policy from 1990 and to open the domestic aviation industry to competition from that time. Thirdly, the Government has vested the operation of major airports in the Federal Airports Corporation to ensure that these airports are operated on a commercial basis. Fourthly, the Government has announced the establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority with effect from 1 July 1988. The Authority will take responsibility for the efficient operation of the airways system from that time, while ensuring primarily that the safety function is maintained. Therefore, the Government has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that domestic aviation arrangements and infrastructure are administered in the most appropriate way. I will not argue, nor can any honourable member argue, that there are not considerable challenges that have to be met in terms of the future of the airline industry. But the record shows that there has been more real achievement in the administration of this important area under the Hawke Government than has happened in years gone by. There are many achievements, but there is still much to be done. Again, if one looks at the record, there is no way at all that this House would be justified in endorsing a second reading amendment which speaks of the `continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure'. That is nonsense and honourable members opposite know that it is nonsense. There is one other matter that I should point out. In the course of this debate the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) raised concerns about the Trade Practices Commission's decision to require TNT-News Ltd to divest itself of certain routes operated by East-West Airlines following the takeover of East-West. I am informed, and for the information of honourable members I inform the House, that in a Press release issued today Australian has declined offers from Ansett Airlines of Australia to purchase at a premium the East-West Pilbara and Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd Jetstream operations in Western Australia, which were part of the Trade Practices Commission's divestment order. I felt it desirable to inform honourable members of that in the course of this debate. In conclusion, I believe that many challenges lie ahead of this Parliament in determining the whole future of the aviation industry. I congratulate the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, because I believe that he has not for one moment lacked the resolve to face up to the very difficult policy challenges that lie in this area. He has confronted them and brought into the Senate and the Parliament proposals which face up to those challenges and provide, where necessary, legislative procedures, of which this is one, which will ensure the future of this industry and reassure the travelling public that ultimately we will have a structure that will ensure not only the very high level of safety of which all Australians can be proud, but also an industry which will provide the most effective, efficient and low cost service to all our citizens. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beale's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, 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.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L. Kerr, D. J. C. Halverson, R. G.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Duffy, M. J. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Morris, Peter Lloyd, B.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 November 1987, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(6.31) —The Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced last year, so it is some time since the House heard the second reading speech. I remind honourable members that the purposes of the Bill are to amend the legislative basis for the provision of student assistance under Austudy and for the grant of postgraduate awards; to facilitate the prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments under student assistance schemes; to bring the Student Assistance Act into line with the Social Security Act in the gathering of information and the recovery and write-off and waiver of overpayments in relation to the schemes; and to allow overpayments of student assistance, social security or veterans' benefits to be offset against an entitlement under the Student Assistance Act. The Bill extends the recovery provisions of the social security and veterans' legislation in a similar manner. It increases maximum penalties for offences under the Act from $100 to $2,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment for individuals; and for offences under the regulations, a fine of $1,000 and/or six months imprisonment. There will be a maximum penalty of $10,000 for corporations refusing to co-operate in arrangements to verify entitlements. The Bill also provides for the recovery of payments which should not have been made. Finally, it will transfer the exercise of the waiver and write-off powers from the Minister for Finance to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The Opposition will not be opposing this legislation for reasons that I will indicate in a moment. However, I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading: 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 its disgraceful mismanagement of the Austudy scheme, causing distress and financial embarrassment to thousands of students and their families who have had to wait for lengthy periods before receiving their entitlements.' The main purpose of this Bill is to put into the student assistance legislation the various ways of overcoming overpayments and fraud that were introduced into the Social Security Act some time ago. It is claimed in the explanatory memorandum and in the second reading speech of the present Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) that the provisions put forward in this Bill are exactly the same as those in the social security legislation. As far as we can determine, from checking through all this, we believe that to be true. It is on that basis that the Opposition is not seeking to deny passage of the Bill. Our main concern will be to highlight certain aspects of it, and I will look at those. The first aspect is in the form of a question for the Minister who will respond to the debate. There are provisions in this Bill relating to the prosecution of corporations where those corporations do not comply with requests to provide information or do various other things. These provisions do not seem to apply to Federal and State statutory authorities. We therefore ask whether this has been the subject of consideration. We have a very difficult situation in Australia where so many enterprises are run by statutory authorities. They tend to become laws unto themselves. Private corporations are subjected to all sorts of requirements; statutory authorities often escape that kind of attention. We ask the Minister to refer to that matter in his reply to the debate. The second matter to which I refer relates to the Minister's remarks in his second reading speech about the financial implications of the Bill. He says that the measures in the Bill are expected to result in significant savings, yet he does not quantify those. Obviously, since we do not have any figures about compliance surveys to determine the extent of fraud under Austudy, we cannot have any real estimate of the cost benefit of this Bill. It would have been helpful if there had been some kind of case for an estimate of the cost against the scale of the investigations. Will there be, for example, a 100 per cent survey of applicants? Will there be a computerised system of looking into potential fraud? What staffing implications are there? What can we be told about the costs of the whole scheme in relation to the financial benefits for the taxpayer? For example, in relation to the requirement to stimulate research in postgraduate activity, there are about 900 or so postgraduate awards. There are considerable concerns about the amount of money available for postgraduate awards, which are pretty mean. What would be the cost involved in examining all of these awards for fraud, misstatement or whatever, versus the funds that might be expended? In looking at that we must ask whether it is a good deal and should more of the money be put into increasing postgraduate awards. The money involved in all this is fairly big. In the last Budget, $589.3m was earmarked for student allowances in secondary and tertiary education. Certainly, a quite large sum is being expended. It is obviously necessary to examine the payment carefully. It would be nice to know how much it will cost the taxpayer to claim back money fraudulently appropriated. It would be nice if, in the course of the debate or subsequently, we had an estimate of that amount, especially when we look at the maladministration of Austudy last year. This is the subject that has caused the Opposition, and I think all honourable members on both sides of the House, the most pain over 1987. Having taken four years to implement the 1983 election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to align student assistance with unemployment benefits and thus reduce the disincentive to study, the Government totally mucked up the introduction of Austudy in January 1987. Despite all the time that the Government had to get it ready-four years-it still had all the features of a hastily formulated policy. It was full of problems of detail and it lacked the machinery to put the provisions into effect efficiently. Throughout the whole of last year my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who had Opposition responsibility for this policy area, drew attention to the shortcomings in the administration of Austudy. `A wilderness of mirrors' was the term used by my colleague to describe these arrangements when by mid-year it still seemed that things were very bad, that the provisions were contradictory, and that they failed to target the limited financial resources available on the genuinely needy students. One example of hasty policy and faulty implementation was the incorrect classification of non-government school scholarships as a form of student income similar to a living allowance. This is quite an elementary matter and caused a great deal of pain. In fact, these scholarships cover only the cost of tuition in non-government schools. They do not provide living expenses or other allowances. This error was uncovered by my colleague the honourable member for Tangney. There was a deluge of complaints from lower income families to the honourable member and he looked into the matter. In May he made the following statement: This is a classic example of the mismanagement of Austudy and underlines the total haste with which the scheme was designed and introduced. The extraordinary situation was that on the one hand the Government was demanding that non-government schools provide equity for low income people while at the same time actively discriminating against them by locking them out of Austudy. The then Minister for Education finally had to recognise this error and rectify it once it had been drawn to her attention by the honourable member for Tangney. She announced on 21 May 1987 that students from low income families attending non-government schools on scholarships would be eligible for Austudy. Similarly, when Austudy legislation was introduced into the Parliament in the autumn of 1986, the honourable member for Tangney expressed concern that Austudy payments would be paid to students directly in the 16 to 18 years age group, and not to their parents. That was the original announcement. The Government pressed ahead, at least until the eleventh hour when, on 14 December 1986, the Minister had a change of heart. The argument here was that the financial support mechanisms for a student in secondary education are not simply an individual student responsibility but primarily a family responsibility; and, further, that it is vital to encourage the family to support the promotion of education as a high ideal. In our view, this decision was part of a concerted attempt by the then Minister to depreciate the role of the family in making its own decisions and to break down the feeling of responsibility that families have for their teenage children. We regard as disgraceful the Government policy-or even to have entertained it at all-that the money for Austudy for 16- to 18-year-olds should go directly to the students themselves. There was an outcry on this. There was tremendous opposition naturally from the Australian public, most of whom strongly support the institution of the family, the rights of parents in these matters and the responsibilities of parents to look after their children. Senator Ryan reluctantly relented on this and only 17 days before Austudy started she announced that parents of secondary students who are under 18 years of age and who will not turn 18 in 1987 could elect to have the Austudy student allowance paid to themselves if they so prefer. That is how things stand now. Information received from the Department of Employment, Education and Training tells us that between 1 January and 26 September 1987 only 19 per cent of parents had elected to be so paid. Unfortunately it is up to the parents to apply for the allowance to be paid. We very much doubt whether this provision is sufficiently well advertised or understood for all interested parents to take advantage of the regulation. It really should be the other way round. The allowance should go the the parents unless a specific application is made for it not to. If we want to reinforce the institution of the family in a practical sense and underline the responsibilities that parents have in these matters, government legislation should reflect those objectives. This Government's legislation still does not do that. Senator Teague said in the Senate on 23 March that governments `should respect the integrity of the family and should not, through financial payments, disrupt family relationships'. The 1987 wall chart distributed by the Department of Employment, Education and Training does not say that parents can receive Austudy on their children's behalf if those children are aged between 16 years and 18 years. So much for the former Minister's claim made in response to a question asked by my colleague Senator Teague on 23 March 1987 that `every effort is being made to circulate the information about the new option as widely as possible'. We do not believe that it has. A pretty obvious way of starting to do this would have been to put the information of the wall chart. But this has not been done. I want to talk briefly about the targeting of assistance. We have expressed the concern for some time that assistance has not yet been properly targeted. Instead of paying Austudy at a high rate to those who voluntarily live away from home without any real need, we should be in a position to use the limited money available to help those who must leave home in order to continue their secondary or tertiary education-that is, those from isolated country areas with relatively few educational facilities in their locality. This is something that the Government ought to be looking at. We also disagree with the denial of Austudy to those taking courses not wholly or substantially funded by the public sector. Surely this is a most illogical provision. However, it reflects the ideological preoccupations of the Government. When education is provided primarily by the private sector, the taxpayer is relieved of a great deal of expense. Therefore, it would seem that there would be some advantage in assisting students to go towards courses of that kind. Whatever relatively small amount of money is available under Austudy to improve the capacity of students to go to more privately funded courses, that would relieve the taxpayer of a great deal of expense. Otherwise those students would be taught in substantially government-funded institutions at greater expense to the taxpayer. But, as I say, that does not fit in with the ideological preoccupations of the Government. I had drawn to my attention the plight of a student who is studying at the National Theatre Ballet School where the fees are $1,740 per annum which, in itself, is a considerable burden. The teaching of ballet is something which is very important to our culture. Bearing in mind the excellence of our ballet in Australia, it is quite an achievement for a young person to be accepted into that school and great personal sacrifices are made on the part of the students and parents. Yet, Austudy is denied to students attending institutions of that kind because those institutions are not substantially government funded. I just do not think that makes sense. Let me come to the total fiasco of the maladministration of Austudy. This really is an incredible story. By the middle of last year, people were still waiting for their money. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 June 1987 was entitled `50,000 students awaiting money'. This was six months after Austudy was launched in a blaze of publicity. The then Minister went out and sold this new scheme which had been developed supposedly after four years of preparation. The machinery was simply not in place to handle the scheme. The then Minister made many complacent statements but they could not disguise the distress caused by the delays which were in part due to the malfunctioning of the computer system. The Minister's defence was that delays were inevitable, as this was the first year of operation. But still that is no excuse, especially when students were being forced to get emergency cash to enable them to meet the necessities of life. What if this happened to age pensions or supporting parents' benefits? If one were introducing a new scheme in respect of these payments, would it have been in any way politically acceptable to have a breakdown in the computer system with people waiting months for payment? There would be total absolute outrage. The Government escaped total destruction on this matter only because of the relatively limited number of Austudy recipients. In March the Minister and the officials were saying that a further eight-week delay in payment was likely. The Minister was saying: There is no truth in the rumour that the system has malfunctioned. Of course, that requires a rather peculiar view of truth and also of the meaning of malfunction. In February, Senator Vanstone, my colleague in the Senate, quoted a telegram that was sent to the then Minister by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) which stated: Crises situation developing in South East Queensland as social security benefits have been cut while Austudy has not come through. Young people in flats with no rent allowance could end up in the street. A month after that the Minister was still unrepentant. She said. The system is working well and I am pleased to assure the Senate there has been no hardware malfunction. Honourable members should note the use of the words `hardware malfunction'. That was in response to a question from Senator Vanstone. Heaven forbid! A computer system is a combination of hardware, which is the easy bit-one can go out and buy a piece of IBM hardware and it works because it has been tested before it leaves the factory-and software. So, when the Minister said there was no hardware malfunction, she was just misleading the Senate on that matter. There were software malfunctions and these were repeatedly noted, particularly in articles in the Sydney Morning Herald. Senator Newman informed Senator Ryan in the Senate on 4 June 1987-this is halfway through the year-that those students seeking emergency relief were confronted repeatedly with a recorded message or an apparently continually engaged telephone. Members of parliament found this. We were trying to find out what was happening to these payments and we could not contact the Department to find out. However, Senator Ryan, the then Minister, said that most delays had been substantially overcome. She admitted that some payments were still outstanding but said that this was due to students giving inadequate information. During the previous month, in May 1987, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) had raised the issue in a question to the Prime Minister. Speaking of the Victorian experience in particular, he detailed the delays in Austudy payments in that State, adding that attempts to help these students were hampered because of the union directive currently banning Austudy office staff from handling telephone inquiries made by members of parliament and their staff. Once a member received complaints from constituents he could not get any information about them because of this union directive. The Prime Minister did not respond to that point but, contrary to what his Minister was saying in the Senate, he did recognise the considerable hardship suffered by a number of students not only in Victoria but in other parts of Australia. Clearly, the centralised computer system could not handle the volume of applications and this was a major miscalculation on the Government's part. I have an enormous number of examples of the kinds of difficulties people encountered. An article in the Canberra Times of 5 May 1987 said, inter alia: One student still to receive her first cheque is Ms Sue Jackson, of Downer, who is studying for her Diploma of Education at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Ms Jackson said on Friday that she posted her application for Austudy on February 25, the day she enrolled. She had heard nothing from the Department of Education until April 30- that is two months- when she was asked for further information, including what she had done last year while not studying. She said the delay had imposed hardship on many students, because the maximum that students could earn on top of their Austudy allowance was $2000 a year. It meant that students could not go out and get a job because they could not go over that ceiling. Time that could be spent earning money was being wasted. The same article went on to speak of another case: A single mother on a widow's pension, who applied on December 10- in the previous year- found that the computer which processes the Austudy cheques could not `handle' pensioners. `The machine comes up with ``abort'' every time if you're a pensioner,' she said. Last year, when she had been paid under the TEAS scheme, everything had been all right. Now she is forced to travel to the Austudy office to collect a counter cheque. Instead of being paid two weeks in advance, as she had been told in February she would be, she receives her money monthly now, two weeks in arrears and two weeks in advance. The wait at the office for payment, she said, could be as long as 1 1/2 hours to two hours. The article went on: Another single mother found that the computer could not handle five children in the family. It was geared to deal with only up to three children, she was told. These stories go on and on. A particularly worrying situation was brought to the attention of the Minister by the chairperson of the National Status of Women Committee, Mrs Norma Ford. In a letter to the Minister for Education, Employment and Training (Mr Dawkins) on 24 September 1987-and we are getting well down the line of last year-Mrs Ford wrote: My Committee requests that as a matter of urgency you amend the provisions of Austudy which, since the Federal Election, are being applied in a way which reduces pensioner students and their dependent children to a position of great poverty. This is something that happened after the election. Mrs Ford continued: On 12th of March, 1987, I wrote to your predecessor, the Hon. S. Ryan concerning the adverse effect of certain Austudy provisions upon pensioner students with children. These provisions particularly disadvantaged women with children who were undertaking education and training in order to cease dependency upon welfare payments and undertake suitable employment. In my letter I indicated that when Austudy was introduced, although special provision was made to preserve existing entitlements for supporting parents who continued in the same course of study in 1987 as in 1986, this provision was interpreted by your Department as not applicable to students who completed an undergraduate degree in 1986 and were undertaking a Dip. Ed. in 1987 in order to obtain professional employment as teachers. It is anomalous that pensioner students who must undertake a three year first degree plus a one year diploma course in order to obtain an appropriate qualification must forgo entitlements, whereas the student who undertakes a four year first degree in order to obtain a professional qualification, often in the same field, does not. I think it is quite a reasonable point made by the chairperson of the National Status of Women Committee, Mrs Ford. Mrs Ford's letter continued: A letter dated 21 April, 1987 from Senator Ryan's Assistant Private Secretary stated that, `The Minister recognises that such a combination of courses might merit slightly different treatment from the standard procedures. She has asked therefore that the matter be examined further.' This was April 1987. The letter continued: No further correspondence was received but pensioner students reported to my Committee that their entitlements had been re-instated. So, it appeared that the representations from the National Status of Women Committee to Senator Ryan had been successful and an obvious anomaly had been corrected. But things changed after the Federal election. The letter continued: Since the Federal election, pensioner students have informed us that matters have changed for the worse. One pensioner student with dependent children who received increased entitlements subsequent to my letter of March, 1987, received a letter at the end of July from the Department of Education which stated that as she had completed a B.A. in 1986 and commenced a different course in 1987 (Dip. ED.) `you are not considered to be a continuing pensioner student', and requested repayment of almost $2000 . . . That is the sort of thing one gets after re-electing a Labor Government if one is a single parent in this situation. The letter continued: . . . an impossible situation for a divorced mother of three teenage children. Although it appears that one part of the Department's ruling, the matter of repayment, will be resolved, the general question of the anomalous definition of `continuing pensioner student' under Regulations 29, and 29a remains and has been drawn to the Committee's attention by other students. So, Minister Dawkins was asked to examine this as a matter of extreme urgency. Unfortunately, the Minister, in reply to Mrs Ford in November 1987, said: After careful consideration it was decided not to change the special provision for continuing pensioner students. In other words, if a student takes a four-year degree, that student is able to continue eligibility. If a student takes a BA, Dip.Ed., the student will lose eligibility in the final year. That is ridiculous. That is not the only point. The Minister said: I regret that you were not advised of this decision when it was made in May of this year. The reason Mrs Ford was not advised was that the Government was going into an election and it waited until after the election in July to advise her, which was deceitful in the extreme. There was maladministration as well. The letter from the Minister went on: The specific case mentioned in your letter has been drawn to my attention by the student herself. My Department has advised me that continuing payments were made to this student from the beginning of 1987, but in error. This no doubt gave the impression that the policy had been changed which was not the case. Is it not amazing that an error which was against the policy of the Government continued until just after the Federal election, and apparently it was not drawn to anybody's attention until after 11 July? Heavens above! Exactly what sort of a cheating operation is this? The experience that people have had with Austudy in 1987 is a damning indictment of this Government-sheer administrative incompetence, poor policy formulation. For all the rubbish we hear about the great competence of this marvellous and brilliant Hawke team on the Government benches, when one looks at matters case by case, as with Austudy, one finds absolute, unbelievable incompetence. This is a case study extraordinaire. It hurt some of the most needy, most deserving people in the community-students, and single parents, people on pensions, who have been very badly served. That is why, through the amendment, we draw the attention of the House and, we hope, the other place, to this appalling record of policy misformulation and maladministration. The amendment will be seconded by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Miles —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(7.01) —I am pleased to rise in support of the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. As the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has indicated, this legislation, in terms of dealing with fraud, essentially seeks to harmonise student assistance legislation with that applying under the Social Security Act. As has already been highlighted, penalties have been increased. For example, the maximum penalties outlined in new section 31h are to be increased to a fine of $2,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment for individuals who make false or misleading statements or otherwise seek to deceive in order to obtain benefits unlawfully. There is also a maximum penalty of a fine of $10,000 for corporations which refuse to co-operate in arrangements to verify entitlements and to recover payments which should not have been made. As I say, this is essentially consistent with the Act. The shadow Minister suggested that there was maladministration. We ought to contrast the real position of someone like the honourable member for Mackellar and that of the Government. There is a commitment to elitism on the part of the Opposition, this hard ideological position that Opposition members are happy to embrace. For example, it is clear that retention rates in private schools are way above those in public schools. It is that sort of disparity which the Opposition, through its policies, seeks to entrench. I think that the real issue is that we ought to be saying about all young Australians that they have the capacity and capability to do well in education and that they should not be forced into private education or any other type of education for that matter. I shall return to that point, but I want to link up some remarks with Austudy. When Austudy was introduced there was much concern because it is an age-related measure; it is dependent on how old one is rather than at what stage of schooling one is. But in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory many students commence Year 11 when they are 15 years old. It was believed that this would act as a disincentive to their continuing with their education. I have a table of school participation rates for Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole. From these statistics one can see that such a disincentive is not operating. Whilst I accept that those fears were genuine, statistically such a disincentive is not being shown. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SCHOOL PARTICIPATION RATES (Per cent) 15 year-olds 1986 1987 Change (% age points) 16 year-olds 1986 1987 Change (% age points) New South Wales... 92.1 92.2 +0.1 62.9 65.8 +2.9 Victoria... 92.0 93.3 +1.3 77.9 78.8 +0.9 Tasmania... 96.8 97.3 +0.5 51.0 53.6 +2.6 Australian Capital Territory (a)... 100.2 102.2 +2.0 85.9 89.3 +3.4 Queensland... 85.1 86.5 +1.4 63.4 66.9 +3.5 South Australia... 88.9 92.0 +3.1 67.0 69.7 +2.7 Western Australia... 83.1 84.0 +0.9 57.6 58.8 +1.2 Northern Territory... 72.1 76.5 +4.4 49.8 55.1 +5.3 Australia... 89.8 90.9 +1.1 66.8 69.0 +2.2 Mr PRICE —I thank the House. Austudy has been a real incentive to low income families. It is fair enough to say that this Government can take pride in the increase nationally in retention rates, particularly in Year 12. I suppose that we ought to repeat it quite often: under the previous Government there was a retention rate of about 33 per cent, and the present Government has lifted the national rate to about 53 per cent, although last year it was 48.7 per cent. But the point is that the retention rate that we are aiming for by the 1990s is 65 per cent. That rate was set by the previous Minister for Education, Susan Ryan. I always had a disagreement on that matter because I thought that we ought to aim much higher, but, given the improvements in retention rates, that will become a real possibility-that we will achieve a 65 per cent rate in the early 1990s, and we can go on and achieve more. I want to keep harping on one point. It is important for decision makers, for teachers, headmasters and politicians, to believe in the intrinsic capability of students to do well and cope with the system. Basically, I believe that if the expectation of our education system is that all or a portion of students are not capable, the net outcome will be that they fail. So I make that appeal particularly to the teaching professions, but I think it behoves us all to state our approach to that matter. Once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate a table which illustrates the improvements in retention rates between 1986 and 1987. Leave granted. The table read as follows- YEAR 12 RETENTION RATES BY GENDER, 1986 AND 1987 Males Females Both % % % 1986- NSW ... 42.4 46.6 44.4 Vic. ... 41.7 52.2 46.8 Qld ... 54.3 60.7 57.5 SA ... 51.4 58.3 54.8 WA ... 48.3 52.4 50.3 Tas. ... 28.0 32.7 30.3 NT ... 29.9 38.3 34.1 ACT ... 76.0 79.5 77.7 Aust. ... 45.6 52.1 48.7 1987- NSW ... 44.6 49.8 47.1 Vic. ... 46.5 58.8 52.5 Qld ... 59.5 65.6 62.5 SA ... 55.3 65.4 60.2 WA ... 52.3 56.6 54.4 Tas. ... 29.4 36.9 33.0 NT ... 38.0 43.5 40.7 ACT ... 77.8 80.3 79.0 Aust. ... 49.4 57.0 53.1 Mr PRICE —I was talking about Austudy and the improvements that can accrue to a family, particularly a low income family. It is really pleasing that on 1 January this year about 32,000 secondary students were already applying for Austudy. They are being paid at a maximum rate of $50 per week. That is exactly the same amount as the amount received in the job search allowance by unemployed people. So there is no financial disincentive or incentive to go onto the dole for those who are eligible for Austudy. I give an example of how some might benefit from the new arrangements. One has to look at the combination of the family allowance supplement and Austudy. A family on weekly earnings of $300 with three children at various stages in their education would be eligible for almost $175 per week in Commonwealth assistance. That is made up of $91.20 Austudy for the eldest child, 18 years old and living away from home, to attend a tertiary institution; $50.00 per week Austudy for the middle child, 16 years old and at school; $28.00 in family allowance supplement; plus $5.25 family allowance for the youngest child 14 years old and at school. This really is a significant commitment by this Government to the lower income workers and families. It is important to consider the contribution of the shadow Minister when he was accusing us of ideological rigidity. During the last Federal election campaign one issue was whether the Opposition supported the new Chifley University in the western suburbs. I freely acknowledge the contribution made in the early stages of that campaign by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He made public statements about how the Liberal Party of Australia had adopted a policy platform and how all Liberals were behind the new Chifley University. However, during the election Mr Greiner moved urgency motions in the New South Wales State Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition would not endorse the Chifley University. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), the shadow Minister, would not endorse it and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) got lumbered on 2KA, a mountains station, and was asked point-blank what his position was. Because his Leader had failed to endorse it, he was not able to endorse it. That is typical of Liberal Party policy that operates in the western suburbs. On a number of occasions in this place I have pointed out regional differences in retention rates between the western suburbs of Sydney, the Illawarra and Newcastle. Whilst this Government has every right to be proud of the progress we have made in retention rates, both in the State and nationally, a problem exists regionally. There is also a problem in country Australia. We need to adopt different solutions to meet different problems. That is why for the last 18 months my colleague the State member for Riverstone has championed the cause of a senior high school, much like the colleges that exist in the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania. Victoria is now moving towards them. I warn the people of the western suburbs that whilst we have tried to tackle this campaign in the same way as we tackled the Chifley University campaign, that is, in a bipartisan way, the Liberal Party says that it supports it. That is well enough, but let us apply the Chifley University test. The Liberal Party was supposed to have been supporting the Chifley University before, during and after the Federal election, but it did not do so. It withdrew support; it even had people such as the honourable member for Mitchell, who had been an early supporter of Chifley University, suffering lockjaw. I say to the people of the western suburbs that, when we look at retention rates, we ought to stick to this campaign for a senior high school but not be fooled by false Liberal promises on education in the western suburbs. We had a full measure of those promises during the last Federal election. The senior high school issue will be there during the State election. It will not go away. I will not let it go away, nor will my state Labor parliamentary colleagues, until we have an education system that achieves the same results as those achieved everywhere else. I refuse to accept that students in my electorate and surrounding electorates are less capable than students anywhere else. All honourable members should take that view about their electorates. If we are not getting the results, whether in the western suburbs of Sydney, Newcastle or the Illawarra, we have to say that it is the education system that is at fault and ask what changes we want to make. I have said previously that comprehensive school systems work well in different parts of the State. Where they work well, let us not change them. But in the regions I have mentioned we ought to be going for a senior high school, as Victoria is. I strongly suggest that where there are two high schools in a country town or city we ought to try clustering. Clustering allows different high schools to offer different courses, thus maximising class size and spreading resources. Senior high schools have been successful in the Catholic education system in the western suburbs of Sydney. I have no doubt that they would be successful in the government public education system. I believe that the western suburbs will increase their retention rates, to a point where they are equal to or comparable with those throughout the State and the rest of Australia. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(7.15) —Back in the 1970s when I was a comparatively new member of this Parliament, I suffered the galling experience of having the sand mining operations on Fraser Island terminated by a government of which I was a member. I do not want to recanvass that issue other than to say that I have monitored the rehabilitation of the mined areas over the years. As recently as a week or two ago I flew at very low level over the beach to observe the progress made. Suffice it to say the undertaking to restore the sand mined areas has certainly met any reasonable expectation or requirement. The area is secure, and in the fullness of time it will be difficult at first glance to discern where the island has been mined and where it has not. Now, unfortunately, my electorate appears to be vulnerable to a further attack on what it considers to be its proper entitlement, in that very positive statements have been made by leading conservationists to the effect that the objective now is to have Fraser Island included on the World Heritage List. To be totally fair, I have never attempted to conceal the fact that as a society we should be indebted-in fact, are indebted-to those conservationists, those with an acute sensitivity to the environment back in those days when, in innocent ignorance, we were insensitive to matters that should have demanded our attention over the decades and over the centuries. They generated an awareness that we should address matters of importance to us that is, to preserve our environment, but there is continuing evidence of an excess of zeal among those who have dedicated themselves to addressing the environment exclusively. The environment is all important-that goes without saying-but it might also be argued that on this planet there is intended to be room for human beings, simple, ordinary people going about their business endeavouring to secure from mother earth what is essential to their maintenance and advancement. I emphasise that I regard the role of conservationists in the past as important; it is now simply a question of balance. It is extraordinary that back in the 1970s the proposition was advanced by conservationists, and many innocent people who had been lured into believing the veracity of what was put before them, that should a shovel be put into Fraser Island the environment was of such a delicate nature that the whole thing would collapse. It has not done so. Now we have the situation where, after 100 years of log harvesting in the rainforests of Fraser Island, it is presented again to the public, which is not as gullible as it once was, that any further timber extraction will scar the island irreparably. However, not withstanding that implicit threat, they can still advance that island as an exquisite example of natural environment, even though for 100 years it has been logged to give the city of Maryborough the reputation of the timber city. Again, we have a situation where people's well-being and future are at risk from what some would regard as a laudable undertaking by those with an exclusive and singular interest in just one aspect of our living on this planet. I hope that we in this House remain as objective as we possibly can and make it our business to witness at first hand what has been done on Fraser Island. We are aware of many accounts of innocents who have ventured into a rainforest and the like, imbued with a notion that they are about to see something utterly pristine, untouched, and have extolled its virtue as a visual impact which is utterly exquisite, saying, `This is magnificent; it must not be touched. It must be preserved for all time', only to find that it has been logged twice in the last 40 years. It is a shame that people can be so innocently misled. I am also very much aware of how comfortable it is, at a remote distance, to make decisions that affect people elsewhere. Every time I fly into Sydney from the north I look down on those magnificent sleeping hills north of Sydney. It is an environmentally delightful and eagerly sought after residential area. I see those great blazing scars which have been cut through the hills to provide six-lane trafficways for motor vehicles, many of them no doubt carrying earnest conservationists into that hive of a city where they further pollute the environment with their car emissions. It is a case of `Don't you worry about me. I will tell you what to do and you will suffer the consequences'. When it comes before this House, if indeed it does-I hope that commonsense will prevail long before that-I trust that any determinations that are made will be made on a very responsible and objective basis. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.20) —Tonight I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to the unfortunate circumstances of Dr John Dixon-Jenkins, who has been on a health debilitating fast in Pentridge Prison since New Years Eve. In November 1984 Dr Dixon-Jenkins was sentenced to six years imprisonment for planting simulated bombs in Melbourne schools, threatening to contaminate foodstuffs in supermarkets, threatening to damage property in public buildings, and threatening to contaminate water and food supplies. Dr Dixon-Jenkins in his defence during his trial said that he had not intended to commit any acts of violence, but had made the threats solely to draw attention to the grave danger of nuclear war. In August 1987 Dr Dixon-Jenkins was involved in a siege at Bendigo Prison, where he held hostage visiting teachers and some prisoners for several days. Again, in his defence, he said that he had not harmed the abducted people, as all that he had wanted to do was to draw attention to the dangers of a nuclear holocaust, and the message of peace and love which was contained in his book, The Unified Theory of Existence. Dr Dixon-Jenkins is now awaiting trial on charges relating to the siege. Dr Dixon-Jenkins, who is both a scientist and a philosopher, has been classified as either a crank or a madman. However, having read his book I can assure the House that he is more sane than perhaps many parliamentarians. It is, of course, paradoxical that the doctor chose to use threats of violence, and actually deprived people of their freedom for a short time to draw attention to the message of peace and love contained in his book. I hope that honourable members will read his book. However, in the meantime I shall quote from the message that he has called his final statement to the people of Australia, in the hope that it will give honourable members some idea of the thoughts of this unusual man. He said: I place my life in the hands of the people of Australia. I am presently on an extended fast which began on New Years Eve. As I write this statement I have not yet eaten during 1988, and I drink nothing but water. I undertake this fast as a protest against the many wrongs which exist in today's world, the worst of these threatening the very survival of the human race, and at the lack of significant effort being made to right those wrongs. I did not enter lightly into the decision to take this drastic course of action which, though I pray it will not, may eventually result in my death. I take this desperate action for no other reason than my great love for all by brothers and sisters, the billions of wonderful members of the human family with which I share this planet, our earthly home. I am a scientist and a philosopher who is totally convinced that, through my lifework, I have come across a naturally existing solution to all of the world's problems, including the almost unthinkable horrors of the nuclear threat. I make this great claim humbly, but unashamedly. The significance of any discovery, no matter how valuable, stands alone. It is unimportant who has made the discovery. Although I have taken the liberty of naming the body of knowledge which contains the solution to the many problems facing our world, it seemed only appropriate to call it the unified theory of existence, I fully realize that I am not suddenly made `special' just because my work led me to an understanding of these great truths. All human endeavour has been moving toward, and would have arrived at, this same body of knowledge. For any new insight, which in reality is the legacy of every person, someone has to be the first. For that task, in the case of the unified theory of existence, I was chosen by the hand of fate. As Dr Dixon-Jenkins is not a criminal, in my view the State Government should extend the prerogative of mercy to him. Already he has served a considerable period of his original sentence, and has hoped to continue his writings. If Dr Dixon-Jenkins were treated in a human fashion I believe that he would have been prepared to end his fast and continue his writings. But I fear that unless the Victorian Government takes a more humane attitude to his case, he will soon die, as presently he is in a most weakened condition. My hope, perhaps, is that honourable members of this House who might feel that the prerogative of mercy should be extended to this man will write to the Victorian Minister for Police, Mr Crabb, and call upon him to extend the prerogative of mercy to Dr John Dixon-Jenkins. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.25) —Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity tonight to speak once more about the bowls program Jack High. Previously I have drawn attention to the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to discontinue the broadcasting on television of Jack High, and the circumstances in which that occurred. I should like to thank those honourable members who have supported me in my quest to have that program restored to ABC television. Madam SPEAKER —Hear, hear! Mr RUDDOCK —I thank all those members, including Madam Speaker, who enthusiastically supported that request. I want to highlight once more the reasons for my concern about this matter. I say to the General Manager of the ABC if ever he happens to read Hansard-this debate is not being broadcast, so he cannot listen-that he has the opportunity to restore the credibility of the ABC in this matter even at this late point in time. I quite clearly make the point first that the ABC gave a clear commitment that it would broadcast this program this year. When the ABC terminated the broadcasting it reneged on a commitment honourably given, and accepted and acted upon by others. Two reasons were given for the termination. The first was the matter of cost. The second, advanced later, I might say, by way of justification, was that the proposed broadcast would result in excessive advertising for Mazda, the sponsor of this bowls program, if it were to proceed, and that that would breach the ABC's advertising code. I say that that reason was developed later and, I think, rather spuriously. I suspect that the significant reason for the cancellation is related to funds available to the ABC, and some prejudices that exist within the ABC in relation to bowls as a sport. During the recess I highlighted the fact that the ABC, notwithstanding its arguments about financial stringency, was able to find money this year to present its ABC sports award of the year at a gala function at the Intercontinental Hotel in Sydney. That was only the second occasion-the first having been in Perth-when that award was not presented in the ABC studio. Admittedly, the studio presentation included some supper afterwards, but they were not gala, slap-up functions involving the considerable cost of using outside broadcasting vans and the like. That demonstrates the priorities accorded to sport within the ABC. A gala event is fine, but sports such as bowls go largely disregarded. I have placed some questions on notice about the priorities of the ABC. However, I think that those who argue that the ABC should receive additional funds will wonder about its priorities when they look at this matter and consider the attitude of the ABC to sport. I simply draw that to the attention of honourable members. Jack High will still be played, regardless of the ABC's attitude to it. It will be held at West Epping Bowling Club, with the finals on 20 March. Again, I thank honourable members for their enthusiastic support, and say to them that they will be most welcome to attend on that day. That is the weekend of the New South Wales State election, so honourable members could work at the election on the Saturday, and come to the finals of Jack High at West Epping Bowling Club on 20 March. I want to make one other point to those honourable members who are interested in this matter; that is, to commend one of the ABC's public broadcasting competitors, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). I have always found SBS to be a very innovative station. I must say that I think its news programs, particularly with regard to overseas news, set an enviable task for others to compete with. SBS has also moved into the televising of bowls. Though SBS will not televise all of the Jack High matches-I should imagine that would be in breach of its charter-it will broadcast highlights of those matches. Those programs will be screened at 7 p.m., with the semifinals on 20 and 24 April, the finals on 4 and 8 May, and the junior finals on 27 April and 1 May. I encourage all honourable members to watch that broadcast and all those who read the Hansard to take note of that time because I am sure they will find the tournament good entertainment. Madam SPEAKER —Do I take it that the honourable member is the patron of the particular bowling club where the tournament is being held? Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, Madam Speaker. If I have erred in not mentioning it, I point out that this fact is disclosed in my pecuniary interests statement. I am the patron of the West Epping Bowling Club. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member and I shall just add to what he said. Along with thousands of people throughout Australia, I miss the program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I think the ABC could well bring the program back and it would get many pats on the back for so doing. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(7.31) —I rise tonight as Chairman of the Australian-Thai Parliamentary Friendship Group, a group formed by this Parliament last year through the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is a first for this Parliament to arrange a friendship group with a democracy in Asia. It was formed for the principal purpose of creating relationships with Thai parliamentarians in order to seek matters of mutual interest between the Thai and Australian parliaments. At a meeting this week members of that committee were very concerned about reports emanating from Thailand about clashes between Thai regular army forces and Laotian army forces-the Pathet Lao-on the Thai-Laotian border. Reports indicate that some 500 people are known to have lost their lives as a result of this conflict. The reports also indicate that at least two military aircraft of the Thai Royal Air Force have been lost in that conflict. The conflict appears to be a fairly senseless but quite savage battle about winning the control of one hill in tropical jungle country on the border of those two countries. It appears that there is a historical dispute, going back a long while, over the exact boundary of Thailand and Laos. It would also be fair to say that one could be quite critical of the former colonial powers which are responsible for the mess that exists on the borders. That involved the French in Laos who, back in the colonial years, failed to define those boundaries properly and adequately. From information from the Thai Embassy, which the group has been fortunate to be given, we understand why that historical difference exists and perhaps why the current conflict has emerged. The committee wishes to express publicly its concern. It looks towards a lasting solution of the boundary problems between Laos and Thailand but obviously does not wish to be drawn into a criticism of one country or the other. Rather, it urges the two combatants to cease the hostilities, not just temporarily, but on a permanent basis, and seek through intermediaries a convention or a system whereby a proper resolution of the boundary dispute is found. I might add that the dispute does not just concern this one hill; it concerns a river valley and definitional terms of whether a particular area does or does not lie within one nation's boundaries or the other. My committee quite frankly believes that it is in the long term interests of Thailand and of Laos and, in fact, of the stability of South East Asia, to urge both the Laotian and Thai governments to seek the assistance of intermediaries so that a proper and long lasting resolution can be reached and the boundary can be properly defined to the satisfaction of both parties to ensure that future clashes do not arise. It is quite clear that this is not the first time that Pathet Lao and the Royal Thai army and air force have clashed on that particular border. It does appear to my committee that it will not be the last time that such clashes occur unless that boundary can be delineated satisfactorily. My committee is extremely pleased at the news this week that at a meeting between the Thai military and a military delegation from Laos, it was agreed that a ceasefire would be observed from 0800 hours on 19 February 1988 and that both sides have agreed to a total disengagement of their armed forces. We are also pleased that there is an apparent agreement that there will be critical negotiations for a long term solution to the problem. But we are concerned that that has been attempted before and historically, to this date, those two countries have not managed to find a solution. On behalf of the Australian-Thai Parliamentary Friendship Group we urge Pathet Lao to look closely at this problem. We give our support to the Thai Government and the Thai Parliament in their expressions of concern at this problem. We support them in looking for a peaceful resolution to this border conflict. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(7.35) —During the debate on the ministerial statement on regional defence policy, I informed this House of recent and grave developments that will affect Australia's future security. I also posed a number of questions to the Minister for Defence, (Mr Beazley). In his summation the Minister chose not to address this new information and refused to answer the questions I posed. I notice that he is now with us in the chamber tonight. He might see fit to answer some of those questions. The only comment from the Minister about India's expansion, of which I am aware, was in this morning's AM program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio when he said, in part: India is not a country that has ever been hostile to us. There is nothing in Indian policy which is hostile to us. Neville Chamberlain could not have said it better. I have heard at least one Australian Labor Party member trot out the old and ill informed theory that India needs to build up its forces to counter threats from Pakistan and China. However, I fail to see what conceivable reason there is for India to engage in a massive naval build-up to counter these threats which are over disputed land borders. In the 1987-88 edition of the authoritative Jane's Fighting Ships, its editor, the highly respected Captain John Moore, when commenting on the Indian naval build-up, said: This is by any standards, short of the superpowers, a formidable force and the main query for an outsider is `Why?' Why indeed? Our Minister for Defence, as an outsider with a direct interest, certainly does not appear to want to address this most serious of questions. The Indian-Russian relationship is quickly moving to dominate not just Australia's Indian Ocean region and trade routes but the whole Indian Ocean-Arabian Sea area and its approaches. There are currently Indian or Russian bases or base facilities from the far east of the region to the far west. There are also strong indications that India is pressuring the Government of the Maldives to allow India the use of the massive air base and naval facilities of the former British base on the Maldivian island of Gan. Indian access to those facilities would be disastrous for Australia. It would further India's ability to control our trade routes and enhance its projection of military power. Furthermore, can anyone doubt that an Indian presence on Gan would not lead to an eventual Russian presence? It should not be forgotten that in 1977 the Russians tried, unsuccessfully, to gain a foothold on Gan. I turn now to another equally critical subject. The Defence Minister's dismissal of my claim that Indonesia is looking to acquire a French Rubis class nuclear submarine as `a silly rumour' is both dangerous and stupid. I remind the House that the French have earmarked the nuclear powered Rubis class as a potential major military export item and are undertaking a worldwide marketing campaign to sell the boat. I also remind the House that a high level French military delegation visited Indonesia recently. Indonesia is continuing its efforts to greatly expand its nuclear industry, a fact which is significant, given her interest in nuclear submarines. Indonesia's third nuclear reactor has just begun operating at Serpong. The high neutron flux capacity of this new reactor will enable it to accomplish multi-purpose tasks. Next to the reactor is a fuel element plant capable of producing 70 pieces of fuel element a year and, in addition, the plant will include a separate radioactive waste processing installation. Indonesia also has plans to begin construction of a 900-megawatt nuclear plant in the very near future. As can be seen from this information, Indonesia already has a substantial nuclear technology base, which will, of course, provide the necessary support to a nuclear submarine force. The information I have obtained regarding Indonesia's interests in acquiring nuclear submarines is coming from too many sources, both here and overseas, to be ignored. I can again say, with the utmost confidence, that too many people are aware of this and therefore the Minister must be aware. Furthermore, I remind the House that Indian officials were denying the recent acquisition of a Soviet nuclear submarine, even to the Australian media, right up to the day of delivery. If the Minister continues with his cavalier and Chamberlainesque attitude to defence I wonder whether, in the years to come, he will be able to live with his conscience as the timely warnings by me and others may come back to haunt him. Mr LEE(Dobell)(7.40) —I am provoked by the contribution of the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), whom I followed in the debate on the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) yesterday, to give an adjournment speech tonight. I advise the honourable member for Bruce that in fact Pakistan fronts onto the Indian Ocean and that, if India believes that at some time in the future it may wish to have military hardware that allows it to take action against Pakistan, it could be quite understandable that India would require one or more aircraft carriers to support actions on the Pakistani shores of the Indian Ocean. So his statement that India would not need aircraft carriers in some future conflict with Pakistan simply does not hold true. Once again he has repeated his allegations against India and Indonesia. I simply quote to the honourable member for Bruce the view of his shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), on other comments which the honourable member for Bruce made in his contribution yesterday. I will spend a bit more time on the suggestion from the honourable member that we should scrap the submarine project and buy an off the shelf model for some other country. The shadow Minister gave his view of the honourable member's contribution yesterday when, on a point of order, he said: On a point of order: it is not the Opposition which said that. One member said that. So even his own shadow Minister cut him loose and was not prepared to go along with the views that he was putting. The reason why the shadow Minister cut him loose and established that difference between the Opposition's view and the honourable member's obsessions was that the honourable member was advocating the cancellation of the submarine contract. That is the truth. He was saying that, because there are problems in training enough apprentices to fulfil the Australian content of the new submarine project, we should scrap the entire submarine project and purchase an off the shelf model from some other country. I just wonder what the view of the Liberal candidate in Port Adelaide will be. I wonder whether the Liberal candidate in Port Adelaide, whoever that person is, would go along with the view of the Liberal member for Bruce that his Party should scrap the submarine contract. I certainly know that every Australian Labor Party member in this House endorses totally the efforts of the Minister for Defence to maximise Australian industry participation in defence contracts. That has certainly been the major difference between capital purchases for the defence forces by this Government and the purchases negotiated when those opposite were in government. We are still recovering from the contracts which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) negotiated for the FA18s. I just wonder whether the Leader of the National Party endorses the comments of the honourable member for Bruce that the submarine contract should be cancelled. Does he still have an obsession with Australia acquiring a nuclear submarine? He should give us an answer. He is quiet. He does not wish to take up the challenge. He does not wish to tell us whether he endorses the comments of the honourable member for Bruce in cancelling the submarine contract. I know that the submarine contract will result in the creation of thousands of jobs in Australia. Honourable members opposite would be quite happy if that project were cancelled, the factories stopped working on making components for the submarine and all of those young Australians who would obtain skills and get work from the project were thrown onto the unemployment scrap heap. I turn to a comment made in the debate yesterday by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who made some very welcome comments tonight about Jack High. His comments in the debate yesterday also deserve reply. He stated that the various contracts for the submarine project have been spread around Australia for base political reasons. That is absolutely ridiculous. Do honourable members opposite suggest that the commercial companies in the consortium which has successfully won the contract would for some political reason award contracts to companies with bids higher than those of other companies? Certainly, no consortium in its right mind would award contracts to subcontractors with higher prices. That is the crazy allegation that the honourable member has made. Of course, the consortium will use its own economic judgment in awarding the subcontracts to the lowest tenderers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(7.45) —Tonight I wish to put the record straight regarding comments made in the House two nights ago by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) concerning an accident in western Queensland, in the electorate of Maranoa, on the Nockatunga property. Of course, that story was given to the Press which, in my opinion, has beaten it up. The Press has even stated that it has not made any attempt to contact anybody involved in the accident on Nockatunga. I think that is a disgrace. I challenge the media to contact some of the people involved before they start writing articles and putting them in large print in newspapers. They should get the facts of a story from someone other than the honourable member for Bowman, because he obviously does not have most of the story right. He and the Press compared this accident with the events that resulted in the death of two boys in Western Australia. It is absolute nonsense to compare this accident with the death of those two young jackaroos in Western Australia. This chap has not died. He did have an accident; he was burned but not badly. He was treated at the time by the relieving manager's wife, Marge Gorring, who is a trained nursing sister. That is something that the honourable member for Bowman has not been prepared to tell the House. After she had treated the boy for a number of hours, he was taken to the Jackson oilfield, where the paramedic on duty contacted the flying doctor, who was at Rubyvale at the time. The flying doctor gave advice over the air to the paramedic at Jackson oilfield on how the treatment of Matthew Brown should be carried out. After the treatment, the flying doctor decided that the condition of the patient did not warrant the doctor making a trip in his aeroplane to pick up the boy. The flying doctor has priorities and he determined that the accident was not severe enough. If the doctor had gone to the aid of that patient, it would have meant that he was unable to go anywhere else, so he determined that he should not go there. Matthew Brown went back to the station and the next day he asked that he be sent to Brisbane. The station management paid his air fare to Brisbane and also gave him $25 in cash to help him. The paramedic accompanied Matthew Brown to Brisbane because he was going there anyway; it was not because he regarded him as medically unfit to travel. He was on relief duty and lives in Brisbane. I have spoken to him today. Matthew Brown's father seems to have contacted the honourable member for Bowman. The union movement seems to be concerned that workers compensation has not yet been paid. As honourable members will know, it is compulsory to pay workers compensation in Queensland if one employs people. There are forms that need to be filled out. These forms are being filled out. It was claimed that they were requested. The bookkeeper at the station has been away on holiday for a month, but no doubt this will be done. What really amazes me is that this whole exercise happened 37 days ago. Surely, if the people concerned had thought the accident so serious, they would have contacted the honourable member for Bowman and the Press long before now. This accident happened 37 days ago, on 12 January. It is a disgrace that the honourable member for Bowman and the Press have beaten up this story without making any checks on what went on at the station at the time. Another assertion that has been made is that somehow or other John Elliott has been involved. Because Elders IXL is the stock and station agent for this property, the honourable member for Bowman stands up in the House and accuses John Elliott of being responsible in some way or other for this accident. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Not only was that asserted by the honourable member; it was also repeated in the Press reports that John Elliott, because he heads Elders IXL and because this large cattle station of 4,000 square kilometres in the Channel Country in my electorate happens to use Elders as its stock and station agent, is somehow or other responsible. What absolute garbage! Mr Sciacca —Why don't you read the speech? Mr IAN CAMERON —I have read the story in the Press. The honourable member should read it. It is an absolute beat-up by the media and I challenge the media to write a story tomorrow and put the facts down on paper. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(7.50) —I was not going to speak in this debate but the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) gave me notice that he was going to say something on this matter and I was very interested to hear what he had to say. He did not know, of course, that I had delivered a speech in the adjournment debate two nights previously. The Press picked it up this morning and put something in the newspaper, and so it should have. Whatever the honourable member for Maranoa says, I know that he telephoned Mr Roger Brown, Matthew Brown's father, who contacted the Australian Workers Union in Queensland, which in turn contacted me. I know that he got the facts from Mr Roger Brown, but obviously he did not believe Mr Brown. I spoke to Mr Brown this afternoon and he told me that he gave the honourable member for Maranoa exactly the same story. If we accept the version just given by the honourable member for Maranoa, how does he explain some of the other matters that appear in the Press article? It states that this is the third time something like this has happened at Nockatunga, which is owned by absentee landlords in South Australia who could not care less what the work practices are on that station. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would like to point out to the House that this property is managed properly. It is owned by people from South Australia-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa has completed his contribution. The honourable member for Bowman now has the call. Mr SCIACCA —Having been in this House only seven months it has not taken me long to work out how the honourable member for Maranoa works. We all know that sometimes he is a bit gregarious. The fact is that this is the third incident that has occurred on this station in the past four years. I remind the honourable member for Maranoa that the first incident-the honourable member would have found this out if he had checked the facts-involved a 19-year-old boy who badly broke his leg four years ago while mustering cattle yet was not taken to hospital for two days. The second incident involved two youths, both 18, who tried to restart a truck by pouring petrol into its engine. It ignited and both youths were critically burned and taken to hospital. Mr Brown claims that the truck regularly broke down and should never have been driven. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa had better have a point of order and not a point of debate. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Bowman is not correct in what he says about these people. The people who were injured were the manager of the station and the fencing contractor. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will take no further action in this. I will not hear further points of order unless they are legitimate. The trouble is that I have to hear them before I know that. Mr SCIACCA —It is obvious that the honourable member for Maranoa does not want to listen to the truth because it does not fit in with his story. Therefore, he is prepared to waste time. I have mentioned two serious incidents that happened on that station. The third incident, which was just as serious as the two I have mentioned, was the one we have been talking about. If the honourable member for Maranoa had bothered to read my speech he would have seen that all I did was call upon John Elliott to investigate. John Elliott wants one day to lead the honourable member's coalition and has made it clear that he wants to knock off the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard); he has said on a number of occasions that he is interested in politics. Although it is indirect, the fact is that a company over which he has some control obviously has unsafe work practices on this property. It is criminal to allow a kid, a 17-year-old boy who has been on a property for only four days, to uncouple a polythene pipe and not tell him that under pressure it can burn and maim him which it did. I hope that the company is taken to court. I think it amounts almost to criminal negligence. The young fellow should get plenty of money because there is no question that this is an absolutely disgraceful case of an unsafe system of work. It is good to see that unions such as the Australian Workers Union, and indeed every union in Queensland, are prepared to do something about it. If it were up to the honourable member's Party it would deregulate the unions and these young kids would end up either killing themselves or dying trying to run away from properties. These sorts of things would happen over and over again. I am very surprised that the honourable member for Maranoa would take such a tack. He telephoned Mr Roger Brown, who has denied everything he said. In fact, he said to me, `By gee, he can get heavy, that bloke, can't he?'. I said, `Don't worry, he's like that'. The fact is that we all know what the honourable member for Maranoa is like. He is 100 per cent wrong and a court of law will prove it as soon as this young guy sues the honourable member's friends or constituents or whoever they are for everything they are worth. I hope he gets heaps because he deserves it. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(7.55) —I wish to focus the attention of the House on the socialisation of medicine compared to the privatisation of medicine in Australia. Over the last 36 hours we have had a very strong debate about the doctor-bashing information of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). The honourable member has tried very hard to denigrate doctors in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member not to refer to previous debates in the House today. He would be out of order. Mr McARTHUR —My local doctor was appalled by the debates in this House and the breaking of confidentiality that has been exposed in the last 36 hours. I draw the attention of the House to the misleading nature of the suggestions by the honourable member for Canning about doctors' salaries as gross figures without taking into account the costs of running those practices. Those figures are inaccurate, inappropriate, and convey a completely wrong impression to the Australian public about doctors' salaries. I turn to a question I placed on notice to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) on 29 October which the Minister has taken some four months to answer. I ask the House to compare this with the time taken-a matter of days-to find information for the honourable member for Canning about medical matters. The question I raised related to Medicare agencies and their position in relation to private health insurance companies. The monopoly position of Medicare will be enhanced by the removal of the Medicare agencies from the private sector insurance companies. There will be less competition from the private sector companies. The reason broadly given by the Minister is that there will be a saving of $1.5m, the figure given in the Budget Papers. I asked: when were the agencies going to close; and the answer was March 1988, only a few weeks away. In the second part of the answer the Minister indicated that there was no clear plan as to where these new agencies would be placed. In the third part of my question I asked how many would be replaced. The answer was that the figures had not been finalised. So these agencies will be closed in three or four weeks, yet the plans have not been finalised. I understand that about 350,000 patients throughout Australia will be affected and that 58 cash agencies will be closed under these new arrangements. I note that in Tasmania the eight agencies acting through the post offices will not be closed because they do not provide a threat to Medicare in competitive terms. The agencies throughout Australia process 650,000 claims, which run to 1.7 million line items. In addition, the agencies help patients with administration, documentation, and the procedures involved in these claims. In the answer to the question the Minister suggested that there would be no new capital requirement for these agencies throughout Australia which have been taken away from the private health insurance funds. As I say, the new locations are not finalised. The Minister mentioned quality control in his reply. At this stage the agencies have about a 0.5 per cent error in direct billing procedures. The monopoly position of Medicare will be enhanced and there will be no benchmark as to the operations of the Medicare agencies once these agencies in the private health field have been taken away. A saving of $1.5m has been suggested, which compares unfavourably with the $1.23m paid in commission to the private health insurance agencies when we take into account capital costs, personal attention and the private sector involvement in the agencies dispensing Medicare costs. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new telephone exchange building at Charlotte Street, Brisbane. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of State Head Office, Australia Post, Prince Alfred Park Centre, 219-241 Cleveland Street, Redfern, New South Wales. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Relocation of Albion Explosives Factory to Mulwala, New South Wales. Mr McGauran to move- That this House stresses the need to stop the distribution of X-rated videos in the Australian Capital Territory which allow State laws to be easily circumvented and family life undermined. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 February 1988: Customs Act-Notice-1988-No. 1. Excise Act-Notice-1988-No. 1. Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act-Revocation Orders (2) by the Attorney-General pursuant to subsection 20 (2), dated 5 January 1988. Health Insurance Act-Statements of particulars of Ministerial Determinations made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 15 February 1988, relating to Dr R. F. Berglind and Dr D. W. McIntosh. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 490) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Did he inform the House (Hansard, 16 September 1986, page 707) that Mr R. Damieen, an employee at the Footscray Ammunition Factory from June 1984 to March 1985, had claimed to be an Aboriginal. (2) Did he quote the former Special Minister of State as saying that Mr Damieen may be the first Tamil who knows how to play the didgeridoo. (3) Is it a fact that Mr Kandasamy, a Malaysian-born Tamil, was sentenced to 5 months gaol in Melbourne magistrates Court in February 1987 after pleading guilty to 3 counts each of imposition, making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport, and entering Australia as a prohibited non-citizen. (4) Is it a fact that the sentence was upheld on appeal to the County Court on 6 April 1987. (5) Is it a fact the court was told that Mr Kandasamy had obtained a passport by falsely representing himself to be an Australian named Ran Damieen, and that because Mr Kandasamy had posed as an Aboriginal, the former Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs issued a passport without requiring a birth certificate. (6) Is it also a fact that the court was told that Mr Kandasamy had a reference from a legal service, had obtained clerical work under the national employment scheme for Aboriginals, had worked at an ammunition factory and had applied for a permanent job with his Department. (7) Was the information he gave the House regarding Mr Kandasamy's nationality accurate; if not, has he discussed the matter further with the immediate 2 former Special Ministers of State. (8) What (a) was the exact period of Mr Kandasamy's employment at the Footscray Ammunition Factory, (b) were Mr Kandasamy's duties and (c) checks were undertaken, and by whom, prior to Mr Kandasamy's employment at the factory. (9) What was the reason for the termination of Mr Kandasamy's employment. (10) What references were provided to Mr Kandasamy following the termination of Mr Kandasamy's employment. (11) What was the permanent position in his Department for which Mr Kandasamy applied. (12) When was the application made. (13) What was the result of the application. (14) What duties did the position involve. (15) Was a security clearance required. (16) Were any checks made into Mr Kandasamy's background; if so, (a) by whom (b) what did they involve and (c) did they uncover Mr Kandasamy's real nationality. (17) Has any action been taken to upgrade security checks on applicants for employment at Government munitions factories; if so, when were they introduced and what details is he able to provide. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Although Mr Young was referred to as the Member for Port Adelaide rather than the Special Minister of State. (3), (4) and (5) See answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on 4 June 1987. (6) Mr R. Damieen, now known to be Mr Kandasamy, was employed at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray after referral by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) under the National Employment Scheme for Aborigines (NESA) Training Scheme from 4 June 1984 to 1 March 1985. (7) Yes. (8)- (a) See answer to question 6. (b) Low level clerical duties in purchasing and inventory control. (c) No prior employment checks were carried out. (9) Expiration of NESA training contract. (10) The Factory did not provide any references on completion of training. (11) A viewer. (12) 26 August 1985. (13) Application not successful. (14) Viewing components as to meeting quality standards/requirements. (15) Mr Damieen was not required to hold a security clearance as he had no requirement for access to national security classified matter. (16) Mr Damieen was requested to complete the appropriate forms for the `Position of Trust' (POT) check but left the factory's employ before submitting the forms. The POT check involves background inquiries and a Police records check. Mr Kandasamy claimed to have lost all his personal documentation in a cyclone while in Darwin and, as he was employed under the NESA scheme for an initial period of only 9 weeks, no background inquiries were made. Because there is a high turnover of staff at the Factory, background inquiries for all those employed for short periods could not at the time be undertaken. (17) All employees at the AFF are now required to complete the appropriate employment forms and a check of Police records is undertaken as part of the suitability process. (Question No. 540) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) What guidelines are used to apply the assets test for unemployment benefits, including any particular guidelines which apply to the farming community. (2) How many farmers or their spouses are receiving unemployment benefits, and what sum is paid in respect of these benefits, in (a) Australia, (b) NSW and (c) the Division of Parkes. (3) What percentage of farmers or their spouses who have received unemployment benefits, have been assessed under the new assets test rules for unemployment benefits and how many of these have lost their benefit. (4) What avenues of welfare assistance are available to farmers who lose unemployment benefits. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The guidelines for applying the assets test on unemployment benefits are similar to those applying to pensions. However, there are no tapering provisions or loan scheme provisions as apply to the pensions asset test. The law and general principles of the benefits asset test apply equally to all clients, including the farming community. Within the detailed guidelines issued to departmental staff, farming properties are referred to by way of example in relation to the concept of curtilage; definition of an asset; the relevance of forgone wages and improvements effected by relatives when considering deprivation; and application of the hardship provisions (including deemed income). (2) Unlike their counterparts in New Zealand or generally those in countries with contributory social insurance schemes, full-time farmers in Australia are not automatically precluded from unemployment benefit. Latest statistics available (30 October 1987) indicate that of the order of 1,300 primary producers or their spouses were then receiving unemployment benefits. Of these an estimated 300 to 350 were in New South Wales. These numbers may be underestimated as some primary producers are not being identified as such on the benefits payment system. Expenditure details as requested are not readily available. However, based on the assumption that primary producers receive the same average rate as other unemployment beneficiaries, full-year outlays would be about $10m. Electoral Division information is not available. (3) There are no details available regarding the number of farmers or their spouses who have been affected by the assets test on benefits. The test was implemented on 13 December 1987. At that date 2316 beneficiaries were affected; 1155 males and 1161 females. Most persons affected were receiving the married rate of benefit. From 13 December 1987 to 20 January 1988, 184 new claims have been rejected on the basis of assets. (4) Farmers not in receipt of benefit who have dependent children may qualify for the Family Allowance Supplement. Farmers on low incomes may also be eligible for a Health Care Card under the Disadvantaged Persons Health Scheme. Other forms of assistance available include Household Support under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. (Question No. 594) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) What will happen to the information provided by parents who seek to claim the Family Allowance Supplement by completing Form SS49.8710. (2) Will this information be (a) maintained on departmental files or (b) forwarded to the Australian Taxation Office. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information provided on Form SS49.8710 by parents seeking to claim Family Allowance Supplement is stored on computer file in order to facilitate the processing of claims. The completed form is batch stored in the Regional Office and can be retrieved through references on the computer system, if required. (2) (a) See above. (b) No.