Thursday, 25 February 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.01) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent General Business Order of the Day No. 17 being called on forthwith. Mr Beazley —We will take that now. Question resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Motion Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.02) —I appreciate the co-operation of the Government in this matter. I move: That this House commends the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for their outstanding contribution to Sydney's Australia Day Bicentennial celebrations and notes that the success of the day was in large part due to their willing participation on what was a holiday for other Australians. There is no one in the House or in Australia who saw that memorable day in Sydney who was not very impressed and moved. I think that part of the success of the day was the participation by the defence forces of Australia, including a magnificent fly-past by aircraft from all three Services. Not only that, members of the defence forces participated in guards of honour and provided a lot of communications. While we were enjoying ourselves on that day many members of the defence forces were working very hard. This motion seeks to recognise their efforts and commend them. I might just say in passing that it is a pity in this bicentennial year that the defence forces are not more overtly recognised for their contributions. The Tattoo is going around Australia later this year but it is timely to remember the effort and the contribution that the defence forces have made to the security of this country. Those of us who can remember-and I can just dimly-the dark days of 1942 should remind ourselves just what the defence forces have meant to Australia. We would not be leading this sort of life unless that contribution had been made. The same goes for the contribution in World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam. The same effort is being put in now by the men and women of the defence forces. It is also timely to remember, as I go tomorrow to Bundaberg to take part in a celebration and dedication of a Beaufort bomber that crashed during World War II, just what that enormous contribution has been over all these years to Australian security. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(10.04) —I am happy to second the motion. A motion equivalent to this has been moved and carried by the Senate, so it is entirely appropriate that the House should join it and ensure that a united view go forth from the whole Parliament to the defence forces, thanking them for their participation on that day. As somebody who had a box seat for the performances of the Defence Force during Australia Day, I can only agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. They did very, very well. Of course, it is sometimes forgotten that this meant they had no holiday. Nevertheless, I am absolutely convinced that every one of the members of the defence forces-and a substantial number participated in it-enjoyed the affair immensely. A very impressive fly-past display was put on by the Air Force. I was the recipient of a great deal of comment on the size of that fly-past and how good it looked from the various dignitaries who were at the Sydney Opera House to watch it. In addition to that, enormous work was done on the day by the Navy and the Army, in assisting with the communications involved, the various parades and also, of course, the review of tall ships. There will be a number of other occasions on which this sort of motion can be moved during the year. By the time this year is out there will be a thoroughgoing awareness in the public mind of both the effectiveness and the performance of our defence forces. The public will have many opportunities to see them. There will be air pageants, there will be a major naval review, there will be military tattoos. There is scarcely a celebration anywhere in the country that will not involve the participation of our armed forces. Some of those events will be spectacular, as I have said. Some will be pretty mundane but nevertheless important to the particular communities that experience them. This bicentennial celebration will be very much a people celebration. Honourable members will find that the armed forces of this country, as is appropriate, are well spread throughout the community and are well able to support that type of activity. It is well to remember in the bicentennial year the contribution of our armed forces to our survival as a nation and to the fact that we are able to celebrate our 200th birthday at all. I was quite interested yesterday to have a chance to talk with the French Defence Minister on his visit to the War Memorial. He pointed out there was no equivalent in France. He also said he might do something about that. That demonstrates that Australia is not a nation that forgets the contribution of its defence forces. This is a nation which remembers their contribution with honour and in detail. That is appropriate, and the performance that is expected of them and has already been obtained from them in the course of these bicentennial events is further evidence of that high public regard. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.07) —I would like to support briefly the comments of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on this bipartisan motion, similar to one already passed by the Senate, and add just one dimension. Not only did the Army, Navy and Air Force perform so admirably on 26 January and in the build-up to and during the first two months of our bicentennial year; it was very much a case of business as usual at first light the next morning. This was demonstrated to me most adequately when, thanks to the approval given by the Minister, I, as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, went out on HMAS Onslow, sailing through the Heads from Sydney early the next morning. That is a submarine, I might add, also with a deficient air-conditioning system. We dived and travelled underwater most of the way to Jervis Bay. The sailors told me that day that they were very proud-although the submarine squadron had not been directly involved the day before-that there was such a tremendous reception for the armed forces component of the Australia Day observance in Sydney on 26 January. This is one of those rare occasions when a motion goes through with unanimous support in both Houses of Parliament. Last year the same thing happened with the Vietnam veterans welcome home parade, which was recognised by motions in both Houses of Parliament. It should happen more often. I commend the motion to the House and support the recognition, long overdue, of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force for all their efforts. I wish them well as they carry out their duties in this bicentennial year and I wish them well as they maintain a defence capability for Australia during this difficult period. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.10) —I wish to support the remarks of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I join with them in placing on record that on 26 January 1988 a contingent of the Australian Army was present at the raising of the Australian flag in Flinders Mall, Townsville, to celebrate the Bicentenary of our nation. That flag was raised in the same place as the Australian flag in its present design was first raised in this continent on 16 September 1901 by Lord Hopetoun, the first Governor-General of Australia. The Minister was correct when he said that in virtually every commemorative celebration for our Bicentenary in Australia this year there will be-or should be-the presence of members of the Australian armed forces. In this country, more than in any other democracy that I can think of, the armed forces are so much part and parcel of our community. As the representative of an electorate which hosts more than 10 per cent of the Australian Army and nearly 6 per cent of the Australian Defence Force, I point out that the armed forces are not only the defenders and protectors of the freedoms of our country, but also, more than anything, part of the civilian community of Townsville. They occupy a very special place of honour in the hearts and minds of everyone in Townsville. I am certain that the motion that has been moved in this House this morning will receive the wholehearted support of every honourable member. I commend the honourable member for McPherson for moving it. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.12) —I will take a brief moment to echo the words of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) because what he has said certainly applies to my own constituents in Holsworthy. I join with the honourable member in commending the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senator Morris to the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority; and of the discharge of Senator Bolkus from and the appointment of Senator Childs to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton 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 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.'. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.13) —For the bene-fit of those listening to the broadcast today, I point out that this is a continuation of a debate which began yesterday on the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill which is essentially about the tracking down by the Government of fraud and overpayments in the area of Austudy. I regret that the Government, in bringing legislation before the Parliament to amend Austudy arrangements, has yet again failed to address some of the glaring anomalies of the Austudy program. Whilst the Opposition does not intend to oppose this legislation, as we support the crackdown on fraud and overpayments, we are constrained to condemn the Government for failing to address the educational needs in the community. The Liberal Party of Australia went to the last election with a good record of a creative and progressive education policy which it then presented. Without that policy I do not believe some of the changes which we see being mooted in the Government would have been made. We went to the last election saying that Austudy and unemployment benefits should be the same and, of course, that happened this year. Our Party also has creative ideas, which is more than can be said for the Government in the educational field. I refer in particular to one of the aspects of Austudy which many people opposed very strongly, and that was the payment of Austudy directly to students aged between 16 and 18 years. I think that the previous Opposition spokesman for education encouraged the Minister to change that so that payments could be made to parents. That is the case now, even though parents have to apply for it. It was inevitable that this Government would become bankrupt of ideas for the simple reason that it has lost touch with the people. The coalition has remained in touch with the people and can understand their needs. It is only if people in this Parliament stay in touch with the electorate that we can understand its needs, share its hopes and provide it with a vision. This Government is out of touch and its Party has said so. The people of the Adelaide electorate have said so by electing their first Liberal member for nearly 20 years. The Premier of New South Wales has said so and the Government's lack of ideas says so also. The need is clear but the Government will not face it in this area. The Government fails to recognise that many young people are faced with a hopeless situation which is due largely to this Government's economic policies-policies which have maintained an unemployment rate that is 40 per cent higher than under the previous coalition Government, policies which mean that there are 700,000 more Australians living in poverty now than there were in 1983 and policies which have extended the period of unemployment, on average, from 32 to 58 weeks. Yesterday I was interested to hear the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) congratulate the Government on rising retention rates in our schools, saying that that was due to the Government's policies. One of the real reasons why retention rates have increased in Australia is that parents know there is very little option but to encourage their young people to stay at school. It is absolutely mind-boggling that a government can claim that it is the real reason why students are going on to higher education. The major factor involved is that parents know that their young people have very little option, so there is now very strong encouragement from parents to have their children continue in education. It is not due to Government activity. Education is vital to the revitalisation of employment prospects and the Australian economy as a whole. The Government has rightly said that one of our key goals in education must be to increase our participation in education-commonly called retention rates. In introducing Austudy the Government argued that it was trying to rationalise student assistance programs. Yet the Austudy program maintains significant inequities. Today I wish to address a couple of particular problems which I see in Austudy. Firstly, Austudy penalises students who have supported themselves for a period but who, due to a change in circumstances, apply for Austudy. At present, students who have provided their own support for one or more years are penalised. For example, a student who pays his or her own way, and completes one year of a three-year course and then changes to another course, can obtain Austudy only for the first two years of the new course. Although such a person may have successfully completed the year in the first course, the fact that both courses are theoretically free of fees and the fact that the person was not a burden on the Commonwealth are apparently of no consideration. Such an anomaly acts as a disincentive for students ever to support themselves or to complete their course. I believe that within the present system students should be entitled to three years of Commonwealth support for tertiary education, conditional only on meeting eligibility requirements and satisfactory progress. The reason for students dropping out of schools or for continuing in their studies are many and varied, but I believe that a most significant factor is the support given to those families supporting young people going on to further study. For example, let me look at how Austudy allows for the families of isolated children. People on the mainland of Australia might be surprised to learn that in Tasmania there are many children who are regarded as isolated. There are nearly 700 such children located throughout the State, in the west coast regions, the Tasman Peninsula, Flinders Island and the central highlands. In my own electorate of Braddon there are isolated children in the far north west and on King Island. Let me read out an extract from a letter from a constituent of mine-the father of an isolated child. It reads: My purpose in writing to you is to bring to your attention and seek your support in rectifying a gross anomaly that appears in the Austudy eligibility criteria, particularly in relation to HSC students who are forced, because of isolation, to live away from home compared to TAFE students of the same age who are similarly forced to live away from home. No doubt that comes about in Tasmania because that State has year 11 and year 12 colleges which are not available to all high school students in their region. Children often have to move away from home. The Australian Capital Territory has a similar set-up, but at this stage none of the other States has. My constituent continued: As the guidelines stand at the moment if my 17-year old daughter attended a Tech College for full-time study, she would be entitled to claim, depending on my income, a portion of $3,974 but because she attends an HSC College she can only claim a portion of $2,614, a difference of $1,380. I also have a son studying at University.... If I claimed (isolated children's allowance) for my daughter I would receive the non-income tested payment of $989 but I would not qualify for any assistance under Austudy for my son because I would be unable to claim sibling concession for my daughter under Austudy. But a person with the same income as mine and with children of the same age with one at University and one at Tech College would qualify for sibling concession and would receive an additional $1,380 assistance over what my children will receive this year. I agree with my constituent. This is hardly an equitable situation. This Government fails to recognise that parents are the main contributing factor in determining whether their children will continue to pursue their studies. We are talking here about a test on parental income. No educational factors come into play. Effectively, we are paying a subsidy to parents to take a particular direction for their children's education. In this case there is an incentive for parents to say to their young people that they ought to go on to technical college and not do the higher school certificate, because then they can receive more benefits. Parents, together with their children, should be able to make educational choices free from these sorts of pressures. I call on the Minister to indicate how a Government which preaches equity can justify the maintenance of this inequity, which discriminates against those already disadvantaged in education through isolation. I call on the Minister to look at the interaction of these two schemes. In Tasmania the school retention rates are fairly low. In 1985 the male retention rate for years 7 to 12 for Australia as a whole was 42 per cent; for the north-west coast it was 16 per cent. In some respects I can understand why that occurs. There, people are satisfied, largely speaking, with the way in which they live. There are lots of things that young people can do and enjoy without their having to go on to further education. However, in redressing this disparity the people on the north-west coast have displayed their commitment to education. I believe that the north-west coast is one of Australia's leading communities in addressing the problems of educational access. One creative initiative by which it is leading the nation is the North-West Council for Community Education. Whilst the Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for tertiary education, it is interesting to note that this centre is funded by the State Government. A similar centre in Darwin is funded by the Commonwealth. For students the centre acts as an education broker and as their advocate with tertiary institutions. For the institutions it tries to keep them in touch with the local service demands and acts as a base in the region. The centre has been a key element in the real progress made in tertiary education access over recent years. North-west enrolments in mainland institution courses have increased 50 per cent in the last nine years. The Tasmanian Institute of Technology has established study centres in Devonport and Burnie, and the University of Tasmania now offers courses on the coast; teleconferencing facilities are being used to bring together scattered classes. In education it is crucial that all Australians have equal access at the gate. Initiatives such as the North-West Council strive to achieve this goal by effectively moving the gate much closer to the people in the region. All of these efforts to help the remote regions will be useless if the students, or their families, cannot afford to do the courses of their choice. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.26) —The Opposition's policy on education is hopelessly flawed and was quite properly rejected by the Australian people at the last election. Perhaps members of the Opposition should ask themselves why teachers and all educators support the Government. They should take a look at our nation. They hold two States. But, despite the fact that they hold two States, in every State of the Commonwealth the Australian Teachers Federation and other associations to which educators belong resoundingly give their support to this Government because the Opposition's policy is not worth a tinker's damn. I can tell those opposite one other thing that people recognise. They recognise that the Opposition has two policies on every subject. I invite honourable members opposite to read this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. It is interesting because a former Ombudsman in New South Wales, Mr George Masterman, has revealed a few truths. A Mr Pickering, who is the Opposition spokesman on police matters in New South Wales-- Mr Carlton —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The honourable member is referring to matters wholly outside the area of education, let alone this Bill. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may continue. Mr FITZGIBBON —He told Mr Masterman, `This is our policy until the election. I am trying to win the vote of policemen, so we have a very attractive policy until the election'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Hunter that I was not in the chair for the preceding speech. I am not quite sure how far and wide previous speakers ranged. I am aware that the Bill states `and for related purposes' but I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks to the contents of the Bill. Mr FITZGIBBON —Thank you, Madam Speaker, although I think I have now proved my point. The point I am making is that the Opposition has two policies-one for public display and also a secret agenda. This Government has its priorities right. One of its chief priorities is equal opportunity for all. Of course, there cannot be equal opportunity for all unless every person is given a chance to develop his or her natural abilities and talents, to acquire skills and knowledge and to progress to the highest academic level of which the individual is capable. This Government is committed to equality of education for all, to providing assistance to bring education within the reach of all and to creating a better educated Australia. In the Government's pursuit of these commitments its achievements have been remarkable. So remarkable have those policies been that in the eyes of everyone who knows anything about education they have left the Opposition's policies for dead. When did we last hear from the Opposition spokesman on education in this House? Perhaps I should say, `When did we last hear a meaningful contribution from the Opposition spokesman on education in this House?'. Can anyone on either side of the House claim seriously that the Opposition has made a meaningful contribution to the education agenda? Because of this nation's disastrous trading problems, the Government has inherited the unenviable task of restructuring and modernising the economy. We have not shirked the hard decisions. I congratulate the Australian people who have recognised the need for hard decisions to be made in order to restore the health of the economy and those people who have supported the rational economic management provided by this Government and rejected the worthless economic nonsense offered by those opposite. Essential to the Hawke Government's strategy of dragging the economy out of the shadows into the sunlight is the lifting of the educational standards of the work force. Unless the educational standards, training and work skills of Australians are lifted dramatically, this nation will not be able to compete successfully with countries such as Japan, the United States of America and other trading rivals. So this Government is striving mightily, and succeeding magnificently, in producing a better educated and more skilled work force. Everyone will be aware that education costs money, but in difficult economic times this Government found the money for a giant leap forward in education. The Federal Government has the major funding responsibility for higher education, for universities, colleges of advanced education and institutes of tertiary education. It also provides a share of the funding for the States technical and further education system. Every year since 1983-84 the Government has provided increases in real terms to its areas of responsibility in education. But our greatest achievement is yet to come. I will return to that point later. We have succeeded in encouraging students to stay on at school. The number of full time students staying on to complete their education has risen from 48 per cent in 1983 to 56 per cent in 1987. It is an amazing increase. In my Hunter electorate the year 11 retention rate in Maitland high schools has increased by 11 per cent, from 50 per cent to 61 per cent. The same success story rings loud and clear in other areas of the Hunter electorate such as in Cessnock, Singleton, Beresfield and Merriwa. The retention rate has increased not only in high schools but also in universities, institutes of higher learning and technical and further education colleges. As I said earlier, the best is yet to come. The Green Paper on higher education will revolutionise education in Australia and propel us triumphantly into the twenty-first century. What has been the key to the Government's unprecedented success in education? Undoubtedly, the key to the Government's success has been Austudy. In 1987 the Government replaced the former tertiary education assistance scheme (TEAS), adult secondary education assistance and the secondary allowance scheme with Austudy. TEAS and the other schemes were good but Austudy, despite early teething problems, is brilliant. There were early teething problems; I am well aware of that. When one puts into place such a massive scheme as Austudy is, of course there will be growth problems. But now those growth problems have been largely overcome and the Austudy system is working very successfully. People will not pursue education if they cannot afford the costs. Austudy has brought education within the reach of all. During 1988, 241,000 students will receive Austudy assistance. This includes 128,000 tertiary students, 109,000 secondary students and 4,000 adult secondary students. Other students will receive postgraduate awards and other programs will assist Aborigines, migrants and the children of certain veterans. Because of Austudy, no person is denied the right to educational opportunities. Some people-not that many-criticise Austudy because means testing rules them ineligible. But hundreds of thousands of Australians are gaining opportunities which would be denied them were it not for Austudy. In future years, millions of Australians will bless Austudy. But even the most beneficial and brilliant of schemes is open to exploitation. No-one will deny that Austudy has been subjected to rip-offs. The Bill presently before the House, the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973 so as to implement measures to reduce Austudy fraud and to assist in the recovery of overpayments. Time prevents me from dealing with every section of this Bill, but I know that every honest Australian will agree that it is a fundamental responsibility of the Government to ensure that Austudy payments, which are provided at considerable cost to the taxpayer, go to the students for whom the scheme is intended. This Bill will ensure that those entitled to Austudy will get it and that those not entitled to Austudy will not get it. People who get Austudy through fraud will get something less pleasant when they are caught-they will get it in the neck. This Bill quite rightly provides penalties for false claims or other deceptions. I believe that fines, and even imprisonment, are totally justified. Hopefully, this Bill will stop the cheats. The extra money saved or recovered might enable the Government to lift the income threshold which currently governs eligibility. Perhaps the extra money will enable a wide-ranging investigation to be carried out into matters which have disturbed every member of this House. I get so frustrated so frequently when an honest worker's child just fails to satisfy the Austudy income requirements when I know only to well that the child of a really affluent family, which may be living in the same street as the poor child from the battling family, receives total Austudy assistance. Tax concessions which produce such distortions leave me staggered. It came to my notice recently that a person received overpayments of unemployment benefit and assistance under the former tertiary education assistance scheme in excess of $25,000 over three years. The circumstances were serious in that they involved aliases, forgery and false statements. In this instance, the person was charged under the Crimes Act 1914. Indeed, had the person been charged under section 91 of the Student Assistance Act, the maximum penalty at that time would have been a paltry $100 fine. The maximum penalty under the Social Security Act was 12 months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. In this particular case, the punishment plainly did not fit the crime. It is not hard to understand why the person involved wanted to be charged under the Student Assistance Act and not the Crimes Act. Had the person been charged under the Student Assistance Act, which lays down a maximum fine of $100, the court would have been entitled to criticise the prosecution on the basis that the charges did not adequately reflect the criminality of the conduct and did not provide the court with an appropriate basis for sentence. As it turned out, the person involved received a substantial prison sentence. That is just one instance of which I am aware, and in that instance the overpayment was considerable. There is no question but that overpayments occur-hopefully, not regularly on the scale that I have described. The Bill before us provides the legislative basis for recovery of overpayments and allows for the imposition of more substantial fines for those who abuse the Austudy system. It is essential that Austudy assistance be directed to students who need that vital assistance to enable them to pursue their education. Abuse of any financial support system, be it Austudy or social security, cannot be tolerated. I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.41) —I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). You may not have had the privilege, Mr Deputy Speaker, of hearing him, and if you consider that I am discussing the matter in a wide-ranging way, let me say that I shall be doing so only by way of rebuttal at this stage. The honourable member for Hunter had the audacity to suggest that Opposition members were not significant contributors in matters of student assistance and areas of education policy generally. He asked when the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) last made a significant contribution in debates of this sort. Of course, it was pointed out-in a disorderly fashion perhaps, by way of interjection-that the honourable member for Mackellar did so yesterday in a very significant speech on this very subject. I have to say to the honourable member for Hunter that in the area of legislation impacting upon students and in the area of policy development in relation to education, not only has the honourable member for Mackellar been a Significant contributor to the debate but also so was his predecessor as shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), in the previous Parliament. In regard to the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill and the student assistance legislation that is being amended, the specific proposals for the aligning of Austudy in the form that it is in now to previous arrangements under the tertiary education assistance scheme (TEAS) and unemployment benefits were matters that were on the agenda largely because of pressure from Opposition members. It is a significant fact, and it was one of which I became aware in my electorate over time, that students were concerned that other young people leaving school and not going on to pursue other studies appeared to be advantaged in being eligible for unemployment benefits under more generous terms when students were very often not eligible for the old TEAS arrangements and were having to incur a significant and immediate cost penalty in undertaking tertiary studies. It was an important development that we saw when the legislation to bring in the new form of Austudy arrangements was introduced. The honourable member for Hunter ought to be aware that the teething problems on which he spoke, which arose following the introduction of this legislation, were problems that were very obvious to the Opposition, and particularly the Opposition spokesman, when the package was revealed. It was very much as a result of the efforts of the honourable member for Tangney, as recounted yesterday by the honourable member for Mackellar, that changes were made in the Austudy package. I particularly became aware in my own electorate of one of the concerns of parents of students who were in the 16- to 18-year-old group staying on at school when, under the package as proposed, the funds were to be put into the hands of the students still at school. I found it an extraordinary proposition, particularly in households where there might be a supporting mother who had a very limited pension income. She might well find that she was providing a roof and sustenance to a child who was prepared to take the student assistance allowance in his pocket and not have the immediate welfare of the total family in mind and not be prepared to make a contribution to the family situation. Very often, relationships between young adolescents and their parents are such that, as the young person strikes out and wants to assume a separate identity, the student does not have a sense of responsibility in financial matters. In such circumstances, we were likely to see very considerable hardship in many homes as a result of the arrangement where the payment was taken away from parents and given to the student. That proposal was put forward seriously by the Government. It was not until the eleventh hour, as described by the honourable member for Mackellar, that the then Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, had a change of heart and accepted the argument put by the Opposition. I am sure I was not the only person to draw that matter to the attention of the shadow Minister and the Minister at that time. The legislation we are discussing really is in a much more limited area than I have addressed to this point. As I mentioned, the Student Assistance Legislation Act provides the statutory basis for the Austudy payment and the postgraduate award scheme. The Bill before us will include a package of measures to prevent the facilitation of fraud-because I think that is what has happened in the past-and to enable the recovery of overpayments under the two schemes which the student assistance legislation implements. The Bill before us specifically covers these matters. It requires individuals and organisations to provide the information needed to verify entitlements and requires debtors to disclose their financial situation. The second point is that the Bill makes it an offence to give false information in relation to an application for assistance. At present the offence is not established by statute but under the student assistance regulations. Thirdly, it provides substantial penalties for offences, under the Act and regulations, so it is upgrading the penalties to make them more significant in terms of the changed relativities in this area. Fourthly, it will enable the Department of Education to recover overpayments from money held for a debtor. Fifthly, it will enable an overpayment to be written off or waived, or for agreement to be given to the overpayment being repaid by instalments. At present overpayments are written off or waived under the Audit Act. That is making it administratively a little easier although arrangements were always possible even under the old scheme. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that the penalties have changed significantly. The Act currently enables regulations to provide a maximum penalty of $100 for offences. Now the Act will provide, for offences under the Act, a fine of $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment or, for corporations, $10,000, and for offences under the regulations, a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment. So there are significant changes. The Minister makes it clear that the Government has been reviewing penalties generally and I think it is appropriate that that should occur from time to time. The Opposition in its contribution made it clear that it is not opposing the Bill. We suggested a second reading amendment, but the general thrust of the legislation with regard to the penalties and the way in which they are to be imposed is supported subject, I think, to a number of comments on which we would like some clarification. I know my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar, when he spoke yesterday, sought clarification of one area in which I am particularly interested. These provisions are intended to enable better detection, better prevention and recovery of moneys wrongly paid under programs administered by the Department of Education and its successors. I must say, whilst I do not greet those sorts of changes with the same enthusiasm as the honourable member for Hunter, I do believe that penalties ought to be such that people who are knowingly going to try to defraud any welfare or assistance program are properly dealt with. So, I think cheats, as they were referred to, ought to be caught. Mr Duncan —But you don't want to hit them in the neck. Mr RUDDOCK —That is the point I was about to make. The honourable member for Hunter said that they should get it in the neck. I am not sure what that means. I can only surmise that if one is to get it in the neck it imputes hanging. I know some people have recently advocated the return of hanging. I am a member of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group. I am glad that my Leader, last weekend, asserted once more the freedom we have on this side of the House to exercise our own consciences on this matter. I am not inclined to encourage hanging as the appropriate penalty, even for those cheating the student assistance legislation, though the honourable member for Hunter may be implying that he would. He may care to make a personal explanation on this matter later in the day. However, I do invite some comment from the Minister in relation to the provisions which deal with corporations. If the same enthusiasm of the honourable member for Hunter has been displayed by those who draft the legislation-that they proverbially want to put it to corporations in the neck-then perhaps proposed section 31j requires some explanation. Proposed section 31j (1) says: Where, in proceedings for an offence against this Act or the regulations in respect of any conduct engaged in by a corporation, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the corporation, it is sufficient to show that a director, servant or agent of the corporation, being a director, servant or agent who engaged in the conduct within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority, had the state of mind. I imagine they are generally, because of the problem of proving appropriate mens rea, the sorts of provisions that operate in relation to corporations. It is difficult to establish the state of mind unless something is recorded in minutes or unless it is under seal of the company. I imagine matters of this sort will not be dealt with in that way. Subsection (2) of proposed section 31j goes on: Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a corporation: (a) by a director, servant or agent of the corporation within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; or (b) by any other person at the direction or with the consent or agreement (whether express or implied) of a director, servant or agent of the corporation, where the giving of such direction, consent or agreement is within the scope of the actual or apparent authority of the director, servant or agent; shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, to have been engaged in by the corporation. So, there is a deeming provision. We are not only going to find it much easier to establish the corporation's state of mind by looking at the employee-servant, agent or director-but we also have the provision which enables us to deem that conduct of the corporation and then we impose later significant penalties up to $10,000. For the sake of completeness I might just mention subclause (3) of proposed section 31j which says: A reference in subsection (1) to the state of mind of a person includes a reference to the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief or purpose of the person and the person's reasons for the intention, opinion, belief or purpose. What interests me particularly in relation to these provisions which invoke very significant penalties against corporations and facilitate corporations being prosecuted is the point made in debate yesterday by the honourable member for Mackellar. He raised the point that whilst we impose on presumably private schools, private corporations that are involved in education, a very onerous penalty and we impose on those who are directors, servants or agents of such corporations significant penalties as well as responsibility, one has to ask what happens in relation to public corporations. What happens in relation to those institutions of State governments, those institutions funded by the Commonwealth that enjoy an immunity in relation to these matters? I am concerned that we impose penalties upon the directors, servants and agents of corporations to ensure that the information provided is correct and we impute to them certain states of mind, yet when it comes to dealing with those people in the same position, carrying the same responsibilities for corporations that enjoy government funding, there appears to be an immunity from prosecution, from penalty, an immunity presumably assumed because these organisations publicly funded would be more accountable to direction from government. I would like some clarification of that matter because I would very much regret if, in dealing with this legislation, we created a double standard in which those who were involved in education privately were subjected to significant, harsh penalties and those engaged in public education were able to be accountably free from any responsibility if they engaged in the same form of conduct. I would like, just in the context of some of the discussion that preceded regarding the level of penalties and these provisions, at least to hold out a plea for balance in the way in which these matters are dealt with. Over time it has been my experience in my electorate that many students have come to me unable to understand with clarity the student assistance regulations. All too often they seek to obtain benefits because they believe they have an entitlement and find out later, sometimes 6 months later, sometimes 8, 9 or 12 months later, that the entitlement that they thought they had had been ruled out when it was considered within the Department. Then, of course, the recovery processes start. Whilst these penalties are for the purpose of catching cheats such as the one mentioned by the honourable member for Hunter, and penalties ought properly to apply in such circumstances, I think the balance needs to be kept in mind by those officers who have been given those additional powers by the Department. In launching prosecutions and seeking the imposition of penalties, some regard must be had of the way in which the administration itself is functioning. Significant delays may occur in the processing of applications if there is ambiguity in the way in which the student assistance regulations are drafted. I must say, even with some training in the area of interpreting laws, very often I find it difficult to find my way through student assistance regulations and the Act to establish eligibility. Is it any wonder then that many students find themselves in exactly the same position? So, there is a need for this legislation to be looked at by the officers concerned having regard to the difficulties that those who receive benefits under the legislation have, and for some discretion to be exercised. One of the difficulties I have found in relation to the payment of benefits under these programs is that as we have introduced further legislation and regulations, as we have established with greater certainty the outcome of whether a person is entitled to benefits by using precise legal terms, we have often, failed to put any discretion in the hands of the Minister or the Department to pay benefits where in conscience-in terms of justice between individuals-the circumstances may well warrant the payment of a benefit even though the precise law may deny it. There is a need for the Government to keep students' problems in mind when dealing with these matters, as well as ensuring that the law is properly administered and public moneys properly accounted for. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I call the honourable member for Hunter. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter) —Having been invited by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) to make a personal explanation, I shall do so. I feel that only a wide-ranging imagination and powerful fanciful interpretations would enable the honourable member to imagine that when I said that a person who was guilty of Austudy fraud should `cop it in the neck' I was advocating hanging. I could just as easily have said `cop it in the pants' or the shins or something like that. I am not an advocate of hanging for minor offences of that nature! Mr Ruddock —Minor offences? Mr FITZGIBBON —Well, for offences of that nature. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.02) —The objective of the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill is to put in place measures designed to facilitate the prevention of fraud and recovery of overpayments under the student assistance scheme. I do not think anyone here would oppose that proposition. For a long time this Government has pursued a strategy of ensuring that available benefits such as social security, unemployment and educational assistance, and so on go to those who legally and financially deserve and need that assistance. This has been part of this Government's commitment to the streamlining of the provision and delivery of government services. Since I have been in this House-from 1984-I have noticed a special emphasis on efficiency, on the quality of service provided by government institutions at a Commonwealth level and on the closing of the loopholes. There has also been a special effort to recover moneys that have been illegally obtained. Therefore, the provisions that are before us are not surprising and they must be welcomed by all honourable members. There has also been a commitment from the Hawke Government to upgrade the skills and the capacity of the Australian work force. I recall speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other senior Ministers as to the problems that we have in competing in the world open market. There is a challenge before us. It is not just a matter of broadening our industrial base, which was regrettably destroyed during the Fraser era, particularly between 1981 and 1983, but it is more a case of ensuring that we have work skills and people who are able to provide the human resources in industry. A catch 22 situation has prevailed in that employers will not move into these industry areas when there are not the qualified, highly skilled and highly trained employees available. Institutions will not have a training program or a course structure for such people unless the jobs are available. I recall a situation in one of the Queensland colleges of advanced education, where there was a stress on high technology. It was suggested that this particular institution should promote courses in that area. But the question was asked: once the courses are there and the students have graduated, where would they get jobs? Those in the industry areas say, `What is the use of moving or investing in these fields unless we have the human resources?'. I believe that this Government is trying to address that problem and it is doing so very effectively. Regrettably, under the previous Liberal- National Government there was very little incentive to go on to further education. If one compared the dole payment-the unemployment benefit-with what young people received if they stayed at school or went on to college, clearly there was a subtle encouragement to go on the dole. If one went on the dole one's parents' income was not tested; there was no test at all for getting the dole, and the payment was higher. It was no wonder that low and middle income families did not encourage young students to pursue education. Instead, they were happy to see them register for unemployment. This has been changed. I recall that a commitment was given by the previous Minister for Education, Susan Ryan, when she said that over a three-year period the Government would rectify the anomaly; that it would ensure that there was some sort of parallel or squaring up between student allowances and the benefits paid to those people unfortunately unemployed. We have done that. We have paralleled the payments that are now available to young people in order to keep them at school. It has taken three years but they have been three very successful years for the squaring up has been put in place. We now see that student allowances and unemployment benefits for people between the ages of 16 and 20 are the same. There is no longer an incentive to leave school and go on the dole. Instead there is an incentive to continue education, to go on to a technical and further education college or stay at school for years 11 and 12 in Queensland-there may be different grades in other States-or to pursue a course at a college. It is all part of the strategy of this Government to encourage young people to pursue education and to upgrade the skills of our work force. This strategy has worked, not only in terms of paralleling and bringing together or squaring up the allowances available to students and unemployment benefits, but we also have the statistical information. In 1983 some 32 per cent-32 young people out of every 100-who reached grade 10 did not bother to continue. They either went on the dole or tried to find a job. That percentage has not doubled but it has jumped to more than 50 per cent. In Queensland it has gone up to 55 per cent. I give credit to that State, irrespective of its political colour, for the encouragement it now gives in high schools and other areas to keep young people in education. This Government has also placed a new emphasis on girls in the education system. I am most impressed with what the Catholic education system is doing to provide special courses to encourage girls to pursue studies in mathematics and science. This is now occurring right across the state system. A major change is taking place in the education environment, but it has been achieved at a price; it has been extremely costly. In 1986 there were about 186,000 recipients of the tertiary education assistance scheme and secondary allowances. That cost the taxpayers in this country $438m. It is a lot of money. This academic year that number will increase to 244,000. The cost will blow out from $438m to $616m. It is very important that that money is well spent. The Government is very conscious of the need to give assistance and to match up the incentives that are available to young people to stay at school. This year, a 16- or 17-year-old student can receive $50 if staying at home and $76 if living away from home. Those aged 18 and above will get $60 if they stay at home and $91.20 if they live away from home. An important factor has been that the income test has been reviewed. The maximum yearly parental income for a young person to be able to get the full $50 is $26,259; for those living away that figure increases to $31,699. In the 18-year-old group, parents can earn as much as $34,879. That is not the bottom line because consideration is given to other dependants. For instance, for one extra child, the Government recently raised the special deduction from $450 to $1,200. If parents have two extra children, they can now claim an extra $2,500. The amount of money parents are allowed to have and still get assistance to enable their children to stay at school is quite considerable. The Government has also realised that the costs that families face, when there are older children attending university and secondary school, are quite high. The sibling concession has been changed so that the loss a person sustains in his allowance-instead of being $1 for every $4 earned-is now only $1 after he earns an extra $8. I suggest that the Government deserves credit for the way it has tackled this nation's education needs. It has ensured not only that there is actual cash on hand for students but also that they are given exemptions. Those who get any type of Austudy are exempt from the higher education administrative charge of $263 that students who do not get Austudy have to pay. In fact, $1 of Austudy exempts them from the $263. The Government realises that it should not leave something if it is working; it has to continue to review it. That is certainly taking place. I note that an Opposition member who spoke previously mentioned the problems of people in isolated areas. I agree. I appreciate that this Government has made special allowances available for those who are boarding, doing correspondence courses or living in a second home somewhere. However, we need to have another look at the way in which we assess income. I suggest-I am sure that thousands of people in country and rural Australia would agree with me-that a family receiving $25,000 and living in a country town or a coalmining area, say, my electorate of central Queensland, does not have the same purchasing power as a family receiving $25,000 and living in Sydney. I think that is true of most capital cities. We did a test recently in my region and found that some people-for instance, those in my mining towns-were paying $3.69 a kilo for potatoes. A person in Brisbane could buy potatoes for about $1.90 a kilo. The cost is more than double. That is also true with the cost of fuel. I have an argument going at the moment because in central Queensland the cost of fuel is as high as 66c a litre. In the northern part of my electorate it is 69c a litre. I was in Queanbeyan the other day and it was 45c a litre. Sometimes I wonder whether there is a full appreciation of the very special problems facing people in country and rural Australia when it comes to purchasing power and what they must pay for the transportation, food, electricity, telephone calls and so on. Whilst this Government deserves full credit for the way in which it has revamped the system and the way in which it has considered very carefully the special deduction that should be given to families who have more than one child, we need to start looking at not so much the earned income of a family but the purchasing power of a family. One way of tackling that-I ask the Minister to give it some consideration-is to adopt a zonal approach so that people living in a particular zone get a further deduction or some type of exemption from certain costs. The higher cost of living element must be considered. I have gathered statistics from all over the nation on the additional burdens that country and rural people have. We must do something about them. One does not have to be thousands of miles away from a coastal city to suffer. In fact, one can be in a town such as Mount Morgan, which is only some 35 kilometres from Rockhampton. One may also carry a cost burden because of lack of transportation, lack of choice and lack of facilities. I ask the Minister to consider that point. As the reviews continue and as we look at the measures used for determining eligibility, we must realise that the cost of living-people's capacity to buy; their purchasing power-is a very important issue. Another anomaly exists. A moment ago I referred to the income test. I now wish to relate that to assets. The criticism that I hear about Austudy comes from people who say they know of someone who owns a property, has a shop or runs a business somewhere and yet, because that person has a smart accountant who can bodgie the books and come up with a figure that is below the income measure, his children can still get Austudy. I believe that the assets test that has been applied to pensions has been a fantastic success. It has achieved a new quality of life for pensioners because it has meant that more money has been available for pensions and has been passed on to pensioners. Maybe the time has come to look at applying an assets test to Austudy, just as it is applied in other areas. Mr McGauran —What about the country kids? Mr WRIGHT —A millionaire such as the honourable member does not understand the problems of ordinary people. But we appreciate his position, so we will cast that aside. We know that some people with assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars can still, because of the rules, get Austudy for their children. Mr McGauran —Because they are broke. Mr WRIGHT —That could be taken into consideration, but I am told that the anomalies exist. I raise another anomaly. It is one that is regrettable and one that I raised in the media recently. Problems have arisen because of the application of the income test to those who come to Australia from overseas. I refer to expatriates and New Zealanders. We have a special relationship with New Zealand. I have no argument with assisting our friends across the Tasman, but I think that charity begins at home-not across the Tasman. Whilst I understand the contribution that New Zealanders have made to Australia in wartime and peacetime in education, I cannot accept that, even though there may be only 300 of them-the number is irrelevant; the principle is what I am about-New Zealanders can still come to this country and, regardless of what their parents earn in New Zealand, get Austudy in Australia. I did a test in my State of Queensland and was told that whilst no names or any information was given that could trace the people-- Mr Donald Cameron —Did they give you any computer print-outs? Mr WRIGHT —There were no computer print-outs, which no doubt the honourable member for Moreton would require. I did not ask for them, I just asked for an estimate. I was told that about 60 expatriates and New Zealanders in Queensland-mainly New Zealanders-were getting Austudy. I asked about the number in New South Wales and I was told that the figure was 100-plus. The number would be similar in Victoria. We are talking about from 250 to 300 New Zealanders and expatriates-mainly New Zealanders-getting Austudy. However, my miners, the people in my country areas, who earn over the figures I cited earlier cannot get it. Because of some indiscretion by the Department of Social Security in discussions with the Commonwealth Department of Education-although Commonwealth Education opposed it-the whole system is based on a person's taxable income. If parents' income is earned in New Zealand it is not taken into consideration. Three hundred does not sound like many, but the Austudy payment for a person at university is $4,173, and the exemption from the higher education fee is worth $263, so we are talking of around $4,500. When one multiplies that by around 300 one starts to realise that we are giving away about $1.3m. An Australian who lives in New Zealand and works for the Australian High Commission and whose children are in Australia does not have that privilege or right because his income is taxed by this Government. An Australian soldier who is serving in Malaysia and whose children are in Townsville, Cairns, Brisbane or Sydney does not have that privilege. But an expatriate, an Australian, who works for the New Zealand Government or the Papua New Guinea Government and whose kids are in Australia does not have his income counted. That is not good enough. I am told also that that flows into the job search allowance. I understand that that it only for 16- and 17-year-olds, so there would not be many. I am also told that it could affect our first home owners grants system. I have no argument with helping people in need, but we must help the needy, not the greedy. I put it to this House that it is simply not acceptable that a New Zealander whose family in New Zealand could be earning $100,000 is able to come to this country and take $4,500 a year from the Australian taxpayer for taking up a university place, thereby stopping a person from Queensland or New South Wales continuing his studies. The same rules do not apply to a person from Queensland, New South Wales or wherever. That is not acceptable. I am pleased that the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) has taken this issue on board. I ask him to pursue the proposition that there ought to be some requirement that says that no New Zealander or expatriate can receive such assistance unless he or she has lived here for a certain period. We have done that with the unemployment benefit. We have built in a rule of six months. People used to come off the boats and planes, say that they would stay permanently, and then go and enrol for the unemployment benefit. We put an end to that after a long campaign. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) addressed that situation. The same needs to be done with student assistance. There needs to be some sort of permanency and residential clauses that say a person cannot get Austudy if he is a New Zealander or an expatriate and his children are living here, unless he has some permanency or residential qualifications. If those qualifications were required, I believe that would solve the problem. There are some anomalies and there is a need for review. Having pursued the matter of New Zealanders obtaining Austudy, the main aspect I raise concerns people who live in isolated areas and do not have the same capacity to purchase as their counterparts in capital cities. It is time we gave cognisance to that problem. I appreciate what the Government has done. I applaud the measures it has introduced, and I applaud its efforts in putting legislation in place to enable the recovery of moneys illegally obtained. I back the Government totally in the gradual changes it has brought about to ensure that more and more Australians are given assistance and the incentive to pursue their education. However, as the reviews continue I ask that the points I have raised be taken into consideration. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.22) —A couple of points made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) require a response. The first is that early in his speech he suggested that middle and low income people are quite happy to see their children receive unemployment benefits. I believe that one of the scourges of this nation has been the continuing level of unemployment. The last thing that parents want is to see their children sitting around at home, living on the dole. The honourable member for Capricornia was absolutely correct in his reference to New Zealanders coming to this country and not being subject to the income tests that apply to Australians making application for similar assistance. I do not know whether there need necessarily be a residential qualification, but I cannot see why the Australian Government cannot demand of New Zealand that it verify the incomes of parents in exactly the same way that New Zealand co-operates with our Government by monitoring the recipients of various pensions taken from Australia to New Zealand. The honourable member for Capricornia and I come from the same State. In an article in the Sunday Mail last weekend I highlighted the fact that 25,000 people, living in more than 40 countries throughout the world, receive various pensions from the Australian Government. An amount of $120m is involved. Those people are not subject to the same checks as are Australians who receive similar pensions. So I say to the honourable member that there are a couple of areas in which I believe that our beautiful Australia and the Australian people are being ripped off by those who seek to take advantage of our loose systems. One unfortunate comment of the honourable member for Capricornia was his advocating the application of an assets test on eligibility for Austudy. I notice that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is bubbling over in his reaction to the honourable member for Capricornia. I understand what the honourable member for Capricornia was saying. He was saying that if someone has hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets, it is perhaps unfair to make a benefit or grant available to that person. On the other hand, let me say to the honourable member that someone could have a business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but because of the economics of these times his family income might well be in the qualifying range. That might not be due solely to his clever accountant; it might result from a genuine downturn in his business. The reality might well be that that family would wish for nothing more than to be independent, for their business to be successful, and for their income to be relative to the money they have invested. I ask the honourable member for Capricornia to take that on board. The other aspect is that certain professions have a very high income level. I have heard the same stories as has the honourable member for Capricornia, and I do not want to select particular professions. However, some people have arranged their affairs so that their income levels are below the cut off level of approximately $25,000. I suggest to the honourable member that if the Government reduced the upper levels of taxation so that they were more in keeping with the New Zealand levels, a diminishing number of people would so arrange their financial affairs that ostensibly they are losing money, and therefore have a lower income level. I understand that there may be a poor boy in a street whose parents have hardly two cents to rub together. They might live in a very ordinary, unpainted home that has wood rot, yet up the road there may be a family that has a huge, beautiful brick home, two Mercedes Benz cars, and a boat in the yard, living a different lifestyle. That would prompt people to say, `What is going on? If there is a means test applied, that family must be jiggling their income'. I believe much of the income rearranging in this country has been born out of our high taxation levels. When we manage to reduce those levels further we will find that people will be prepared to preserve their actual income rather than write it off in an income loss situation. This Bill, the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill, is designed to allow the Department of Employment, Education and Training in future to recover overpayments, fraud and the like. My first comment on that relates to the explanatory notes to the Bill, which include a financial impact statement. That statement reads: The measures in the Bill are expected to result in significant savings. That is fair enough. It continues: It is not possible, however, to quantify the savings until compliance surveys have been undertaken to investigate further the extent of fraud under Austudy. How can one say, on the one hand, that the savings will be significant, and then on the other hand that it is not known upon what basis that statement is made? That statement has come from the Department of Employment, Education and Training; I hope that an explanatory statement such as that was not prepared by Treasury. It is almost gobbledegook. We will be flying in the dark if we legislate that particular measure. It is proper to bear in mind also, when we refer to that statement, that in 1979 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, in its 176th Report, on the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1977-78, presented a parliamentary paper on this very subject of pursuing overpayments by the Department and the prevalence of fraud at that time. The Committee's figures suggested that between 1976 and 1979 the number of cases a year involving unrecovered overpayments were, respectively, 6,000, 9,000, 8,000 and 8,000, and the total overpayments were, respectively, $1.2m, $2.4m, $2.6m and $3m. It is very hard to obtain any up-to-date information from the Government on what is happening with regard to fraud. I guess that comment of mine is supported by the financial statement that I read from the explanatory notes a moment ago. It is interesting to see that the work done in 1978 by the Public Accounts Committee broke down the causes of overpayments in the field of education. The reason for the highest number of overpayments was that a person discontinued a course and the Department was not notified. That accounted for 60 per cent of all overpayments in that year. Other reasons given were: students failed to commence a proposed course; reduced study load to part time status; accepted another award; entered a bonded arrangement with a future employer; parental income found to exceed income declared on application form; student's income exceeds permissible limit; death of student but payments continued; and brother or sister ceased study, thereby terminating means test concession. But the second biggest reason for overpayments at the time the last study was made was none other than departmental errors. Departmental errors were responsible for the second largest number of overpayments in the late 1970s; as far as I know there are no figures available which show what is going on now. But the Department was the cause of 7.1 per cent of all errors. At that time the Department was having great difficulty liaising with the tertiary institutions. The tertiary institutions were not very helpful in giving details of who was studying what. As a result of that inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee, the Department made a deliberate effort to improve its liaison with the tertiary institutions. As a result of that, I guess, there has been great improvement in the notification of students who have given up their studies. I noticed also that the recommendation of that Committee at the time urged the Department of Finance to hasten the introduction of guidelines to formalise the then current practice of the Department of Education not recovering overpayments resulting from departmental error. I have checked that out and, apparently, through the Audit Act, attention was given to that. What concerns me about this legislation-the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), who is at the table, may seek to explain this at some later stage-is that it appears that the Government is taking unto itself the right to delve back as far as six years for the recovery of overpayments. If I am correct in thinking that the Government is taking this right unto itself, that seems to me to involve retrospectivity. In talking about departmental inefficiency, I give the House the case of a constituent of mine who in 1986 was living in Japan and wrote to the Department and said, `I want to come home to study at university in Brisbane'. He explained all of his details and the Department said, `You will be eligible'. So what did my constituent do? He came home from Japan and enrolled at Griffith University. Last year he flew through with considerable merit, even obtaining high distinctions. But the departmental error component arose in his case. At the end of last year, or the beginning of this year, the Department told him, `We are sorry, but you are no longer eligible for Austudy'. This man is an Australian by birth and had been gainfully employed in Japan for only four or five years but wanted to come back to Australia. He built his life on the departmental advice. He had hardly any money because, although he earned money in Japan, the cost of living was high. But he thought he could survive because he would receive Austudy. But then, after one year at university, they told him, `It is not on'. He asked why and was told by the Department, `Oh, we misunderstood and, because of your having attended a course at the Queensland Institute of Technology in the 1970s, less than 10 years ago, you are caught by the 10-year rule and you can no longer continue to receive Austudy. We have made a mistake'. I ask the Minister now at the table, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones)-the Ministers at the table keep changing in the same way as the Ministers on the front bench; I was talking to the Minister for Administrative Services a moment ago-whether he thinks it is fair to do this sort of thing to a person who has planned his life around Austudy. This person was as honest as the day is long about everything he had ever done in his life-- Mr Barry Jones —Does he vote for you? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I do not know how he votes. I do not say to people, `I will help you only if you vote Liberal'. I stand up for fairness and justice. This man has been subjected to unfairness and injustice and that is why I am speaking on his behalf. The Department has blundered and now this man is suddenly deprived of income. What I fear from this legislation is that the Government will now take unto itself the right to say, `You have to pay back all that we did not mean to give you last year'. The Department has said to him that he will be able to get Austudy again in the year 1990 if he does a higher degree after his bachelors degree. This person thought he had problems when he rang me to say that he was no longer eligible for Austudy. I said to him, `But, wait a minute. The Government is putting through legislation which will strengthen its hand to retrieve overpayments. Your major problem could be that you will have to pay back your high living last year on Austudy'. That is an example of just one error made by the Department. I say this more in sorrow than in anger: there is a lot of misinformation given out by public servants in the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment, Education and Training about Austudy. I can well understand the confusion that exists in the community about various government programs. But I believe-I know there are departmental representatives in the chamber-that there has to be a determined effort to educate better not just the population but departmental officers about the services that their departments dispense. The ramifications of misinformation can be as disastrous as those on my constituent. This man is now betwixt and between. He is at university but suddenly deprived of all means of income unless he goes out and mows lawns, scrubs cars and the like. That is what he will have to do as a result of misinformation. I raise that aspect of the administration of Austudy because of its serious implications. I also seek to take the opportunity during this debate to refer to a recent Government announcement concerning a $120,000 grant given to Macquarie University to conduct a nationwide study to determine the key factors contributing to increased retention rates in secondary schools. An amount of about $50,000 was handed out a couple of years ago to Monash University to do a similar exercise relating to tertiary students. It was established that there were so many imponderables that it was difficult to determine why people dropped a subject, left and went to another institution or simply gave away higher education. I suggest that it was coincidental that, even though that study was done in 1986, an article appeared in the Australian in January 1988 referring to that study and then, some two weeks later, the Government announced that it would hand out $120,000 for this latest study to be done. I suggest that the Government has been overgenerous in the amount of money it has given. Perhaps a pilot study would have established that that which pertains to the tertiary level is not much different from the secondary level. Earlier, the honourable member for Capricornia referred to the high retention rate in the number of young people going on to grades 11 and 12 in my State. The Government beats its chest about improving the retention rate nationally from about 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I suggest to the Minister at the table that the reason so many people are staying on to do grades 11 and 12 is that they cannot get work. Many people who continue at school with the assistance of Austudy would be happy to be in the work force if job opportunities were available. This creates problems in the classroom, firstly because students are there not because they really want to be at school but because they have no where else to go, and, secondly, the Government's approach is to promise Utopia saying, `If you stay on to grade 12 you can go out and get a job'. That is not so. The grade 13s-I use that term to describe the people who more recently left school-have about 20 per cent of their ranks unemployed. I ask the Government not to tout Austudy as a panacea. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.42) —I listened with interest to a number of speakers on the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill and found some of the propositions put forward by members of the Opposition to be carping and others to be quite bizarre. One of the more interesting propositions was put forward by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who suggested that it would be reasonable to compare a study on the retention rates of students at universities with a study on the retention rates of students in high schools. I do not know how much thought the honourable member gave to that issue, but I would have thought that even the most cursory consideration of the attitudes and positions of people in high schools, vis-a-vis people in tertiary institutions, would show that the reasons for people dropping out of tertiary institutions are markedly different from the reasons for people not continuing to years 11 and 12. It would be very valuable for the Government, and for the Australian people as a whole, to come to some understanding as to why young people do not continue to years 11 and 12. If we accept the dangerous proposition put forward by the honourable member for Moreton that somehow or other encouraging people to go on to year 12 does not help them, it will put Australia in a very bad position. One of the reasons that Australia is finding that we are not in a good position to compete in the world at present is the attitude of previous conservative governments in Australia which did not put sufficient assets into training and education. It is ridiculous that in Australia in 1988 we are trying to tell young people that it is a good idea to stay on to do years 11 and 12, and that they should apply themselves to do that and if we do not encourage them to do that, Australia can look to being a second rate nation in this part of the world. The thing we should be able to sell in this part of the world is the fact that we have a very good, broad-based education system. But in recent years we have seen the less developed countries in the region overtaking Australia. We have been too complacent, we have been too lazy and governments have shown too little leadership in the education debate. We seem to pick up on whatever the flavour of the month is, run with it for a little while and then switch to something else. The discussion on this Bill has been fairly wide ranging but we have heard mostly carping discussion from the Opposition. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Moreton told us about small problems they have come across with the student assistance programs that the Commonwealth Government runs. The new form of student assistance, that this Government has implemented, is one of the great landmark changes in education funding in Australia. Rather than recognise that, all we heard from Opposition speakers was carping criticism which, unfortunately, is becoming typical of what we hear from the Opposition today. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Mackellar, moved an amendment to the second reading motion that states: . . . 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 Opposition should recognise that the Austudy system provides a great opportunity for young people who otherwise may not have been able to complete their education to do so. The Opposition has not given credit where credit is due. Instead of the Opposition saying, `Let's see whether we can go down the path of better education together', all we hear is carping criticism. I want to say a few things that are quite positive about education, in particular the gains for people in my electorate from the Austudy arrangements and the gains and the goals that the Government sees in its education policy. Before I do that, I will look at the Government's strategy. The Government's target is to achieve a retention rate of 65 per cent of students completing year 12 by the early 1990s. That in itself is an indictment of the way in which the previous Liberal-National coalition Government let education run down in Australia. If the Government's target can now be only 65 per cent that is something of which we should be ashamed, not because of the work that this Government has done in the education field but because of the lack of work done by the previous Government. The previous Government had a tertiary education assistance scheme which allowed very restricted access to higher education by people from low income families and which subsidised those who were well off. This Government has turned that system around and has put in place a form of assistance for young people which will help people from low income families to make the decision about whether the young boys and girls in the family will continue to years 11 and 12. Families will not have to make that decision entirely on financial grounds, which they often had to do before; they will be able to make the decision on the grounds of the academic merit they feel their young people have. It is interesting for the House to note the type of assistance that the Government is giving to low income families to help them make that decision on the basis of academic merit and not on the basis of whether the family needs a 16-year-old student to go out and work to help supplement the family income. Take, for example, a family on weekly earnings of $300 and with three children at various stages of their education. Such a family would be eligible for almost $175 a week in Commonwealth Government assistance. That amount would be made up of $91.20 Austudy for the eldest child, who would be 18 years old and living away from home to attend a tertiary institution; $50 a week Austudy for the middle child, who would be 16 years of age and at school; and a $28 family allowance supplement plus a $5.25 family allowance for the youngest child, who would be 14 years of age and at school. That family would get $15 a week rent support if it were living in private rental accommodation. Of course, the family would get a further increase in Austudy payments when the youngest child turned 16 years of age. What this Government is doing to help low income families to send their children to school is nothing short of phenomenal. We will provide up to 58 per cent of a family's income-$175 for a family with an income of $300 a week. That is the most generous package that has ever been put together by a government in the history of this country. But what do we hear from the Opposition about that generous, fair and equitable package? We hear carping criticism. We hear the honourable member for Moreton tell us that it is a scandal that we have spent $100,000 on trying to find the reasons why young people are not attending years 11 and 12. We hear him then make the rather foolish statement that we ought to look at an old survey that was done on why young people drop out of universities. He argues that somehow or other that is going to tell us why students do not go on to years 11 and 12. I suppose that, if we delved into this matter a bit more, we might even find that the honourable member for Moreton is the chairman of the Opposition's education committee, because the types of policies that it is coming out with are indicative of the types of policies that he brings before the House. To my mind, the type of criticism that the Opposition is making of the Government's very generous and equitable programs to help low income families have a chance in life is scandalous. Over the years, honourable members opposite presided over a system of educational assistance which put hundreds of millions of dollars into tertiary institutions-schools and universities-that were attended by the children of the rich but by only a few children from the western suburbs of Sydney. The people from the western suburbs, through their taxes, paid for the institutions that the children of the rich went to. In the last few years we have turned that around a bit. I must say that I view the criticisms that were made by the honourable member for Mackellar more with sorrow than with anger. If anyone ought to understand the situation of people from low and middle income families, who went to schools where class sizes were too large and the kids did not get a fair go, it is a person with his background. Rather than criticise this legislation, he should be in a position to get his Party to bring in policies to redress this situation. When the honourable member for Mackellar completed his Leaving Certificate, only four or five of his fellow students went on, as he did, to university. But now most students at the school he attended who get to years 9 and 10 continue on to years 11 and 12. The children who now go to the school he went to have a far better chance of getting an education than was the case when the Government of which he was a member was in business. In fact, we see sitting on the front bench of the Opposition the real problem with the Opposition's education policies. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) represents all of the positions of privilege that the Liberal Party of Australia wants to support. The honourable member, who went to all of the best schools and all of the best universities, is typical of the sorts of people who would profit from that Party's types of education policies. If the Liberal Party were fair dinkum, it would come up with education policies that would do something for the people with whom the honourable member for Mackellar grew up. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Mackellar has sold out. He is interested in seeing that we have education policies in Australia that support people such as the honourable member for North Sydney. I think that sort of elitism is a scandal. One of the great things that this Government has done has been to provide very substantial financial benefits to low income families to enable them to make decisions about letting their children continue on at high school and sending them to university on the basis of merit alone. When I look around the schools in my electorate I see far better facilities now than there were five years ago; I see far more young people continuing on to years 11 and 12; and I see far more of those young people going on to university. The people of my electorate are at last, under the policies of this Government, getting a better chance to share in the opportunities available to give their children a better education than they had under the dead hand of the previous Liberal-National Party governments. In conclusion, I want to make two other points. I support what the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said in this debate. I think there is a fair amount of merit in introducing some sort of assets test as well as some sort of income test on tertiary allowances. There is no doubt that people in my electorate, as in the honourable member's electorate, find it a bit strange that the children of some families which are very asset rich, but maybe cash strapped at present, can get tertiary allowances, while their children might fall just outside of qualifying for Austudy payments. Although the husband and wife might be working, they might have a small home and be paying off a big mortgage. I think a good argument can be mounted that the only fair and equitable situation is one that is both assets tested and income tested. As the honourable member for Capricornia said, it is recognised that this is a better way to test eligibility for social security payments. It might be better, in the early course of events, to add assets testing to the Austudy system. I can understand the attitude of some people, whose family income might be a little high because both are working, when they see the children of some other family which has very substantial assets receiving Austudy assistance. I congratulate the previous Minister for Education, former Senator Ryan, who persisted with the Austudy scheme which has resulted in a very substantial increase in the participation of people from lower income families in the education system of Australia. I particularly pay a compliment to the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), who has persisted in ensuring that Austudy is paid to young people in years 11 and 12. This has meant that a whole lot more of the young people in my electorate have continued with their education. At last, they are getting a fair chance to participate in tertiary education. He has ensured that the Government's policy of access and equity has become a reality and that the people from the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne-the battlers of Australia-have a chance of their children getting a better education than they did. The House should reject the carping criticism of the Opposition. The House should reject the rather spurious arguments put forward by the honourable member for Moreton. The Opposition ought to ask the honourable member for Mackellar to remember what life was like when he was a boy, and the honourable member for Mackellar ought to do his best to get the Opposition to adopt policies such as this Government has, which will see a family on $300 a week get $175 per week in assistance to help them with the education of their children. I commend the legislation to the House, and I commend the Government on the very progressive approach it has taken to a redistribution of educational assets in Australia. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I crave your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek to clarify a matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —So long as the honourable member is seeking to clarify a matter, not to introduce new material to the debate, he may proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) has, either deliberately or accidentally, misrepresented some of my comments in relation to the grant which was given to Monash University and recently made available to Macquarie University for an inquiry into the secondary sector. I suggested that a pilot scheme would have been better to see whether the problems that existed in relation to the tertiary inquiry were present, instead of going in straight off with $120,000 of expenditure. Secondly, the honourable member referred to my raising small matters. In relation to the constituent whose problems I raised, they are a disaster in his life and I make no apology to anyone for raising people's issues in the people's place. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(12.02) —The Government welcomes the fact that the Opposition chose to turn this debate into a wide-ranging debate. The more we have the opportunity to demonstrate to the public the validity of the education policies that are being pursued by this Government the better it will be for this Government and our standing in the community. There is no doubt that the exercise that has been undertaken by this Government in reviewing educational policies and educational funding policies leaves us in very good standing when one compares it with the record of the Liberal Party of Australia when in government during the wasted Fraser years. I should like to review just a little of that, since the Opposition chose to deal with a number of matters during the debate, before I deal specifically with some of the matters that were raised, particularly by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), to which I should like to respond in some detail in a few moments. Since 1983 the Hawke Government has conducted a major review of youth programs and policies and, of course, has initiated a wide-ranging set of reforms, particularly in relation to income support arrangements for young people in the education sector. Following decisions taken in the 1985 Budget, the new age-related student assistance scheme, Austudy, was implemented in 1987, replacing the three previously existing schemes. Then in 1988 a further step was taken in rationalising allowances, with the maximum education allowance payable under Austudy to 16- and 17-year-olds being aligned with the maximum allowance payable to this age group under the new job search allowance. Many people will know that for years and years the complaint had been made that the payments under the unemployment benefit were higher than the payments made to people remaining in education, and thus a real financial incentive was provided to people of that age group to leave school to go onto the unemployment benefit. This Government has bitten the bullet and addressed that issue, and now the rates applicable for young people, whether they are in school or on the job search allowance, are essentially the same. The young homeless allowance was introduced in July 1986, and from January 1987 it has been incorporated into Austudy. The Government has also maintained assistance through separate schemes to geographically isolated school children, to migrants undertaking advanced English language courses, and to the ablest of postgraduate students pursuing higher education. There has been a very significant increase in the number of students assisted since 1983-the dying days of the Fraser Government. That assistance has been very well targeted. These figures will be of considerable interest to honourable members on both sides of the House. The number of people being assisted as at 30 June 1983 was 132,208, and at 30 June 1987 it was 184,022. That is a 40 per cent increase in the number of individuals who are being assisted under Austudy, a very dramatic increase and a very important policy initiative by this Government to ensure that far more younger people stay at school and are not encouraged to leave the education sector simply because of financial disadvantage. Expenditure on these schemes has also increased dramatically: from $378m, in 1988 prices, for the 1982-83 year, to $678m in 1987-88. That is a 74 per cent increase in real dollars. That is a clear demonstration of the fact that this Government is targeting dollars where they are needed. Over this period the apparent retention rate to the final year of schooling, Year 12, has increased from 40.6 per cent in 1983-the last year of the Fraser Government-to 53.1 per cent, while the apparent retention rate to Year 11 has increased from 63.6 per cent to 71 per cent. So, again, the Government is well on target to increase dramatically the retention rate in our school system. Overall government policy is for significant increases in educational qualifications in the population at large, and student assistance has a major role to play in increasing participation in education and in enabling disadvantaged groups to participate to a greater extent. Austudy has greatly increased the benefits available to students, particularly at the secondary school level, and has resulted in a much larger number of students being assisted. The honourable member for Mackellar raised a number of matters in relation to which he sought to attack the policy and administration of Austudy. It is pretty cheeky of the Opposition, which did nothing for the education sector during those wasted Fraser years, to come into this Parliament and proceed in a mealy-mouthed fashion to attack this Government over our excellent record. Sure, there were some administrative teething problems as Austudy was introduced. There is no doubt that this Government has now introduced an excellent scheme which is well recognised in the community as being the sort of scheme that should have been introduced a generation ago. There is no suggestion from the Opposition that we hear in this place or elsewhere that it would dismantle Austudy. It clearly obviously supports the general thrust of the Government's policy. So what is left to the Opposition but a little bit of nitpicking. Let me deal with some of the nits. The honourable member for Mackellar said that the treatment of income from scholarships at non-government schools was inadequate. I would concede that it was originally. It is true that the rules as applied initially had the effect of taking tuition scholarships into account in the student income test. This was an unintended consequence of the rationalising of benefits and conditions for secondary and tertiary students. The important point is that, when the full implications of the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill became apparent, the Government changed the conditions to exclude such scholarships from the income test, thus ensuring that students were not disadvantaged. The honourable member for Mackellar then said that the decision to give parents the option of receiving the tertiary allowance in lieu of the student was wrong, and made a couple of points about that. In deciding who should receive the allowance, the parent or the student, the Government had to balance the conflicting considerations. The Government recognised the rights of parents and the important role of the family in decision-making about the education of children. On the other hand, there were educational arguments for paying students directly, as an incentive to stay on at school, bearing in mind that if they left school and became unemployed, they would receive the unemployment benefit in their own hands. In the 1986 Budget, the Government announced that the allowance would be paid to the students. However, following representations from school and parent bodies, the Government decided that parents of students under 18 years of age could have the option of receiving the allowance. At the same time, it arranged that this would not have taxation disadvantages for the families. The point of the honourable member for Mackellar that parents are not sufficiently aware that they can apply for the benefit has absolutely no basis in fact. Every application from a student under 18 years must contain a signed statement from the parent as to who should receive the allowance. To say that parents are not aware of their rights in this matter is an absolute fabrication and is completely incorrect. The honourable member for Mackellar also raised the issue of living away from home allowances, which he says should be used to give more help to isolated students who have to live away to study. The present rules for receiving a living away from home allowance have operated since 1974. Honourable members will recall that from 1975 to 1983 the Fraser Government was in power. So the honourable member's Party chose not to change the rules during the whole of that period. Those rules have been endorsed by successive governments. There are strict rules for receiving an away from home allowance. The student must live too far from the institution to travel back and forth each day or, because of the diversity of courses, different entry requirements, quotas and the like, students are not always free to choose a course at the institution closest to their homes. In those circumstances, living away from home allowances are paid. The rules have existed since 1974 and have been endorsed by successive governments. The honourable member for Mackellar then said that Austudy should not be restricted to courses funded by the public sector. His logic for this, which I found quite extraordinary, seemed to be that the Government would save money if Austudy were paid to people studying in certain private institutions. This Government's policy, again I might say endorsed by successive governments, does not restrict benefits to students in courses at government-funded institutions. The policy has been amended to some extent to cover students in institutions that are funded by State or Territory governments as well as those that are Commonwealth funded. The present restrictions are necessary to contain costs. If Austudy were available for the very wide variety and range of privately-funded institutions, the costs to the taxpayer would increase quite significantly. They would not be reduced. The honourable member for Mackellar made some comments about payments to pensioner students. I would like to make it clear to the House that the Government's position on pensioner students is that, prior to 1987, people receiving pensions such as the supporting parents' benefits were able in many cases to receive almost the full amount of the pension and the tertiary allowance including, where applicable, child allowance from both sources. This was an obvious duplication, since both entitlements were designed for much the same purpose. The Government has decided that under Austudy such pensioners would be entitled to an education supplement of $15 per week. There were concessions to ensure that those pensioners who had already started their courses would have their benefits maintained until they finished those courses. Because of the wide range of course arrangements there have been cases where the equitable application of these transitional arrangements have proved difficult. There were situations such as the one cited by the honourable member for Mackellar where the decision was not in the student's favour. The Government's overriding concerns have been to apply the rules strictly in the interests of equity. These examples do not present a picture of policy being hastily conceived. Overall, the rules are coherent and have been applied consistently and fairly. The honourable member for Mackellar cited examples of payment delays experienced last year by students. This amendment which has been moved is amusing in the extreme, to some extent, in that it is completely historical in its ambit. It refers to the situation that applied over 12 months ago. It does not apply to the current situation. Those delays during 1987 arose because it was necessary to introduce new processing systems at the same time as the new system was being implemented. The old computer systems could not have coped with the big increase in numbers of beneficiaries and the changes in the rules. The new system became operative in stages with some aspects, such as payments to pensioners, being made manually for a time. Initial delays led to large numbers of inquiries which, of course, diverted resources from assessing the applications that had been made. During 1987 there was a thorough review of implementation problems. Various systems problems were systematically rectified. The result is that for 1988 there are no processing delays. The system is functioning smoothly. The Department has set a standard of service finalising the vast majority of applications within three weeks of receipt. This is being achieved. Despite an increase in the number of applications, 85 per cent of applications received have been processed, compared with 28 per cent at the same time last year. The strategy for handling inquiries also has been improved and new equipment used to facilitate the processing of telephone inquiries. All in all, the teething problems with the administration of Austudy have been overcome. Therefore, the amendment the honourable member has chosen to move in this place has been rendered quite redundant. The only other comments I want to make are in relation to a couple of matters that the honourable member for Mackellar raised which relate specifically to this Bill. He said that there was a need to ensure that the penalty provisions against corporations included the full range of Commonwealth and State instrumentalities. I can tell the honourable gentleman that this matter has been raised with the Parliamentary Counsel who has advised that proposed new sections 31h and 31j apply to public corporations. The honourable member's concerns on that matter-I appreciate that they were legitimate concerns-have been met. The other matter that I took note of that the honourable member raised was that there was need for careful consideration of the costs of implementing the anti-fraud measures in relation to the funds available to assist students. We, as a government, are very concerned about the need to ensure that the measures to be undertaken are cost-effective. Additional staffing costs for anti-fraud activities for Austudy will be $0.4m in 1987-88, rising to $1.79m in 1989-90. Whilst these amounts are quite large, they need to be seen in terms of the overall expenditure on Austudy which will be in the order of $620m in 1988, rising quite rapidly possibly in the ensuing couple of years. However, staffing level costs will be carefully reviewed early next year and resources curtailed if it becomes apparent that this level of expenditure on fraud control is not justified. It is intended to undertake a sample survey of applications and some additional checking during 1988 to try to arrive at some estimate of the possible level of real fraud against the scheme. All in all, this legislation is important. It will ensure the integrity of the Government's Austudy scheme, a scheme for the assistance of students in secondary and tertiary institutions. It is part of the Government's continuing concern to make sure that where it is spending public funds it is spending those funds efficiently and properly. I commend the Bill to the House and indicate that the Government will not be agreeing to the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Ronald Edwards) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blewett, N. Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. 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.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.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. MBrown, N.A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. 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, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Kerr, D. J. C. Halverson , R. G.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Duffy, M. J. Cowan, D. B.Morris, Peter Hunt, R. J. D.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 Duncan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.30) —The Parliamentary Precincts Bill sets forth for the first time in the history of the Australian Commonwealth a legal definition of the parliamentary precincts. In so doing, the Bill seeks to incorporate into law the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, namely, that the area of the parliamentary precincts for the new Parliament House be defined by legislation. In making this recommendation the Committee was addressing the concerns of the 1969 report of the Joint Select Committee of the New and Permanent Parliament House, that down through the years the Parliament had been embarrassed by lack of clarity over the issues addressed by this legislation, especially lack of certainty about the extent of parliamentary control over the land surrounding the parliamentary buildings; lack of certainty about matters of traffic control, parking facilities, police activity, control of demonstrations, public access to the buildings, roadway design, and so on; and lack of certainty over the exact area appropriated for Parliament's use, and the formal title to it. These sentiments were again echoed by the Senate Committee of Privileges, which in May 1978 called for legislation to define the boundaries of the Parliament, and again in October 1984, when the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended: The precincts of the present parliamentary House and of the new parliamentary House be defined authoritatively. Committee after committee have raised concerns over the precise definition and identification of the parliamentary precincts because of the way in which in 1927 the Governor-General vested in the Federal Capital Commission all the Commonwealth land in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) except the land shown in a schedule attached to the notice. The schedule set out the site for the permanent Parliament House, an area on Camp Hill reserved for the temporary Parliament, and areas for parliamentary gardens on each side of the House, to be delineated with a hedge. But these areas were at no time passed over to the Parliament for its control. There was no instrument setting out the precise area over which the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction or the conditions under which that jurisdiction is to be exercised. For example, uncertainty has been expressed as to whether the steps and verandahs of the present Parliament House are included in the precincts. In addition to the concern about the boundary, concerns have also been expressed about the enforcement of parliament's power. Three major defects have been raised. Firstly, although the Houses have the undoubted power to take a person into custody and to commit a person to prison, and consequently to expel a person from the precincts, there is no clear legal obligation upon the police to carry out the orders of the Presiding Officers. Secondly, although persons may be prosecuted for criminal offences committed in the precincts, the Crown has the usual discretion as to prosecution of such offences and is under no clear obligation to prosecute offences at the direction of the Presiding Officers. Thirdly, although there is no doubt that the ordinary law applies in the precincts according to its tenor, there appears to be some doubt, whether well founded or not, about particular criminal offences in their application to Parliament House. This situation reminds me of our Treasurer (Mr Keating) who, whilst being responsible for the administration of the tax law, did not comply with the law by failing to lodge his own return. Similarly, while parliament has been passing laws defining the ordinary citizen's rights, it has failed to define its own rights and its own land holdings. This Bill therefore belatedly, on the eve of the opening of the new-and, we hope, given the cost, permanent-Parliament House, is intended to remedy this situation. The Bill spells out in precise detail the physical definition of the parliamentary precincts. It confers management and control over these precincts by the Presiding Officers of Parliament-the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. The Bill provides that the laws of the Australian Capital Territory shall prevail within these precincts. The Bill enumerates the exceptions to the laws which apply within the precincts, and it provides for agreements between the Presiding Officers and the Ministers responsible for the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Services and the Director of Public Prosecutions for law enforcement within the precincts. I will come back to some of these points in a moment. The Bill also places limitations on the authority of the officers of parliament in the exercise of their control and management to the extent that they are properly subject to any order of either House. The Bill further provides that the exercise of control and management of the precincts with respect to the ministerial wing shall be subject to agreement between the officers and the responsible Minister. Given that the ministerial wing of the new Parliament, unlike that in this Parliament House, is in many respects capable of being a separate entity with its own separate entrances and a separate access roadway, one can therefore understand the desire to provide for separate arrangements to be made for the executive operation of government. I hasten to add the officers of Parliament should be mindful not to allow themselves to be browbeaten to concede special powers to the executive wing which are contrary to the best interests of the Parliament as a whole. This particular provision is the most contentious in the legislation and we will be watching closely the agreements made to make sure the powers of the Parliament remain supreme. The concept of the precincts and the principles under which it operates would certainly be weakened if agreements between the officers and the responsible Minister regarding the executive wing in any way compromised the interest of the Parliament as a whole. The definition of the parliamentary precincts includes the entire area within a boundary formed by a circular line drawn from the edge of the retaining wall right around the site, generally the area within Capital Circle. I said before that the Bill enumerates exceptions to the laws of the Australian Capital Territory for purposes of control and management of the precincts and the enforcement of these laws. Exceptions to the laws of the ACT include those governing leases and licences. For example, the sale of liquor within the precincts is already specifically exempted from the ACT Liquor Ordinance of 1975. The granting and management of other licences and leases within the new Parliament House will be governed not only by parliamentary practice which has developed over the years but specifically by this legislation. Another exception from the laws of the ACT which applies to the parliamentary precincts concerns application of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 within the precincts. Section 12 of this Act sets forth special penalties. A person who trespasses on, obstructs passage to or from, behaves in a disorderly fashion while in, or refuses upon authorised direction to leave Commonwealth premises is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine or imprisonment. Inclusion, by reference, of this section of the law ensures that order may be maintained within the parliamentary precincts. Clause 14 of the Bill modifies the boundaries of the parliamentary zone which was established by the Parliament Act 1974. The modifications extend the zone from Capital Circle to the inner kerb of State Circle, thereby encompassing the new Parliament House, and it specifically limits the zone to the inner boundaries of Commonwealth and Kings Avenues. The earlier zone included these avenues. The rules governing the zone state that no building or other work is to be erected on land within the zone unless the building or work is approved by both Houses of Parliament. In my view it is appropriate that building within the zone be controlled by the Parliament so that no works are carried out which may detract from or not be in harmony with the new Parliament House. I might mention in passing that I await with some trepidation the completion of the new National Science Centre in front of the existing Parliament House by the lake. At the moment the top of that building looks like a gasworks more suited to an industrial site than the Parliamentary Triangle. Mr Hicks —Hear, hear! Mr PORTER —I hear my colleague agreeing. Maybe on completion the total effect will be an improvement but I must say at present I am not convinced it is an appropriate addition to the parliamentary zone. But the purpose of establishing a parliamentary zone goes beyond the control of construction of buildings within that zone. The House of Representatives Practice states: If the Parliament is confronted with the situation where its functioning is hindered by events outside the area normally considered to be its precincts, it may be able to take action under its privilege power. The House has the right to the attendance and services of its members and if, for example, a large gathering of people in front of the building was preventing members from entering the House, the Speaker, under the privilege power of the House, could order the police to clear a passage. Pettifer goes on to say: The Australian Parliament does not claim authority over the streets surrounding Parliament House although it does claim the privilege of access for its members to attend Parliament. The parliamentary zone defined in this Bill describes the area in which the Presiding Officers may exercise the power of privilege in a sensible and practical way, bearing in mind the reasonable requirements of the Parliament. This Bill on the parliamentary precincts therefore provides this House with much more than certitude about title to the physical premises of the new Parliament House and its surrounds. The Bill gives the Presiding Officers of Parliament-the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate-the authority necessary to ensure that both Houses of Parliament may proceed with their deliberations in an orderly fashion. There are a number of other issues relating to the new and the old Parliament which I would like to raise. I was not present during the debate on the Speaker's chair and would therefore like to say that, to me, the chair is a symbol of the Westminster tradition which has been practised in the House of Commons and since Federation in this Parliament. I think it is a great pity that the Government has not seen fit to maintain the link between the old and the new. I recognise that this Labor Government would like to distance us from our ties with the Westminster tradition which is the cornerstone of our democratic system of government. I have no doubt that its refusal to allow the chair to go with us to the new Parliament House is seen by it as a progressive step towards a republic. I do not share that view. We are an independent nation and I would have thought that was patently clear to all. We do not need to prove it to anybody. I therefore see merit in maintaining the continuity of our parliamentary tradition. In recognition of the development of our parliamentary system the Speaker's chair would, I believe, provide a unique link to the Westminster tradition. In pursuit of progress and development we do not have to cut all our ties with the past. The chair in this place is a symbol of a great deal of commonsense and convention built up over centuries of democratic rule. I might add that I see that I am in good company. I noticed that just before the end of last year three former Clerks of the House of Representatives-Messrs Norman Parkes, John Pettifer and Douglas Blake-petitioned the House. Mr Hollis —Overstepping their mark again. Mr PORTER —As private citizens? It is interesting that, according to the honourable member, private citizens should not be allowed to petition this House. That gives us an insight into the sort of government the Australian Labor Party would like to impose on this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Barker will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Brisbane Airport Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.45) —Just on 12 months ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall I wrote to you and all honourable colleagues concerning parliamentary inaction on the issue of X-rated videos. I suggested that we as a parliament had reason to believe that harm is being caused to children and young people by X- and R-rated videos because of the criminal neglect and apathy of their parents and the community. I argued that we share that guilt because we have the power to protect our children from such neglect but refuse to act. A year has now passed and we have still done nothing. The reason given has been the ongoing deliberations of a joint committee which has been about to bring down its recommendations for three years. Dr Harry Edwards —About to! Mr WEBSTER —Yes, about to, as the honourable member for Berowra says. Partly in response to our indecision and the consequent expansion of mail order video services in the Australian Capital Territory which have undermined State censorship laws, the Western Australian Government has in the last month moved to tighten significantly video controls. The Western Australian Government has removed a loophole which the pedlars of filth, exploitation and violence have made much use of. It has made illegal not only the sale and hire of violent and sexually explicit videos but their possession as well. According to the Western Australian Minister for the Arts, Mr Parker, videotapes which depict child pornography, which promote or incite terrorism or which offend against generally accepted standards of morality, decency and propriety will be banned. His Government has moved to eliminate these videos, he says, to ensure that children and others do not see them, either deliberately or by accident. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend Mr Parker and the Western Australian Government and I urge the new Federal Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) to have a talk with Mr Parker when he gets the opportunity, hopefully pretty soon. The decision by the Western Australian Government should be seen by this Parliament as an opportunity to begin our preparatory thinking about the likely issues to be raised by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material which will report, one hopes, on schedule, in April. I would like to commend our Opposition shadow Attorney-General for the excellent seven-point plan that he put out yesterday which gives good guidelines to what ought to be a bipartisan approach to this very critical situation. I have actively supported those in the community who have been speaking out against X-rated videos and I am heartened by the Western Australian Government's action. I believe it is now time to widen the debate to the question of our censorship laws in toto. I wish to explain why. In January this year the Institute of Criminology released a study of sex, violence and sexual violence as contained in 58 of the most popular videos available for hire. The most dangerous type of media material-sexual agression-was predominantly found not in X-rated videos but in R-rated videos, legally available in all States. The number of scenes of agression in M-and PG-rated films was roughly equal to the number in R-rated videos. The research by the Institute confirmed the doubts that many people are beginning to express about the adequacy of our censorship laws and guidelines. People are beginning to seek explanations for the increasing levels of domestic violence, sexual abuse, assault and violent crime. It is dawning on them that television film and video media material are the elements to be involved in any social policy review. People are beginning to realise just how watered down our media standards have become. There are two reasons for this weakening of standards. Firstly, the censorship laws are vague; for example, G-rated family films can include expletives, verbal references to sex and depictions of violence. The qualifying criteria to guide the censors are embodied in words such as mild, discreet, incidental and justifiable. In the M category, which dominates so much of teenage theatre going and which includes the infamous Rambo films, violence can be depicted so long as it is not gratuitous, exploitative, relished wholly or unduly explicit. If you ask what those qualifications mean in effect, consider the Rambo or the macabre horror mutilation films which are so regularly categorised as M. In the R-rated films depiction of sexual violence is approved so long as it too is discreet, not gratuitous and not exploitative. Incest can also be portrayed in R films. The positive portrayal of incest, for example, is therefore often approved under these conditions. The rules for television are, to be fair, tougher but if one considers the predominance in cartoons of violence as a means of conflict resolution, one realises how ineffective the guideline is which states that violence cannot be presented if it will harm or distress a child. Obviously, cartoon violence does not alarm but it does influence and it should be noted that television programs which are suitable for unsupervised children can include portrayal of nudity where the program deems it discreet and necessary. The impact of vague guidelines is compounded by the moral desensitisation of viewers which results from the constant extension by artists and directors of the definitions of justifiable, discreet, gratuitous, and so on. But the dictionary of psychological terms shows that one can construct the following definition of desensitisation: It is a decrease in reactivity or sensitivity; a weakening of the response with repeated presentations of the stimulus. The reason so much of what was once classified X is now classified R, R now M, M now PG, PG now G, is not that we have become more enlightened. It is that we have, individually and as a community, become desensitised. Unfortunately, it takes the shock of a gun massacre, vicious rape or domestic violence figures to make us stand back and reconsider clear norms and principles. It takes such eye-openers to help us see how incrementally we have allowed nihilistic academics or pornography pedlars to convince us that the new permissiveness is reasonable, harmless and liberating. It takes such shocks, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make us realise that when people refer to their right to freedom-that is, freedom of expression and viewing-they are referring not to the opportunity to write, sell, or read a D. H. Lawrence novel, but to the right to be titillated by rape, incest, child pornography and sexual subjugation. They really mean they want to be free to fantasise about shooting up Viet Cong villages. They really mean that they want to be able to have access to material which degrades their wives and children and they do not want any regulations which might mean they have to admit that their interest is not artistic, but debased. They want the right to rent rape and mutilation from the newsagent, to have Daddy's Little Girl, an incest video, on the same shelf with Disney videos when the family goes to the service station. I believe that much of what is freely available on television, at theatres and in newsagents harms our children, harms women and harms society. It is time we tackled the problem of media standards which allow human life and human relations to be treated with contempt. It is time we shrugged off the fear of being labelled wowsers, of being labelled repressed or new prohibitionists, and acted to restore those standards which nurture the values which characterise a loving and just community. At the moment we have censorship laws which allow for film material which is harmful to the community. What we need is a set of censorship guidelines and laws about which we can say with certainty, these laws enhance this community. The seriousness of this situation, Mr Deputy Speaker, cannot be overestimated. It requires immediate action, which is not optional but imperative. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.55) —My grievance today is against the Australian Press Council. The Press Council is one of those self-regulating bodies that tend to pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I firmly believe, from personal experience, that this Council is a sham whose function is to protect the Press from criticism. I hope that at some time this Parliament will look at means to make the print media much more answerable, much more accountable, especially the country Press operating in the rural areas. I would like to see conditions applied to the print media somewhat similar to those which are applied to the electronic media. Let us examine the statement of principles put out by the Australian Press Council. It claims that it will treat the public interest as the first and dominant consideration; that readers of a newspaper are entitled to have both news and comment presented to them with complete good faith and therefore with scrupulous honesty and fairness in both statement and omission to ensure the truth and exactness of its statements. The statement of principle goes on to say: A newspaper is justified in advocating its own views on controversial topics- and no one disagrees with that- provided in doing so it treats its readers fairly by not misleading or suppressing facts which are relevant to conclusions which it encourages readers to accept and not distorting or unfairly colouring news either in the text or its headline. That extract from the statement of principles of the Australian Press Council is very important. During the last election campaign we heard a lot, especially from the Opposition, about media bias. Interestingly, one of those who were talking loudest was Senator Michael Baume. I remember that, when I stood against him as a candidate in 1983, one of the newspapers in the area we were both contesting at that time-the Macarthur electorate-refused to print my name once during the campaign. We heard very little from Senator Michael Baume, although I challenged him on it, at that time about media bias. Any Labor candidate in a non-metropolitan electorate can tell you all about media bias. We suffer very much from media bias. During the last election two newspapers, both in my electorate-two newspapers but both with the same editor-also were very biased against me. Let me give a couple of examples of this. The newspaper editor, one Mr Peter Attwater, was very much supporting the Liberal candidate and every time a shadow Minister-and there seemed to be one there a day, not that it did the Liberal candidate much good-came into my area he would get massive coverage. I had several Ministers in my electorate. I had the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in to Jamberoo, which is a dairying area. One would have thought that that would have been of some interest. The local newspaper did not even mention it. When the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) launched my campaign and spoke about the difficulties in the coal industry, which also is in my electorate, again this local paper ignored it completely. When the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) visited the area his comments were distorted. I could go on with a whole list of the distortions or omission from these newspapers and I felt it was hardly fair comment; so much so that I raised the matter with the Australian Press Council after the election. I put a complaint against the editor of the Kiama Independent and the Lake Times. Obviously, I lost; I always lose when I put a case before the Press Council. As part of its judgment it said: The Kiama Independent is correct in stating that it is entitled in its editorial columns to support one candidate over another in an election. Then it says: It is, of course, incumbent upon the Kiama Independent and any other newspaper to be ethical and accurate in its coverage of an election. If it was ethical, I am afraid I do not know the meaning of that word because I felt that it was most unethical; I felt that the editor of that newspaper, Mr Peter Attwater, frankly was a disgrace to the noble profession of journalism. The judgment goes on to say: No evidence has been put before the Council which would suggest that the Kiama Independent in any way failed to maintain this standard. Not only did it fail to maintain the correct standard during the campaign but at the time of the declaration of the poll it again distorted completely the speech I made and, by a strange coincidence, several key words had been misunderstood and it gave a completely different interpretation of my speech. So much for the high ethical standards and so much for the self-congratulatory role that the Australian Press Council has. As I said before, I think it is a sham; it should be done away with; it serves no useful purpose; the only purpose it serves is to protect journalists or newspapers from criticism. I must say that newspapers never hesitate to criticise us in this place. Let anyone criticise journalists or the newspapers and see how they scream about it. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to turn to a topic that is dear to some of our hearts. That is a certain event that is to take place in New South Wales on 19 March when the Unsworth Labor Government is going to be returned to office. Interestingly, the headline of the Sydney Morning Herald today is: `The case of the poll pledge that could die on March 19'. It refers to a statement from Mr Pickering who, as I understand it, is the shadow Minister for Police but would be much better known to many members of the House and many people in New South Wales as Taxi Ted, because it was Taxi Ted who ran up a massive account of about $20,000 of taxpayers' money for his jaunts in a taxi. Anyway, Taxi Ted is now saying that the pledge he has given is: `This is just for the election. When I am Police Minister, they won't know what'll hit them'. I would like to suggest to the House that if the New South Wales people, for some reason, decide to elect the current Opposition as the new government in New South Wales they really will not know what hit them. Taxi Ted is right, they will not know what hit them. Let us look at some of the areas that Taxi Ted and his friends will hit in New South Wales: childcare, for example. This Government has worked with the Labor Government in New South Wales to provide a massive increase in childcare facilities. There are roads, housing and, indeed, as I am sure my friend the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) would endorse, the environment. What will Taxi Ted and his mates do to the environment if the people of New South Wales decide that they should have a change of government? I represent with the honourable member for Hughes and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), the south coast area of New South Wales. It will be very severely hit if there is a change in government. I must say that the New South Wales Opposition at the moment is making a lot of noise and getting a lot of media coverage. But in all this noise that I am hearing about members of the New South Wales Opposition, I am yet to hear of any of their policies. I do not really know what their policies are, what they are going to promise the people of New South Wales. The only thing they are promising to the people of New South Wales is a change. Quite frankly, with Taxi Ted and his mates it most certainly will be a change for the worst. I really doubt very much whether the people of New South Wales would be prepared to gamble on the Opposition in New South Wales, to change the trusted Government of Barrie Unsworth and the fine record of that government and of the Wran Government before it in a whole range of areas. I will give one small example. It is not so very small for the people who have benefited in my own area on the south coast-the electrification of the railway line there. Are the people going to exchange that for the unknown quality of the Opposition? I look forward, in my area, after the New South Wales election to continue working with Bob Harrison who will be returned as the member for Kiama, Laurie Kelly who will be the new member for Wollongong, Terry Rumble the new member for Illawarra and Colin Markham, the new member for Keira. They will all excellently represent the south coast area of New South Wales in the Parliament. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.5) —I enter this Grievance Debate because I guess in an order of even 1 : 100 I would consider my concern for the Australian system of justice as very, very high were I to see it demeaned in any way or under a course of destruction. Therefore, I have a very severe grievance when I refer to these matters. I bring your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday on a very serious matter. He brought before this House in political defence of one of his colleagues a legal opinion prepared by the Solicitor-General which seeks to exonerate the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) from any charges, allegations or accusations regarding his actions in terms of the now well-known Medigate case where in fact, without lace, without doubt, the situation is that an offence has been committed. We are at the position of deciding who committed the offence and I refer in this case to the opinion as tabled by the Prime Minister. I first complain, of course, that it has pre-empted proper police inquiries and it certainly will restrict their activities; even more so because the Prime Minister then announced that he is retaining the Minister in his position. Although actions within his Department are now to be the subject of police inquiries, he will be directing those police inquiries. That is a case of putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. We must of course take note that it will be impossible for members of the staff to properly give evidence to the police when those sorts of circumstances arise. My major complaint about this particular case is not one of bias or anything else. It is clearly a complaint about the professional standards that have been used in providing this advice. When one deals out in the private sector with lawyers, one deals with those who give good and honest advice. Even if it is something that one would like to proceed with, it is a good lawyer who tells his client that he cannot win; it is the good lawyer who tells him to save his money and gives him advice that he may not even like to read. That is what good professional lawyers do. In this case, an opinion has been given which has very little to do with law. Were the matter before this Parliament or the matter for which an opinion had been sought a matter of, for instance, a takeover of a major company in Australia and the particular functions there, that would be a matter of law. It is not what people are doing or what they have done, what they have done behind closed doors or who rang up who; it is a question of legal rights or, in fact, the prohibitions that are placed upon people by the law. Such a legal opinion can be given and it can have great weight. When a matter is won, where a law has apparently been broken, and we are at the point where we are seeking to find who broke the law-whether it be one person or a number of people-of course that matter, when in court, is always considered on the grounds of the evidence of the witnesses. That is always preceded, if it is a Crown case, by police activity, by police getting proofs of evidence and discovering what the case is. It is at that time, based on the proofs of evidence, that, for instance, someone like the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) makes a decision. We do not hear the DPP providing opinions to the Government on what he might do as a result of certain inquiries in progress, as the Solicitor-General has done. The Solicitor-General has given an opinion to the Government, his client, paid for of course by the taxpayers of Australia, and it carriers no qualification whatsoever as to the paucity of information available when this particular opinion was given and, as such, it is scandalous. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to parts of that report. In the beginning the Solicitor-General advises us: `Attached are the following: (1) the text of the statement made in the House of Representatives this evening by the Minister for Community Services and Health'. That was the statement in which he admitted he misled the House. The report goes on: `(2) a copy of a minute dated 7 January 1988 from the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission to the Minister for Community Services and Health'. That has been touted round this place as the Minister seeking advice from the Manager of the Health Insurance Commission (HIC), when, in fact, it is a letter written to the Minister approximately three months after certain information was released from the HIC to the Minister's office and subsequently to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). It is not a case of a Minister going out and seeking advice as to what he could rightly or not rightly do. It is damage control and all that period before this letter was put out which the Solicitor-General uses as the basis of his advice to government, all of that previous information whatever it might be, is apparently ignored. The Solicitor-General then goes on to say: I read the Minister's statement- this is the statement he made in this Parliament- as stating that the Minister himself had not seen the particular documents prior to their communication to the Member for Canning . . . Now that could be so, but on what grounds does the Solicitor-General state that it is accurate? Did he see other proofs of evidence? Did he see supporting evidence from every member of the Minister's staff and the HIC that says that that is a fact? If it is the basis of his decision, is it not his responsibility to establish the facts? He goes on to say: It is apparent that the Minister gave an authority in relation to information of a kind limited to information which did not contain anything which would identify doctors or patients including provider numbers. What evidence has this Parliament been given of that? Why in the attachments to this opinion is that written instruction to the HIC not included? The Minister has not given us that. The Solicitor-General has just blithely taken the word of the Minister in declaring him innocent. The whole thing is that this is not an opinion of the sort of professional status that one would expect from the highest public legal officer in the land. The realities of our courts are, when we go before a judge, that the law as it is written is significant, but so are the facts of evidence as to who might have broken that law. We are past the point as to whether the law was broken. The Minister has come in here and told us that his office received information regarding doctors and their remuneration-expressly forbidden by section 130 of the Health Insurance Commission Act-that the Health Insurance Commission passed that information to his office and, presumably, the original request was on his authorisation. We know that. We know that that information eventually ended up in a newspaper. We know that provider numbers were on the documents provided-on the Minister's admission-and we know the provider numbers, and I quote from the Act, `enable people to be identified'. The Act, irrespective of all its other requirements, expressly forbids any action that would allow for the identification of an individual patient or practitioner. So why have we been able to declare the Minister innocent when there are no proofs of evidence provided for the Solicitor-General to make that judgment? He is entitled to make any judgment he likes but he should have informed the Parliament, through the Prime Minister, that he must qualify it on the paucity of the information. I say it is paucity of information because, firstly, he goes no further than to provide those two documents. Secondly, I know that he could not have had more than five or six sleeping hours to arrive at his decision; and, thirdly, we have not received any advice in this Parliament yet as to the progress of the police inquiries. All we know is that as a result of this opinion, the Prime Minister in his inimitable fashion, a man of some legal training many years ago, has declared the Minister innocent and has said that he can retain his position and direct the Federal police in their inquiries. I repeat, that is putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. It creates an impossible situation for the members of his staff and, of course, the members of the HIC. More importantly let us get down to the last thing. We know a law has been broken; we know somebody broke it. The Prime Minister has told us that it was not the Minister. We just want to know who is going to be this Minister's Stephen Loosley. Who is going to carry the can for this Minister? Which member of his staff is he going to enter the witness box and give evidence against because that is where you have descended to in the Labor Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.15) —The issue I seek to raise today concerns the Opposition parties, the Liberal and National parties' attitude towards the protection of the Australian environment. In speaking, as I will, about the policies of Federal parties, I want the people of Australia to remember that the same parties are going to contest an election in New South Wales in a few weeks time. They are the same parties with the same priorities as the Federal representatives here in Canberra; only the faces are different. It is a tragedy to see what has happened to the Liberal and National parties and their environmental policies. It once used to be the case that at least the Liberal Party could keep in check the more extreme elements of the National Party. Back when the Fraser Government was in power it was to the credit of that Government that it intervened, using Federal powers, to override the State of Queensland and protect Fraser Island. But such is the state of the Liberal Party these days that rather than override the National Party, it has embraced the policies of the extreme Right. It is very much under the domination of forces outside this Parliament. A party that was once a small `l' Liberal Party, in name at least, has now become, as I say, completely dominated by an extremist and alien political philosophy. This is nowhere more evident that in its abdication of responsibility for protection of the Australian environment, because the Liberals say: `No matter how important the issue, no matter how special places are of natural significance in Australia, whether it be South West Tasmania, Kakadu National Park, the Uluru-Mount Olga National Park or the wet tropical rainforests of Queensland, no matter how special these areas and the recognition given to them as World Heritage areas, this national Opposition will refuse to override the States. From now on it is open slather for the destruction of the natural environment depending on the whims of the State Premiers'. Not everyone in the Liberal Party shares this view. To his credit the former spokesman on the environment for the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), before he was sacked went on the public record as saying that the main problem with the Liberals' environment policy is that it is utterly wedded to its position on State's rights and he called for a review of that policy. Indeed, the shadow spokesman for the environment, Senator Puplick, has made some attempts to change that policy. I will come to Senator Puplick's contribution in a moment. The problem is that Senator Puplick in no way represents the Opposition. He is, regrettably, only a token wet on the Liberal Party front bench. He is attempting to give a human face to what is an entirely unacceptable and extremist policy, as I will point out. I know that Senator Puplick does have convictions in a number of areas and I respect his stand in relation to human rights and on some other matters. But on this issue, on the issue of the environment that falls within his responsibility, he is completely at odds, not only with his Leader, but also with the majority of his own Party and certainly totally at odds with the National Party. He has admitted himself that there are potentials for deep rifts between the parties on environmental issues and within parties. He was quoted in the Australian as saying precisely that on 3 February. He has published a document which is entitled `Environment Policy Options, a Discussion Paper'. It was quite cleverly presented with a green cover. But as the Minister at the table, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), will see, when the green cover is removed, there really is not very much left in that policy that has any real substance insofar as the protection of the environment and the greening of the Liberal Party are concerned. That document is, in fact, only a discussion document; it does not have one single commitment to any policy. In fact Senator Puplick in the document says, `Until that policy is adopted, then the 1987 policy remains in place'. Let me remind honourable members about the 1987 policy. That was the policy given before the election by the then Senator Collard, who is not even a member of the Liberal Party. He is one of Sir Joh's former apparatchiks who, I might add, was also unceremoniously dumped by Sir Joh and replaced with the even more extreme Senator Stone. I will turn to him in a moment. The great irony is that when this policy discussion paper was released by Senator Puplick, he did so at a Young Liberals Conference and said that Young Liberals have a very great and deep interest in environmental issues and would be welcomed as participants in consultation about the new policy. He was certainly right. They had an abiding interest in the environment because at the very same conference they put up a resolution calling for Australia to withdraw from the World Heritage Treaty, such was the attitude of many people at that conference. It is not just people in the Young Liberals who have now been taken over by the same extreme forces that caused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to jump but it is also the States, because the conservative States just will not accept anything other than total control over the environment. Many reports show the organisational attempts of those State Premiers to ensure that they stop Senator Puplick in his tracks. In fact, the Hobart Mercury reported only a month ago that the Tasmanian Premier, Robin Gray, will be attempting to bypass the Opposition spokesman and go directly to Mr Howard to make sure that there is no intervention over the rights of the Tasmanian Government. Of course, Mr Ahern and the National Party are not going to have a bar of any national responsibility either. I ask people to think what the attitude of the Tasmanian Liberals is going to be in this place. Of course, they are going to jump when Mr Gray tells them. Senator Puplick, I regret to say, is going to be decimated by the likes of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who are just two of the hardline National Party members with no commitment to the preservation of the environment. His own leader, Mr Howard, has already gone on public record as recently as a few days ago saying that he would go on record and restate the coalition policy of opposing unilateral action in relation to environmental issues by the Federal Government. He ruled out the option of using the foreign affairs power and the World Heritage convention, a convention I might say that most small `l' liberals, most genuine liberals, fully support and endorse. Mr Deputy Speaker, that brings me to the question of how the Liberal Party and the National Party relate to the environment in New South Wales because that State more than any other State of Australia has set a world trend. It has taken some initiatives that indeed have been noticed around the world because of their deep commitment to the preservation of the natural environment. I have the highest regard for the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Bob Carr, who has taken this battle for the preservation of World Heritage areas to the very heart of the Government. I believe that history will show that future generations owe Mr Carr a great debt. All that work of that Government is at risk if the Opposition wins government in New South Wales. One has to look only at the attitude of those conservative parties to see that time and time again they have gone on the public record as opposed to wilderness legislation, as opposed to the listing of the rainforests of New South Wales for World Heritage. I remind people that when that proposal went through the Parliament every member of the National Party opposed it; every single member. Not only that, but four Liberals actually voted with them. One of those four members was the increasingly unpopular honourable member for Bligh, Mr Yabsley, who is likely to lose his seat in the coming election. The Liberal Party, showing the great courage of its convictions, did not even vote against it; its members walked out; they were not prepared to support that listing of those World Heritage rainforests in the New South Wales Parliament. They are on the record in this area as they are in so many other areas with their support for logging and their complete disregard for the environmental movement. Mr Deputy Speaker, for the sake of the New South Wales environment I could only hope that Bob Carr and the New South Wales Labor Government are returned in the New South Wales election. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.25) —A few weeks ago I attended a meeting in Broken Hill. At that meeting was a large attendance of 3,000 people and it is probably the largest meeting that I have seen in Broken Hill in my time there. The people were not there to protest about the lack of government action in support of the mining area, or anything like that. They were there to protest about the State Government's proposed regulations in relation to firearms laws that are about to be implemented with an amnesty lasting until 29 February. Broken Hill, as honourable members would know, is a fairly strong Labor stronghold. It has a voting pattern, I would say conservatively, of about 70 per cent Labor. Despite all this, the people of Broken Hill are very conservative, law abiding people, and people who follow their government laws as well as anyone does in the State. But those people who attended that meeting were very cynical about State Government regulations which have been brought in and imposed before the forthcoming State election. Why are these regulations being imposed on the people? I suppose it was because the State Labor Government has done some research and has found that there is a poll out which shows that it is very soft on law and order. Law and order is almost unknown in New South Wales. The situation is almost critical. The New South Wales Government is bad in its support of the hospital system. We all know that the Medicare system has just about ruined health support in this nation, but in New South Wales it is particularly bad. Of course, its support of education is also lacking. We all know about the famous Summary Offences Act which the New South Wales Labor Government has done away with and made things almost impossible for police in the State of New South Wales. So we find that the New South Wales Government wanted to be seen to be doing something about law and order. What did it do? It had a knee-jerk reaction and brought in these gun control regulations. Who are these regulations affecting? Mainly, I would say, they are affecting the New South Wales police force because the New South Wales police force is under tremendous strain. The Government is saying to them, `Look, we want you now to try to enforce this law'. I believe it is unenforceable. I am not one who would say that the shooters of New South Wales should defy the law. Certainly if they do, that leads only to anarchy. I would be the first one to say that that is not on. But I do believe that what the New South Wales Government has done in bringing in this legislation is making it very difficult for the New South Wales police force to enforce. Under the regulations that are coming in, all self-loading rifles are prohibited. This means it is an offence to use a self-loading rifle unless a ministerial permit is held. The maximum penalty for this offence, firstly, for having a self-loading rifle without ministerial approval, is seven years gaol with a $2,000 fine; and if that weapon is used to shoot a rabbit or something like that in the bush, one could get 10 years gaol with a $2,000 fine. Let us have a look at some of the offences that have been committed in Broken Hill alone. I know many members of the House could tell me of some right throughout Australia. Recently, a gentleman fired a firearm at another person and wounded him in the ear. He got nine months gaol and was out within 7 1/2weeks. Let us compare that to other offences. Just to own one of these firearms involves about seven years and 10 years imprisonment. Seven and a half weeks for wounding somebody does not seem very long to me. Recently in Broken Hill four people were seriously wounded by a gunman who almost completely destroyed their lives. He got 3 1/2 years gaol. Does this mean that if an offence of trying to murder someone with a knife, a brick, a single-shot firearm or with some other implement, or by electrocution, or whatever scheme might be dreamed up will attract very lenient sentences? But if some other thing is used the penalty is seven years or 10 years. So the whole thing is a nonsense. What we are really talking about here is that the Government really does have to tighten up on law and order. I am sure that if it did, it would not have to bring in these nonsensical laws that it is talking about here. At the meeting in Broken Hill, it was interesting because a young lady rose to her feet to address the meeting, or to ask a question. She said that the Government is proposing to pay compensation to the people handing in firearms. We estimate that the compensation for the handing in of the firearms will cost the State Government $60m to $90m. Where that compensation is to be found I really do not know. She went on to say that in the State of New South Wales they have spent about $3m in fighting the AIDS epidemic. We know from most reliable sources that it is estimated that in the next five to 10 years 5,000 to 10,000 people in New South Wales will be infected with AIDS. Many of those people will die and yet we are talking here about $3m on the AIDS campaign and $90m in compensation for firearms. Would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that next Thursday at Kings Cross we are going to have another Gay Mardi Gras with government support? I ask the House: How could a New South Wales government which is supposed to be concerned about the welfare of the people who live in the State want to pay $60m to $90m in firearm compensation and then allow a Gay Mardi Gras to take place with its support? I really just cannot believe that. I know that the whole exercise is just completely cynical. On the way the New South Wales Government is going to collect the $25, which will be another tax imposed on the people, for the registration of these firearms. The coalition, and the National Party in particular, supported the amendments to the Gun Laws Act which was brought in on 6 March 1985 and which required individuals owning or wishing to purchase long arms to acquire a shooters licence by applying to the nearest police station. Police were then to examine the applicants and certify an applicant as a fit or proper person to hold the firearm. The National Party accepted the provision that a shooters licence was also necessary to purchase ammunition. However, the National Party rejected that section of the amendments to the Act which required the full registration of all long arms. It supported the existing controls in regard to pistols and revolvers. By the way, some of those regulations are some of the toughest in the world. I see this whole thing as a cynical exercise and such was the Government's rush to bring in this regulation that it was brought to my attention by Mr Bill Woodroffe, who is a prominent pistol shooter in Broken Hill and also one of those who organised the meeting, that the Government has said that under certain conditions, of course, a rifle can be owned. One of the main conditions is that it is to carry out vermin control. The requirement is: `People wishing to shoot vermin will be eligible to obtain a licence as follows: the applicant indicates a wish to shoot vermin . . .' And so on and so forth. I wonder whether the people drafting that legislation know that the dictionaries-we checked six dictionaries, including Websters, Oxford, Collins, Readers Digest, Britannica-include in the definition of vermin `noxious or offensive insects, grubs or worms, lice, fleas', et cetera. Then it states: `low, noxious or repulsive persons'. I think the New South Wales Government had better check up on that and had better give us a definition of what it means by `vermin'. It is giving these people who are able to obtain a licence almost a 007 licence; they can get rid of noxious people or people whom they regard as noxious. Even the dictionary that I picked up here in the Parliament, the Cassells New English dictionary, has that definition that I just read out. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, these gun laws of the New South Wales Government can be no better summed up than in the editorial in the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser of 27 January 1988. It says: From this time forward no private property of any kind is sacrosanct under the Unsworth or any socialist government since, by the gun law precedent, all that the Unsworths of this country will require is a sufficient excuse to declare individuals incompetent, unpredictable, or antagonistic to legislate away specific property rights in the name of some vaguely plausible belief that the public welfare is at risk. The hypocrisy of politics is evidenced by the Unsworth, and certainly the Cain Government in Victoria, since both have preyed on public fear to carry their particular case against private firearms ownership and their unstated program against private ownership generally. I think that is the crux of the matter, Mr Deputy Speaker; that we are not really on about law and order or protecting society or anything else. It really is, firstly, a socialist ploy but, secondly, it also is out to win votes particularly among city voters. But I am sure that the Australian electorate and the New South Wales electorate are much more educated than the Government gives them credit for and will show their protest at this action by the New South Wales Government at the next poll. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(1.35) —I was rather surprised that the previous speaker did not finish with a punch line suggesting that there are commies under the bed. I want to tell members of the Liberal and National parties that voters in the Hunter Valley are not the fools they believe them to be. The Liberals and Nationals in the Hunter Valley are pushing a line in the State electorates in an attempt to deceive the voters. The conservatives, Mr Greiner's whiners, are preaching the nonsense that a Labor government spends nothing in safe Labor seats. They certainly do not push this argument in safe Liberal and National seats. This line was tried in the Hunter electorate in last year's Federal elections. `Hawke is neglecting Hunter', they screamed. They shut up quickly, however, when I produced evidence of more than $100m of Federal expenditure in my electorate. The same is true of State electorates in the Hunter Valley. The Unsworth Government has poured millions into Labor seats in the Valley. Only the other day I joined New South Wales Minister Janice Crosio in the opening of a $17m water project to benefit Cessnock, Maitland and the lower areas of the Hunter Valley. Other projects which come quickly to mind include $4 billion spent on two new power stations; millions of dollars on new schools, technical and further education colleges, hospitals and community projects; $160m on Rankin Park Hospital alone; $400m on electric trains; and millions on road improvements. Will voters forget the $40m spent on a second Hexham Bridge or the millions spent on Newmed and the new oncology unit and operating and cardiac units? The Unsworth Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, has provided a record number of Housing Commission homes; it has spent $20m on the Newcastle grain terminal and millions on harbour foreshore projects. Barrie Unsworth and the Labor members are certainly good value for the Hunter Valley and are diverting unprece- dented levels of funding to the Hunter Valley. Voters will know which side their bread is buttered on on 19 March and will support trusted and proven Labor members. During the New South Wales election, the Liberals and Nationals and some so-called independents should not escape close questioning on major issues. People want to know what their real motives and real policies are. Unsworth policies are there for all to see; they are sound policies and now we know the truth about the Liberals' policies. A New South Wales member of parliament, Mr Pickering, has revealed that the Liberals have two policies on every issue-a dummy one to fool the voters and a real one to sock the voters should their duplicity succeed and they win power in New South Wales. Mr Greiner and his mob appear happy to see the Government of New South Wales suffer criticism for its laudable toughening of gun laws, but what is Mr Greiner's real policy on gun laws? The New South Wales Opposition has used monstrous scare tactics, trying to scare the pants off people, but the sensible, silent majority supports a saner, safer society and detests needless carnage caused by sick minds, sick Rambos. Sensible, responsible shooters have nothing to fear. They will not be fooled by public meetings called and promoted by political beings for political gain. Go and talk to some of the people who express some concern about gun laws and ask them: `What are the things that really worry you? What are your chief concerns in life? What are your main priorities?'. Ask them: `Your own home? A good job, sufficient money to buy food for yourself and your family, a good wife and healthy kids, good roads, hospitals, good schools, good educational opportunities?'. Then one might ask: `Are they the most important things in your life?'. They could say: `Yes, I cannot think of anything more important, anything enjoying a higher priority'. Then you say to them: `Where the hell do guns come in that list? How important are guns really?'. I believe that out there is a great silent majority and it will endorse the Unsworth Government's laudable attempt to create a safe and saner society. This is just a trivial little thing. I do not believe that sensible voters, because they are opposed to the toughening of the gun laws, will forget all the other things that the New South Wales Government is doing, which is great for the greatest State of the Commonwealth. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(1.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened this morning to your fine contribution in the debate on the Students Assistance Bill. I was struck by your expression of concern for the battlers of our society. What you said is correct because traditionally the major concern of the Australian Labor Party has been for those in our society who are less well off. That concern has been evident in the policies of the Hawke Federal Labor Government and it has been equally evident in the policies, priorities and activities of Labor governments in the States. Under the federal system the State governments are charged with the responsibility of providing services that are so important to ordinary people. The well-off in our society may be able to buy the health care of their choice. They may be able to buy an education of their choice. They can afford to travel by private means. The less well-off, the great bulk of ordinary people, depend upon their State governments to provide quality services in health, in education and in transport. That is exactly what the New South Wales Labor Government has been doing over the past 12 years. An enormous backlog in the provision of services developed in the Liberal years from 1965 to 1976 in New South Wales. Only since the election of Labor has New South Wales moved forward. There is, of course, a battle on in New South Wales at the moment and the pendulum appears to be moving. After the election of the Wran Government in 1976 with a majority of a single seat to the great landslides of 1978 and 1981 we had Labor firmly in power in Macquarie Street. As I say, it is clear from public comment and from the media that this election may be different. There are reasons for this: firstly, the media appear to be preoccupied with trivia, rather than with the substance of achievement. Secondly, the New South Wales Opposition is running without policies. Of course, it is always safer for an Opposition to run without policies. In the Federal campaign of last year the Opposition federally produced its policies and got into deep trouble. The third factor, Mr Deputy Speaker, I refer to as the short memory syndrome. Let me take honourable members briefly for a trip down memory lane to look at what conditions were like in New South Wales before the election of Labor in 1976. Let me refer first of all to public transport, to our trains. In 1976 the New South Wales public railway system was literally falling apart. I can remember that in my district in the early 1970s derailments were a regular event. Coal trains and other trains were falling off the tracks because those tracks had not been maintained and were falling apart. Trains frequently arrived late. Many simply did not arrive at all. With the election of a Labor government in 1976 a track upgrading program was commenced; fares were cut; new interurban trains, the air-conditioned double deckers were provided; the suburban system was made more efficient. That work has continued. The Tangarra train has arrived. I think it may be in my electorate today or, if not, it will be very soon so that people can have a look at this magnificent addition to the suburban fleet. What could we expect under a Liberal government in New South Wales in public transport? We could certainly expect a return to the neglect of the past. Commuters could also expect dramatic increases in fares. I have some material which illustrates what would happen to rail fares under a Greiner government. Just as an example, currently a worker's weekly, a periodical weekly to the city from the stations of Emu Plains, Lapstone, Glenbrook and Blaxland, costs, I understand, $19.50. Applying the Greiner user-pays principle, the cost of that ticket would increase to $53.80, an increase from $19.50 to $53.80 for a worker's weekly. From the stations of Kingswood and Penrith a worker's weekly to the city currently costs $16.70. Applying the Greiner user-pays principle, the cost of that ticket would increase to $46.10. The provision of educational services has equally seen dramatic improvements, particularly in the area that I represent. Before 1976 there was a poor provision of schools locally, the technical and further education system was run down and very few of our young people stayed on to enjoy a full secondary education. Under a Labor State government, schools in the area have been built when the were needed and not five or six years later. I can recall that not so long ago there were only four high schools in my district, in the early 1970s; now there are seven and one is nearing completion. At the same time, retention rates have improved dramatically through the good work of the Federal Labor Government and also with the active co-operation and support of the State Labor Government in New South Wales. That work is continuing in western Sydney with the ministerial task force on educational opportunity in western Sydney due to report very shortly. I am confident that some new measures will be adopted to further improve educational opportunities for our young people in the west. I refer to the new technical and further education (TAFE) colleges that have been built in the district. The Werrington TAFE college is operating this year and the Mount Druitt TAFE College was built under the State Labor Government. Anyone visiting either of those colleges can see exactly what the existence of a State Labor government working as the Unsworth Government can do to provide additional educational opportunities for our young people. In the area of higher education we have seen under Labor in New South Wales a rapid expansion of the Nepean College of Advanced Education, the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, and the Hawkesbury Agricultural College. In March of last year we saw an historic agreement between the Federal and State Labor governments to establish the Chifley University College of Sydney University in western Sydney. The Liberals have never been interested in this project; they have never been interested in expanding higher education in the west. They proved that when they put Macquarie University in the wrong place back in the 1960s. They have failed to back this particular project. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when he was in my electorate in October of 1986 at a gathering there, said that he did not support the establishment of a university in the west of Sydney. I am very much afraid that should the Liberals be elected in New South Wales they would stop this project dead in its tracks or relocate the university college to areas that would provide them with support because that is exactly what they did with Macquarie University back in the 1960s. Looking at our achievements in the public hospital area, there has been a lot of hysteria in this field. The truth is, as established by the New South Wales Healthline, that our hospitals in New South Wales are doing a magnificent job. It should never be forgotten that it was a Labor government that built the Westmead Hospital at Parramatta. A Labor government built Mount Druitt Hospital and it was a Labor government that provided those magnificent extensions to the Nepean District Hospital in Penrith. Our record in the health field has been magnificent. Turning to roads, before 1976 I can recall local roads were in poor condition; they were frequently choked at peak hour, but under Labor four-lane divided roads have been provided or are under construction through the Blue Mountains; the F4 freeway has proceeded; much additional work has been carried out on that freeway in the form of ramps; more work is to be undertaken on the missing link in the F4 freeway from Mays Hill to Prospect and, of course, under Labor in New South Wales, the F4 freeway bridge over the Nepean River was widened from two to four lanes. It gives one an idea of Liberal priorities, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Liberal Government built a four-lane freeway but only a two-lane bridge over that particular river. The achievements in recent years, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a result of a magnificent co-operative effort between Labor in Canberra and Labor in New South Wales. It is in the interests of ordinary people, those battlers of whom you spoke this morning, that this co-operation should continue. The advances that have been achieved need to be preserved and we need to continue to make further progress. That progress is possible only under a Labor government in Macquarie Street. I commend local sitting State members in my area. Peter Anderson is a great Minister for Health in the New South Wales Government. Bob Debus is the Minister for Finance. Both of them will be re-elected on 19 March. Ron Mulock is retiring and exciting new blood will enter the New South Wales Parliament on 19 March. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.52) —Mr Deputy Speaker, quite obviously and for reasons well known to us all, every speaker from the Government back bench today has chosen to speak-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the provisions of the Standing Orders are that a member cannot speak twice in the Grievance Debate. Mr TUCKEY —I am aware that that is the position in the Grievance Debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to wait for a moment while the Clerk checks the Standing Orders for me. The honourable member can speak only once in a Grievance Debate without leave of the House. Mr TUCKEY —Then I seek leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Robert Brown —No. Mr TUCKEY —We have a Minister at the table. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If there is a dissenting voice, leave is not granted. I call the honourable member for Fadden. Mr JULL(Fadden)(1.53) —Mr Deputy Speaker, we are told that the official opening date of the new Brisbane International Airport is to be 20 March. This date, I am sure, is being welcomed by all Queenslanders and, indeed, it should be welcomed by all Australians because we have been waiting for this Government to give us an indication as to when this huge construction, the biggest construction undertaken in Australia since the Snowy Mountains scheme, is to open. In fact, the new Brisbane International Airport was supposed to open in September last year and since then the Department of Aviation and the various Ministers of this Government have been procrastinating about just when the event is to occur. Finally 20 March is the date that Brisbane comes on line with a fully operational runway and a brand new domestic terminal. But the travesty of the whole of the Brisbane International Airport operation is simply this: this Government has decided not to proceed with the new international terminal for Brisbane and at a time when we are about to enter the Expo 88 phase; at a time when Queensland is generating 48 per cent of the inbound tourist traffic into Australia, we have a case where a storage shed that was constructed at the old terminal site is still going to serve as the gateway to Queensland. Brisbane, of course, is the third major international airport terminal in Australia. It is fast coming up on Melbourne and I would predict that with the facilities of the new international runway it will not be too long before Brisbane overtakes Melbourne as the number two airport. Basically, the problem is this: we are stuck with an international terminal that was designed as a store shed, that will require taxiing of more than 7 1/2 kilometres by international aircraft before they get to the new runway, a problem that in itself causes all sorts of technical problems for 747 aircraft. We are stuck with an air terminal that has only five gates available to it. Really we can see no way out of the problem of the overcrowding and congestion that befalls Brisbane as the result of the lack of foresight and the ineptitude of the members of the Labor Government. I think we should go back over the history of the new Brisbane International Airport development. It was a move by the Liberal Government of 1969 that gave the go-ahead for the redevelopment of Brisbane. In the Whitlam years that particular project was shelved. In 1977-78 the then Liberal Government gave the go-ahead for the construction of this airport complete with that new international terminal. Since then and with the advent of the present Labor Government we saw that particular terminal put on hold. That decision was made, I believe, in a most short-sighted way. It was short-sighted because the decision not to proceed with the terminal was made prior to Brisbane hosting the Commonwealth Games and we know what dreadful congestion we saw at that time. It was made prior to the expansion of the international tourist industry in Australia and especially in Queensland. That decision was made prior to the decision of Queensland to hold World Expo 88. Now we are stuck with this situation with no indication whatsoever from the Government that it is even going to consider the rebuilding of the international terminal prior to 1992. I think it is going to be an absolute travesty if people arriving into Australia through Brisbane for World Expo 88 are to be delayed because of the lack of facilities, because of the lack of space and the lack of parking bays that will be the Brisbane International terminal. I would suggest that one thing that the Government might do to try to redeem itself in the eyes of Queenslanders is to make a very quick decision to proceed with the construction of the new international terminal, because that terminal was designed, it was there with the initial plans for the airport. The prime reason the Government gave for not proceeding with that project was its cost. Yet more than 12 months ago private consortia were going to the Government and saying, `Look, if you do not want to proceed with that terminal let us do it and it will cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing'. In the initial designs of that new international terminal there were full facilities. There was an international standard hotel involved, there were rail links with the cities, but no, this Government and the then Minister, Mr Morris, refused to listen and refused to give any credence to the private development of the Brisbane international terminal. We are now stuck with this mess. The fact is that more than 800,000 international visitors will be coming into Queensland and into Brisbane specifically for World Expo. There is a very real fear in the community, in the business area, in the tourist industry of Queensland, that we are going to give a very bad impression as people arrive at the old tin shed, the old storage shed, that serves as the Brisbane international terminal. The fact that it has no covered walkways, the fact that it has no air bridges, means that international arrivals coming into Brisbane are stuck with the elements of the weather and that can often prove a very difficult period as they transfer from their international flights into the international terminal. It is indeed an absolute disgrace that the people of Brisbane have been denied this proper facility for so long. They have been denied that facility by this particular Government and this particular Government has now been found out as not really being fair dinkum in its terms of approach to the international tourist industry and the arrival of tourists in Australia. Not only is Brisbane a debacle; Sydney is an absolute debacle. One wonders at the intelligence of some of the people in the government of this country when they would seem to do their absolute best to ignore completely this critical problem. It is true that Australia is riding on a tourist boom, but the great difficulty with tourism is that if a bad impression is created with our international visitors, they will go back and tell the people of their particular country of the problems that they experienced, and the worst form of publicity that can be generated is word of mouth publicity. I would think that some of those 800,000 people coming into Brisbane for World Expo will do just that-go home and bad mouth us; and this Government and the Ministers responsible for aviation are to blame. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m. in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr REITH —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the opinion prepared by the Solicitor-General on the Blewett affair. Who gave the Solicitor-General his instructions? When were the instructions given? What was in the brief given to the Solicitor-General? Will the Prime Minister table the brief? Will any further opinions or reports from either the Solicitor-General, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) or the Director of Public Prosecutions also be tabled at the appropriate time? In view of the fact that a police report has been called for, why was the Solicitor-General's opinion sought before all the facts had been collected? Mr HAWKE —The process of briefing the Solicitor-General was, of course, properly undertaken by the Minister responsible. I personally had no part in the briefing of the Solicitor-General. As I say, the proper processes were followed. Clearly, as I said in an answer in this House yesterday, a question had been raised with regard to the Minister for Community Services and Health and, properly, therefore, that question was referred by my Minister in his briefing of the Solicitor-General. As I said yesterday in tabling the legal advice from which I had my judgment confirmed-in opposition to what has happened on the other side of the House-I have had confirmed unequivocally the total confidence I have in the Minister. As I explained yesterday-I should have thought to the satisfaction of anyone with a minimum understanding of this matter-the proper processes have been undertaken with regard to the rest of the matter, at the request of the Minister himself. He requested in writing the Acting Minister to ask the Australian Federal Police to undertake its investigations as to whether a breach had occurred and, if so, by whom. On the basis of the report from the AFP, if any further action is required, the appropriate policies will be followed. I made those things clear yesterday, and I confirm again that in all respects the proper processes have been followed. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to reports that have appeared in the media today concerning an alleged claim by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) that a national wage system be adopted that would have the effect of increasing by 6 per cent immediately all wages and salaries paid in Australia. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that that report is correct, and can he give an indication as to the basis of such a system? Mr WILLIS —I have seen the reports to which the honourable member for Charlton referred. I am aware that yesterday the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions adopted a resolution with regard to the wages system that should operate after the middle of this year. That resolution included the need for a simpler system, the maintenance of living standards, assurance of outcomes, tax and social wage bargaining to take place, maintenance of the restructuring and efficiency principle-which is the existing principle in the present wages system as a means of achieving an increase, but with more emphasis on restructuring than on the efficiency side-regard to be had to the prospective cost of living, and to both minimum and maximum outcomes. If I could make a few points with regard to the resolution, I say, firstly, that all this is not new. It has been substantially foreshadowed in recent weeks. Secondly, it comes at the start of a long period of negotiations and, eventually, advocacy before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As Mr Crean has said today, it is essentially a negotiating position. Thirdly, the ACTU resolution said nothing about figures, despite what was in the Press this morning. As far as I am aware there has been no mention of figures in Press briefings, either. This morning's headlines which featured 6 per cent and $25 are, I think, a quite misleading representation of the ACTU's resolution. The figures are purely a figment of someone's imagination. Fourthly, the prospective rate of inflation will depend substantially on the wage outcome. It is fairly obvious that there is clearly a chicken and egg problem with regard to the ACTU's position, and that problem would need to be sorted out if the ACTU's position were to be adopted. The Government's position is that as the process of developing the wages system for the next financial year gets under way, we will be seeking to have a number of principles established in that wages system. They are, briefly, that within the context of a centralised control of the overall outcome we would want to see an outcome that is conducive to continued structural adjustments, and for current account deficit reduction; a greater variability of outcome than we have had under the present system, or, indeed, its predecessors since we have been in office; a continued inducement to increase productivity which, of course, the present system provides. For the first time in our wage fixing history we have a system which specifically provides for increased productivity. That is something that we would seek to have maintained in the wages system. Further, we would want incentives for skill formation and, finally, provision for industry and enterprise-level bargaining. Whether such a system can be put into place remains to be seen. The Government would certainly hope that it can be. We believe that that could be compatible with the ACTU's objective of maintaining living standards, but that will depend crucially on improvement in our productivity performance. Mr MacKELLAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Will the Minister outline to the House what procedures must be followed for obtaining from the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) information of the kind that was supplied to the Minister's office? Has the Health Insurance Commission expressed any concern about the nature of the information sought in this instance? Dr BLEWETT —The Health Insurance Commission provides material of a statistical nature on request from members of this Parliament, and to other bodies in the community. As I have indicated on several occasions, it frequently happens that other organisations in this society ask for statistical information from the HIC. Indeed, many members of the Parliament have been provided with statistical information from the HIC. Mr SIMMONS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the passing over of doctor provider numbers to the honourable member for Canning has any implications for the Government's attitude to the protection of civil liberties? Mr HAWKE —I say to the honourable member for Calare that this Government has set the highest standards for the protection of civil liberties. I repeat that this Government has set the highest standards for the protection of civil liberties and of individual privacy. Yesterday I pointed out to the House the hypocrisy of the Opposition in this matter when, last week, the Opposition's claim was that this Government should ignore the rights and privacy of individuals by maintaining that the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, should break all the standard precepts and practices of this House, should ignore the specific advice of the Australian Federal Police and, against all that advice and practice, should disclose confidential information relating to an individual. Of course, this week the Opposition's story is a different one. But we are not in any sense deluded by its hypocrisy. As I have said, we as a government adhere to our high standards in this matter. As honourable members will know, special privacy legislation, designed to provide greater protection of privacy than has been afforded by any previous government, is currently on the House of Representatives Notice Paper. The Minister for Community Services and Health and I have said all along that the inclusion of provider numbers on the material passed to the honourable member for Canning, though inadvertent, was both regrettable and wrong. As I have pointed out, an investigation into that matter has been initiated by the Minister for Community Services and Health. However, the Leader of the Opposition has sought to protect that small minority of doctors who engage in overcharging by claiming that any attempt to expose overcharging is an invasion of the civil liberties of doctors. On Tuesday night in this place the Opposition Leader said: Even if the Minister . . . had deleted the provider numbers . . . what he was doing was still an unacceptable exercise of Big Brotherism. He went on to say: The information was made available with a malicious intent to do one thing: to damage the reputation of the medical profession in Australia. It is remarkable to notice that the hopelessness and the hypocrisy of Opposition members puts them at odds even with Dr Bruce Shepherd on this issue. As we know, Dr Bruce Shepherd is President-elect of the Australian Medical Association. He was asked: But is there anything wrong in the Government's price control network saying that some doctors are overcharging: beware of those doctors, in the same way as they say some supermarkets charge too much for coffee: beware of those supermarkets. Dr Bruce Shepherd was asked that question and his answer was, `We have no objection to that'. So members of the Opposition are at odds even with Dr Shepherd on this issue. In the past, under the guise of protecting civil liberties, the Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as former Treasurer, protected tax cheating which we know happened at that time because Commissioner Costigan, a royal commissioner appointed by him, described it as the fastest growing industry in this country. Just as the Leader of the Opposition protected those people at that time and allowed the tax avoidance industry to become the fastest growth industry in this country, so, again, the Leader of the Opposition seeks to protect that small minority-I emphasise a small minority-of doctors who overcharge their patients. Once again, and with total consistency, the Leader of the Opposition is the champion of the rights of the privileged few to rip off ordinary Australians. In conclusion let me say that this Government is proud of the medical profession in Australia. It is proud of the excellent standard of health services that it delivers. But, having said that we are proud of the medical profession in this country, we will not sit back in a conspiracy of silence with that small minority of doctors who overcharge their patients and support their attempts to rip off ordinary Australians. Mr MacKELLAR —I direct a question again to the Minister for Community Services and Health, and remind him of the part of the question that I asked which he did not answer. I asked: Has the Health Insurance Commission expressed any concern about the nature of the information sought by the Minister's office in the instance under discussion? Dr BLEWETT —The Health Insurance Commission has not expressed any concern to me about the information provided to my office. I point out quite clearly that we encourage the Health Insurance Commission to provide statistical information to all requests that are made of it because we on this side of the House believe that it is very valuable for the Australian community to have that kind of information so that there can be informed debate about our health system based on effective statistics. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. I ask the Minister to inform the House whether work being conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the James Cook University of north Queensland involves collecting large quantities of marine animals and plants from the Great Barrier Reef. Is the Minister aware of newspaper criticism that the Institute of Marine Science and the university are acting as collecting agents for American pharmaceutical companies which may derive great profits from any commercial products? Is the criticism soundly based? What is being done to protect Australia's intellectual property? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. There are two separate projects involving research into potential therapeutic substances in marine organisms found in the Great Barrier Reef. The James Cook University is working with the United States of America's non-profit foundation, and the Australian Institute of Marine Science with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the United States. Of course, AIMS is one of the world's great marine facilities, very ably represented here by the honourable member for Herbert. The university's project involves Dr Joe Baker, now the Director of AIMS, and Dr Peter Murphy as co-chief investigators. The American foundation supports the research which is aimed at understanding the role of different naturally occurring substances in marine organisms and testing those substances for biological activity and pharmaceutical tests. The foundation has sub-contracts with American commercial companies and with the National Cancer Institute where tests are conducted for anti-tumour, anti-viral and, very significantly, anti-acquired immune deficiency syndrome potential. There is no opportunity in Australia to expose the marine extracts and substances to such a wide battery of tests as are available in the United States; that is a situation which must be changed in Australia if we are to have an international pharmaceutical industry on our own. Mr Hawke —That's right. Mr BARRY JONES —I am glad that the honourable gentleman agrees. It is an absolute precondition. The quantities collected for initial testing are generally about one kilogram for each species. The area is surveyed before collection to ensure that only a small fraction of the available resource is collected. Permits are acquired through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in all areas; these have been obtained and the obligations have been honoured. No endangered species of marine animal or plant is exported. The AIMS agreement is direct with the National Cancer Institute. If an active substance is obtained, all rights to the commercial development will remain with AIMS. That is very important. The research being conducted is fully consistent with Government policy. My only regret is that at the moment in Australia we do not have the infrastructure for all the necessary steps in this high risk but potentially very high profit research and development industry. So the AIMS-NCI agreement is very much in Australia's best interests, both scientifically and commercially. Mr BLUNT —I have a simple and straightforward question for the Minister for Community Services and Health: On what date was the request to the Health Insurance Commission for the information provided to the honourable member for Canning made? How was that request made? Who made the request? When was this information received in his office? When was it conveyed to the honourable member for Canning? Dr BLEWETT —I am not able to give precise dates. What I can say to the honourable member is that the requests and the handling of that information were made toward the end of October-November. I am quite prepared to get him the specific dates. Ms McHUGH —I address my question to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. I draw the Minister's attention to a proposal by the New South Wales Opposition to sell public rental housing at a discount to existing tenants. What would be the effect of such a proposal on existing Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funding arrangements? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for her question and for her involvement in the housing issue. I have seen the Greiner proposal but, for those who have not, the highlight of the housing policy of the New South Wales Opposition is the proposed scheme to sell off public housing at up to $10,000 below its real value. Mr Greiner, in his enthusiasm for buying votes in the coming election, seems to ignore the fact that the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Labor governments have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the last five years in building up public housing stock in New South Wales. The New South Wales Opposition simply assumes, and expects the ordinary voter in New South Wales to accept, that it can flog off this major national and New South Wales asset without any regard to its legal and moral obligations. I have been advised by senior officers in my Department that this policy scam is in direct contravention of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Under this agreement the sale of public housing is restricted to market or replacement cost only. The money from the sales must be directed back into public housing. The whole idea of this is to ensure, with the Commonwealth and the States, a commitment to maintain and expand the stock of public sector housing. Under this ill-considered scheme only a few people will benefit from this short term fix-that is all we can expect from the policies of the Liberal Party-while a major national resource is squandered and the waiting list for affordable public housing for low to medium income families will blow out. This will cause higher rents and much greater homelessness in New South Wales. The President of the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales, Mr Bevan, raised this matter yesterday. As the Minister responsible for the investment in public housing of such large amounts of taxpayers' money, I do not intend to sit back and allow the intent and the legal requirements of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to be sold out in this way. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement of 1984, which was signed by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Labor governments, we provided stability and greater long term planning for housing initiatives in the States. Over the first three years 50,000 new public housing dwellings were constructed or purchased, 130,000 families have been housed, and 40,000 home loans have been provided to low income families. This Government has lifted funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement by over 40 per cent in real terms and nearly $1 billion has gone into the first home owners scheme. The people who have been helped by the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement are the people on low incomes, single parent families and single pensioners or pensioner couples. What do those opposite intend to do? Will they let this situation go on? I heard when I got up all the `hear, hears' at the proposal to sell off public housing. Is that the Opposition's policy? Does it follow along with the policy of the New South Wales Opposition? The Opposition has been quite silent on this three-card trick that the Opposition in New South Wales will attempt to perpetrate on the people of New South Wales. Mr Connolly —In five years of your Government-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr STAPLES —They are conspicuously absent, as they are conspicuously absent in New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberals do not want these losers up there, with their lynch mob mentality. They have a dirty name. Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is well aware that this is Question Time and it is not the time to make statements. He is also well aware of the 160,000 people on the public housing list who do not have housing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield is not raising a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Connolly —In five years what have you achieved? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have already warned the honourable member for Bradfield. I suggest that he take heed of the Chair's warning. Mr STAPLES —When the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was passed in this House only a couple of years ago it brought support from all parties, but now honourable members on the other side want to change it. That shows the discredited policies they have got. The talent of the Liberal Party for economic vandalism, the greedy recruiting the needy, its fistful of dollars attitude to elections is not confined to the Canberra club here. The New South Wales Opposition thinks just like the absurd claims made by the Opposition in the election last year, that it can manufacture money to pay for these bribes. I am afraid that that cannot happen. This attitude to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement cannot be allowed to go on. The proposal to flog off this major public asset will do nothing for the people of New South Wales. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to the fact that the only written evidence he has presented to the Parliament is a letter written approximately three months after the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) illegally provided confidential information to his office for transmission to the honourable member for Canning. I ask the Minister: What other written evidence exists regarding this matter? Who authorised the request to the HIC for the supply of this information? Who made the actual request to the HIC and by what method of communication? Who provided the information to the Minister's office and in what form? Who in the Minister's office provided the information to the honourable member for Canning and was the information modified or rewritten in any way? And the Minister should not tell me he cannot remember; it is burned on his brain. Dr BLEWETT —As I indicated to the honourable member for Richmond, members of my office are in constant touch with the Health Insurance Commission about a whole range of statistical information. I am not, therefore, able to give the precise dating and timing. I did indicate to the honourable member for Richmond that I would provide that precise information. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question to the Prime Minister concerns the disturbing new developments in South Africa. What is the Government's position on the new restrictions on political opposition announced by the South African Government? Mr HAWKE —The Government strongly condemns the new restrictions aimed at banning all political activities by black opposition groups such as the United Democratic Front, the UDF, and trade union groups such as Cosatu. These measures underline the totalitarian, intransigent nature of the apartheid regime in South Africa. The racist Botha Government has moved once again to strangle non-violent, political self-expression by the black majority and the capacity of black working people to defend their industrial rights. These measures will affect even the valuable humanitarian work of organisations such as the Detainees Parents Support Committee. I note that the main white parliamentary opposition party, the Progressive Federal Party, has condemned the new restrictions as `horrific in their content' and as another massive step towards authoritarianism. I would have hoped that it would be increasingly obvious that negotiations hold out the only hope of a non-violent resolution of the South African tragedy. I can say from my own contacts with them that black leaders in such organisations as the African National Congress (ANC) and Cosatu favour negotiations as a means of ending apartheid. It is a tragedy that, in a situation where we still have in the front line states, in the ANC and in the other relevant organisations, a generation of leadership which sees negotiation as the best way of resolving the tragedy which is South Africa, there is not only a continuation of the previous refusal by the Botha regime to enter into negotiations but, indeed, as evidenced in these latest measures, an apparent increase even in its intransigence on this issue. As I have had cause to say in this House and in other places on many occasions, the tragedy of South Africa will be resolved in only one of two ways. It will be resolved by the processes of negotiation or it will be resolved by the processes of violence. It is only through the processes of negotiation that white South Africans and foreign interests in South Africa will have the opportunity of continuing to make a constructive contribution to a future South Africa. It is, as I say, an enormous tragedy that we have these new measures which seem to underline even more firmly the lack of preparedness of the South African regime to grasp the only hope that is available for a non-violent resolution of that tragedy. The effect of the new regulations can only be to increase bitterness and to drive opposition underground and into other forms of expression. I make it clear to the honourable gentleman who asked the question that Australia will be expressing clearly to the South African Government, both at ambassadorial level here in Canberra and in South Africa, our condemnation of the new restrictions. These new measures to which I refer, and which have been mentioned by the honourable gentleman in his question, confirm this Government's view-a view shared by the Eminent Persons Group which involved as co-chairman my predecessor as Prime Minister-that international pressure, including pressure through economic sanctions, is indispensable in these last continuing desperate attempts by reasonable men and women around the world to bring the South African Government to its senses. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, by indulgence could I say that, although in some areas there is a difference of policy and emphasis-and I make no bones about that-between the Government and the Opposition in relation to South Africa, I and my colleagues wholeheartedly associate ourselves with the condemnation by the Prime Minister of those latest restrictions. Mr TUCKEY —I again address a question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. Given that the Minister has admitted in the House that some doctor provider numbers were included in the information provided to the honourable member for Canning, which doctor provider number was recorded on that Health Insurance Commission information-the number used for Medicare transactions, the number used for pharmaceutical benefits scheme transactions, or both? Dr BLEWETT —As far as I know, it was an abbreviated provider number. I am not able to answer as to which of the two it referred to. It was simply an abbreviated provider number at the top of the document. Ms CRAWFORD —My question, which I direct to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, concerns the treatment of ex-servicewomen. Can the Minister inform the House of the progress made in providing treatment benefits to ex-servicewomen of World War II? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable for Forde for her question and also for the great work she does on behalf of veterans in her electorate. In 1984 the Government commissioned a study of World War II ex-servicewomen. That study showed that these women, who had provided such a valuable service for their country, had in fact suffered discrimination and disadvantage both during and after service. Providing treatment benefits for these women was a promise made by the Prime Minister in the policy speech which opened the Government's 1987 election campaign. This promise was kept in the 1987-88 Budget. I am pleased to inform all honourable members that since 1 January this year approximately 1,000 women have been identified and granted their new entitlements by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This new entitlement will give full treatment benefits to these ex-servicewomen who were not previously eligible. Increased pharmaceutical benefits and travel expenses will become available to many women who are already covered by the repatriation treatment system. This is once again a further indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the veterans in this community. Many of the women have been identified from departmental and Commonwealth Army records, and the major ex-service associations are also helping. Women who believe that they are eligible but have not yet been in contact with the Department should contact their State branch of the Department or make inquiries through the relevant ex-service associations. Mr TUCKEY —With some hope, I address another question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. It will be the first answer I have got, if I get one. Did the Minister provide guidelines to his staff regarding the `standing office instructions' which he referred to in his answer to me on Tuesday, in writing? If not, why not? What written instructions, if any, has the Minister provided to the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) regarding communications to his staff or himself? Will the Minister undertake to table such written communications which he no doubt already has to hand? Dr BLEWETT —Of course I have not written instructions to those people working in my own office. I have indicated that it is a quite clear practice in my office that any statistical information coming from the HIC must be checked back with the HIC to ensure that that information does not contain any identifying material. And in the particular case in debate, that was done by persons working in my office. In relation to the instructions to the HIC, I have not instructed the HIC on this matter. Clearly, it is bound by the Act. In the light of recent events, I have directed it to ensure that provider numbers are not included in any statistical material provided to my office in the future. The standing instruction, as I have said, from my office was clearly an understanding between me and my staff and was carried out on this occasion. Mr SNOW —I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security: How do present arrangements between Federal and State governments ensure that pensioners are assisted in meeting government charges? Mr HOWE —The Federal Government clearly shares responsibility with the States with respect to fringe benefit assistance. Under this Government, the income limit for the pensioner health benefit card is lifted according to rises in the cost of living. Of course, people who have this card do not have to pay the Medicare levy. The existence of the Medicare system is one of the major benefits to the aged population in Australia. The new policy regarding fringe benefits, which was announced in the last Budget, means that since 1 January this year pensioners have been able to retain fringe benefits for up to three months as long as their income does not rise by more than 25 per cent above the fringe benefits cut-out levels. The essential relationship between the Commonwealth and the States is that the States take their lead from the Commonwealth in providing concessions. So eligibility for major concessions at the State level depends on the possession of a pensioner health benefit card, which is issued by Social Security. The States are relying on this card to identify those people who are in need of assistance. Of course, the actual fringe benefits that are provided vary a great deal in Australia. I think it is very well known in this Parliament that, at one extreme, Queensland provides much less adequate fringe benefits as a State than any other State. I think it would not be unfair to say that no State in the Commonwealth provides more adequate fringe benefits than New South Wales. In two weeks time all retired people over 60 in New South Wales will be entitled to a new package of transport concessions, including half fare travel and $1 excursion tickets for rural pensioners. The real value of concessions and services in New South Wales varies between $500 and $1,000, so it is a very significant part of the real incomes of pensioners in New South Wales. The total cost of concessions in New South Wales is about $500m. Those concessions include reduced council, water, sewerage and electricity charges, rent rebate for pensioners in public housing, ambulance services that are free to anyone on a social security pension, and significant assistance in terms of free drivers licences and reduced vehicle registration charges. It has been one of the achievements of this Government that we have been able to sustain the real value of pensions at the cost of more than $1m a year. It has been one of the real achievements of this Government that we have been able to ease income test limits and that we have indexed the limit for fringe benefits charges. It has been one of the benefits of this Labor Government that we have protected those who are most vulnerable, and in terms of fringe benefits there is no State in this Commonwealth that has done more to look after pensioners with respect to those real elements of their standard of living than New South Wales. You take your choices. We say that that is one of the great traditions of this Party. It is a tradition maintained here federally, and it is a tradition that has been magnificently maintained within New South Wales. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer him to an answer given this afternoon in another place by Senator Tate in reply to a question regarding Dr Griffith's opinion. In his reply, Senator Tate said, inter alia: The fact is that there was no written request by me or brief in that sense. What I asked Dr Griffith to supply was an opinion on the matters in issue relating to the communication from the Health Insurance Commission to the office of the Minister, and from his office in turn to the member for Canning, of certain material relating to medical service profiles. In view of the evidently limited nature of the brief and the request made of the Solicitor-General, how on earth can the Prime Minister justify his claim that the Minister for Community Services and Health has been completely exonerated from illegality? Mr HAWKE —Like all members of the House, I am astounded by this new understanding that has dawned upon the Leader of the Opposition. How does the opinion which I tabled in this House yesterday start off? It starts off: The matter in issue relates to the communication from the Health Insurance Commission to the office of the Minister for Community Services and Health, and from his office in turn to the Member for Canning of certain material relating to medical services profiles. Those are the exact words that the Leader of the Opposition has just read out. In other words, what he slips before this House at the end of Question Time as some startling revelation is precisely what was tabled in the House yesterday. That is the final piece of evidence as to why at this time the processes are on again. The Leader of the Opposition has proved himself unbelievably pathetic in the discharge of his duties as the Leader of the Opposition. It is already running. He has not got the numbers. They are looking for John Elliott. The sooner it happens, the better. Anything would be better than the honourable member. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Mollie Cranswick retires next Wednesday. Mollie Cranswick has served the Parliament and around the Parliament for a period of 46 years. She started in 1942 with the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. In 1944 she was in Ben Chifley's office. In 1950 she was in the office of the Rt Hon. R. G. Menzies. From 1953 to 1966 she served in the office of the Minister for Immigration with the Hon. Harold Holt, the Hon. A. G. Townley, the Hon. A. R. Downer and the Hon. H. F. Opperman. From 1966 to 1969 she was electorate secretary to the Federal member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Dugald Munro. In 1969 she was appointed to the Department of the House of Representatives and worked for the Senior Parliamentary Officer, Committee Office. From May 1973 to date Mollie has been the steno-secretary to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and many members present will have worked with her on that Committee. In 1987 Mollie was honoured with an Australia Day medallion. On behalf of the House, I shall be presenting Mollie later with a book Acts of Parliament containing a narrative which refers to many of the people with whom she has worked over 46 years. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to speak on this matter. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is given. Mr BLANCHARD —As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I want to pay tribute to Mollie Cranswick. As you have said, Madam Speaker, Mollie has served this Parliament for quite a long time. We, the actors, in this parliamentary scene come and go, but the staffs of the Parliament remain. It is a tribute to the Parliament that we have had over the years very loyal and dedicated staff, which has helped the functioning of this Parliament. So I think it is appropriate on this occasion, a person having served the Parliament for over 40 years, that we pay tribute to that person, who is in this chamber today. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the indulgence. I should like to say that without the dedication of persons like Mollie Cranswick, the Parliament would be much the poorer and less efficient in its workings. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I, too, seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. Mr RUDDOCK —I served as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs over a number of years and knew Mollie Cranswick very well over that period. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). The demands of the committees which are served by only one steno-secretary are very heavy indeed for that person, particularly when a committee is producing voluminous reports, as the Aboriginal Affairs Committee did when I happened to be its Chairman. We did reports on Aboriginal legal aid, and on health in relation to fringe dwelling situations of Aboriginals. They were significant documents and Mollie played a very important part in ensuring that those reports were brought to the Parliament. Mr MILES(Braddon) —I seek your indulgence to speak on this matter, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. Mr MILES —I should like to make some comments as Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, to support the comments made by the Chairman of that Committee, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), and the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Certainly people such as Mollie Cranswick are not up front people in the Parliament, but they are very necessary to the functioning of the work of the standing committees and the Parliament generally. I also wish Mollie very well in the future. 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- Folklife our Living Heritage-Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 29 of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901 together with the Section 8 Statement as required by the Freedom of Information Act 1982. A.C.T. Apprenticeship Board-Annual Report 1986-87-section 47 of the A.C.T. Apprenticeship Ordinance 1936. Milk Authority of the A.C.T.-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 60 of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council-Annual Report 1986-87-section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977. Dried Fruits Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea-subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea dated 10 December 1987-sub-section 9 (b) (4) of the Fisheries Act 1952. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the irradiations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To 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'' as there is a disturbing uncertainty regarding the possible health effects of this process on humans. This process has also been shown to reduce the nutritional value and affect taste, colour and texture of food, thus necessitating further unwanted additives. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate a) the ``Food Irradiation'' process by State Governments, and b) the dumping of irradiated food products on Australia, to the detriment of our food producers. We call on the Government to impose an immediate moratorium on all aspects of ``Food Irradiation'' in Australia. We urge extreme caution in processes involving radiation, where there is evidence indicating possible detrimental health effects. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of Cobalt 60, Caesium-137 or other radioac- tive substances. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: That the Hawke Federal Government ease deep community concern that it intends supporting Telecom's proposal to charge local telephone calls according to the length of the call; That the undersigned call on the Hawke Government to indicate immediately that it will not give the approval required to make Telecom's proposal a reality. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all country people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the `Survey of Rural Women' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will only add to this problem not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Speaker and the 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 reacting and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. 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 Dr Harry Edwards. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that we, the undersigned are totally opposed to the callous treatment of the survivors, widows and next of kin of HMAS Voyager and all other service personnel injured in peacetime. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take action to rectify this matter by allowing the Voyager survivors' widows and next of kin to put their case to a jury and by providing compensation to these people. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Time-charging for the business sector is also unfair and unreasonable as any charge increase to business will be borne by consumers in the end. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent both Australian people and Australian business from being seriously disadvantaged by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 the 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, will 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 Wide Bay respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled together with their housebound carers 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 which will adversely affect the ability of the elderly, sick and disabled to effectively function in modern society. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Millar. 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 Cowper 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable 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: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. 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 that 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 divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australia 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 Shipton. 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 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 Smith. The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's avail- ability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Hunter Valley respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to terminate an existing agreement with N.I.B. Health Funds Limited for the provision of facilities for the receipt and limited processing of Medicare claims will: Deny ready access to cash reimbursements of Medicare claims. Deprive citizens of a personalized reliable claims payment service. Reduce job opportunities in the area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, your Honourable House will reconsider their previous decision to discontinue Medicare Agency arrangements. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have 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- Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.54) —Ever since the Australian public was alerted to the great damage that could be done by such a thing as an identity card, and, in particular the Government's proposal for an identification card called the Australia Card, the debate has never really ceased. Personal privacy is still a matter of grave concern in the community. It has now risen to a point where in certain groups there is massive concern. Many members of this House are receiving masses of correspondence and finding that the most populated public meetings they attend are on this issue. We know about the identity card. We know how determined this Government was to proceed with it and we know how arrogant the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) became in telling the public, as it became concerned, that he was not going to listen to what he called its decibel democracy. He was going to impose it; the people fought back; and fortunately the Opposition, technically, was able to defeat the Government. What were we promised at the time? We were promised all sorts of wonderful things such as secure data lines that no one else in the world has. Above all, we were promised absolute security of our personal information in government data banks under the law. We were promised that the law would protect us. We were to be given a keeper of the law, a protector of public privacy. The person nominated for that job was none other than the present Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). He is the protector of public privacy, the person who told us, `Don't you worry about that' when people said, `Can you guarantee my privacy?'. He was the person who was to be charged with that responsibility along with his Department and the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). Recent events have completely vindicated the Opposition and the public in their concern that the Government cannot guarantee privacy. It is a lot more than a guarantee of privacy because, as the Opposition was at pains to point out to the people at the time, the more information a government has, particularly in sensitive areas such as health-and maybe one's mental condition at some time-the more that sort of sensitive information in the hands of a vindictive government or politician can be used very seriously and with great damage to an individual. It gives to government huge power to deal with its enemies. The Government has an enemy at the moment-an enemy of its own philosophy. The Government decided to give Australians a universal health scheme and it is consuming it. Just a few years ago it was costing 6.9 per cent of the Government's total expenditure; now it is 10.3 per cent. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is desperately trying, along with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to curtail those costs. The Government has a fair few strategies. It has waiting lists-quite deliberately-to ensure that not too much money can be spent. But that is not enough. The Government is worried now that doctors' fees are rising and it is unable to contain them. It is not the doctors who are being criticised. Letters are flowing to the Minister. People are saying, `Why is it that the scheme you promised me would pay my doctor's bills and medical bills is no longer doing it? I have to pay extra'. There is no question in this Government's mind that it might be its fault that the scheme is no longer adequate. It seeks to blame the doctors. It seeks to follow the Treasurer's dictum, `Nothing is wrong if I can blame it on somebody else'. The reality is that the Government sought to blame the doctors for all the problems from Medicare that are now being visited on the Australian people. To blame the doctors, the Government needed a strategy. It arrived at quite a simple one. It did not want the Minister to dirty his hands too much. Those opposite said, `We will select an expendable individual from our back bench; one who is not too bright and who will do our bidding. We will send him out into the community to bucket the doctors'. He started doing that with some success but, of course, he was called upon to provide some evidence. The evidence needed was held in the computer records of the Health Insurance Commission. Back in 1973, the Parliament of the day, when it brought in the first Health Insurance Commission legislation was very concerned about public privacy. The politicians of that day recognised the power that would go to the Government if health records were abused. Those politicians passed some laws. Section 130 of the Health Insurance Act very clearly tells the Minister, the Parliament and the Health Insurance Commission that they will not make available: . . . any information with respect to the affairs of another person acquired by him in the performance of his duties, or in the exercise of his powers or functions . . . That is simple and straightforward. It says `any information'. There are a few exclusions. `If the Minister certifies' has been amended to say `by instrument in writing'. There is no doubt, from his answers today, that this Minister never learnt to write. He has not put anything in writing, and there is good reason for that. One lesson he has learnt in his political career is `Do not commit it to writing, you might get caught'. We have that answer today from his non-answers. But he can certify that in the public interest certain information can be provided. He can divulge such information to a prescribed authority. By giving this Caucus committee that was formed for the purpose of denigrating the medical profession a big name like the national price watch network, the Government attempted to imply to the Australian people that that was some form of prescribed authority. Honourable members know it is not, and the Minister admitted to that yesterday. Of course, there is the opportunity for the Government to produce statistics. Honourable members know what that means. We know that a statistic is a publication of the Government that advises us of the costs of operating the Health Insurance Commission, that advises us as the Australian Bureau of Statistics does. It never has meant and never will mean grubby little notes that contain some numbers being sent out the back door. That is not a statistic. It never was a statistic and never will be a statistic in the legal sense. We know what statistics mean and we know why the Act excluded them. The Government knew that that would not infringe on personal privacy, but just in case it added the rider: Such statistics will not be published in a manner that enables the identification of an individual patient or an individual practitioner. The Minister was getting ready to feed his hit man, this rather dull but otherwise willing person who was going to take all the flak. If it went wrong the Minister was going to wash his hands of him, just as he has now washed his hands of his own staff-a most disgraceful act-when they were doing his bidding. He did not want to make much noise about getting the information. The Minister did not choose, as he was legally entitled to do, to say, `I believe the provision of this information is in the public interest and I will so certify in writing'. No, he grabbed one of his staff members-I wonder whether he can remember who; he would not tell us today-and said, `Ring up someone at the HIC to see whether you can get a bit of dirt on a few doctors'. That is what he did. Having done that, he went through the process of giving that information to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), who gave it to, amongst others, the Sydney Morning Herald in November. The matter was published on 10 November, which suggests that the Minister's recollection that it might have been in late November is a little wrong. Nevertheless, the Minister wanted to be a little careful about this and it appears-we are not too sure about this because there is nothing in writing-that there was never any formal memo to the HIC to the effect, `I instruct you never to pass to my staff any matter which might, as the Act says, enable the identification of an individual patient'. No, he said `Send us up something', someone in the HIC has hit the computer button, out has come a printout, and it has been passed in that form to the Minister's staff-and it might even have been passed to the Minister. Then it was passed on. It just happened to contain some doctor provider numbers. There is no dispute on either side of the House that doctor provider numbers can be used to identify doctors. They can certainly be used to enable a person to do that. It is amazing that the Minister cannot even tell us what number was used. I suggest that on that printout were both numbers and by the use of those numbers much information could be obtained. This wonderful opinion of the Solicitor-General, this outrageous document, is based on nothing but a statement of this Minister in the House and a letter posted to him as damage control three months after the information we are debating now was passed to his office-and then only in response to the complaints of the Australian Medical Association. It is interesting that in this outrageous document the Solicitor-General has the temerity, after about five hours consideration, to tell us the material does not identify patients. Let me remind the Solicitor-General that we are not talking about identifying anybody. We are talking, under the law he should have studied, about mechanisms which enable the identification of people. That is forbidden by this law. It is a pity that the Minister is not going to defend himself this afternoon, although I thought he might have had the competence to answer these things at Question Time today. I thought he might have had at least an answer to what one can get with a doctor's provider number-- Mr Donald Cameron —Why doesn't he stand up and say it himself? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Moreton will cease interjecting and using offensive words. Mr TUCKEY —The material provided does enable the identification of patients who attended those doctors because one can access the computer records of that doctor if one is an experienced hacker or has a friend within the Department. With that provider number one can access the records of patients, so one is able to gain that information. It is a pity that the Solicitor-General cannot even get his facts right. This Minister and the then Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, who is now gone, were going to be the public protectors of our privacy. Just like her assurances, his are found wanting. Their assurances were that they could give us a system, both mechanically and personally, that would protect the privacy of Australians. Of course, that has not been the case. We have a situation where quite deliberately a section of the community has been attacked, a group of doctors browbeaten. It was not done, as we have been told in the past couple of days, to protect a few individual patients who have had to put their hands in their pockets for a little bit more. That did not worry the Minister when he changed the schedule for skin cancer. It did not worry him that he knocked that off the list because his public awareness campaign had increased expenditure. He is quite happy for those people to pay the difference in the fee because he has cut the rebate. He did not worry for months about the cancer sufferers who had to make three trips a week to their physicians and who could not get the full rebate after the third visit. This issue is about imposing on the Australian medical profession the participating doctor scheme that now exists in Canada. It was a softening up campaign and this Government was prepared to use confidential information given to it under the law to attack the medical profession. This is the worse possible example of a Minister directly involving himself and his staff, and the Minister might like to tell us, if he is entering the debate, as he has his clearance, who will be his Stephen Loosley. He might tell us who he will finger. He might tell us which member of this staff he will go into the box and give evidence against. The Minister conspired to get the doctors and he did exactly what we warned Australia would happen if we made him the protector of its privacy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.09) —Evidently, from the quietness of the Opposition benches, the mumbling nature of the speech just delivered and the total absence of members from the Government benches, this debate is suitably petering out. Some things still need to be picked up from the speech of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He has a reputation in this place as a man of some force but he has not made a reputation in this place as a protector of people's privacy. Whatever might be said about him as an advocate in this case, I cannot really imagine anyone worse to be the proposer of this motion. If he were going to be the proposer he might have tried a different set of words. As we pointed out yesterday, the question of the Opposition's commitment to privacy matters is highly selective and tends to be ahistorical. In other words, they operate on 24-hour memories. Indeed, the Opposition in this place has made a fetish of taking opportunities, in the absence of a developing policy, to utilise Question Time and other forums of the House persistently to attempt to get the Government to offend the sort of privacy protection we believe is essential for Ministers. As I pointed out in this House yesterday when speaking in the debate on the censure motion, when I was Special Minister of State-and this has been the experience of others in that portfolio since then-I was the object of persistent questioning on matters such as police investigations, material provided to crime authorities or whatever. Without any notion of due process or of protecting the individual's right to privacy, efforts have been made consistently to get us to expose what no government exposes-that is, details of matters which must remain private until charges are laid. As Ministers, we have been condemned and vilified in this House when we have taken this stand. We have had censure motions moved against us, we have faced endless matters of public importance debates, one after another, and we have sat here determined that Parliament will not be turned into a kangaroo court. The Opposition comes into this place without clothes on the question of the protection of rights to privacy. The Opposition has not just made efforts to secure from us information that compromises innocent individuals. Over the past few years there have been debates in this Parliament which go to the heart of privacy. These debates have been based on persistent Government efforts to get onto the statute book measures which protect individuals' rights. Just as persistently as we have sought to get these measures on the statute book, the Opposition has opposed them. We had the case of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the last Parliament introducing the Privacy Bill and the Privacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill, the first such legislation in Australia. This legislation would have applied to virtually all Commonwealth agencies and established information privacy principles, which were rules for agencies to regulate the collection, handling, safe storage, access, correction and disclosure of personal information. It also would have given the Data Protection Agency power to guide agencies in their application of those principles and power to investigate complaints of interference with privacy. Remedies for such interference would have included reports to the Parliament by the powers of the Ombudsman, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Data Protection Agency, which could have recommended compensation. It is noteworthy, in the context of this debate today, that members of the Opposition chose to oppose this legislation when they had the opportunity to vote on it. The names of individuals who have participated in these debates over the past couple of days stand in the division lists against that legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given notice that there will be opportunities for them to vote on that privacy legislation again so once again they will be tested. We will see whether their current concern-this 48-hour concern for the protection of people's privacy-will be carried over into support for that legislation. It will require a sea change in the Opposition's attitude if that is to be the case. It is not required of this Government that we should offer any apology to anyone on the question of our willingness to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. A great deal of explanation is required of the Opposition as to why it has been loath to support our efforts to do that in the past. Nor do we need to apologise on the question of a right to privacy in so far as this matter and the debate of the last couple of days are concerned. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who corrected his answer in this place of his own volition and not under pressure from the Opposition or anyone else, made it amply clear that he has at all times been motivated by what he believes is a requirement upon himself in giving out this information from the Health Insurance Commission. As he pointed out, a plethora of information proceeds from the Commission into the public domain. He has always regarded himself as under an obligation to protect rights to privacy as far as that information is concerned. He has been assiduous in his balance between what is essential to protect an individual's right to privacy and what is essential to put into the public domain on matters affecting the public purse about which the public is entitled to know. At all times, the Minister operated on the advice of the appropriate authority in his Department. Again I will read into the public record the material handed to the Minister for Community Services and Health by the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission. Mr White —I have heard that. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member says that he has heard it before, but he will hear it again because it is appropriate that it be quoted in this debate. The second paragraph states: 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. Therefore, at all times the Minister operated under the instructions conveyed by him and his office on the question of the protection of the privacy of individuals who might be concerned in this matter when statistics were handed out. The Minister was not the only one who protected that privacy. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) received some gratuitous abuse from the honourable member for O'Connor during his remarks in this debate. The honourable member for Canning has made himself a consumer advocate without peer in the history of this Parliament. Basically consumer rights have been regarded as rather boring and prosaic in this place. Over the years, very few honourable members have been prepared to pursue consumer rights, but the honourable member has. We have tended to regard that as a matter properly handled by the States and not by the Federal Government. But the honourable member rightly believes that in defending the interests of his constituents across the board, the question of their rights as consumers is one matter that has to be considered and fought for. Despite the fact that he is now the focal point of correspondence from all over the country, detailing many matters including those in the medical area-a raft of complaints from people who have suffered in the pocket or in other ways as a result of shoddy dealings by people they have approached on a professional or business basis or whatever-he has never come into this place or entered any public forum and identified doctors. He has a very fat file of complaints by patients about that very small minority of doctors who overcharge. He has not, at any point, chosen to expose the individuals concerned in public. Therefore, the point made by Opposition members that there is a motive on the part of this side of the House to offend people's privacy is simply not sustained by the record. It is further not sustained by the record when it comes to a consideration of the release of information related to the various documents that are the subject of this debate. Whatever may be said about the Minister's willingness to correct himself when he said in this House that he honestly believed that the information that had been handed out contained no means whereby a person could be identified, and despite the fact that his endeavour was evidently not successful, none of those documents have produced a situation where an individual doctor has been held up for vilification. Of course, that will not happen. The suggestion has been made that there is justification for a privacy debate, related to this particular issue. But any privacy debate cannot be specific, it must be general. Nobody has been identified specifically. Any possibility that a person's right to privacy may be offended has in fact been pulled back. The Opposition spokesman for Community Services and Health skated across issues of health policy. He described the campaign by the honourable member for Canning to ensure that the fact that a minority of doctors-and it is a very small minority of doctors-engage in overcharging is exposed as a `grubby' campaign. That was the expression the honourable member for O'Connor used. Right through the discussion of the issues concerned here and the general question of overcharging, both the Minister and the honourable member for Canning have identified that we are dealing with a minority situation. Does the Opposition believe that the practice of overcharging ought not to be exposed? It is difficult to say whether the Opposition believes that. We have the thrust and vehemence-not in this place lately-of the honourable member for O'Connor on this matter. From the way he has conveyed his views in the various discussions on this matter, apparently he would place himself on the list of those who do not believe that that is the case. However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is more ambivalent. The Leader of the Opposition was given an opportunity to discuss the matter on yesterday's Today program. When the interviewer, George Negus, tried to get something out of him it was like throttling it slowly out of a plucked chicken. At the last squawk he finally got something out of him. George Negus asked: Isn't it reasonable to blackguard doctors if they're charging six times the fee? The Leader of the Opposition replied: It is reasonable to give legitimate information but is it legitimate to selectively leak information? The interview continued. Evidently, the Leader of the Opposition, when finally his feet are put to the fire, will accept that if doctors are charging six times the fee or whatever, it is reasonable for the Minister, the honourable member for Canning and anyone else to expose them. That was the motive involved in the exchange of that information. On all occasions it was believed by the Health Insurance Commission, the Minister's office and the Minister himself that the information was legitimate. That is not in doubt. There are absolutely no grounds for the Opposition to bring forward a matter of public importance on the protection of privacy as far as the Minister is concerned in this case or on the general matter of privacy. The Opposition has no record of defending privacy in such cases. Its record is all of offending an individual's rights to privacy and attempting to engage the front bench in doing exactly the same thing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the fourth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. (Quorum formed) Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.26) —I 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. The proposed building will provide local customer requirements for the southern sector of the central business district. It will also support a wide variety of telecommunication services and provide equipment and other network facilities throughout the central business district and the State of Queensland. The new building will be medium rise and will contain a basement, ground floor, office and amenities floor, eight telecommunications equipment floors, plant floor and roof plant area with a satellite dish and antenna area. The proposed construction timetable indicates a construction time of approximately 20 months. The limit of cost estimate for construction of the telephone exchange is $20m at July 1987 prices. I thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of this important proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.28) —The Opposition concurs with the motion. The Public Works Committee has reported on this proposal for a new telephone exchange building in Brisbane, although I note from reading its report that not much detail has been provided as to the work to be undertaken within the building by Telecom Australia. I specifically drew attention to this because a problem arose with the latest major Telecom building in South Australia. In that instance, because Telecom did not finalise its plans on partitioning of the building until construction was well advanced, the ceilings put into it, at a cost of some $30,000 per floor, were not suitable. Lighting, wiring, air-conditioning and fire sprinklers had to be rearranged. We were advised that the cost of that change was in the vicinity of $20,000 for each of the 23 floors of that particular Telecom building, or around $500,000 for the whole building. The community cannot afford such waste and inefficiency, be it by the Government or one of its statutory authorities-in this case, Telecom. I say to this House, as I did when the motion for reference of this work to the Public Works Committee was brought into this House, that Telecom should take note of our concerns because we will be watching the construction costs of this building very closely. We do not want to see a cost blow-out of the nature that occurred in South Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.30) —I 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. The proposal to reconstruct the Prince Alfred Park Centre, the former Redfern Mail Exchange, by demolishing the existing building down to the top of the first floor slab and constructing a five-storey office block, will provide, in the reconstructed premises, accommodation for the State head office administration, a postal training school, an electronic mail acceptance centre, a regional post office, an engineering workshop, and a car park. The building will have a gross floor area of 47,000 square metres and will meet the needs of Australia Post until the year 2000. Relocating the New South Wales head office to Prince Alfred Park is the most economic means of satisfying administrative accommodation needs. One of the recommendations contained in the report of the Public Works Committee is that the fit-out of the accommodation, details of which have yet to be finalised, should be referred back to the Committee for examination when Australia Post determines its requirements. Officers of my Department are currently working with Australia Post to that end. This element of the proposal will be referred back to the Committee in due course. The limited cost of the proposed work is $62m at September 1987 prices. I should like to thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt consideration of this important proposal. If the House agrees to support the motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.33) —The Opposition will not oppose this motion. This proposal will be the final stage of the termination of what, unfortunately, was one of the great white elephants undertaken by Australia Post. Right from the start, the building of the Redfern Mail Exchange was a disaster. This proposal involves knocking it down, all bar the bottom floor, and rebuilding it. Again, I think it is unfortunate that this Parliament is confronted with proposals which I consider in the circumstances to be a waste of money. Certainly, the original decision to spend money on what turned out to be an industrial relations disaster was a failure. A couple of points should be made. Apparently the Public Works Committee did look at proposals for the relocation of the staff from the General Post Office to alternative locations. The Committee suggested that there is not another single location available which would suit Australia Post, at a cost comparable with the cost of this proposal. I do not have the details of the alternatives that the Committee considered but that does surprise me a little, although I accept the Committee's decision. The total cost of this proposal is not $62m, as suggested by the Minister. That is the building cost only. The total cost is substantially more. The $62m does not take account of $8m for professional fees, nor does it take account of the fit-out cost, which has been estimated by the Public Works Committee to be in the vicinity of $12m. I am glad that the Minister is to refer the fit-out works to the Public Works Committee for further review. It is very important that the fit-out be in accordance with the design of the building. I should not like to see a repetition of the South Australian Telecom building, where a fit-out decision was not made until it was too late, and substantial parts of the building had to be removed to enable the fit-out to proceed as finally determined. My final point is that the Opposition wishes Australia Post well in this undertaking. As I said at the start, the Redfern Mail Exchange has been a disastrous white elephant. I hope, with this proposal, that the money will be well spent, and will provide a building that will serve Australia Post and the Australian community well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(3.36) —I 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. The proposed work will provide a new production facility at the Mulwala Explosives Factory to enable the transfer of production capabilities from the Albion Explosives Factory in Deer Park, Melbourne. Arising out of the Review of Explosives Factories, Australia, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced, in December 1985, the decision to close the Albion factory. For some years the factory had suffered from the pressures of urbanisation, and its location in a residential area was no longer appropriate. The important site of 496 hectares made available by this proposal will be released for development. A committee, chaired by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who is in the House, has been convened to advise on the future use of the site. The committee is currently seeking public comments on several options for public use of this site, which, as I said, is a very important site to the local communities in the western suburbs of the great city of Melbourne. The transfer of strategically important high explosives and gun propellant production to Mulwala has significant cost-saving benefits. During peacetime, production facilities operate well below maximum capacity, creating operating difficulties and extra costs. Co-location of production facilities will reduce these effects. The new facilities will be constructed on a new site adjacent to the existing facilities at Mulwala within the factory's existing boundaries. There is a requirement to acquire some properties, totalling 340 hectares, to the north of the factory to provide a safety buffer zone. Negotiations are currently proceeding with the owners, and the majority of the acquired land will be available for lease back. A draft environmental impact statement for the Albion and Mulwala sites has been prepared. Pertinent findings are being incorporated in the design of the new facilities. The proposed work involves about 60 buildings and facilities and includes: construction of buildings to house processes and service plant used to manufacture RDX-a military explosive-TNT and gun propellant products; construction of explosives storage buildings; construction of laboratory, administrative and support buildings; construction of roads and cleanways; construction of protective earthwork mounds around the production and storage buildings; construction of pits, labyrinths, evaporation ponds and burning grounds for waste collection and disposal; provision of water supply and reticulation; provision of an electrical distribution system; construction of steam raising plant and a reticulation system; decontamination, transfer and reinstallation of process plant, service plant and piping systems from Albion to Mulwala and installation of new processing plant and piping systems at Mulwala to be purchased by the Department of Defence. I inform the House that the cost of the proposed works has been estimated at $78.4m at November 1987 prices and this estimate of cost comprises $40.5m for new buildings and infrastructure, $21.8m for reinstallation of machinery and plant from Albion, and $16.1m for the purchase of new machinery and plant. No expenditure is anticipated this financial year. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended that the initial tenders will be invited in June 1988, and that construction will commence in July 1988 and be completed some four years later by the end of 1992. Design and documentation will be undertaken by private consultants and also in-house by my Department's construction group; that is, they will share the work. During construction the on-site work force is expected to peak at 200 by 1990. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend this motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.41) —Given the Government's decision to close the Albion Explosives Factory, the Opposition will certainly support this reference to the Joint Committee on Public Works. My colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) will speak after me as the proposed works will be in his electorate. I would like to make some short but general comments about this proposal and related proposals. The Government has made a number of decisions in relation to Defence Force production facilities. Only recently I was contacted by some farmers expressing concern that they had been contacted by the Department of Defence with a questionnaire about a proposal from the Department of Defence to manufacture some sort of equipment to frighten birds. Not only did the farmers object to having to fill out this very lengthy survey but also they quite rightly asked, `Why on earth is the Defence Department getting into competition with the private sector by producing equipment to frighten birds in primary industry areas?'. I have subsequently asked the Government for more information. I understand that the proposal was to use excess capacity in one of the Government's Defence Force production facilities. This raises a number of real concerns in my mind, and those of Opposition members, and if any government factory is to manufacture what is called Birdfrite, and if it is to go into commercial production, we would like to know on what basis that is justified. For example, the statement that it is just to use excess capacity in the plant certainly does not satisfy me. We would like to know what the capital cost involved in establishing the manufacture of this Birdfrite would be and what the expected annual return would be after deducting all the costs, including the capital costs. There is a great deal of information we would like from the Government before we are prepared to support further expansion of Defence Force production facilities. Given the Government's decision to close the Albion factory, we understand there is a need to establish a new plant for production of ammunition and other explosives, and the honourable member for Farrer is certainly very pleased that the plant will be established in his area. We look forward to receiving the Public Works Committee report. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.45) —I have a great interest in this project as chairman of the committee which has been appointed, through the participation of the State Government and the Federal Government, to work out proposals for the development of the Albion land. The committee has been operating for over 12 months and in that time has consulted widely with the community and has produced a number of plans, through the use of two consultants, including four specific plans which are now being put out to the community of the west of Melbourne for its consideration. We are awaiting the results of those inquiries before putting specific proposals for the many possible projects that can be taken up in that area both to the State and Federal governments and to the City of Sunshine for adoption. It is not very often that land of this size becomes available suddenly in the middle of a residential area surrounded primarily by homes. It provides an opportunity for the creation of a large number of community facilities. I take this opportunity to thank some of the people who have been involved with the committee in the planning stages; in particular Mr Mark Bartley, who is the project officer from the State Department of Planning and Environment, and Carole Fabian from my office. I also thank the people involved in the community consultation committee which was established to make sure that the community had an input into these determinations, and in particular the chairpersons of the committee, Colin Thorpe and Renis Witham. I look forward to the community making its contribution and I look forward to the Federal Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) coming down to look at the final plans when they have been developed and to look at the enormous potential of the area. Once again I thank the Government for the faith it has placed in me by appointing me chairman of the committee. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.47) —I support the reference to the Joint Committee on Public Works of the relocation of the Albion Explosives Factory to Mulwala in New South Wales and I support the comments made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I highlight to the House one aspect of the comments made by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), which were most noteworthy. As background information, I inform the House that in the 1970s when I first came into State Parliament, the word `decentralisation' was very much to the fore. But more recently, in the 1980s, in parties on both sides of the fence and at State and Federal level, decentralisation has been pushed to one side as we have entered a period of harsher economic times. What we have in this exciting proposal is a classic demonstration of the advantage of decentralisation. It is mainstream decentralisation, with the Federal Government moving to relocate this important high explosives and gun propellant production from in effect the suburbs of Melbourne to Mulwala, opposite the town of Yarrawonga on the Murray River in my electorate of Farrer. The really good news associated with this exciting proposal is the fact that, to quote the Minister, the move to Mulwala has significant cost saving benefits to the Government and the nation as a whole. So not only are we decentralising this factory; we are also saving money in the process of doing it. I welcome the reference to the Public Works Committee of a proposed work which will inject some $78.4m in November 1987 prices into the town of Mulwala, which is in any event a bustling town strategically located on the Murray River. That will break down into some $40.5m for new buildings and infrastructure, $21.8m for reinstallation of machinery and plant transferred from Melbourne to the new Mulwala site, and $16.1m for the purchase of new machinery and plant to make it one of the largest and most efficient inland factories dealing with propellants, explosives and other defence capability matters. I would like to highlight to the Minister, and more particularly to his Department and advisers, that there has been a fraction of difficulty associated with acquisitions on the north side which are still being finalised and also associated with the sale by the Department, in association with the Mulwala factory, of a number of houses involving 20 or more families on the southern side of the factory. I am pleased to say that officers of the Department have agreed to come to Mulwala on Thursday, 3 March, in the afternoon, to iron out some of the complexities which have arisen, to reduce the lines of communication, and hopefully provide a firm basis on which to go forward. They will be coming from the regional office of the Department in Sydney to Mulwala to facilitate that. I believe that the acquisition will not be held up unduly. It involves a large package of land, some 340 hectares to the north of the factory site. I hope that a fair and just arrangement will be made to facilitate that acquisition and to protect the rights of the vendors. Hopefully, that will allow this exciting project to proceed and proceed quickly, thus boosting employment on a permanent basis at Yarrawonga-Mulwala. In any event, employment will peak at 200 in the construction phase of this new and expanded inland facility which will take place after due and proper deliber- ations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and after recommendations are made in its favour. My area, in many ways, had a legacy from World War II. A number of airports were constructed during the war for pilot training. They were constructed at places such as Tocumwal and many other places along the river. An explosives factory was placed at Mulwala in that same period. Governments of all persuasions have kept the nucleus of that explosives factory going over many decades when inquiries were made and consideration was given to closing down Mulwala completely and focusing just on St Marys in Sydney and Albion in Melbourne. For once the right decisions have been made by the Federal Government in particular. The right decision is to proceed with some classic, positive, efficient and effective decentralisation by not only retaining the nucleus of that existing Mulwala facility but also boosting it greatly with nearly $80m. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.52) —As the Opposition indicated, it certainly has no objection to the matter-the relocation of the Albion explosives factory to Mulwala-being referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. If the factory is relocated to the electorate of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) it will be in the very best of hands. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) during this debate indicated that he was the chairman of the committee which will look at the disposal of the land at Albion. I find it extraordinary that a committee under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Calwell-that is extraordinary enough-should be set up to look at the disposal of Commonwealth land in the Melbourne area when we have prime foreshore land in Sydney which belongs to the Department of Defence and which apparently will be put up for tender and flogged off to developers. I refer to the land at Balmoral which is prime, irreplaceable foreshore land on which the State Government is running cold. It will lose many votes on this issue because it is not game to stand up to the Federal Government and in particular to the Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, who is a great environmentalist around the State except when it comes to the issue of this land at Balmoral; no-one can get him to say a thing. I have looked at the land. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! We are dealing with matters relating to Mulwala. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed the honourable member for Calwell to tell us what he was doing about the land-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calwell was talking about the land that will be vacated by the munitions factory as I understand it, and unless the land at Balmoral that the honourable member for McPherson is talking about is the same land, he is ranging too widely for that matter to be dealt with by this motion. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I bow to your decision of course, but the fact is that if the honourable member for Calwell can talk about the land at Albion which is Defence land and-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House has before it a motion to move the munitions factory from one part of the country to another. I imagine it is competent to speak about the place whence it came as well as the place where it is going, but we are not going to speak about the rest of Australia in the context of that. Mr WHITE —I will not pursue the matter except to say that I find it extraordinary that we spend so much time on the land in Melbourne which is covered by this debate, yet when we come to prime land in Sydney we are flogging it off to developers instead of including it in the Sydney Harbour National Park. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is a matter that is not before the House. Mr WHITE —I conclude by asking the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) to let us know how many people are involved and what plans there are to facilitate their move should the factory move in due course. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.56) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was speaking on the Parliamentary Precincts Bill which establishes for the first time in the history of the Australian Commonwealth a legal definition of the parliamentary precincts. I was concluding my remarks, in relation to the new Parliament House and the move from this Parliament House to the new Parliament House, saying that I regretted the fact that the Government had decided not to take the Speaker's chair from this place and put it in the new Parliament House. I said that I saw great merit in maintaining the continuity of our parliamentary tradition, and in recognition of the development of our parliamentary system the Speaker's chair would provide a unique link to the Westminster tradition. I was referring to the support I had for the suggestion to move the chair to the new Parliament House by three former Clerks of this House of Representatives, Messrs Norman Parkes, John Pettifer and Douglas Blake. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) at that stage interjected saying they were `overstepping their mark'. I thought it was an extraordinary interjection for the honourable member for Throsby to make. It suggested that private citizens should not have the right to petition this Parliament, which these three former Clerks had done. If that is the sort of government that this Hawke Ministry wants to run, where private individuals lose even their rights to petition the Parliament, it is a sorry day. It is part of the concern that I have that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I do not mind a wide-ranging debate but the honourable member for Barker should relate the matters that he is discussing to the matter before us which is to define the precincts of the Parliament. No doubt he might be getting to the fact that the chair should be within the precincts but he should relate it to the matter before us. Mr PORTER —Certainly this Bill relates to the move up the hill and I suggest-- Mr West —We are not taking the chair with us. Mr PORTER —The Minister for Administrative Services, who is at the table, says again that we are not taking the chair. We rather hoped that the Government would review its decision. I understand that the plans for the new Parliament House did provide for the Speaker's chair to be an option for placement in the new Parliament House. Given the Minister's reiteration of the Government's decision not to take the chair, I condemn the Government for its failure to acknowledge the value, albeit symbolic-- Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to raise a point of order. I do not want to take up the honourable member's time but this is a reflection on the Joint Standing Committee. It was its decision and not the Government's decision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker might relate his remarks specifically to the matter before the House. The decision made by the Joint Standing Committee on the Speaker's chair does not fall within the purview of the matter before the House at present. Mr PORTER —The Minister, if he likes, can debate the issue by way of a point of order. It is quite clear that the decision has been made by the Government, not the Joint Standing Committee. I will conclude my remarks on this matter by saying that the Government should be condemned for its failure to acknowledge the value, albeit the symbolic value, of our very famous Speaker's chair. I am disgusted that the Government has determined that it should be left here to rot. That leads me to another matter of concern, that is, the future use of this Parliament House once we have made the move up the hill. As I understand it, the Government set up some sort of interdepartmental committee (IDC) to consider the future use of this Parliament House. But we have not been given any information as to the progress of its deliberations, if any. I ask the Minister for Administrative Services, who is at the table: Has the IDC met; has it made some recommendations; if so, what are they; and when will the Government make a determination on this issue? The public has enormous interest in the future of this building. In fact, the question that I get more than any other from visitors to this building is: `What are they going to do with the place when you move?'. I have found that there is general support for the establishment of a political-constitutional museum. But I would like to know what all the options are; whether they are being considered by the Government; and when we will know what the options are and what the Government's proposal is. At the moment the Government has left too many loose ends regarding the move up the hill. I imagine that the ongoing maintenance and security costs of this building will be enormous, even when we have left it. In order to avoid wasteful expenditure, we should be considering now the future of this building and starting to implement the planning for its alternative use. It is no good in a year's time, once we are established up on the hill, then starting to plan for the future of this building. Action needs to be taken now. With the reservations that I outlined before lunch in relation to one particular clause of this legislation, the Opposition supports the Bill. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.03) —Before making some comments on the details of the Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988, I wish to respond to a few of the comments that were made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) on the future of this building and the future of the Speaker's chair which, of course, has been a feature of this chamber since this Parliament House was opened in 1927. I was totally astounded by the honourable member's comment that the Speaker's chair will be left in this chamber to rot. I think the honourable member has lost touch with what is being proposed for this building. It is not intended that all of the doors and the windows will be pulled out, with the chair being left to wither away and be eaten by insects and bugs over the next few years. This chamber will be preserved for generations to come. Honourable members opposite, to be fair to them, have argued consistently that the Speaker's chair should go into the new Parliament House. The problem with that argument is: what would happen to this chamber if the Speaker's chair were removed? Would all of the benches be kept? What would happen to the table around which all of the important debates have occurred and from which Prime Ministers Curtin and Menzies have addressed this chamber? What would be the result if the single piece of furniture which dominates this chamber were removed? Of course, if the Speaker's chair were transferred from this chamber to the new Parliament House, members of the Opposition would demand that a replica chair be produced, at enormous cost. I am very proud that the Parliament decided that an Australian-made Speaker's chair be constructed from Australian timbers. I believe that that chair will become one of the features of the new Parliament House and the new House of Representatives chamber. As I say, a lot of history has occurred in this chamber. I think it would be a desecration of this chamber if the original Speaker's chair, which has been used for 61 years, were transferred from the chamber where all of the action has taken place. Turning to the details of the legislation before us, I was very interested to read that in fact in 1927 the Federal Parliament passed an Act of Parliament called the Seat of Government (Administration) Act which vested in the Federal Capital Commission all Commonwealth land in the Australian Capital Territory, with the exception of Parliament House and the surrounding areas. In fact, on 9 May 1927, after the then Duke of York performed the official opening of this building by turning the key in the front door of this building, he handed over the keys to this building to the then Speaker of the House of Representatives and the then President of the Senate. This was a symbolic handing over by the Executive to the Parliament's representatives of title to this building. The problem has been that up until now no Act has set out the precise area which the executive government has handed over to the Parliament. As previous speakers have mentioned, there has been debate about whether the Parliament's control extends to verandas and roads. It is very important, in terms of the tradition which we have inherited from Westminster, that the Speaker and the President, as the representatives of the Parliament, have exclusive jurisdiction and control within the Houses of Parliament. This ensures that Parliament can conduct its business without any interference or any attempt by outside forces to exert influence on members and senators as they carry out their duties. In 1969 the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House brought down a report from which I would like to quote. The report states: Down through the years it has been an embarrassment to the Parliament to lack control or be unsure of the extent of its control over the area of land surrounding the building . . . Further, the report states: It recommends further that the desirability of having this power incorporated in a statute be considered at an early date. Given that that was 1969, it is a bit disappointing that it has taken so long for such legislation to come before this chamber. In 1985, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, of which I am a member, recommended to the Parliament that the precincts of the new Parliament House be enshrined in legislation so that the extent of the Parliament House could be made very clear. The Bill before the House defines the parliamentary precincts as all land and buildings within a circular boundary drawn from the outer edge of the retaining wall which extends right around the new Parliament House. The Bill places management and control of the precincts in the hands of the Presiding Officers, the Speaker and the President. Of course, the responsibilities and powers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate have been the subject of much debate over the years. In fact, in 1931 the then Prime Minister of Australia, James Scullin, made the following comments during a debate in this chamber: Mr Speaker's power, however, extends beyond this chamber . . . Under the ordinary law and practice which clothes all presiding officers with certain powers . . . the presiding officer of this House has control over the precincts of the chamber, and over this building, except that portion of it which is the Senate's, and that is controlled by the President of the Senate. Mr Speaker has control over the officers- who work in the building- and the offices of this House- they, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, can be quite small at times- Who has control over the accommodation provided and over the conduct of persons passing in and out? No one but Mr Speaker . . . That was the view of the then Prime Minister of Australia, James Scullin. Of course, that speech was made in this chamber, at that table and with that Speaker's chair dominating the surroundings. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I was not in the chair at the time. Mr LEE —Thank you for clarifying that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The police forces which are responsible for enforcing the laws within the Australian Capital Territory can be given certain powers by the Presiding Officers within Parliament House. The police have no power to enter the precincts of Parliament without the consent of the Speaker or the President of the Senate, and no power to arrest or carry out any other actions without the consent of the Presiding Officers. In today's times, when there is always the threat of violence or terrorism, parliament must have procedures whereby, if an emergency arises, the Parliament can speedily authorise the police or other responsible people to take action to prevent violence or to prevent some serious disturbance from getting out of hand. I know that the staff of the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod always ensure that those procedures are ready if they ever have to be used. On many occasions the Parliament is made aware of people's views on controversial issues by demonstrations, large and small, outside the front of this building. Of course, we believe that all Australians should have the right to express their opinions if they do so in a non-violent manner. The right given to all Australians to express their opinions outside the front of this building is very rarely abused. I am always very proud of the fact that Australians can express their opinions. Even when tens of thousands are participating in a demonstration or rally outside the front of this building, it is very rare that any action has to be taken-perhaps because a few individuals are not prepared to maintain a non-violent demonstration. In the three years during which I have been a member of this House I can recall only two instances in which people have disrupted the proceedings of the Parliament. The first instance was when a number of individuals were jumping up and shouting slogans during Question Time one day. Those people were removed very speedily by the attendants. The second famous occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I am sure you will remember, was when a gentleman jumped from the public gallery above us into the chamber, narrowly missing the current Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), and the gentleman was escorted from the chamber after being detained for a certain period. It is very important that we realise that there is always a risk in allowing the public easy access to any parliament house, because unfortunately, in any community, there is always the danger that one individual or a number could take some action which could harm a member of this Parliament or some of the staff who work in this building. I understand that during the period of the previous Government, when the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, had carriage of some of the decisions that were being made for the new Parliament House, it was suggested that bullet-proof glass should be installed between the public galleries in the new Parliament House and the chambers. I am very pleased to say that that proposal was rejected-I understand by the then members of the Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House. I think it would have been very much to be regretted if the Parliament had installed bullet-proof glass separating the public from the chambers. It certainly would not have done anything to enhance the spirit of debate within the chambers for members and senators to know that they were surrounded by bullet-proof glass. In addition, the then Government sought to institute a system whereby ordinary backbenchers, from both sides of the Parliament, would need special permission to enter the ministerial wing of the new building. I understand that at one stage two booths were to be erected at the points at which members of parliament would need to seek entry into the ministerial wing. Again, I am very pleased to see that under the current arrangements, this Government is not intending to require a special passes system to control the access of members of parliament and perhaps prevent them from visiting Ministers and exercising their duties. Of course, that also means that members of the Press and staff in this building do not have to go through such unnecessary security provisions simply to enter the ministerial wing. The public will still need to go through metal detection apparatus, and I think there is to be also some magnetic measurement machine. That will ensure that people who seek to carry knives or guns will be detected by the ever-vigilant Parliament House staff. It is a healthy sign of a democracy that elected representatives can carry out their duties without the need to be escorted everywhere by armed guards. The fact that our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when travelling around our country, do so with the very minimum amount of protection says a lot about Australia and the fact that we have a healthy democracy. I mention in passing that this does not apply only to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier of New South Wales caught a train last Tuesday, I understand, from Central to Gosford, just outside my electorate. Mr Tickner —A man of the people. Mr LEE —A man of the people, as the honourable member suggests. The fact that the Premier of a State can board a train at Central and travel on an ordinary suburban network just goes to show-- Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to request that you rule on the relevance of the movements of the Premier in New South Wales-which is a long way from the Parliamentary Triangle in Canberra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member was using that as an illustration. I am sure that he will get back to the substance of the motion before the Chair. Mr LEE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Premier was mobbed by people everywhere he went, as well. The Bill also permits other buildings outside the precincts to have the same status as Parliament House itself when being used for parliamentary purposes. I expect that, in addition, there will be some debate as to whether this provisional Parliament House, the old one, will be defined as part of the parliamentary precincts, so that the Presiding Officers can maintain some control or management of this building. I am sure that that is a debate which will continue for some months to come. I know that Mr Simon Townsend has circulated to all members of this House a proposal suggesting that the old Parliament House should be used in a way which would not only help to create a new tourist attraction for Canberra but also incorporate a large number of imaginative, state of the art displays, which would be educational for the many school children who visit Canberra to seek to gain an understanding of the processes of government and would be very enjoyable for anyone who wished to tour the building. I would not be surprised if the executive government and the Presiding Officers received proposals from other individuals. I hope that the Government, when it makes a decision on the future of this building, will ensure that it will allow the people of Australia to appreciate the great history which is associated with this building. I support the legislation before the House. As I stated earlier, it is important that the Parliament know the geographical limits of this building. As an aside on that point, during the Fraser years there was a proposal to establish a bomb shelter of some type in the new Parliament House. While the Bill outlines the boundary of the proposed precincts of Parliament House, nowhere in the Bill can I find how deep the precincts are meant to go. If Prime Minister Fraser's proposal to build a bomb shelter had gone ahead, I would have been intrigued to know whether it would have been included within the precincts of the Parliament. But given the fact that Prime Minister Hawke cancelled the former Prime Minister's bomb shelter proposal, I suppose that we shall never know the answer to that question. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.20) —Behind the back of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) I often say very nice things about him, his capacity to discuss issues before the Parliament and the intelligent contributions he makes. As I listened to his speech today I thought how well he had researched much of the same material that I had seen on the matter before us. With his concluding remarks and the occasional diversion he allowed to enter into the debate, I must say that he showed a surprising capacity for burrowing deep into political issues that may be able to be raised. I was fascinated by his casual reference to bomb shelters, just dropping the word `Fraser' in relation to that. I noticed that when it came to discussing the safety of former Prime Ministers, he managed to introduce some elements that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, suggested were merely by way of example. No doubt that was a very appropriate ruling in all the circumstances. As the honourable member mused about the safety with which the Premier of New South Wales was able to travel by train to the honourable member's electorate I thought, in the context of the election campaign that is taking place at the moment in that State and the Premier's popularity and that of his Government, that it says a great deal about the forbearance of the people of New South Wales that the Premier can move so freely. I suspect that it is because the people know that they will have the opportunity shortly at the ballot box to deal with these matters justly and appropriately. I am sure that by that time, rather than being dispensed with by actions of violence, he will be dispensed with in a much more quiet and appropriate way in the democracy that we enjoy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member is coming back to the Bill, I am sure. Mr RUDDOCK —I am. I value the comments of the honourable member for Dobell because, in relation to a Bill which I do not think commends itself in terms of having a great deal of detail for discussion, he has given me the opportunity to respond to some very specific issues. The Parliamentary Precincts Bill has been sought by those who are interested in the future of the Parliament and the maintenance of the privileges of the Parliament. In a bipartisan way, I commend the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and the Government for the introduction of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is given in a quite straightforward way in the outline: In November 1985 the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) on the New Parliament House presented a Report relating to the precincts of the New Parliament House and the Parliamentary Zone. The Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988 reflects the Government's acceptance of the substance of the major recommendations of the JSC Report and the outcome of discussions between the Government and the Presiding Officers over the form of legislation concerning the precincts. It says as to its purpose: define the Parliamentary precincts; and confer management and control over the Precincts on the Presiding Officers. As we would normally expect, we are told: There are no major additional costs which will result from the provisions of this Bill. That is in the financial impact statement, which is necessary for inclusion with legislation these days. One wonders how one can talk in a relevant way about this legislation. The honourable member for Dobell showed us the way in which that can be done and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) no doubt is going to follow. If he has also used the same research materials we may all be accused of tedious repetition. I want to make the point, and I think it has been made on several occasions before, that over time there has been a great deal of emphasis on the importance of the Parliament having control of its own precincts. In a slightly different way from the honourable members who have preceded me, I want to give reasons why this is so necessary. It was not raised for the first time in 1985 by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. As has been revealed, this matter was commented on as early as the time when the provisional parliament building was opened. We have before us a report of the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent House of April 1969, which brought this matter under discussion. The matter that was quoted previously states: Down through the years it has been an embarrassment to the Parliament to lack control or be unsure of the extent of its control over the area of land surrounding the building. That report brings out very clearly the issues that were seen to be involved. In paragraph 54 of that report the issues are clearly raised: At present various Commonwealth Departments are concerned with aspects of the Parliamentary area and several statutes have application to it . . . correspondence has flowed . . . in the matters of traffic control, parking facilities, police activities, control of demonstration, public access to the building, roadway design . . . This prompted many distinguished Australians to comment on the matter. One of them was Professor Crisp, who said that a statute should reserve to the Parliament `the ultimate disposal of the present Parliament House structure and those of the Nos 1 and 2 Secretariats'-I assume they are the buildings that adjoin the Parliament and the parliamentary zone-and he continued: and all decisions regarding structures or parking areas to be erected in these Capital and Camp Hill areas. It should thus, in keeping with the interests and dignity of Parliament, preserve these areas from ever again being subject to purely Executive decisions or use-planning and from invasion by ring-roads or structures extraneous to Parliament's own functions and purposes. He further said: I believe that the present Parliament owes it to all its successors and to the people of Australia down the centuries to make this provision. Another very distinguished academic, Professor Geoffrey Sawer, Professor of Law at the Australian National University, in an article published in the Canberra Times in June 1966, referred to the legal title of Parliament House and its surroundings and suggested that consideration should be given to legislation which would make Parliament a corporation for the purpose of owning property and of vesting in it the legislative buildings for the time being and a specified area around those buildings so that Parliament would have undoubted control over such matters as security, parking and access generally as well as management and the use of the buildings. That matter was again picked up in a report in the following year, again by the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. In paragraph 407 under the heading `Parliamentary Grounds and Precincts' that Committee commented on the same matter: It is believed that Parliament's authority over the area it at present regards as its property may rest on doubtful ground. This should certainly not be the case in a new building in which there should be a written specification of the exact area that is being appropriated for Parliament's use, and formal title to it should be placed beyond doubt. That raises the question which has been obliquely referred to and which this Bill leaves somewhat in doubt. The honourable member for Dobell commented on this and perhaps the Minister would care to clarify it, as I would value his comments on the matter. It says: In particular, the position of the Executive block needs to be carefully delineated and any unusual situations arising from occupancy of a roadway, etc., need to be clearly covered. Your Committee would reiterate its views and recommendations relating to control over the Parliamentary grounds and precincts made in its report of April 1969 . . . So as early as 1970 this question, which I know has been a thorny one, about the way the Executive area might be separately delineated in the new Parliament House was clearly in the minds of members addressing this subject and is a matter on which this Bill comments, but it appears to suggest that the matter still has to be resolved. I noticed also in the important report to which the Minister referred of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, Precincts of the New Parliament House and Parliamentary Zone of 25 November 1985, some very clear recommendations about the way this legislation should be drafted. I will comment on those matters in a moment. The Committee did serve to emphasise in a very clear way the three major defects it saw in the present situation. According to the Committee's report these were: although the Houses have the undoubted power to take a person into custody and to commit a person to prison, and consequently to expel a person from the precincts, there is no clear legal obligation upon the police to carry out the orders of the Presiding Officers . . . That is one of the very clear defects that have existed to this time although obviously co-operative arrangements have been in place such that I have not heard of or am not aware of this matter being an important issue. I have read from time to time that people have been taken into custody. I have not read of any failure to carry out the orders of the Presiding Officers when those matters have arisen, but clearly the question ought to be one that is beyond doubt. That is why this legislation is before us. The second defect identified by the Committee is: although persons may be prosecuted for criminal offences committed in the precincts, the Crown has the usual discretion as to prosecution of such offences, and is under no clear legal obligation to prosecute offences at the direction of the Presiding Officers . . . That is why this legislation has in mind that there should be capacity for prosecution, although under clause 10 of the Bill this matter is still left for arrangement between the Presiding Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Presumably they will be able to come to sensible arrangements, and the Bill authorises such arrangements. Clearly, if they cannot reach agreement there will not be any arrangements. So the Bill does not clarify that matter or resolve this question. If no arrangement is made no clear legal obligation to prosecute offences at the direction of the Presiding Officers has been created. The third defect stated in the report is: although there is no doubt that the ordinary law applies in the precincts according to its tenor, there appears to be some doubt, whether well-founded or not, about particular criminal offences in their application to Parliament House. With the roads within the precincts as they are to be defined and having divided the Parliament from some of the grounds that are an important part of this building-the gardens and the Senate and House of Representatives-clearly the question of what road traffic laws apply is an important one. Questions of civil liability in the event that accidents occur could well be raised. These matters need to be addressed. Presumably this legislation clarifies those matters to the point of making sure that the appropriate laws of the Australian Capital Territory will not be inhibited in enabling those matters properly to be resolved. I want to raise very clearly this question of the Executive. As can be seen from page 6 of the report before us, the area of the precincts was clearly in the minds of the Presiding Officers and the Committee when they looked at this question. Paragraph 10 of the report has this to say: The location of the Executive area within the design of the new Parliament House and its proximity to part of the Parliamentary Library and other parliamentary areas may affect the possibility of the Executive area being divorced from the parliamentary areas and parliamentary precincts. In other words, it was making very clearly the point that the areas above the Executive wing are occupied by the Library, as I understand it, and some of the other parliamentary offices, and for that reason one could not excise the Executive area on a plan. We would have to have it in the form of a strata title in much the same way as one does in relation to residential buildings if that were to occur. Obviously that meant one could not reasonably have two separate areas in the same building. I appreciate the comment by the Minister, quietly as it was, and in no way was it an improper intervention, that that was not the Government's intention. I accept that but it does mean that clarification is needed in relation to clause 6 of the Bill, subclause (3) of which says: In respect of the Ministerial Wing in Parliament House, the powers and functions given to the Presiding Officers by subsections (1) and (2) are subject to any limitations and conditions agreed between the Presiding Officers and the Minister. Mr West —They have to agree to it. Mr RUDDOCK —Those matters are already the subject of an agreement? Mr West —No. They have to reach an agreement, and if no agreement is reached, by inference, they would have the power over the Executive wing. Mr RUDDOCK —I am glad the Minister said that, because that was my interpretation of the clause as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Perhaps the Minister will clarify it later. Mr RUDDOCK —I welcome the Minister's intervention that if no agreement is reached then the Executive will be subject to clauses 6 (1) and (2), which are: 6. (1) The precincts are under the control and management of the Presiding Officers. (2) The Presiding Officers may, subject to any order of either House, take any action they consider necessary for the control and management of the precincts. In the few moments left, I want to raise also a matter brought up for discussion by the honourable member for Dobell. It was an interesting matter and he brought, to my knowledge, information to Parliament that I had not heard given to us before. It suggested how this thorny question of the way in which access to the ministerial wing in Parliament House might be achieved. I welcome his statement that members will be free to approach Ministers' offices not necessarily by purview of the telephone but to walk down the corridor, knock on the door and walk in, as I do at the moment, and seek an appointment. If the Minister happens to be free we can just pop in and say good day to him as we would to any other member-in the openness that the honourable member believes is appropriate in our society. I for one would deem it most inappropriate that the privilege be denied me as a member of parliament, working as I do on behalf of my constituents. I would welcome the Minister clarifying, as I am sure he will when he speaks later to close this debate, that there will be no additional security arrangements through which members of parliament and others who ordinarily pass the security system will have to pass to identify themselves and be vetted to see whether they are allowed to approach those august wings that members of the Executive will no doubt occupy-be it members on this side of the House or members presently occupying those offices. I also wanted briefly to pick up the other political point made by the honourable member for Dobell. That was the prospect raised at one time of providing a more secure presence for members in the chamber. I know from time to time this question has been raised. The level of interest in it subsides when there have not been any incidents likely to put at risk the personal safety of members or Ministers. When these questions were raised, security issues were very much before us. I do not want to talk about them in such a way as to increase the risk but it is something that is before us today and we see it in other parts of the world from time to time. Honourable members will recall that there was an occasion on which a bomb was let off in Sydney in close proximity to the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Ministers of other countries. Thereafter the question of personal safety was an important matter for those who were considering it. I would not use it as a basis for deprecating the interest of Malcolm Fraser in this matter. I think it is quite appropriate that it should be considered although I have no quarrel about the decision that was reached. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.40) —For the record I will restate the purposes of the Parliamentary Precincts Bill. In the main, these are twofold: to define the parliamentary precincts; and to confer management and control over the precincts on the Presiding Officers. It is not unusual for me to follow the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), as I do today. Our interests in a great many areas overlap and I am aware of the honourable member's ability to make sustained speeches on matters that might not otherwise attract great public interest or parliamentary debate. It is a skill that he puts to great effect in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of which both he and I are members. I will comment on a number of his remarks in the course of my contribution but I want to, as it were, set the scene as to how this legislation came before the House. This Bill follows from the report in November 1985 of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House on the subject of the precincts of the new Parliament House and parliamentary zone. This might seem a somewhat dry or academic topic, but I believe this is a Bill of substance which deserves to be debated seriously and considered by this House. We have a lot of debate about some of the more symbolic aspects of parliamentary democracy and, in the course of this debate, there has been reference to the Speaker's chair and the fact that in the new Parliament House we will have a new Speaker's chair-hardly anything which would excite great public alarm. It seems to me an inherently reasonable proposition and I believe it is an indictment of the Opposition that one of the main issues that it made some running on in 1987 was the removal of the Speaker's chair. I will be quite blunt about this: the Opposition would do far better to pay greater regard to the institution, practices and principles of the Parliament and give weight to them rather than simply devote its energy to the symbolism of the chair. I do not propose to go further on that subject today, but to deal with the substance of the Bill. This Bill is important because it goes to the heart of the institution of the Parliament. I believe it is absolutely essential that this institution be separate from the executive government and, of course, separate from the judiciary. We should put in place mechanisms and institutions as much as possible to enshrine that principle in Australian public life. This Bill contributes to that process. It is often those who bleat the loudest about the institution of the Parliament who regrettably, by their actions and contributions in this place, demean the institution and its principles and practices. This occurred in no more dramatic way than in 1975 when the Parliament no longer became the sovereign body of Australian democracy, as had previously been thought by way of convention. I make it clear that nothing in my earlier comments, other than that last point, is intended to be directed towards the honourable member for Dundas who, I believe, makes a very important contribution to furthering the principles to which I have alluded. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) referred to Prime Minister Scullin and his statement to the Parliament about the power of the Speaker. Mr Scullin is quoted in House of Representatives Practice as saying: Under the ordinary law and practice which clothes all presiding officers with certain powers . . . the presiding officer of this House has control over the precincts of the chamber, and over this building . . . He went on to state: Strangers have no rights or privileges in this House; they merely have permission to enter this building, and everyone knows that that permission is freely given. That is an important contribution by a Prime Minister concerning the institution of the Parliament and I endorse it. The then Prime Minister also referred to the joint power of the two Presiding Officers over the institution of the Parliament. This is picked up and reflected in clause 6 of the Bill which states that the precincts are under the control and management of the Presiding Officers. In this connection I remind the House that there has not always been a close relationship between the Presiding Officers. There is a celebrated case involving two very well-known figures in Australian parliamentary history-the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Cameron, and a then honourable member, Mr Dan Curtin. What occurred on that occasion is in very marked contrast to the peaceful and co-operative relationship that exists between our current President and Speaker. In 1953 the honourable member for Watson, who was Mr Curtin, was expelled from the House for being grossly disorderly and using unparliamentary language. That, of course, is not something that is reserved for 1953-it still happens. The Speaker directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to escort the honourable member from the premises. The ruling of the Speaker regarding the honourable member was that he was to leave `the premises'. Some time later he was seen in the precincts of King's Hall. The Speaker subsequently brought the honourable member before the House where he was accused of contempt of Parliament. That accusation was upheld by the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the then Deputy President of the Senate contested that view and the power of the Speaker to be able to direct a member of parliament to be removed from the building rather than simply from the chamber. As a result of that incident in the House of Representatives on 28 April 1955, the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, moved a motion which was carried without a vote being taken that, in the view of the House, suspension from the service of the House involved exclusion from the chamber and its immediate surroundings, but did not involve deprivation of the other amenities of the building. That means that when honourable members are required to leave the chamber, they are no longer required to leave the building and may still use the amenities of the House. The report that came before the Parliament and on which this legislation is based, outlines the practical reasons why the perimeters of the Parliament ought to be defined. The report referred to the importance of this definition, firstly, because of the law of contempt of parliament; secondly, because of the sale of alcoholic refreshments within the precincts of the Parliament which is exempted from the operation of the licensing laws; thirdly, because of the limitation on the powers of the police operating within the Parliament and its precincts; and finally, because of the application of security arrangements for the Parliament. I wish to make some comments on a couple of those matters. First of all, on the applicability of the law of the land in regard to Parliament House, it is very clear, because of the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which was passed by this Parliament last year, that the ordinary law of the land does apply to Parliament House. There are some celebrated cases in parliamentary history that contested that question in other jurisdictions. In one case, the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons was prosecuted for conducting unlicensed food premises. That prosecution was subsequently dismissed. Secondly, the issue of the police in Parliament House is, as the honourable member for Dundas indicated, one of continuing importance. Honourable members should note that the precise recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House have not been implemented in this Bill, and, for my part, I think there is very good reason for that. It is appropriate that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police have some discretion in the exercise of the power of arrest. In my opinion, it ought not to be left to this Parliament or indeed any member of the Parliament to direct the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions in that matter. Although, as the honourable member for Dobell indicated, there will be no bomb shelter in the new Parliament House, there is to be a new facility which has not existed in this Parliament House, and that is some form of holding room-I will not call it a cell-which, of course, we hope will never be used. The origin of that development and initiative in the new Parliament House is, I understand, the two rooms in the Clock Tower of the House of Commons. I refer to one other matter just to illustrate the difficulty that exists by not having adequate legislation to define the parliamentary precincts. A number of honourable members have indicated that, under the current provisions governing this Parliament House, the side roads separating the Parliament from the gardens, and now the parliamentary annexe, are not included in the parliamentary area. So the odd situation arises that when members of parliament, such as myself, with offices in the annexe hear the division bells, technically we leave the parliamentary precincts when we walk from our offices to answer the call for a division and then re-enter the Parliament to participate in the division. Two other matters I wish to mention concern security and access. I find myself supporting very much the comments of the honourable member for Dobell. To my mind, it is absolutely essential that members continue to have free access to the Ministers of the government of the day. I too would hate to see put in place some artificial arrangements which impeded that access. I also believe that access ought to be allowed to representatives of the media and other people in the same way that the existing Parliament House is free and open to all those who work here. I do not want to say any more because my time is limited. I conclude on the note on which I began: I believe that the Bill plays an important part in enshrining the institution of the Parliament and giving it the sovereign standing that it ought to continue to have in Australian parliamentary democracy. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.53) —in reply-In summing up I will pick up several points that have been made and deal with them succinctly. As has been pointed out, the Parliamentary Precincts Bill defines the precincts of the new Parliament House. This is the first time that a definition of the parliamentary precincts has been enshrined in legislation. The Bill allows for the control and management of the area inside the precincts to be exercised by the Presiding Officers. I turn to the first point raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). Clause 6 covers the management of the area, but it also allows the Presiding Officers to reach agreement with the relevant Minister regarding the exercise of control and management inside the Executive wing. As I said by way of interjection during the debate, in the event of there being no agreement in that area, the answer is quite simple under the clause itself. Obviously, the management and control role of the Presiding Officers will prevail. Therefore, the onus is on the Minister to reach agreement with the Presiding Officers. Clause 6 sets out clearly the power of the Presiding Officers. I come to the honourable member's other point. It is quite obvious that the Executive wing itself is within the precincts of the Parliament. The Bill also allows for certain arrangements to be made between the Presiding Officers and the relevant Ministers as to the operations of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service (APS). As to the issue of who has access to the Executive wing, under clause 9, quite clearly, agreement as to the duties of the APS could cover the issue of access to the Executive wing. I understand that those arrangements are already under way. Of course they would include free access to the Executive wing for members of parliament. In my view, it could be no other way. I agree with the sentiments expressed in that regard by various honourable members who have spoken in the debate. The Bill is quite simple and straightforward. I am very pleased that the Opposition supports it. I am also pleased that both the Government and the Opposition have noted that, for the first time in our history, the precincts of the Parliament are to be defined and that the issue of who controls the area within the precincts is to be settled beyond doubt. Members of this Government and indeed the whole of the Thirty-fifth Parliament can take a moderate degree of pride in being the first parliamentarians since Federation to be involved in providing a statutory basis for the rights of the Parliament itself and those of the Presiding Officers. It has been clear in the past that the Presiding Officers have had jurisdiction, control and management only by virtue of their inherent powers based on custom and usage; in other words, tradition and the need for Parliament to control its own procedures. So for the first time we will have on the statute books a clear definition of the precincts of the Parliament, who controls it and the rights of its members within those precincts. I commend the Bill. I thank Opposition members for their support and sentiments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.00) —I move: Schedule 2, page 6, in the items relating to the Parliament Act 1974, after the item relating to section 3, insert: Section 5: Omit subsection (1), substitute the following subsection: `(1) No building or other work is to be erected on land within the Parliamentary zone unless: (a) if the land is within the precincts as defined by subsection 3 (1) of the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988 the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives jointly have; or (b) in any other case-the Minister has; caused a proposal for the erection of the building or work to be laid before each House of the Parliament and the proposal has been approved by resolution of each House.' This amendment is moved as a consequence of representations made by Madam Speaker. It amends the Parliament Act 1974 to require that a proposal for the erection of a building or work within the parliamentary precincts be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Speaker and the President of the Senate. At present the Parliament Act requires the responsible Minister to lay before both Houses any proposal for the erection of a building or work in the parliamentary zone. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.02) —The Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 amends the principal Act, that is, the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act 1986, to delete provisions requiring a minimum weight of consignments of exported dairy products, or a minimum percentage of dairy products exported in mixtures of product, to be exempt from the product levy on butter and cheese. The reason why those requirements were in the original Act was, as I understand, the belief of the Australian Dairy Corporation at that time that it would be easier administratively not to exempt the small packages from paying the levy. However, the opposite has been found to be the fact-that there is more paper work and greater administrative difficulty. The purpose of this Bill is to make clear and specific that all dairy product exported, irrespective of the weight of the export consignment or the percentage of dairy products, be exempt from the domestic levy on butter and cheese; and that the exemption be retrospective to the date of the introduction of the principal Act, 1 July 1986, when the new dairy arrangements came into place. The amendment was recommended by the Dairy Corporation and, from my communication with the dairy industry, appears to have the support of the industry. If those who administer these exports say that the amendment is sensible, the Opposition parties will support the legislation. The coalition does not generally agree with retrospective legislation. However, when the intent is, as I understand it, to pay a rebate to those who were not, but now are, eligible for the exemption, obviously the amendment will add to all-round equity and should be supported. On the subject of the export of dairy products, to which this Bill relates, it is interesting and encouraging to note that at the present time there is an improvement in the price being paid for a number of our dairy products on the export markets of the world. Two of the product groups that are the subject of international dairy arrangement agreements have increased prices, and we are selling those products well. Discussion on the multilateral trade negotiations, generally called the Uruguay Round, featured at the Agricultural Outlook Conference in Canberra last month. There was particular emphasis on the review of the progress of those negotiations, the first meeting of which, I am informed, will take place on 5 December. However, the reality is that, because of the change of administration in the United States of America, it will probably be April or May next year before any real negotiations will be concluded. Dairy products will be very much a central part of those discussions and that review. That ties in also with the common agricultural policy budget negotiations, which were finalised in Brussels only a couple of weeks ago. What is determined in the European Economic Community (EEC) with regard to support prices and export subsidy arrangements for dairy products has a tremendous impact on the world price of dairy products and, hence, the prosperity of the Australian dairy industry. The electorate I represent, the irrigation area of northern Victoria, is very much a major dairy export manufacturing sector of Australia. Recently I was in the United Kingdom and Brussels. In Brussels I spoke to the EEC people on the two days on which the heads of government hammered out their agreement in the building next door. Much of the discussions I had were related to the dairy industry. I have a number of contacts and friends in the United Kingdom who are dairy farmers. I visited them and spoke to them about how they saw the dairy industry in the United Kingdom and Europe, particularly with regard to their reaction to mechanisms put in place to reduce the surplus production of dairy product in Europe, which has caused so much harm and pain to the market oriented dairy producers of the world, especially those in Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand, and what they believe will happen with dairy production in the EEC in the near future. There appears to be an acceptance that at last the Community has made some decisions which are having some positive effect. To a certain degree that is being seen in the strengthening of some of the dairy product export prices. The same cannot be said about other decisions that were made at the annual review meeting in Brussels. From an Australian point of view, adequate discipline was not applied either in the total level of expenditure available for agricultural support in the budget that was agreed to at 2 a.m. on the Saturday of the two-day meeting, or, particularly, in relation to cereals. The Europeans claim they have embarked on the correct path and that, given time, they will achieve their aims. Australia's problem is that for most products in Europe the producer is receiving somewhere between two or three times the world price. That has various implications for surplus production, for reduced domestic consumption, and further disruption of the international market upon which we depend; not only in the sense of the farmers who so efficiently produce a product and have to meet the world price, but also with regard to Australia's balance of trade, and the standard of living of all Australians. One of the consequences of the European Community's believing that it has made progress with restricting the surplus dairy production is that it will be quite difficult in the Uruguay Round to know what to do about what should happen to international dairy trade. It is adopting a holier than thou attitude and saying, `We have sorted out our dairy problem. We have reduced our production. We will now be looking to Australia, New Zealand and the other dairy exporting countries to do the same'. To us, that is an unbelievable attitude because it is the European Community which caused the problem and it is up to the European Community to solve it. It is like saying, `If I do not beat you quite as hard with this stick, you should thank me and do something to show how grateful you are that I have reduced the rate or the intensity with which I am beating you'. Mr Hollis —A bit like a Victorian. Mr LLOYD —I will come to that later. My message to the honourable member will be reasonable but I think he will want to listen to it because the alternative answer will be bad news for everybody in the domestic dairy industry. The honourable member should remember that I represent more dairy farmers than the combined total in New South Wales and Queensland. One must look at relative significance when one talks about the dairy industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I trust the honourable member will come back to the subject. Mr LLOYD —Yes. The Europeans are talking about international market share. They will not quite agree that that is what they mean but they are really saying, `We are no longer flooding the world with quite so much dairy product. We deserve and we insist that we maintain our product', which really can be maintained only by their export restitutions or subsidies. From an Australian point of view and a genuine international trade point of view, that is insupportable. The Europeans talk about their ability to trade in areas where they are comparatively efficient yet forget all about competitive, comparative or natural advantage when they do not have that advantage themselves. It is very much a one-sided argument. So the negotiations that will be taking place starting at the end of this year-certainly, some of the earlier discussions are already under way and positions are being established and discussed-will be difficult. But I hope that we can achieve a more sensible international trading environment with the EEC in the Uruguay Round by about this time, or a little later, next year. It should not be forgotten that that is not the only important international factor affecting our ability to export and the price we achieve for those dairy exports at present. The United States of America has just successfully challenged Japan in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) on a range of processed agricultural products. That covers processed cheese, processed meat products, fruit juices, sauces, et cetera-quite a range. The United States, fed up with Japan's intransigent attitude towards accepting imports but wanting to export, took Japan to the GATT and won. In the discussions that have taken place some of the Japanese are being forced to yield in the sense of having to provide a procedure for greater access. That is both an opportunity and a danger for our dairy exports. At present we export natural cheese to Japan and it is processed in Japan for distribution and consumption on the Japanese market. This decision could mean that that export market for Australian natural cheese will no longer be there because processed cheese will be significantly imported. Therefore, it is of the highest priority that we maintain all the pressure that we can on Japan to ensure that we gain equal access-that is, fair access-for these 10 agricultural products, including at least that one dairy product, and of course the even more significant one of beef, with the renegotiation of the four-year agreement, theoretically from 1 April onwards but really later in the year because a six-month extension of existing quotas has been put in place in the meantime. It is tremendously important for Australia to ensure that any greater access for agricultural products to the Japanese market, and this includes dairy products, is available equally to Australia as to the United States. The United States is applying tremendous pressure. A range of its senior negotiators, Ministers, et cetera are visiting Japan, and we have to do the same. In talking about the future of our dairy industry, New Zealand looms large in that future. It does so in two ways: New Zealand has a 75,000- tonne butter quota into the EEC at present and that will be renegotiated later this year for implementation next year. The message from Europe is that that quota will be reduced, which has two effects. One is that, because of the pooling or equalisation arrangements in New Zealand, the very high price that the dairy farmers of New Zealand receive for that tonnage is spread across all of their production, which means that they can marginally price other dairy products into other markets such as Australia. Secondly, if there is a reduction in access to Europe, that butter will be looking for a home somewhere else, and that will be in competition with Australian exports. The second point in relation to New Zealand and the future of the dairy industry is closer economic relations. I quote from a recent statement by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, (Mr Kerin) when he announced that the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) will be undertaking yet another investigation or inquiry into the dairy industry. He said that the review would be restricted `to the efficacy of the current arrangements in meeting their objective-a gradual reduction in assistance, consistent with the industry's ability to adjust, to enable it to compete with undumped, unsubsidised products from New Zealand. This would include an examination of whether the current level of market support provides fair import competition and of the future of the product levy after 31 December 1989'. The importance of that IAC investigation and the date of the end of 1989 reinforces the point that I and others have tried to make over the past few months-and which the Minister initially denied, although I feel he cannot deny it any more with that date very clearly there-that from 1990 there will be an upsurge of dairy products from New Zealand available, or able to enter Australia. The only proviso will be this issue of fair undumped competition. Once again the question of the EEC butter quota and other forms of assistance such as the writing off of about $600m or $700m of assistance to the industry from loans or grants must be taken into account; otherwise it will be terribly unfair on the Australian dairy farmer. But the race is on. The pressure is on the Australian dairy industry. What was to be first of all a memorandum of understanding in relation to controlling or limiting the exports of New Zealand dairy products to Australia, with no timetable on change to that memorandum-this is what was negotiated by the previous coalition Government in 1980-was changed by this present Government to a phasing out of that memorandum to allow more open competition from New Zealand by 1995, which has now suddenly been brought back to 1990. That is most unfair on the dairy industry and it puts tremendous pressure on the domestic price arrangements for that industry. There are two dairy industries in Australia. There is the manufacturing industry which is subject to Federal legislation through the export powers, and there is the market milk, or city milk, industry particularly in the major cities with the exception of Victoria. Victoria had contracts, or quotas, for milk production and the sale of milk guaranteeing milk deliveries to Melbourne until 11 or 12 years ago. I give credit to Ian Smith, the then State Minister for Agriculture in Victoria, who introduced a scheme whereby over 10 years the owners of those contracts would be compensated as those contracts were phased out. The remaining dairy farmers in Victoria contributed a small levy to pay for that compensation because they were going to gain by the abolition of those quotas or contracts. Victoria now has an arrangement whereby the price mechanism is used to ensure that there is a more than adequate milk supply for Melbourne and the other cities of Victoria for 12 months of the year. Victoria manages this very easily. Victoria makes up shortfalls in New South Wales at certain times of the year. The price mechanism and seasonal milking enable Victoria to handle this well. It is more sensible to milk cows through winter, spring or autumn, or whatever period it may be as it means that the efficiency of production is better, the cost of production is lower and the dairy farmers have a better life because they can have a holiday. There is a time of the year when they do not milk. Because of what is happening in the United Kingdom, some dairy farmers there are starting to think about doing something similar to what the Victorians are doing. The problem of having two industries within one industry is unique to the dairy industry. I cannot think of any other industry in Australia which is still treated as though Federation had not come about. For many years after Federation it did not matter because there was not the technology to allow the transportation of fresh milk to any great distance. That ceased to be the case with refrigerated bulk milk tanks about 20 to 25 years ago. Now there is the technology and ability to transport milk in very good condition over considerable distances. Now that this Government has indicated that there will be greater pressure on the domestic dairying industry after 1990 because of New Zealand we have something approaching a crisis situation. We have to try to resolve this internal problem in the dairy industry, particularly in the eastern States where this problem really bites. Unless the dairy industry in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia can work out something which is sensible, and which provides equity for all dairy farmers in those parts of Australia, if there is increased competition from New Zealand, a most damaging situation could develop. Any greater competitive pressure-because of increased competition from New Zealand-on Australian manufactured dairy products sold in Australia, will be responded to by dairy farmers ensuring that the hitherto protected sectors of the industry-that is the market milk sectors, particularly in Sydney and Brisbane-are forced to share the burden with the remainder of the industry. When I talk about those sectors of the dairy industry based on the manufacturing sector, I am not just referring to those in Victoria; I am also referring to parts of New South Wales-just across the river and probably other places-and parts of Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. The dairy industry has to accelerate its discussions, its negotiations and its accommodation so that we can have a sensible plan in place by 1990 which will mean that all dairy farmers will not only gain from a more stable domestic industry which can meet outside competition, but also will share the burden that will come with it. I hope that we have an orderly transfer. I am not a supporter, and I believe the great majority of Victorians and other manufactured milk dairy farmers are not supporters, of the approach of `ship it over the border and let it rip; let us have a price war' because nobody wins from that attitude. If Victorian and other dairy farmers in the manufactured milk sector, that sector which does not have quotas any longer, are to gain they should pay some form of compensation for those dairy farmers who have had, with every expectation of continuing to receive, some capital value and protection through quotas. I believe that the Victorian method of doing this is worth serious consideration. If we can make some progress some of the unfortunate possibilities post-1990 will not occur. It means that what was considered only six months ago to be a time scale of about eight or nine years is now back to less than three years. That means that there is no use in quota holders saying that they do not want to negotiate or some of the wilder people in the southern States saying, `Let's pour it over the border to make them negotiate'. I hope that we can recognise what has to be done and get on with it. My final point is that the dairy industry was quite rightly outraged when the Government in a recent Budget put a sales tax of 10 per cent on flavoured milk. It has interfered with consumption patterns for dairy products and it has, along with fruit juice, unfairly isolated two forms of food to be taxed, with the repercussions and inequities that brings with it, unlike all other forms of food that people have the ability to buy. There are rumours at present that that sales tax will be increased to 20 per cent in the May mini-Budget either because of pressure from soft drink manufacturers who already pay, I think, 20 per cent, or because the Government believes it needs to raise more money for its Budget rather than reduce its budgetary expenditure. I make the point to the dairy industry that any criticism that it may have in relation to the issue of sales tax on flavoured milk should be directed fairly and squarely at this Government which brought in the tax. If the tax is increased, criticism should again be directed to the Government that introduced the tax and not to any of the Opposition parties. This measure was initiated and has been carried by this Government. The Opposition has played no part in it at all. We do not believe in the imposition of a sales tax on food items such as flavoured milk or pure fruit juice. I hope the Government has more sense than to increase that sales tax from 10 per cent to 20 per cent in the mini-Budget. I say to the dairy industry that it should direct its ire where it should be directed and that is at the Labor Government. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.30) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in this debate. This Parliament has a number of members who are closely associated with the dairy industry and the honourable member is one of them. He showed in what he said that he has a great deal of expertise. This side of the House has the benefit of the advice of a number of people who are associated with the industry. My colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is the son of a dairy farming family. The fact that his opponent in the 1983 elections failed to compete with him in a milking contest contributed to his first being elected to this place. Certainly, the honourable member has made a great contribution in this House to debates on the dairy industry. So, too, has the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who is a dairy farmer from Victoria. The honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), whom I sit next to in this chamber, the honourable member for Throsby and the honourable member for McMillan have all come from and are experts on the dairy industry. One of the benefits that this House has when considering dairy industry legislation is the expertise that is available to it. I agree with the honourable member for Murray when he says that the industry must establish a workable, rational solution to the present problems of interstate trade. But I point out that some of the problems are due to the fact that there is deep resentment among people who are paying the all milk levy which they believe is still being transferred to Victoria. For instance, the Bega Co-operative Society Ltd is paying an all milk levy which is being transferred to Victoria. In addition, the Bega Co-operative is forced to compete in the Sydney market against firms such as the Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd, which is absorbing that levy. It is no wonder that the Bega dairy farmers are saying, `Here we are paying out a levy to farmers who are using it to discount prices in Sydney'. This is a cause of a lot of the problems. I welcome the fact that the industry and members of this House are trying to recognise this problem. It is particularly difficult for dairy farmers in New South Wales to accept the present arrangements when firms such as Bonlac Foods Ltd and Murray Goulburn are doing fairly well in and making high profits from the export market. I think it can be clearly established that the industry in Bega is very competitive. I was looking at a 1976 survey on the average cost of production per litre of milk, which I do not think has varied a lot since then. This survey showed that, at $11.71 the Bega area had the lowest cost per litre in New South Wales. The highest cost, at $22.16, was incurred by dairy farmers producing in the Sydney area. The Australian dairy industry has much to be proud of. More recently, in 1984, it was shown that, based on average weekly earnings, it took 4.9 minutes work to earn the purchase price of one litre of milk. It was also shown that it took 6.7 minutes in the United Kingdom and 8.6 minutes in Japan. It was also established that it took 21.4 minutes for consumers to earn the purchase price of one kilogram of butterfat in Australia. By comparison, it took 34.7 minutes in the United Kingdom and 53.6 minutes in Japan. So, the industry is efficient overall. What is needed is for the industry to come together. There have been too many divisions between and sometimes even grandstanding by members of the industry. I guess they need to be reminded that we policy makers, as we are in this Parliament, are more strict on a divided industry than we are on ourselves. They cannot afford to come to us divided. So many industries have learned that. I believe that the dairy industry will come to terms with that fact. When it does, and as it does, we will find the sort of workable, rational solution that the honourable member for Murray talked about. I conclude by briefly mentioning the strict purpose of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. The Government has decided to delete subsections 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act to eliminate the weight and dairy produce content constraints. The result will be that any amount of butter and cheese exported in a mixture will qualify for dairy exemption. This followed the realisation that the cost of administration of the minimum weight limit outweighed the benefit derived from the exclusion. In addition, the limit discriminates against a manufacturer who exports a large amount of butter or cheese in a small consignment compared with one who exports small amounts in large consignments. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) on the Bill and particularly on his willingness to work with the dairy industry so closely and directly, as he has done since long before he came to office. I think this is the reason why so many of our primary industries recognise and appreciate the co- operation of the Minister. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(5.36) —In following the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), I begin my speech by quoting from the address given last month by Mr Gibson, the Managing Director of the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC), to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference. In beginning his address, he said-and I think this puts the whole dairy industry into perspective: Over the past 10 years the Australian dairy industry has witnessed one of the most intense restructuring periods in its history. I think this sums up some of the difficulties that have been faced by the dairy industry. The dairy industry, more than any other industry in Australia, has faced up to and has gone ahead with restructuring despite the intense hardship that this has caused so many people, To get some idea of that intense hardship, one need go back only as far as the opening speech made by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) at the Outlook Conference when he said that in his time he has seen the number of dairy farmers shrink from 60,000 when he first went into farming to somewhat fewer than 18,000 today. That huge reduction is still continuing. In fact, it is estimated that 1,000 dairy farmers left the industry only last year. I want to cover briefly three areas of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. I want to look at the legislation; I want to say a little bit about the outlook, which the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) covered in some depth; and I want to take up another point that the honourable member for Murray spoke about, and that is the need to look more at rational sourcing. Before I go too far, it is interesting to note that in his speech to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference the Minister made reference to the fact that there is some need for further restructuring of the dairy industry. In the light of the number of dairy farmers who have left the industry in the last 20 years, this statement obviously must cause some concern to many of the dairy farmers who are still in the industry. The Minister said that he had commissioned a review of all of his policies and programs. He made some reference to the fact that some of the arrangements and programs that relate to the dairy industry go back to the 1930s. So, it is quite clear that the message is that the Minister will continue to look at this industry. Obviously, all of us will be watching very closely to ensure that he does this in the fairest manner possible. I would like to make another point, which I think is extremely significant, about the Minister's address to the Outlook Conference. It is all very well for him to talk about the need for restructuring in various primary industries, particularly the dairy industry which is the subject of the legislation we are dealing with at the moment. I would like to know whether he is going to insist that other members of the Cabinet who are responsible for other industries be prepared to take the same sort of medicine. In other words, are other industries prepared to face the same sort of restructuring as the dairy industry has been prepared, and is continuing to be prepared, to look at? We also have to look at what sort of restructuring the Minister really has in mind. At the Outlook Conference the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics pointed out that the dairy industry can face the future with cautious optimism. In fact, the Bureau expects the price of manufacturing milk to rise in the coming year by about 6 per cent, which will be, hopefully, about the same level as inflation. The forecast was fairly heavily qualified on the premise that the current marketing arrangements do not break down, which is a fairly big question mark, and that the closer economic relationship with New Zealand will not lead to rapid growth in imports from New Zealand when the memorandum of understanding is no longer in place. I shall return to those two points later, but first I should like to quickly consider the Bill. As has been pointed out, the Bill makes changes to exemptions from the dairy produce levy. Butter and cheese that was going overseas in small amounts were not exempt from the levy previously, the reason being that it was felt that there would be too much paperwork. Clearly, the ADC has realised that that is not so and that it would be much fairer just to allow a total exemption. As has been pointed out by the Minister, the financial impact of this is not expected to be anything at all. Obviously, this exemption will make matters much fairer for all those exporting cheese or butter. In the Quarterly Review of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) of December 1987, it was forecast that domestic milk production would rise from 6,172 megalitres in 1986-87 to 6,250 megalitres in 1987-88, and it is expected to reach 6,500 megalitres by 1992-93. Obviously, unless the market is expanding, domestically or overseas, this could create a few problems. The BAE, in that review and at the Outlook Conference, warns very clearly about the prospects of a market breakdown on interstate trading or an increase in imports from New Zealand. As the honourable member for Murray has pointed out, the changes to the closer economic relations situation are of extreme concern to dairy farmers. Until late last year, it was understood that the memorandum of understanding would be in place until about 1995. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on his visit, accelerated the move towards a freer market. There is now less than three years for the dairy industry to get itself into a situation in which it can withstand competition from New Zealand. That raises a very interesting point; it is one at which the Minister ought to be looking very closely. It would appear to some in the industry that the Government is prepared to throw the Australian and New Zealand dairy industries into the Colosseum and let them slug it out. Rather than having conflict, they should be trying to co-operate, first, in the Australia/New Zealand situation, but, more importantly, in developing joint export markets, because there are always opportunities there. Looking at the world situation, it is worth reminding honourable members that it is very hard to draw any real comparisons in world export prices of dairy products. The world export market has always been a dumping ground for many other countries, and that continues to be the case. The fact is that Australians enjoy dairy product prices which are at most only 60 per cent of what the rest of the world pays, and in many cases they are much cheaper than that. The situation in the European Economic Community (EEC), for example, has reached an absurd point. Because the price is maintained at such an artificially high level, EEC stocks of butter have reached such a level that at times the only way the EEC could reduce the stockpiles was to recycle old stockpiles of butter back through cows-in other words, feeding butter to cows. That is the absurd situation that has been reached. On the question of exports, as the honourable member for Murray pointed out, it is extremely important that the Government continue to work on trade negotiations, because this is the one area that offers real hope for expanding our export markets. The Uruguay Round negotiations and the pressure we can put on the EEC should be kept up. Without doing that sort of thing we shall fall further behind in trying to maintain our balance of payments. The honourable member for Murray also touched on a point on which I wish to expand a little-the question of rational sourcing of fresh milk. It is interesting to note that the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria has produced a very interesting paper on rational sourcing. What gives the paper a lot of weight is the fact that it cites many figures that were produced by the old Bureau of Agricultural Economics, now the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. As has been pointed out in this paper, if there can be an orderly move-the key word is `orderly'-to more rational sourcing, there is a very strong case to be shown, and a very interesting case, that the cost to many New South Wales dairy farmers will be negligible. It is interesting to look at the rationale behind this paper. One sees that because New South Wales dairy farmers who supply to the city milk markets have to supply for 12 months of the year, their costs of production are naturally a lot higher. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to incorporate in Hansard two tables of figures which appear in this paper. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1.0 CASH COSTS ON A CENTS PER LITRE MILK BASIS Vic. NSW Sth Qld SA WA Tas. Livestock Purchases ... 0.64 0.54 0.36 0.50 0.87 0.50 Hired Labour ... 0.30 1.25 1.84 0.56 0.40 0.67 Total Fodder ... 0.75 4.46 4.41 2.96 2.31 0.11 Fertiliser ... 0.91 1.02 1.89 1.74 0.66 1.40 Fuel and Oil ... 0.94 1.08 1.35 1.05 1.14 1.00 Total materials ... 4.86 9.49 11.16 8.88 7.21 4.66 Adim (Electricity) ... 1.01 1.61 1.89 1.40 2.19 0.92 Milk Freight ... 0.12 2.23 1.42 0.00 0.12 0.92 Motor Vehicles ... 0.30 0.48 0.42 0.52 0.37 0.48 Repairs and Maintenance ... 1.30 1.71 2.18 2.17 1.69 1.23 Rates and Taxes ... 0.72 0.59 0.38 1.11 0.87 0.29 Total Services ... 3.45 6.77 5.98 5.61 5.35 2.99 Rent ... 0.16 0.78 0.11 0.28 0.20 0.13 Interest ... 2.45 1.56 2.54 1.31 3.21 1.83 Payment to Sharefarmer ... 0.60 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.24 Total Cash Costs ... 12.64 20.44 21.95 17.07 17.92 10.91 Net Depreciation ... 2.57 2.57 3.54 3.75 1.46 2.70 Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics Table 2.0 Comparison of Farm Cash Operating Surplus Assuming a Nine Month Market Milk Quota System NSW Riverina Queensland Production Litres ... 304 058 353 300 235 000% Milk $/lr. ... $0.343 $0.343 $0.391% Man. $/lr.** ... $0.170 $0.170 $0.170% Current Market Share- Market ... 63.0 %...44.0 %...47.0% Manf're ... 37.0 %...56.0 %...53.0% Market (litres) ... 191 557 155 452 110 450% Manf're (litres) ... 112 501 197 848 124 550% Market Milk Rev. ... $65,704 $53,320 $43,142% Manf're Revenue ... $19,125 $33,634 $21,174% Current Receipts ... $84,829 $86,954 $64,315% Market ... 47.3 %...33.0 %...35.3% Manf're ... 52.8 %...67.0 %...64.8% Market (litres) ... 143 667 116 589 82 838% Manf're (litres) ... 160 391 236 711 152 163% Market Milk Rev. ... $48,402 $39,990 $27,908% Manf're Revenue ... $27,266 $40,241 $25,868% Proposed Receipts ... $75,668 $80,231 $53,776% Change in Receipts ... $9,161 $6,723 $10,540% Vat Costs per Litre ... 0.3 0.3 0.3% Income per Litre ... 3.0 1.9 4.5% Cents/Litre ... 3.3 2.2 4.8% Other Receipts *** ... $13,080 $10,832 $15,340% Current Costs 7% ... $68,127 $68,106 $55,068% Cents per Litre ... 22.4 19.3 23.4% Current Surplus ... $29,782 $29,681 $24,588% Production Costs ... $58,054 $60,322 $43,823% Annual Vat Costs ... $912 $1,060 $705% Cents per Litre ... 19.1 17.1 18.6% Proposed Surplus ... $29,782 $29,681 $24,588% *** Costs Change ... 14.8 %...11.4 %...20.4% *** UDV estimates *** BAE Farm Surveys Report 1985-86 Current Costs increased by 7.0% *** 1985-86 costs ... $63,670 $63,650 $51,465 The estimated level of cost increases is sourced from the BAE's index of prices received to prices paid. (Sept. 87 Quarterly Review) Mr HAWKER —I thank the House. The tables demonstrate clearly that by allowing a more efficient use of pastures and by allowing milk production to be tailored in New South Wales areas to the point at which they are at maximum efficiency-in other words, rather than having to produce milk for 12 months of the year, tailoring production to the best seasonal arrangements-the cost of production can be reduced to roughly the same amount as the additional revenue that is gained by supplying that city milk market for 12 months of the year. It is a very interesting concept. It is something at which I hope the Minister will look very closely, because the arguments here are rather persuasive. Obviously, New South Wales dairy farmers feel a little threatened by this and they have shown that despite the fact that there is an agreement between New South Wales and Victoria for Victoria to supply 3 per cent of the whole milk market currently, increasing by one per cent over the next two years to up to 5 per cent, the arrangement has currently reached a position of stalemate, where the agreement is falling apart. In table 1 we see the comparison of the cash costs per litre of producing milk in various States. I take Victoria and New South Wales for this example. We find that the cash costs are estimated by the BAE at 12.64c per litre in Victoria, whereas in New South Wales to produce a litre of milk the cash cost is estimated to be 20.44c-an increase of almost 8c per litre, which is a quite significant amount. When one works through those figures and looks at table 2 and the costs of production, one finds that if the New South Wales dairy farmers, on average, were to move to the more efficient usage of pasture and if they had to rely less on supplementary feeding, while receipts would fall because a greater percentage of their milk would go to manufacturing and less would go direct to the whole milk market, the net returns, according to these figures, which are based on BAE surveys and figures, by and large would be the same. It is a very interesting paper, and I hope that it will be the subject of much more discussion. There is no doubt that the figures show clearly that there is a very strong case for a more rational sourcing of whole milk in the eastern States. It is important to take up the point made by the honourable member for Murray that the pressure is on the industry to come up with some sort of agreement on whole milk rational sourcing. The pressure obviously is coming from the closer economic relationship with New Zealand. The point I really want to make about this is that I expect the Minister has looked very closely at this paper on these arguments. I expect that he has analysed them carefully and that he will be looking to take a statesmanlike role in trying to help the States come to some agreement on how they might move towards this transition. The other side of the coin is that if we can reduce the costs of production in New South Wales there will be an opportunity to reduce the price of dairy products to the consumer, which would always be attractive. As has been mentioned, the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. We believe it to be a sensible arrangement. Even though it contains an almost total degree of retrospectivity, in this case it is a very sensible retrospectivity and quite clearly will help the Australian Dairy Corporation to run more efficiently the export of small amounts of cheese and butter. The Minister has a very great responsibility to the dairy industry. He has set the industry on a course where it has the opportunity to be competitive with New Zealand. Nonetheless, there are still some teething problems, particularly on the question of the whole milk market, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland. It will require a very skilful bit of statesmanship by the Minister to ensure that the whole milk marketing arrangements as they currently exist do not break down so that we get a wholesale milk war between Victoria and New South Wales. Through serious negotiation, particularly with the Minister taking the role of arbitrator, there is a very real chance that this matter can be sorted out sensibly and with the minimum disruption to the industry. There is no doubt that if this does not happen there could be some very serious implications that no-one in this House would like to see. There is also a very important role for the Minister to play in continuing to work with the New Zealand dairy industry to ensure that there is not a cut-throat war between our industries. If we can avoid that conflict and maintain a sensible trading relationship between the two countries, there will be a real opportunity for both Australia and New Zealand to work together in developing new export markets throughout South East Asia. In conclusion, the Minister has a very important role to play in the coming years-or for as long as he is there, which may not be that long-in the future of this industry which has already undergone massive restructuring over the last 30 years. The number of people involved in dairy farming is down to less then one-third of what it was in the 1950s. The Minister has a huge responsibility and we would be very disappointed to see him shirk it. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.53) —I am pleased to speak on the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill as, indeed, I am always pleased to speak in the chamber on the Australian dairy industry. After listening to the introduction from my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), I wish that my speech had been a little longer. I will not detain the House for very long with my comments because most of the points have already been covered. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro gave a list of members on the Government side who, in his view, had made a contribution to the debate and had supported the dairy industry. Modestly, he omitted his own sterling contribution. Those of us who know him well and have seen him in action know the tremendous support he has always given to the dairy industry. Another person he omitted to mention, I suppose understandably, is the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who is at the table and who assures me that he has four dairy farmers in his electorate. I believe he represents them very well. Long may he continue to do so and may he get a few more dairy farmers in his area. As has been said, the Bill amends some sections of the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act. But this has already been gone into at some length by other speakers so I will not again detail the aspects in this legislation which are of a rather technical nature. I am pleased that the Opposition is welcoming the retrospective aspects of the Bill. Perhaps it could look a little carefully at a few other retrospective aspects of legislation. Nevertheless we welcome its support for this aspect. As both the preceding speakers on the Opposition side have indicated, there is no basic disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. I have no real argument with what those speakers for the Opposition said. I also make the point that, like the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), I am not happy about the tax on flavoured milk. Mr Hawker —Say that again. Mr HOLLIS —I am not. I have told my farmers that. I understand why the tax was put there but I am not happy about it. Just because one is on the Government's side does not mean that one has to slavishly agree with everything. I will support the tax, though, because I understand why it is there. As would members opposite, I would also be concerned if the tax were increased. Obviously the tax would be increased only if there were good reason for it to be increased. Nevertheless, I would be opposed to it. I will make some general comments about the dairy industry. We have all watched with interest the developments in the industry over recent years and, indeed, sometimes with alarm. Disruptions over the last couple of years and arguments about interstate milk have not helped the industry. In my view, the greatest threat to the industry will come from the New Zealanders. I will go back to that later. I also have no disagreement with what the honourable member for Murray said about the Europeans. As I interjected at that time, his catalogue of sins against the Europeans, to some of us, is rather like the catalogue of sins that we could draw up against some of the Victorian producers. Mr Lloyd —We are all in the one country. Mr HOLLIS —I know we are all in the one country. I wish that some of the milk producers-but not all-in Victoria would realise that. I support the call for a rational approach to dairying and milk production in Europe. In New South Wales we have an efficient industry. Over the years it has been restructured and the number of farmers has decreased, whereas in Victoria the number of farmers has increased. When looking at the New South Wales liquid milk market, I can understand the alarm with which farmers in my electorate see this, because they have built up their industry over the years and theirs is a natural area to supply the Sydney milk market. I will study with great interest the tables produced by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). But I would hardly expect the source of those papers to be exactly sympathetic to the New South Wales case. I think the honourable member would at least concede this point. He would hardly expect those people to put an argument for the New South Wales dairy farmers. We all use the old saying that statistics can be used to prove anything. New Zealand looms large on the horizon for the Australian dairy industry. It is the greatest threat to our dairy farmers. I have also found with New Zealanders that in most things they are involved in, they will aggressively market their product. We have to consider this in marketing our own dairy produce. We have to more aggressively market, especially throughout Asia. I remember saying in a speech a couple of months ago that I believe by agreement with Qantas Airways Ltd and other people we could get some of our products, such as short shelf life products, into the markets of Asia. It will take a lot of money because someone will have to go there and provide the refrigeration and, of course, we will have to be able to guarantee a stable supply of these short shelf life products. Mr Hawker —You need a bit of irradiation. Mr HOLLIS —No, not necessarily. We could base the sale of our product on the absence of that and the freshness of the product and we could quickly get it onto the markets of Asia. However, my great worry has always been, with the New Zealand threat coming up, that the States have proven that they cannot get their act together. If we cannot get our act together how can we fight the threat coming from New Zealand? The honourable member for Murray talked about sharing the burden. Let me assure him that farmers in the Throsby electorate certainly share the burden by paying the levy. They did not like it when it was introduced. They fought against it and argued against it, nevertheless they saw the rationale behind it and for the good of the industry they pay the levy. I believe they share that burden. I do not want to see a price war develop between the States. It has been said many times that no one will win from a price war or a milk war between the States. My electorate of Throsby includes one of the most productive dairying areas of the Commonwealth. I cannot claim to have as many farmers in my electorate as the honourable member for Murray. He told me he has more farmers in his electorate than the total in New South Wales and Queensland. Mr Lloyd —More dairy farmers. Mr HOLLIS —More dairy farmers, yes. Undoubtedly, they all vote for him. I do not know whether the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) would agree with me but I think the dairy farmers in my electorate would vote for me. Mr Kerin —Better quality. Mr HOLLIS —There are better quality dairy farmers in the Throsby electorate. Producers in the area have geared themselves for year-round production to service the discerning New South Wales liquid milk market. They have done this with distinction for a long time. The Shoalhaven Dairy Co-op Ltd, which the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy had the pleasure of visiting with me recently, is the major co-op in my electorate. It recently invested $8m in a new plant at Bomaderry which is capable of effectively handling the produce of its members into the foreseeable future. Besides handling milk on behalf of the New South Wales Dairy Corporation it manufactures a range of short shelf life products under the `Nowra' brand for distribution throughout the south-east region of the State. I would like to see the co-op distributing it further than the south-east region. It is one of the groups I want to see more aggressively investigate the possibility of getting some of these short shelf life products onto the markets of Asia. As well, this co-op is a processor of condensed milk for the retail and industrial markets. This co-op is a progressive company which, besides processing its members' products, has developed a range of subsidiary operations aimed at serving its members and the wider community. These people and others like them have invested a lot of money in dairying. It is up to us to provide the environment necessary to ensure that the faith of such investors is not misplaced. When the honourable member for Wannon was producing his figures from United Dairyfarmers of Victoria, he spoke about the necessity to get the best seasonal return from the dairy farmers. Of course, this is often the crux of the argument between the New South Wales farmers and the Victorian farmers, because New South Wales farmers produce year-round milk. The consumers in New South Wales have a guaranteed year-round supply of high quality milk. The worry of the people in New South Wales is that if the gates were opened and the Victorians were allowed to come in with all their milk, in spring and summer we would have very cheap milk and a very plentiful supply of milk-indeed, we would have an oversupply of milk. But we are not worried about spring and summer; we are worried about autumn and winter, because we fear that with seasonal production whatever milk was available during autumn and winter would be very expensive and we suspect that often milk would not be available. The honourable member for Murray shakes his head. I will have a look at the figures-- Mr Lloyd —We produce far more milk in winter than New South Wales does, at a cheaper price. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member says that. Nevertheless this is the worry that farmers in my area have and it is a worry I share. We would have a plentiful supply of milk in spring and summer and no milk in winter, and what milk we had would be very expensive. The dairy farmers in New South Wales, at no small cost to themselves, rationalised their industry. They went through a difficult period a few years back and they are not going to stand by idly and see the industry that they have so carefully built up over the years destroyed. Honourable members spoke about an equitable return, and equity within the industry. That is what we want. We want to join with our Victorian cousins but we are not going to lie down and let the Victorians take from us what we have worked so hard to achieve. Mr Barry Jones —You are getting parochial now. Mr HOLLIS —There is nothing parochial about my approach to this industry, as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy would confirm. I believe there is a good future for the Australian dairy industry. Of course, there will be changes within the industry. We have to watch the New Zealanders very carefully and get our act together to resist their attempts, because no doubt they will attempt to take over the industry here. We have to market more aggressively our whole range of dairy products, especially those short shelf life products and especially throughout the Asian markets. I conclude my remarks by congratulating the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for the excellent job he is doing for the dairy farmers and the rural people of Australia and I commend the Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(6.08) —in reply-Several honourable members who have spoken have urged that I adopt a statesman-like role. I think the best parameter by which I can judge that statesmanship has been evidenced by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). Like him, I once had the pleasure of representing dairy farmers in some of the areas he now represents. I am not quite sure of electorate boundaries but I am sure he represents the dairy farmers in Jamberoo, Kiama, Jaspers Brush, Meroo Meadow, Berry, Bomaderry, Kangaroo Valley and Nowra. Mr Hollis —Indeed. Mr KERIN —He represents all those people-and a fine collection of people they are. There is no opposition from the other side of the House to what is basically a technical and administrative matter. I make the point that many honourable members have referred to both the manufacturing and marketing of milk. I say plainly that it would be a tragedy if the Government in New South Wales were to change and the National Party got hold of the New South Wales industry. The fact is that the delicate situation we now have, the fragile compact as I describe it, that has the potential to move the rational sourcing of milk, may evaporate overnight. The National Party policy in New South Wales refers only to market milk. On other products it simply says that it will set up an agency within the Department of Agriculture to dispose of agricultural products. The cutting edge of the debate in the industry is the New South Wales versus Victoria matter. The Victorian Government has in place legislation which makes that situation manageable. I believe that there is a large measure of understanding between the two governments. Of course, we understand the reality that dairy industry leaders, representing their industries, at times make things difficult. Here again, I must say that under the leadership of Pat Rowley we have those outbreaks in which people make statements that are not always too helpful quietened. However, the industry is working through the present marketing arrangements and progress is being made. I will not revisit the whole dairy debate, but there are matters that are self-evident in the structure of this industry. Victoria and Tasmania can produce milk comparatively better than many other parts of the continent. I will not make too many comparisons because there are areas in the various States that also produce efficiently-that is granted. We should comment on the fact that many good things are happening. There is a lot more product diversification; co-operatives are amalgamating; new money is entering the industry at various levels; and people are applying their minds to the fact that we need to be in a lot better situation some years down the track. As honourable members know, the plan we have in place for the industry expires in 1992 and there is a mid-term review of the marketing arrangements now before the Industries Assistance Commission. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), claimed that closer economic relations (CER) will be brought forward to 1990 and that the industry will be under pressure from New Zealand even sooner. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that general announcement during his visit to New Zealand he was really referring to whether we could look at all matters-matters such as services, intellectual property and so on-in the 1988 review which had been set down for some time, with a view to bringing forward some of the other dates. When the Cabinet discussed this, the particular circumstances of the sugar, tobacco and dairy industries were taken into account. While the honourable member for Murray makes this point, which is generally true, the fact remains that access will depend on industry to industry negotiations under the memorandum of understanding which is still current. The industries themselves-or the Australian side of them-are in contact with me and I believe that they will have a key role to play. The honourable member has urged acceleration in negotiations to handle events from 1990-largely, I think that will be from 1992-and I take the point that we want orderly transition. Some of the views coming from Victoria, which the honourable member endorses, are very sensible. He also raised the question of sales tax on flavoured milk. I make the point that, in the review of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of business taxation, none of those matters will come under scrutiny. Basically, the rationalisation of the taxation schedules that took place some time ago means that there are now two schedules of 10 per cent and 20 per cent, with a few luxury items being taxed at 30 per cent. This has resolved what we saw as the relevant anomalies in that area. Of course, other people now claim that we have created other anomalies, but there has been a rationalisation and I believe that these matters are now in place. Mr Lloyd —I was actually referring to the mini-Budget and fears about a mini-Budget increase. Mr KERIN —Yes, I was referring to that too. I point out that people from the ice-cream manufacturing industry recently came to me saying that they paid a very high price for their input. They claimed that the sales tax of 10 per cent on their product together with the drop from 20 per cent to 10 per cent in the tax on confectionery, had created a particular disadvantage for them. Here was an anomaly, but they in turn were critical of the price they paid for milk on the domestic market. There are always people who have a different axe to grind, as it were, and that is a very good reason why there should be stability in these taxation rates. The Government is trying to get that stability. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) asked what I had in mind for the review of the industries. That will be known some time down the track. The review is about development and about trying to target our directions. We have identified several directions since we have been in government-more emphasis on marketing and research. I believe that we need to give more attention to human resources in agriculture in order to try to equip people better for handling some of the difficult financial and management decisions they have to face. We know from the problems that have been encountered, particularly among specialist cereal growers, that there is a need in many areas for farmers to be better equipped. We are not looking just at that; we are looking at the whole range of industries across my portfolio and deciding the direction in which we should go. That is the whole rationale for the mega-Ministries, the super-Ministries, and for the structural adjustment committee of the Cabinet to look ahead rather than be obsessed with day-to-day administration of Acts and Bills. The honourable member for Wannon also asked whether I was urging my Cabinet colleagues to do the same in other industries. The simple answer is yes. It will be well known, with the Press speculation, that we are looking at the question of secondary industry protection across the board. The honourable member for Wannon, the honourable member for Throsby and others said that the Australian and New Zealand industries should work together on the whole question of CER, and I can only concur in that view. The New Zealanders have put it to us that if there were to be cross-ownership between dairy companies across the Tasman it would be one way of taking a lot of the tension out of the industry. We cannot stop commercial forces; anything that happens in that light must happen in the context of the memorandum of understanding and what is negotiated between the relevant industries. It has also been suggested that I take a leading role in CER negotiations. Regardless of who goes to New Zealand, I will ensure that I am well and truly involved. Probably the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) will go because he handles most of the generic areas in the trade role. I will be well and truly involved in the area of specialist commodities. I thank all honourable members who took part in the debate. They have urged me to take a statesmanlike role; I will think about that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business for Thursday morning, 17 March 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 15 March 1988. I have written to all honourable members today outlining the program of private members' business on Thursday, 17 March. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 17 March 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee and delegation reports There is no business relating to committee or delegation reports for Thursday morning, 17 March 1988. Private Members' business will be called on immediately following the announcement of petitions. Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted 1 MR HOWARD: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953 to ensure that the Australian National Flag is not altered except with the approval of the Australian people voting in a referendum, that the Australian National Flag is not supplanted by use of the powers under the Act, and that the appointment of other flags and ensigns is subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament. (Notice given 18 November 1987) 5 mins (pursuant to sessional order 104a) *2 MR McGAURAN: To move-That this House stresses the need to stop the distribution of X-rated videos in the ACT which allow State laws to be easily circumvented and family life undermined. (Notice given 24 February 1988) 45 mins *3 MR RUDDOCK: To move-That this House- (1) notes that- 45 mins (a) on 1 August 1975 the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Finland, by 33 European States, together with Canada and the USA; (b) the signatories committed themselves under Principle VII to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''; (c) the signing of the Final Act raised the expectations of the peoples of the Soviet Union for greater observance by the Soviet Union of human rights, gave rise to the formation of the Moscow, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian and Ukrainian citizens' monitoring groups to inform the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world about the Soviet Government's compliance with the Final Act; (d) 9 November 1986 marked the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the largest such citizens' group, the Ukrainian Public Group to promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (e) three members of the Ukrainian Group, Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuriy Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus died after years of inhuman treatment in Soviet labour camps while a fourth, Mykhaylo Melnyk, committed suicide as a result of continuous KGB persecution; and (f) nine member of the Ukrainian Group are still imprisoned, 6 are in internal exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union, while 14 have been released from prison and are living in the Ukraine and 7 have been forced to emigrate to the West after serving prison terms; (2) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the continued harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (3) seeks assurances from the Government of the Soviet Union that members of the Ukrainian and other public Helsinki Monitoring Groups be released from their incarceration and allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice; (4) seeks to convey to the Government of the Soviet Union its belief that such humanitarian acts and the demonstration that its citizens have freedom of expression will serve to reduce tensions between East and West and help to erase doubts about Soviet commitments to their international obligations; (5) calls upon the Soviet Union to allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors, Yuriy Shukhevych and Oksana Meshko, together with their families, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as an immediate demonstration of its goodwill; and (6) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Notice given 21 September 1987) *4 DR THEOPHANOUS: To move-that this House reaffirms its commitment to the establishment of a multicultural society in Australia and in particular recognises that- 45 mins (1) Australians of all backgrounds are free and able to participate at all levels in the political, administrative, legal, economic, cultural and artistic life of the nation; (2) there should be freedom to maintain one's cultural heritage within the context of a common legal and political system, with English as the accepted national language; (3) all Australians should be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or culture, and should have equality of opportunity and equitable access to programs and services; (4) programs and services provided to the community as a whole should, as far as possible, be made accessible to all Australians by being sufficiently adaptable to cater to the specific needs of those born overseas and those whose preferred language is other than English, as well as the Australian-born, but, where necessary and appropriate, separate and specialised services should be provided, (5) programs and services should be designed and developed in consultation with all potential client groups, including those born in Australia and those born overseas, and should involve their active participation; and (6) a just and equitable society should be promoted which accepts all people irrespective of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. (Notice given 15 September 1987) *5 Mr LANGMORE: To move-That, in view of the severe constraints on global economic growth and on the development of lower income countries caused by severe trade imbalances, high real interest rates, massive debts of many countries, historically low commodity prices, and industrial and agricultural protection, this House urges the Group of Seven major Western industrial countries (the G7-the United States, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada) to- any remaining private Mem- bers' business time (1) co-ordinate their national fiscal and monetary policies so as to reduce trade, exchange rate and interest rate imbalances and instability; (2) strongly encourage current account surplus countries to adopt expansionary macroeconomic policies so as to increase their imports and stimulate world trade; (3) reduce their wasteful military expenditure and urge Warsaw Pact countries to do the same so as to reduce fiscal imbalances, reduce interest rates and increase resources for economically and socially useful activity; (4) establish facilities through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for phased, partial debt forgiveness and rescheduling; (5) increase overseas aid for developing countries to the greatest extent possible with the ultimate goal of reaching the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Product; (6) support a new issue of Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund allocated to developing countries to allow relaxation of their balance of payments constraints; and (7) convene a global conference on reform of the international monetary system. (Notice given 15 September 1987) * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(6.19) —We have only a few minutes before we break for dinner, so this debate on the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill will be resumed after dinner and therefore the majority of my remarks will be made then. This Bill amends the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Act of 1980 to incorporate a tariff proposal tabled in the 1987-88 Budget. The amendment increases the duty on exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers region from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram as from September 1987. So the duty has been in place for some months already. The duty was first proposed in 1980 to support the supervisory, co-ordination and research roles of the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS). I will talk about that in some detail later. The increase in the rate of duty is in line with the Government's decision in the 1987-88 budgetary context to recover a greater proportion of the cost of the OSS. The increased duty is expected to raise an additional $0.6m in that part of the 1987-88 financial year to which it applies and an additional $0.9m in a full year. The total uranium export levy is expected to raise $3.7m in the 1987-88 financial year and $4m in a full year. This increase in duty is thus expected to recover approximately 75 per cent of the annual cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region. The coalition will not oppose the Bill as it results from a decision made in the Budget context. As the facts that I have just outlined indicate, the OSS was set up under the Fraser Government. However, the Opposition has an in-principle second reading amendment. I formally move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Hawke Government should be condemned: (1) for its failure to limit the role, the duties and the accountability of the Office of the Supervising Scientist in the light of 10 years' experience in its monitoring of the Alligator Rivers region, the grant of self-government to the Northern Territory and the establishment of the University College of the Northern Territory; and (2) for the imposition of this additional levy on uranium at a time when Australian uranium exporters are struggling to remain competitive on world markets. In making those remarks about the Office of the Supervising Scientist, it should be understood at the outset that the reason for moving the amendment is not in any way to diminish the role of the scientists in the very important work they do. The OSS was set up as a result of a very lengthy inquiry. I believe it was instituted originally by Prime Minister Whitlam. The Office started under Mr Justice Fox of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and ultimately we ended up with the Office of the Supervising Scientist which was set up when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister. So there is strong support for the office. It is the nature of the Office that I want to explore this evening. In our amendment we express concern that perhaps the role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist has, after 10 years-it has been going for 10 years-extended beyond what was envisaged originally and perhaps it is time to have a much closer look at its role and functions and to see whether or not some elements of the Office might be better placed somewhere else. I will make a suggestion about that later. The second part of our amendment relates to the levy. The levy has risen over some considerable time and is now $1.02 a kilogram. Our amendment says that the imposition of a levy on uranium mining, and on any type of mining, is a fetter on the opportunities to compete in international markets. We are not saying, by way of this amendment, that there ought not to be the funding of some form of a supervising scientist for the very delicate environmental matters that have to be watched over very carefully by the Commonwealth in uranium mining. It is a matter of determining whether or not a levy is the best way of funding it. We believe that a levy is not the best way. Indeed, the proposals that I will put forward later this evening would be responded to quite positively by industry, which would see its way clear to continue funding very vital research-research that is recognised Australia-wide and worldwide for its excellence. It is basic research; it is essential research; and it is research that ought to be continued. The question is where that ought to happen. The Alligator Rivers region is some 200 kilometres east of Darwin and is probably the richest uranium province in the world. The uranium deposits are located at Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra. Further east in Arnhem Land is Nabarlek, which is now fully mined. Those resources are located in a region which is in many ways remarkable. They are largely undeveloped, have an Aboriginal population maintaining elements of its traditional way of life and contain many of the best surviving examples of Aboriginal rock art, abundant wildlife, diverse vegetation and spectacular scenery. All Australians would appreciate what is there if they had an opportunity to see it. It is well worth preserving it and making sure that whilst we mine the area we watch over it carefully and have independent people, such as the Supervising Scientist, to ensure that all those matters are taken account of. I gave some details about the Fox inquiry and how the Office of the Supervising Scientist came about. I think that is probably well known to honourable members. A very high degree of co-ordination is necessary to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that all agencies are able to contribute in a productive way to a thoroughly integrated research, monitoring and environmental protection program. That necessitated, at the time the Office was set up, the establishment of a co-ordinating committee. On that co-ordinating committee, which determines what research shall be undertaken, sit all the players involved in uranium mining in the Northern Territory: the Northern Land Council, various companies, the Office of the Supervising Scientist, Professor Ovington of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, representatives from Federal departments and the Northern Territory Government. That is the body that determines the research that shall be undertaken. Therefore, one can surmise that the research that is undertaken enjoys the full support of all those who have interests in Northern Territory uranium areas. It is important to note that its brief to co-ordinate the formulation of environmental control measures observed by Ranger constitutes only a fraction of the OSS's responsibility. Supervision, monitoring and research must occur throughout the region in order to provide a database by which to assess possible future changes to the environment. It is important to note that the specific role of the OSS is not to regulate; it is to supervise. Mr Barry Jones —And inform. Mr SMITH —And inform, which it does. Its role is to supervise. In a sense, it watches the regulators in the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. The OSS's role is to supervise; it is not a regulatory body. It is a body that reports, informs and carries out research. I now wish to put into perspective the range of activities that the OSS undertakes. It does a lot of complementary and collaborative research with bodies such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), which is based in Sydney. It is looking at things such as freshwater mussels and turtles and atmospheric testings to determine levels of radon. With ANSTO, which provides the pure laboratory work, there is a very strong collaborative function. ANSTO, as honourable members would know, is the premier repository of nuclear knowledge-for want of a better way of describing its function-in this country. So there is a complementary role there. Interestingly, the OSS-I will make further remarks about that-has its head office in Sydney. That has been a point of contention and criticism for some time. Our amendment points out that perhaps after 10 years we ought to be looking at that very specific question. I will address that issue after dinner. It has a collaborative function with ANSTO and individuals. It has collaborative programs with those who work in the University of Sydney and the bodies of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation that operate in northern Australia and throughout the country. It has a wide brief and a great range of collaborative activities going on, primarily with ANSTO. When one looks at the costs of running the OSS it is interesting to take some comparative figures. For 1983-84 the cost was $4.5m; for 1984-85, $4.7m; for 1985-86, $5.5m; and 1986-87, $6.1m. The second part of our amendment relates to the proposed recovery of 75 per cent of the cost of the Office by way of a levy. What we are saying is that, whilst we believe there should be a role for the Office of Supervising Scientist, taking money from the industry by way of a levy might not be the best way to fund it, given that a levy establishes a principle and puts a burden on an industry whose export potential we want to maximise. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SMITH —The Opposition will allow this Bill to pass because it is a Budget Bill. We have moved an amendment condemning the Government for not looking more closely at the Office of the Supervising Scientist, which is the office that oversees the operations of uranium mining in the Northern Territory; and for imposing a levy. I have explained in some detail the reason why we have put forward that amendment. I said that two matters stand out with regard to the OSS reinforcing its independent supervisory role. Those matters are, firstly, the declaration of stages 1, 2, and 3 of Kakadu National Park. The inclusion of stage 1 on the World Heritage List and the proposed nomination of stage 2 for the World Heritage List are also matters that need to be considered. The nomination of stage 2, covering nearly 7,000 square kilometres, has now been withdrawn from the World Heritage nomination, after strong opposition from the Northern Territory Government. If stage 3 were to be nominated, that would add another 6,000 square kilometres, and embrace almost all of the catchment area of South Alligator River. Indeed, two pastoral leases have been included in stage 3, over which the OSS will now have some role. An additional five staff have been appointed to the office, one of which is in Sydney to cater for that particular area. There is no uranium mining in that area. However, there is some gold mining, and one would wonder whether, if the present levy system is to continue, there may well be at some future time a levy imposed by the Government to continue to fund that aspect of the OSS's role over that particular area. It remains for the Government, perhaps, to give some more detail to this House about what is proposed. The other matter that needs to be considered is the further exploration and mining development. Since 1981 the Northern Territory Government has offered 153 exploration licences to at least 30 companies, subject to agreement being reached with the Northern Land Council representing Aboriginal communities. The first agreement was reached in 1986. Therefore the OSS has to perform its functions within a complex and interlocking network of legislation and agreements, and a great number of conflicting interest groups. They include national parks and wildlife conservation groups and authorities; the Aboriginal land rights issues; the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and all the debates that surround nuclear issues in this country; environmental protection considerations both of a Federal and State nature; the Australian Heritage Act; and, of course, the Northern Territory and its various Acts covering such matters as mines, control of water, soil conservation and land use. It is not coincidence that the OSS draws adverse comments from a whole variety of different groups within the community, including the mining and the conservation lobby. If any conclusion could be drawn, it is that the Office is independent. Because the source of criticism aimed at it comes from all sides, perhaps one can safely draw the conclusion that the Office is fulfilling the function that we originally wanted it to do; to independently supervise that area. When talking of functions, it is well to remember what those functions specifically are. Under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act the OSS has, as I said, a supervisory, co-ordination, and research role in protecting the environment in the Alligator Rivers region of the Northern Territory from the effects of uranium mining operations in the region. Therein lies the nub of the reason for the Opposition's amendment. We are talking about the role of the OSS, and whether that role ought to be limited; whether, after 10 years of operation we ought not to be looking a little more carefully at that role. Things have happened. There has been, of course, the grant of self-government to the Northern Territory, and the establishment of the University College of the Northern Territory. The supervisory role that was originally envisaged for the OSS has been expanded because initially the OSS had to develop a whole basic science understanding by way of research. During the past 10 years the Supervising Scientist has done that well, as have his officers. However, one wonders whether the need for continued research within the OSS ought to continue. Perhaps the research function ought to be placed somewhere else. That will lead to some remarks that I shall make shortly. Research costs within the OSS account for about 75 per cent of the Office's resources. As reported in the most recent annual report of the OSS, the amount of research needed to ensure that the highest level of environmental protection is being achieved is a matter of judgment. That judgment is one which this House leaves for the Supervising Scientist to determine. The Opposition suggests, by way of amendment, that perhaps that function should be reviewed. Perhaps this House should say that the function of the OSS should now be more supervisory and less research-with the research role being transferred elsewhere. The Government at that time, the Fraser Government, accepted the size of the organisation in view of the high level of environmental protection of the region that was demanded by the community in general, and by the traditional Aboriginal owners in particular. That program has been critically reviewed and endorsed by wide sections of the relevant Australian scientific community, including the Australian Science and Technology Committee. It is well worth noting at this time that the role of the OSS is that of science. Unfortunately the Government seems to be according science less importance. Indeed, it is a pity that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) now spends much of his time dealing with day to day matters of custom. That does not mean to say that the Minister does not have a commitment to science. All honourable members in this House would agree that the Minister, more than any other member of this Parliament, has a commitment to science and has been very vocal in support of it. However, politics is about delivering results and, as I said recently, it is a tragedy that we no longer have a formal science department within the Federal bureaucracy. After 15 years that department has been disbanded. That is a tragedy for science. Science is a long-term issue about which we need to be thinking all the time. If it falls off the agenda, some important aspects of human endeavour may not receive the attention from the Government that they ought. At some future time I hope that that department will be re-established. Most of the scientific study and technical analysis undertaken by the OSS relates either to water management or tailings disposal. That is because the on-site risks during the operational phase of mining are readily controllable and small. The dominant environmental risk in both the short and long terms are considered to be off-site. Revegetation and water disposal will become important as the Nabarlek de-commissioning gets under way. It will be interesting to see the research that flow from that. As I said earlier, there is a real need to establish base line conditions in order to monitor the environmental impact of mining-or any other human activity, for that matter. Owing to the very limited knowledge of the environment, the amount of work required is considerable. That has been undertaken. However, that has been going on for 10 years and one wonders now whether it might not be time for a review. The base line conditions that the OSS has had to monitor from ought now to be established. Though I am not a scientist and cannot speak with authority on that particular point, that is the view that has been expressed by others. I now turn to staffing issues. At the end of the last financial year, 1986-87, the OSS employed a total of 69 staff: 42 based at Jabiru, 26 in Sydney, and one in Darwin. So, two-thirds of the staff are located in the Northern Territory, and one-third in Sydney. As I said, that has been a point of criticism. A decision was made to base the Supervising Scientist, the Policy and Administration Division, the Supervisory and Assessment Branch, the Policy Co-ordination Branch, and the Management Services Branch of the OSS at its Sydney establishment. There were reasons for that. At the time it drew from the Federal department of the environment its support functions, but it has stayed there for ten years. It may now be argued that the initial reasons for the Sydney location-for example, that the Northern Territory lacked tertiary institutions or that Mr Fry, the Supervising Scientist, wished to remain in Sydney-are no longer valid, and that the operating costs could be reduced by a Darwin location. I say `could be' because no one knows because it has not been tested. Obviously, if we moved every scientist out to Jabiru, it would cost a great deal in housing and that would militate against any such move because the benefits may not be there. To establish it in Darwin is another proposition and one that ought to be considered far more closely. That is really one of the thrusts of our amendment in pointing out that perhaps the initial role of the scientist in establishing that head office in Sydney would provide the opportunity to cut back costs. That remains to be tested. But I do not think the argument can be dismissed any more with a mere wave of the hand, as it has been in the past. The 1986-87 annual report indicates the need for Sydney staff to liaise regularly with the Northern Territory supervising authority on matters relating to the formulation of authorisations, industrial health and safety and environmental protection measures, and with the Northern Land Council. There has been criticism that there has been a breakdown in communication. The lines of communication are long. As any good general would know, one does not win a war if one's lines of communication are long. We are not conducting a war up there; we are conducting an operation that we want to be operated efficiently and effectively. Having long lines of communication militates against a successful operation. If one were to centralise the administration of the activity in Darwin, one might get the benefits not only of economy but also of enhancing the communication level with the Northern Territory Government, which is the regulatory authority, and the Supervising Scientist would then act in a complementary fashion. As I have said, in addition the Sydney based staff visit Darwin and the region on approximately a monthly basis, arranged to coincide with meetings of one or other of the number of standing or ad hoc committees or working groups that meet regularly in the Northern Territory. It could be argued that the administration should now be Darwin based if it could be shown that this would result in substantial savings in travel, administration and other costs. The Northern Territory law regulates mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region and the Supervising Scientist exercises supervisory, co-ordinating, research, standards development and reporting roles under Commonwealth law. As I have said, it could be argued that the role of the latter should have diminished over the years as the unknowns have become known. The establishment of base line information has been going on for 10 years so the unknown has now become known, or at least it ought to have done, and to a large degree I believe it has. As standards developments have been firmly established much of its function has become routine, such as taking water samples. There is some duplication-only a small amount-between the functions of the regulator, the Northern Territory Government, and the Office of the Supervising Scientist, such as taking water samples. Perhaps there would be an opportunity for the Government to look more closely to make sure that there are not other areas of duplication. By collecting a levy from the industry and funding also from Consolidated Revenue-taxpayers' funds-we do not want to see one group of taxpayers' funds being utilised for exactly the same thing as another group of taxpayers' funds, namely the Northern Territory Government. The question is whether the research function of the OSS should rest with that Office-that is the threshold question of my amendment-or with the Australian Research Council, the national body responsible for overall national research priorities. If after 10 years the base line conditions have been established, and if the research as good as it is, is to be ongoing one wonders whether or not it is necessary for it to remain within that Office and then one looks at the possible alternative. The alternative that I think it is now time to consider is the possibility of setting up in Darwin some national wetlands research institute taking the Alligator Rivers Research Institute, which is part of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, and combining it with elements of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation that operate in the north of Australia. It would include, of course, all of those research elements of the OSS, and look more closely at what the North Australian Research Unit does, which is part of the Darwin Institute of Technology, and at what is happening at the new University of the Northern Territory. I understand there will be about 500 students at that university this current academic year. It would take research out of the OSS and put it within a broader wetlands research institute which perhaps could have not just a national focus but an international focus. Darwin is on the doorstep of what we are told is one of the fastest growing areas, the Pacific Rim. Excellence in research is already there which could be combined with the other elements there. It would make a lot of sense and give some prestige. There would not necessarily be a great saving to industry because I believe it is in industry's interest to fund this research and I believe that industry would continue to do so, but it would not be funded by way of a levy. That comes back to the second part of my amendment. We oppose not the role of research into the environment of uranium mining; indeed, we support it very strongly; we established it. But what we are saying is that, if we put levies on mining operations, such as coal levies, uranium levies and oil levies, they are in the form of a secondary tax and they militate against the export industries that we want to be more and more competitive in placing their product on the international market. If the companies could see their way clear-I am sure it would be in their interests to do so-to fund directly by some mechanism suitable to the government of the day, whether it be a coalition government or a Labor government, we might find that that would be a far more effective way of doing it and therefore the role of the Supervising Scientist, whilst it would continue, would be diminished. It would be doing its primary role of supervising rather than becoming, as I suspect it may, a growing research institute-of some excellence no doubt but continually drawing on funds. We put in place that early mechanism of drawing funds from the industry and the industry does not have the opportunity to look more closely at it although, as I said-and industry must look more closely at this-it is represented on the co-ordinating committee which sets the research guidelines and directions of the Alligator Rivers Research Institute. At a time when Australia is looking for exports, education exports is an area at which it ought to be looking more closely. We ought to be pursuing it more aggressively. The development within the Northern Territory of a university is a positive step which everyone in this place welcomes. One way of enhancing its role and providing it with a centre of excellence, a centre of expertise, may well be the development of a wetlands research institute which could be made up of those primary elements of research that are now within the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that proposal later. As I have said, we are on the doorstep of Asia and we could be playing a far more positive role. To recap quickly, we support this legislation because it is part of the budgetary process; we do not oppose Budget Bills. We have moved an amendment criticising the levy which has gone up again from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram. Obviously, the industry does not like it. We think it sets a particularly bad precedent to place a levy on export industries, particularly uranium. We had a lot to say earlier this week and last week about uranium. Of course, uranium mining is rather an emotional matter about which many of us on both sides of the House can get quite excited. But uranium is a potential export in this country, the surface of which is only just being scratched. Much more money could be made. Many more jobs could flow from it. We must do it in an environmentally sensitive and sensible way; we certainly support that. The Office of the Supervising Scientist has a role to play. But money can be saved in its operations. It has been going for 10 years and it is now time for a more detailed study to look at some of the alternatives to its operation. If the Northern Territory-the latest independent area; its no longer being a territory-can benefit from some changes to enhance its educational facilities and its future educational potential in that part of the world where Australia will need in the future to play a much bigger role, that will be timely and I commend that proposal to the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Dr Harry Edwards —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(8.20) —The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill proposes to increase the duty on exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers Region from 80c per kilogram to $1.02 per kilogram. The Bill is straightforward and I have great pleasure in supporting it. It has been put forward by one of the Ministers I admire the most in the House, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). The duty which has been imposed was introduced in 1980 by the Fraser Government and is in recognition of the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities related to uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers region. The increased rate of duty reflects the Government's decision-and a correct one-made within the 1987 budgetary context to move closer to the recovery of the cost of this monitoring and research. Clause 4 provides an exemption from the increased levy for Alligator Rivers region uranium concentrate which was loaded onto a vessel for export before the 15 September commencement date, or which forms a part of a consignment of uranium concentrate which commenced to be loaded onto a vessel for export before the commencement date. The proposal gives effect to the Government's Budget decision announced on 15 September 1987 and is effective from 8 p.m. on that date. The proposed increased duty is expected to raise an additional $0.6m during that part of the 1987-88 financial year to which it applies, and an additional $0.9m in a full year. At the proposed new rate, the total uranium export levy is expected to raise $3.7m in the 1987-88 financial year and $4m in a full year. The proposed levy will now recover approximately 75 per cent of the annual cost of the uranium related monitoring and research activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region. I think that is correct and proper. The Government is determined to ensure that the unique habitat of the Kakadu National Park is maintained for the future enjoyment of all Australians. It is good to see in the House tonight the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a key element in the environmental protection arrangements put in place by the Government. To that end the Office has engaged in significant research into the management of uranium tailings to provide information necessary to ensure that tailings can be contained and isolated from the environment for thousands of years. Miners are monitored also for exposure to radiation in the extraction of the uranium. It is also necessary to develop strategies for revegetation, which is extremely vital in such a fragile area. The Office has also conducted baseline studies at the proposed gold mining site at Coronation Hill in the proposed stage 3 of the Kakadu National Park to determine what are the unique natural qualities of the area and to assess what permanent damage to the environment could occur should any mining take place in that region. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) mentioned staffing of the Office. Over two-thirds of the staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist are located at Jabiru in the Northern Territory. However, staff who perform tasks such as administrative support that can be conducted efficiently elsewhere are based in Sydney. The honourable member for Bass recommended that the staff shift to the Northern Territory. He made the statement that `it could improve accounting'. I do not think that is a good enough reason to shift staff or change strategies. That demonstrates the difference of opinions on both sides of the House on all economic matters. The cost of paying the Northern Territory allowance to staff, the cost of providing adequate housing and the increased costs of goods and services in the Northern Territory as opposed to Sydney make it more cost efficient to base particular staff in Sydney rather than in Jabiru. One may well ask what justification there is for increasing the levy on exported uranium concentrate by 22c per kilogram at a time when export earnings are so badly needed. In 1978 the Fraser Government decided that in view of the environmental significance of the Alligator Rivers region uranium mining operations should be subject to oversight by the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region. Subsequently, by legislation passed in 1980, a levy of 11c per kilogram was imposed on uranium exports in recognition of the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities related to uranium mining in the region. This levy, however, recovered only a small fraction of the costs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It is only fair to say that if we are going to export uranium the monitoring of such fragile areas should be maintained and the economy of Australia should not pay for it. It is an accepted principle that costs of providing necessary regulatory services should be recovered. That makes commonsense. Accordingly, in the 1986-87 Budget the Government increased the levy on uranium oxide mined in the Alligator Rivers region from 11c to 80c per kilogram. The levy raised $3.1m in 1986-87 and offset 50 per cent of the cost of operating the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The Opposition always points out that we should show economies; this is another example of doing just that. In the 1987-88 Budget, the Government increased the levy to $1.02 per kilogram. The rate has been increased so as to offset 75 per cent of the cost of operating the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It is expected to raise $3.7m in 1987-88. The levy is paid by Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd. It is not expected that the increase in the export levy will significantly affect export earnings from uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers region, as only an additional $0.6m will be raised this financial year. However, this revenue contributes to safeguarding the region and ensuring that the environment retains its natural beauty. As tourism is becoming a massive industry, that is extremely sensible. This generation as well as future generations should be able to enjoy our unique heritage. One of the complex problems that will affect the nuclear industry in the near future-and I digress here for a moment-is the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, which is proving to be much more costly than expected. This raises the question of who will pay in the future for this decommissioning. It is a problem that will have to be faced in the very near future by many of the large nations that have ageing power stations. I would like to compliment the Minister on his initiatives in regard to superconductivity. It would appear to me that in the long term this will help to pave the way for more efficient and less costly energy use. This will come about simply by the use of a lesser amount of coal, water power or uranium to produce a higher proportion of usable energy. As the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business pointed out, the greenhouse effect is a serious issue that has to be addressed for the future of our planet. We should not be frightened by technology but should be attempting to explore ways in which we can live in peace and in a way that is conducive to maintaining our natural environment within the realms of feasibility and commonsense. I support the statement made by the honourable member for Bass about the importance of science and its necessity if we are to survive as a nation and reach the year 2000 in a progressive manner. Obviously, for Australia to improve its economic position it is necessary to support value added industries and at the same time attempt to conserve and nurture the environment. With the increase in the levy to offset the costs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist we are ensuring that environmental monitoring and visual activities can be taken out in an affordable way. It is on that premise that I support and commend the Bill to the House. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.30) —The House has heard a thoughtful and moderate speech from the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice). I believe that this would not have been the case had we been hearing from some of his colleagues such as the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) or even perhaps the recent ministerial appointment in the other place, Senator Bolkus. Mr Steele Hall —They have been gagged. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —As my colleague points out, they have been gagged. The purpose of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988, as was just made plain, is to incorporate into the Act the 1987-88 Budget proposal that the export duty on uranium concentrate produced in the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory be increased from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram. As has also been pointed out, this increase will help contribute to the cost of the activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. This is indeed a worthy objective but it is in conflict with the overriding priority of this country to expand exports, a matter which is referred to in the second part of the amendment moved by the Opposition. As was made clear in the speech of the honourable member for Hinkler, export duties have a habit of creeping upwards. The export duty in this case began at about 0.1 of 1 per cent. At 80c it was roughly 0.8 per cent of the value in question. The charge of $1.02 puts the duty up near 1 per cent. The tendency to increases of this sort are just the problem with export duties. In the situation in which this country finds itself, with such an enormous priority on exports, such a duty on exports is undesirable. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was, of course, an essential element of the complex regime of environmental protection measures to control potential environmental impacts from the development of the uranium resources of the Alligator Rivers region. The region embraces the Kakadu National Park. In a word, the overall objective is to protect the environment in the Alligator Rivers region from the effects of mining operations. The annual cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is of the order of $6m. Mr Cobb —That is a lot of money. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is a significant sum, as my colleague mentions. Mr Snowdon —Very well spent. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, I will come back to that. This amount is made up of research at about $4.677m, with the cost of supervising and assessment and co-ordination and corporate support making up the balance. I believe it is recognised that the Office of the Supervising Scientist is not a regulatory agency. Its primary charter is to oversee the regulators, and to assist in the development of environment protection arrangements and regulatory regimes and to advise the Government on their adequacy. As I pointed out, it has a prime responsibility to ensure, in the day to day licensing and regulation of uranium mining operations in the region, that the Commonwealth's environmental requirements are implemented. The Office is further charged with the duty of carrying out specific mission-oriented research. Research is necessary not only to ensure that the highest level of environmental protection is able to be maintained in the region, but also to give credibility to assurances that this high level of protection is in fact being achieved. In the event we find-and I have just been given the figures-that research accounts for 75 per cent of the Office's resources. My colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), the shadow Minister for Science, has raised questions about the scope, size and appropriate location of that research effort. In the annual report of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, for 1986-87, we are assured that the research program was critically reviewed from the start and endorsed by a wide section of the relevant Australian scientific community, and it has been independently endorsed by the Australian Science and Technology Council since. The co-ordinating committee for the protection of the environment in the region would no doubt keep a close eye on the relevance and practicality of the research to the task at hand. However, after some 10 years of establishing the fundamentals of the framework of the scientific research necessary to carry out this task, it could well be time, as the shadow Minister suggested, for taking another look at the charter and procedures of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. In particular, we could look at the question of whether basic research in particular might be done elsewhere. My colleague has made the imaginative suggestion of establishing a national wetlands research institute in the Northern Territory, embracing perhaps some elements of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in association with the University College of the Northern Territory. This could be a potential sphere of excellence in research and activity for that institution. I commend this suggestion to the House. Although the monitoring activities which the Office of the Supervising Scientist carries out may, in terms of the amendment, be overdue for some revamping in the light of experience and changed circumstances, the work that is done by the Office is testimony to the careful and extremely responsible approach which the Fraser Government took in approving the development of uranium mining in the region. That decision was taken on the basis of the most stringent arrangements and controls concerning the environment and Aboriginal welfare in the region, with exports subject to strict safeguards agreements in the context of the non-proliferation regime and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr Cobb —Isn't it time to approve more mines? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is certainly time that more than the three mines were approved. In tense terms, the Opposition recognises the importance of the work of this Office of the Supervising Scientist. There is no question that the expenditure of an appropriate sum of money is importantly justified by the tremendous prospects-then, and even more so now, for uranium mining and export by this country. There is an overwhelming body of world opinion in support of nuclear power for the generation of electricity. While it is true that attitudes to the nuclear power industry can never be quite the same after Chernobyl-I concede that-the fact is that nuclear power now accounts for over 15 per cent of world electricity production, ranging from a very small proportion of electricity production in Brazil, Pakistan, India and Italy to 10 per cent in the Soviet Union, 25 per cent in Japan, nearly 30 per cent in the Federal Republic of Germany, just over 50 per cent in Sweden, and 70 per cent in France. Mr Cobb —It is safer and cleaner than the alternatives. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I note what my colleague says. There is no doubt that the nuclear industry is here to stay. There are nearly 400 nuclear power reactors in operation connected to electricity grids and a further 250 are planned and/or are under construction. The demand for uranium to fuel them continues to grow and is likely to double by the end of the century. Indeed, on the way, demand is likely to run ahead of projected supply based on the capability of existing mines and mills. There is a tremendous opportunity for this country. Yet, the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, as distinct from the position taken by the honourable member for Hinkler, continues to flout this prevailing world opinion in favour of the nuclear generation of electricity and turns its back on this strong trend in demand. Of course, the left wing in the Hawke Government calls the shots in this respect. The most recent ministerial appointment, to whom I referred a while ago, Senator Bolkus, is in the vanguard of the opposition to uranium mining. It was he who not so long ago introduced into the Senate a motion that sought to oppose the development of Roxby Downs, and only very recently he was criticising the Ministry of which he is now a member for approving the most recent shipment of export uranium from Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. He said that that decision flouted Party policy and disregarded all the forms and mechanisms of the Party, and he questioned whether the Minister had the authority to so act, and so on. One could go on in that vein. How perverse and, indeed, how out of touch with the sentiment of the majority of the Australian people can one be. I do not wish to stress only the economic aspect of this matter, although that aspect is very important. Australia has a vast deficit in its balance of international payments. Our receipts from exports fell short of our spending on imports and last year the payment of interest on our crippling overseas debt increased to the extent on average of the order of $30m every day. The situation was such that the country was going into hock an extra $30m every day. I concede that we achieved some relief from that situation in the month of January. In this way we are adding relentlessly, day by day, to our vast overseas debt. Yet this Government would turn its back on Australia's great potential for increased exports of uranium concentrate. Mr Cobb —Madness. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is madness. When Australians generally are having to accept and adjust to lower standards of living, the perverse ideology of the Labor Left makes the fall in living standards greater than it need be. The value of lost uranium exports over the past 10 years has been estimated at of the order of $4.5 billion. Over the next 10 years it could be of the order of $10 billion. What will be achieved? As the visiting French Minister for Defence, Mr Giraud, said, `There are plenty of other countries around to supply uranium. If Australia does not supply it, you hand the sale over to some other country where the safeguards are much less stringent'. In the next few years in particular Australia will have a great opportunity to supply Japan and Korea, which is where much of the future big growth lies. As I said, I do not wish to stress just the economic aspect of this matter. The attitude of the Labor Left is so perverse that it turns the morality of this issue on its head. It simply does not acknowledge the moral obligation that we in this country have towards meeting the current and future energy needs of the world and, in particular, those of the more than two-thirds of the world's population in the poor and developing countries-some billions of people, many hungry and most living in poverty on a scale which most Australians have very little understanding of and care even less about. We in this country are extremely rich by comparative world standards, although we are falling in our relative position under the administration of this Government. We make up a minuscule 0.3 per cent of the world's population, while we are blessed with almost 30 per cent of the world's high grade, potentially low cost, uranium. We have a responsibility to mine it and sell it. But the Labor Left would have us sit on it and leave it in the ground, while so large a proportion of the world could go begging for their energy needs. Meanwhile this measure before the House seeks to increase the export levy, which will itself inhibit the prospects for production and sale. Linked to what I have just been saying is the fact that this country also could contribute further to the success of the non-proliferation regime. We are a signatory, of course, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. There is a high obligation on us to work in that context by way of good example and the maintenance of high standards, and to exert the leverage that could be ours by the ability to supply uranium reliably in large quantities and at low cost, thereby encouraging other nations to participate more meaningfully in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This Government, by its Left dominated, ideologically short-sighted policy, reflected in its three-mine policy-which is wrong and illogical as Mr Parker in Western Australia and even Senator Button and others concede-and its opposition to other phases of the nuclear cycle deprive Australia not only of major economic benefits in a time of great difficulty for our economy, but also of further opportunities, as I was just saying, for this country to contribute significantly and in a practical way to the success of the non-proliferation regime, and thus to world peace. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(8.47) —The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill which is before the House tonight is a straightforward and simple matter concerning the raising from 80c to $1.02 the export duty per kilogram on uranium concentrate shipped from the Alligator Rivers region of the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) has moved an amendment that the Government should be condemned `for its failure to limit the role . . . of the Office of the Supervising Scientist' and `for the imposition of this additional levy'. Despite the amendment, the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. Although the Bill is simple, the consequences of the measures are very significant. The money collected from the levy is used to fund at least 75 per cent of the cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist in its vital task of supervising the activities of the Ranger uranium mine. It is, of course, trite to say that the mining of uranium is an issue which causes great passion amongst both the proponents and opponents of mining. I do not believe there is any real purpose in my canvassing those arguments tonight, except to state that we are dealing with a Bill which recognises the existence of a current operating mine and, as such, our attention should be on ensuring that the mine is operated in such a way as to minimise its effect on the environment and also ensure that the safety considerations of the workers are carefully considered. As honourable members would be aware, the Office of the Supervising Scientist was established following the recommendations of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. Its principal aim is to protect the environment surrounding the mine, especially in relation to the maintenance of tailings dams and the disposal of waste products. Beyond that, it has a very important role in conducting research into the effects of the mining operations on the areas around the Alligator Rivers region. This region is adjacent to part of the Kakadu National Park. We are not, I suppose, talking about a clapped-out or insignificant area of Australia; we are talking about an area which is of international significance. It has been recognised as such by this Government and I do not believe that anyone in the House would argue that proposition. The situation is that we have a mine operating in an area of immense environmental importance. Obviously that led to the creation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The Opposition amendment goes to the fact that this particular Office has been in operation for 10 years and perhaps now is the time to look at it to see whether it is fulfilling its role, whether its functions could be hived off or given to some other authority or whether it has kept pace with changing circumstances. It is refreshing to note that at least the Opposition is acting in a constructive way. I have read through some of the debate that took place when the last increase of levy was debated in this House. To say the least, at that stage Opposition contributions to that debate were extremely trite and not at all constructive. On this occasion at least Opposition members are saying that the Office has a vital role and that we should look at whether we can improve its operation. The honourable member for Bass mentioned some of the changing circumstances. For instance, the Northern Territory now has self-government and newly established in Darwin is a university which will have the ability to operate research facilities which did not exist some time ago. But that of itself does not mean that the Office of the Supervising Scientist has lost its effectiveness or is no longer playing a constructive role. Inbuilt in the structure itself is a consultative committee whereby all interested and relevant parties have the opportunity to have their say in the operations of the Office. Therefore, the Northern Territory Government, the mining companies, Commonwealth agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and, very importantly, the traditional owners of the area-the local Aboriginal community-are involved in the decision making process of the Office. Built into the structure of the Office is the mechanism to ensure that it does not automatically date through the effluxion of time. Something a little more substantial must be put forward by the Opposition before it can establish any sort of case for the functions of the Office to be hived off or for its role to be reduced. In that regard I submit that the honourable member for Bass seriously failed. He raised some questions, but I do not recall his pointing to a particular problem to explain how the Office is not fulfilling a useful role at present. Where is the Office falling down? In what aspect can its functions be handled more effectively? We did not hear any specifics. All we heard was, `It is 10 years now; let us look at the Office'. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is no ground on which to condemn the Government, or as a basis for making bland statements that the Government has failed to limit the role of the Office. The Opposition needs some argument as to why there is a need to limit its role, and it has not been forthcoming. The Opposition then advanced the common arguments which are always run up the flagpole each time the House discusses this measure, about the staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist being based mainly at Jabiru but with some of the staff being based in Sydney. The question is always asked as to why two offices are necessary, and whether it would not make marvellous sense to have the whole staff in one location. I suppose in an ideal world that may be the case. It may well be preferable for all the functions of the Office to be in one location, but the Government has to operate in the real world. The real world dictates that the cost of maintaining staff facilities at Jabiru in the Northern Territory is infinitely more than operating a similar facility in Sydney. If we are concerned about the cost of the Office escalating, what would be the cost of replicating the laboratory and computer facilities that exist in Sydney and putting them up in the Northern Territory? If we are worried about costs of that nature, we are not going to contend seriously that the Office in Sydney be closed and everyone shipped to the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Bass said we have long lines of communication and every general knows that long lines of communication lead to breakdown. Sure, there is an awful distance between Sydney and Jabiru, but he pointed out there are regular visits from the staff based in Sydney to the base at Jabiru. Mr Sharp —Are they expensive? Mr LAVARCH —Of course they are expensive, but they are not nearly as expensive as moving the whole shop up there. One must look at the overall picture. Obviously, there are good lines of communication. I understand that communications between the Northern Territory and Sydney are in reasonable shape. We have such things as telephones and facsimile machines and what have you. Distance of itself is no great argument for saying that the lines of communication are overstretched. I do not think that argument stands up. The honourable member went on to outline a few alternatives he thought should be looked at. He suggested there may be some grounds to establish a northern institute for wetlands based at the university in Darwin. This institute could take over some of the functions of the Office, together with some research functions already at the university. I suppose that is a proposal the Government could look at, provided there were some tangible benefits. I return to the point that already there are consultative mechanisms that allow all interested parties to have a role in the decision-making process. The honourable member for Bass must have some specific reasons why there would be an advantage in these functions being incorporated in some new institute. If we are genuinely concerned about costs, the last thing we should look at is setting up new separate institutes. That would be a fairly expensive exercise even if there were a great deal to be gained. Let us look at what the office currently does and see whether it still plays a worthwhile role. That is a good starting point, and I think the honourable member for Bass will agree with that. Firstly, the office provides independent and credible scientific advice on the operation of the mine and the environmental protection arrangements set down by this Government. So we have an independent body to provide advice on how the mine is going and what measures should be introduced. The honourable member mentioned also that the Office comes in for a fair bit of criticism from all sides of the uranium mining argument. I suggest, as he did, that that shows it is in fact playing that role-obviously it is offering independent advice. It is not a prisoner of any one particular point of view. It has played that worthwhile role for the past 10 years and is continuing to play it. Secondly, the Office carries out the legislative functions determined by Parliament as the minimum to satisfy the public demand for high environmental standards. As I pointed out, we are talking about an area of immense environmental significance. More than that, we are talking about an area of immense significance to the local Aboriginal community. The environmental and pollution standards Western culture may accept are probably quite different to those of the Aboriginal community. To have a separate body which has direct input to that community continues to be extremely worthwhile. I do not think we are falling down on those counts. I believe the critical problem concerns the control of the water management system and replaced water products and the need to keep them separate from the Alligator Rivers and the catchment area. For that reason there need to be very strict environmental controls. The Office is playing a worthwhile role in that regard. I would like also to speak just briefly about the question of the local Aboriginal community. I have no doubt that other honourable members will probably take up this point as well. I had the pleasure just recently to hear very interesting views being expressed on this subject by Senator Bob Collins from the Northern Territory. He certainly gave what I would call an eye opening account of the views of the Aboriginal community generally in the Northern Territory on the question of uranium mining. It is clear that there has been some sort of transformation, if Senator Collins's views are correct, in the Aboriginal community on this particular subject, and I will listen with interest to the honourable member for the Northern Territory a bit later in this debate giving his particular views on this subject. For my part, I would just like to reiterate that I think there is a very real additional responsibility on the Commonwealth, given that we are dealing with a traditional Aboriginal community whose links with that land have extended for far longer than any of our links, or European links, to ensure that the environment is protected over and above that protection which the area deserves simply by its own world-class environmental significance. For that point alone I think it is important that this Government keep a very active role through the Office of the Supervising Scientist. As for the financial part of this Bill, the Commonwealth will gain this financial year an additional $600,000, which in a full year will increase to $900,000. This means that annually the Commonwealth will collect some $4m through this levy. It has been suggested that that will be a great imposition on the uranium miners and that, at a time when Australia needs great export earnings, we should not be putting this sort of levy on uranium mining. I suppose the basic retort to that is that the companies are extracting a benefit from that area and they have a responsibility to ensure that they safeguard their operations and what they are doing there. I do not think it is so unreasonable to expect the company to pay in the form of a levy the cost of those maintenance provisions. The other argument put forward is that Australia should be exporting uranium, that we have huge balance of payments problems, and what have you. Without canvassing the argument too much, the uranium will not evaporate; it will not disappear overnight; it will continue to sit there. It is like money in the bank. I am by no means convinced that the economics being put forward at the moment justify wholesale mining on the sole ground, forgetting the other arguments to be put forward, that a worldwide market exists. But if in the future the growth of the industry continues and we can be satisfied as to matters of safeguard and the interrelation of the industry with nuclear weapons, the uranium will continue to be an asset that we have managed to conserve. I do not really believe the great tales of woe and doom that, if we do not dig up every ounce we can at the moment, we will sink and our standard of living will go down the gurgler. That simply does not stand up to any close scrutiny. On the whole, I believe there is a worthwhile role for the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I believe it is reasonable to fund that role through the collection of a levy. I do not dismiss out of hand the comments made by the honourable member for Bass, but I certainly dismiss out of hand as simply nonsense that the Government's actions in this regard are reasons for it to be condemned. So I ask the House to reject the amendment and to support the original proposal. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.05) —Tonight we are debating the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill, which increases the export duty on uranium from 80c to $1.02 for every kilogram exported. It is worth reflecting on these figures because that is a 25 per cent increase. Only about one year ago, almost to the day, we were debating similar legislation when we were increasing the export duty from 11c to 80c-a 7 1/4 fold increase. I wonder what the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), the so-called guru of the price watch committee, would have thought of that. Here is a government charge going up by massive amounts on two occasions, well above the consumer price index, in a matter of 12 months. This is an excellent example of government taxes and charges forcing prices up. We are told that the Bill is designed to recover 75 per cent of the cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) which runs into just over $6m a year. I will come to the OSS later. In total, the levy will collect about $4m a year, but I note with some interest that this levy will be paid into general revenue; it will not go directly into any environmental or research body but straight into general revenue. That alone tells us that the Government is using this levy as a tax to raise more money. The Ranger mine, the main mine in the Kakadu National Park and Alligator Rivers area, is already paying more than its fair share of taxes. In the few short years it has been in operation it has earned more than $1,000m for Australia in export income. It has produced government tax payments of well over $400m and it has paid about $60m in royalties to the Northern Territory Aborigines. So it has done its bit and is paying its way. There is a smaller mine there milling uranium-the Nabarlek mine-which has also paid its taxes and grants to the Aborigines. It has paid more than $11m in royalties to Aborigines in the time it has been in operation. I believe that the Government is milking these mines with extra taxes, and this legislation, in effect, is ordering the golden goose to lay one more egg for the Government in order to prop up its profligate spending. As I have said, there are two mines in the Kakadu National Park area, the main one of which is Ranger, operated by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA). It is situated near Jabiru and has been a very safe mine for the workers and for the environment around it. Mr Milton —What about the spillages? Mr COBB —Spillages have caused no damage at all that the OSS can detect. I have read the reports carefully. ERA sells in excess of 3,000 tonnes of high concentrate uranium oxide overseas and it is proposed in future years that that amount will double. This is good for Australia's balance of payments. ERA announced last month that it had made its first sale for some time to France which generates more than 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power because it is so clean, safe and relatively cheap, compared with alternative sources. An associate of Electricite de France, Cogema Australia, has purchased a 1 1/4 per cent stake in ERA, which is very good for customer relationships and the stability of the market. Mr Peter Fisher —The Government will even support that. Mr COBB —The Government does support that, as the honourable member for Mallee says, though I believe it has had quite a deal of agonising about it and will continue to do so. The No. 1 ore body at the Ranger mine is about 52 hectares in area and about 175 metres deep. It has been operating since 1980 and is a spiral road, open cut mine with a mean ore grade of about 0.3 per cent, which eventually will yield about 53,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. There is a No. 3 ore body there, which is due to begin operations in about 1992, that will produce 72,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. The ore is crushed and leached with sulphuric acid and the uranium is extracted from the leached mixture with solvents to form a concentrate of about 95 per cent uranium oxide. The tailings that are left over are neutralised by lime and put into a tailings dam. This whole operation, especially how the Ranger mine gets rid of its waste, is watched over by a body with the rather quaint title of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It has a supervisory and research role concerned with the environmental protection of the Alligator Rivers region. For those listening in who do not know where that is, it lies about 220 kilometres east of Darwin. The annual rainfall in that area is about 1,500 millimetres, or about 60 inches on the old scale, which I understand a lot better, and it mainly falls between December and April, in the wet season. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was established 10 years ago, in 1978, mainly as a sop to the greenies so that we could get uranium mining finally under way in that area. Its accounts show that it spent $6,144,557 last year. I was interested to see that amongst its accounts was an expenditure of $21,000 in fringe benefits tax. In other words, here is a sort of Government set up company paying fringe benefits tax back to the Government. It is a bit like a vampire bat drinking its own blood. I cannot see much sense in that, but that has been the history of the fringe benefits tax in this country. Three-quarters of the Office's total expenditure goes on research, as previous speakers have said. I see that the Government has looked fairly hard at the OSS and trimmed the staff level from 76 to 67. I see that one of the staff is based in Darwin, most in Jabiru and about one-third in Sydney. I do not know what the number is, but last year the Office had about 27 of its staff on level 24 of the Triple M tower in Bondi. I spoke on that matter last year so I will not go into it at this time. In the 10 years of the Office's existence it has found little wrong with the way in which Ranger and Nabarlek are managed. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) so rightly raised the question: Is the Office needed now with its present staffing level? Can we afford it? I guess the answer is that we have it only because originally it was set up as a sop to the greenies. We can afford to put the levies on these mines because they are so profitable. We could not afford it on other mines around Australia: we would have almost no mining in this country. Mr Snowdon —Nothing to do with Justice Fox. Mr COBB —The left wing, which is interjecting now, would like to shut the country down. We would be living under a piece of bark leant against a tree trunk if we listened to some of the rabble opposite. Ranger and Nabarlek are already very tightly restricted with legislation. One can hardly go to the toilet in the area for red tape. There are 13 pieces of Commonwealth legislation, 34 pieces of Northern Territory legislation and four new Northern Territory regulations covering the area. In the 12 months between July 1986 and July 1987 there were 17 changes to Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation which sets the rules for the mining there. To give just one example, one of those pieces of legislation, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, has 14 agreements concerned with it alone. I think we have to keep the matter in perspective. The Arnhem Highway that was put in the area, I am told, has created five times more environmental damage than all the mines in the Northern Territory put together. The proper protection of the environment concerns us all, but the weirdo, extremist environmentalists in society are hell-bent on forcing all these extra costs and restrictions on us and shutting down any reasonable development or mining, especially of uranium. Coal can belch out its acid rain, producing pollution which poisons lakes and does not do forests any good. It even punches out more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant, for heaven's sake! It also puts out carbon dioxide, which contributes very much to the greenhouse effect. But that is okay with the left wing, which does not seem to consider the alternatives if we are going to continue to produce energy in this world. It seems to think it is somehow evil for Australia even to export uranium. I notice that some of these people who travel to visit some of those sites to demonstrate do so in planes which use up oil. They drive vehicles made out of iron and aluminium, which are mined from the ground, and they even use the roads, the construction of which, I suppose one could say, has damaged the environment in some way. Even though they are against chopping down trees they live in houses in which timber is used. They even use toilet paper which comes from trees that have been chopped down. They are totally inconsistent in the principles they espouse and the way they conduct their lives. It is well known in the Alligator Rivers region that waste water can be discharged safely without harm to either man or the environment. No harmful short-or long-term effects have been found, particularly from radiation. The main worry-if there is any from discharge-is with the heavy metal component. At Rum Jungle we saw that the toxicity was from heavy metal damage rather than radioactivity. Ranger knows it, and the Office of the Supervising Scientist knows it. It is in its last annual report. The Government has been informed of it, but it is too scared to act. It has directed Ranger to enlarge its pond, although I am pleased to say that it has rejected the more environmentally damaging alternative of putting in a new dam which would probably cover another 30 to 40 hectares. Probably the best environmental option is to allow the release of the water because that will cause least damage to the environment and will be the least costly. The release would go into Magela Creek. It should be done in the wet season when it is flowing strongly so there is sufficient dilution. It should be done early in the season when there is still the expectation of further floods later on-certainly no more than four to six weeks before the end of the wet season. It was interesting to flick through the back pages of the annual report of the Office of the Supervising Scientist and look at its research projects which have been mentioned tonight. No doubt some are quite pertinent to what the Office has to do up there, but some of them seem to be a little esoteric. One project looks at sexual differences in morphology and niche utilisation in an aquatic snake. Another looks at food habits, habitats and reproductive biology of four sympatric species of varanid lizards in tropical Australia. And so on. When the honourable member for Bass said that perhaps we could look at some of the Office's functions, maybe those are some of the areas that he had in mind. The future of the Office of the Supervising Scientist could well grow, particularly under this Government, instead of being wound back. This could happen despite Nabarlek closing down later this year, leaving only one mine operating there. Exploration is really starting to crank up at Coronation Hill. The interest there is not so much in uranium; it is more in gold, platinum and the palladium metals. Coronation Hill will take a very much higher prominence as the operations get further under way. I wonder if there is an export tax on uranium, what tax the Government will try to collect to have the Office of the Supervising Scientist overseeing what is going on at Coronation Hill. We are starting to see exploration programs being looked at at Myra Falls, which is within Arnhem Land, some 40 kilometres south of Nabarlek. We have a wait and see, or care and maintenance program going on at two deposits there-the Koongarra uranium deposit, which is operated by Denison Australia Pty Ltd, and the Jabiluka deposit, which is operated by Pancontinental Mining Ltd-just north of Ranger. The latter deposit is a very rich one. I think it has been a wicked waste that we have not been able to mine that uranium under the so called three mines policy. It is illogical that we can mine uranium in one area of Australia but not in another. The Government should not decide that; business people should be making the proper decisions in that area. Australia has close to 30 per cent of the free world's uranium sources, yet we export only 10 per cent. Countries such as Canada and South Africa have jumped in and have our markets. It will be very hard for us to get back into those markets, particularly in the short term. It is almost economic treason. In one sense we have lost those sales forever. One day we are going to move into fusion power and people will not want uranium. They will be abandoning it in the next decade or two. World uranium production is soon to fall if no more new mines come on stream. At the same time as production is falling the requirement for uranium will be increasing through the next decade. There will be something like a 30,000 tonne shortfall by the year 2000, which is only 12 years away. Australia, with sensible policies, will be the best placed country in the world, with its low cost reserves, to fill that shortfall and to earn some export income for this country. The spot price of uranium at this stage is $US18 a kilogram, which is about $A25 a kilogram, but the long term market price is closer to $US31 a kilogram. As our uranium markets, small as they are, are based mainly on long-term markets which pay a premium for a more stable source of supply, that will give honourable members some idea of the many hundreds of millions, if not thousands of millions, of dollars, we could be earning for this country. The future for exports in this area is quite exciting. If we let it slip through our fingers again, as we have done in the past, countries like Canada with their Cigar Lake supplies in Saskatchewan will supply those markets and we will miss out. That will be money that we will never see. We should move in the direction I have described. In doing so, we should be careful not to tax excessively our profitable mines because that will only stifle exploration and the development of new mines and so condemn us all to a lower standard of living than we would otherwise enjoy. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(9.22) —I speak in support of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill and against the amendment. I thank the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) for their great contributions to this debate. The honourable member for Fisher analysed the contributions of both the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) in an extremely fine fashion. Before I begin my remarks about the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) I will make some comments on the contributions of those honourable members and that of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Bass, whilst recognising the need for baseline date and acknowledging that he is not a scientist, now desires to limit the ability of the OSS to do its job. That is rather strange, considering that he is clearly not in the position of being able to analyse whether the OSS is doing its job efficiently or effectively. I suggest that he knows next to nothing about the processes the Office is involved in. The honourable member also asserted that the functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist are now routine. I will address those remarks in some detail during my address to the chamber, but clearly that is not the case. I can only suggest to the honourable member for Berowra that his arguments about the economics of uranium mining were, at the very best, fatuous. I suggest that he examine the great contribution to research in the field that is being done by Dr Ciaran O'Faircheallaigh from the North Australian Research Unit. The honourable member would do well to read the papers produced by Dr O'Faircheallaigh. They will demonstrate to him that uranium mining is not the panacea which members of the Opposition make it out to be. Indeed, there is a very good argument for suggesting that mining has minimal effect on the Northern Territory economy. In fact, the only real contribution to the Northern Territory economy which results from uranium mining is derived from the royalties which are paid to Aboriginal people. I suggest to the honourable member for Berowra that he contact the North Australian Research Unit and get hold of the research so that next time he speaks in a debate on this matter he can speak from an informed position. What can one say about the contribution of the honourable member for Parkes? He is clearly one of those people who, as the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) will later say, would suggest that if it is alive, shoot it; if it is a tree, cut it down; and if it is not, dig it. I am afraid that I am not one of those people. I have grave reservations-which are well known not only in this House but also elsewhere in Australia-about uranium mining. One of my great interests has been the progress of uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I have a deep and abiding concern that has not been eased by the sorts of comments made by the Opposition. Indeed, I think that the Opposition knows, and ought to acknowledge, that the interests of the Australian community will be fostered only by genuine and informed debate about the question of uranium mining-not by the sorts of fatuous claims made by the Opposition. The honourable member for Bass said that the University College of the Northern Territory might be an appropriate institute to take over the research role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Unfortunately, whilst I think there is a great deal of merit in the argument for a research institute of the type about which the honourable member spoke, a national wetlands institute, I do not think that now is the time. The honourable member should understand, if he does not already, that the University College of the Northern Territory is a neophyte institution which does not have the capacity to do the work that he would like it to do. At the moment the major contributing bodies to the sort of research to which the honourable member is alluding are the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Northern Australian Research Institute, which itself is an arm of the Australian National University. I suggest that the honourable member should inform himself about the research that those bodies are undertaking, not only in terms of the wetlands area but also in terms of northern Australia generally. Then he would realise that his comments are misplaced. In the longer term it would be appropriate if a tertiary institute in the Northern Territory carried out the type of research that the honourable member advocates. He should contact the Northern Territory Government and suggest to it that the best way it could achieve that objective would be to rationalise the tertiary institutes-combine the Darwin Institute of Technology and the University College of the Northern Territory, and then work out a way by which they could attract the sorts of funds required to carry out the very considerable task that he would like them to perform. I should like to address some remarks to the substance of the debate and canvass a number of points. I shall not traverse the functions of the OSS, as that aspect has been sufficiently discussed by previous contributors to the debate. However, I shall point out a couple of matters that need to be understood. I am sure that the general community would like to be aware of why the OSS is so important to the Alligator Rivers region and why there is so much concern about the environmental impact of not only the physical but also the social impact of uranium mining. Honourable members opposite should be aware that in the early days of uranium mining environmental problems received little attention. Tailings dumps were not even considered hazardous. For example, in the United States of America some 24 tailings sites now have to be rehabilitated, at a cost of somewhere in the vicinity of $US500m. At Grand Junction, Colorado, tailings were used as fill material, and now 1,000 buildings are contaminated and will have to be rehabilitated. I am sure that the honourable member for Parkes would consider that appropriate, given his statements about those people who have concerns about uranium mining, and environmental concerns in particular. There has been serious pollution of waterways-of course that would not concern him-at Elliot Lake in Canada and at Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory. I wonder whether the honourable member for Parkes has ever bothered to visit the Northern Territory and, indeed, Rum Jungle to examine what has happened in terms of the uranium mining which took place in the mid-1950s. Has he seen the results of the environmental impact after the mine closed? In the case of Rum Jungle, the heavy metals, acids and sulphates leaching into the East Finniss River were the major source of pollution. The rehabilitation of Rum Jungle was commenced in June 1982 and was completed four years later. It cost the Australian taxpayer $16.2m, but of course the honourable member for Parkes is not interested in that. What was once described as a stark lunar landscape has been, as a result of that rehabilitation effort, transformed into a lush tropical oasis of lakes and ponds, wetlands, marshes, well treed bushland and grassy hillocks. I note, as the honourable member for Bass leaves the House, that that was not the way it was left when the mine closed. To give an example of the extent of the pollution of the Finniss River, the pollution load carried by that river had to be reduced, in the instance of copper, by 70 per cent, manganese by 56 per cent and zinc by 70 per cent. The Alligator Rivers region uranium industry of course requires the sort of care and maintenance that the Office of the Supervising Scientist ensures it receives. The Alligator Rivers region lies some 220 kilometres east of Darwin and covers an area of about 28,000 square kilometres. It is broadly defined by the catchment of the West, South and East Alligator Rivers. I commend this region to all honourable members as it is extremely attractive and important, not only in terms of Australia but in terms of the world. This has been acknowledged by its inclusion on the World Heritage List. Much of the region is Aboriginal land. Rich Aboriginal cultural heritage sites of significance to the Aboriginal people are abundant. It is extremely important that I note that no-one in the Opposition has addressed the question of the Aboriginal interest in the land and the Aboriginal interest in the environment in the vicinity of the Ranger uranium mine or in the Alligator Rivers region generally. The area includes Kakadu National Park stages 1 and 2 which are now on the World Heritage List. I remind the House and the Opposition in particular why stages 1 and 2 of the Kakadu National Park have been made part of the World Heritage List. It was recommended for these reasons: as a cultural property the park is of outstanding universal value because the art sites of Kakadu represent one of the most major and spectacular concentrations of Aboriginal art in Australia. When the whole park has been surveyed it is expected that there will be in excess of 1,000 discrete art sites recorded. Although damage and deterioration have occurred at some sites, most paintings are well preserved. The rock art provides an indication of the composition of previous species in the area and it can be used in conjunction with archaeological records to provide information about the past Aboriginal prehistoric economy and subsistence behaviour. It contains a large number of archaeological sites, most of which are yet to be excavated. Rich midden deposits are present because the sites were in close proximity to widely differing ecological zones and conditions favourable to the preservation of a wide variety of organic remains have occurred. Excavation of the archaeological sites could prove of great value to future researchers in climatology, geomorphology and to biological science in addition to prehistory. In terms of the physical interests and the justification for the World Heritage listing, I ask the Opposition to listen to the reasons for this. I suggest that honourable members opposite ought to have great cognisance of these reasons in their consideration of the questions concerning the Office of the Supervising Scientist. In terms of the natural property, the Kakadu National Park was recommended for listing for the following reasons: it contains representative samples of a wide range of ecosystems, including those of the tidal flats, floodplains, lowlands and plateaux. It is the only conservation area in the Top End of the Northern Territory to conserve such a range of habitats and species. It is a large area, ensuring that the integrity of most of the ecosystems is maintained. The vegetation, particularly the aquatic component, is rich in terms of floristics and endemisms. The other fauna is rich and varied comprising an estimated one-third of Australian bird species. There is a remarkable diversity of fresh water fish species with approximately one-quarter of all recorded Australian freshwater fish occurring in the park. There is also a wide diversity of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. It provides suitable habitats for some of Australia's endangered species, for example the estuarine crocodiles. It provides a habitat for a wide range of rare and regionally endemic species of flora and fauna. The escarpment is scenically spectacular and features some outstanding waterfalls, and the wetlands of the regions, the subject of research by the Office of the Supervising Scientist, including the park, constitute one of Australia's major wetland regions and are frequented by very large numbers of a wide variety of waterbirds. At certain times the wetlands are an important wintering habitat for non-breeding Asiatic waders and as a dry season refuge for many local species. The flora and fauna have interesting scientifically important affinities with South East Asia and Papua New Guinea, and in addition to scientific research and educational opportunities, the natural heritage of Kakadu National Park provides an internationally outstanding basis for a wide range of passive and active visitor use. On that point I point out to honourable members opposite that, while they wax lyrical about the economic benefits of uranium mining, which I suggest are questionable, they ought to be cognisant of the fact that last year 200,000 visitors went as tourists to Kakadu National Park and this year it is estimated the number will climb to a quarter of a million. That is very important because it has important spin-off effects not only in terms of the immediate vicinity of Kakadu but in the Northern Territory economy generally. I add that a lot of that tourism comes from visitors from overseas, particularly Japan and the United States of America. It is important, therefore, that we recognise that the Office of the Supervising Scientist is crucial to the protection of this crown jewel of Australian tourism and natural heritage-not only natural heritage but also, as I suggested earlier, the heritage of Aboriginal Australians. It is important that people understand the way in which Aboriginal Australians, particularly the people of this region, relate to the area and to the region. When those opposite talk in rather crass terms about the economy of uranium mining, they should take cognisance of and try to understand the role of Aboriginal people in that environment. As the honourable member for Fisher suggested earlier, the Aboriginal people have a unique perspective not only about their environment but also about their role in the uranium industry. I commend to the Opposition the discussions that have taken place and are continuing to take place between Aboriginal people and various exploration companies, and indeed the Government, and to be aware of the role that they are playing. The honourable member for Parkes suggested that the Office of the Supervising Scientist resulted from some massive greenie plot. But in fact he knows, as do other Oppositions members, that the Office of the Supervising Scientist was established following the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The Fraser Government enacted the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act of 1978. Does the honourable member for Parkes have the temerity to stand up and tell me and the House that the greenies caused that to happen? I dare say that was not the case, and the Opposition knows that. The Office of the Supervising Scientist is responsible for the development and implementation of standards and procedures for protecting the environment of the area, public and worker health safety-which I know has not been discussed by members of the Opposition-and the conduct of supporting research. Through the tabling of the Supervising Scientist's annual reports in this place, the public is kept informed of whether environmental standards are being met and what is being taken to prevent infringements of the environmental regulations. Without the tabling of these reports and the constant monitoring in this place, we may not, for instance, have been made aware that in 1982 and 1983 significant incidents involving exposure of two workers to radioactive dust occurred or of the actions taken to investigate the incidents and implement remedial action. Before closing, I want to address a matter which was raised by the first two Opposition speakers in this debate, the honourable member for Bass and the honourable member for Berowra, in which they talked about the sort of research that is undertaken by the Office of the Supervising Scientist. From what I could understand, they complained that the research was rather academic and not of a great deal of use to uranium mining or to analyse the effects of uranium mining in a region. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they listen to what I have to say because the research program of OSS is tactical and problem oriented. All projects are directly related to the practice of environmental protection-assessment, control and monitoring-and to the provision to the community of technically sound advice on the state of protection being achieved in the region. I will give just a couple of examples. Ecosystem maintenance is a major goal of environment protection in the region. Work on the biology of aquatic animals and plants living in the region-the fish, frogs, lizards and aquatic reptiles, macroinvertebrates, microcrustacea and algae, for example-provides essential baseline data on the presence, identity, abundance and distribution of organisms within the aquatic ecosystem. Without this information the impact of mining operations on the aquatic environment could not be detected or even recognised. Studies of the acidity of rain, surface and ground waters are important in understanding the source of chemicals in the waters of the region, the relevance of acidity to fish kills, which are frequent in the region, and the potential for rain to leach contaminants from ore and waste rock piles. The study of Aboriginal diets and of the way in which radioactive materials released from the mining operations can find their way into bush foods is clearly essential to the formulation of standards for the control of release of radioactive substances from the mine site. I suggest that honourable members opposite read what the Office of the Supervising Scientist does so that they will understand the relevance of its research. In conclusion, I would like to quote the words of a very important and prominent Aboriginal person, Mr Big Bill Neidjie, who is a senior traditional owner of the Bunitj lands in Kakadu National Park. He is a very significant Australian-someone who, I believe, has a message for all of us. In terms of the Aboriginal perspective of the land, the need to nurture and care for it and the need for us to care about the impact not only of uranium mining in certain areas but of mining elsewhere in Australia, I commend his words to honourable members. I would like them to understand that Big Bill Neidjie is a very important traditional owner of the region. He said: Our story is in the land . . . it is written in those sacred places. My children will look after those places, That's the law. Dreaming place . . . you can't change it, no matter who you are. No matter you rich man, no matter you king. You can't change it. In talking about the value and importance of land to Aboriginals, he wrote: Should be written way Aborigine was live. That floodplain . . . my father, my mother, my grandfather all used to hunt there, use ironwood spear. no clothes then. This earth . . . I never damage, I look after, Fire is nothing, just clean up. When you burn, New grass coming up. That mean good animal soon . . . might be goose, long-neck turtle, goanna, possum. Burn him off . . . new grass coming up, new life all over. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.42) —This designation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist has a special ring to it. It reminds me of The Inspector-General. Perhaps we could incorporate it in a musical at some stage in the future. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table this evening, with his erudite approach to these matters, would make a good supervising scientist. If he, like so many of his colleagues, should have to leave-or leave by design-the front bench, he might look in that direction. In any event, there is no doubt that there is a general consensus among those who have spoken tonight that we need the Office of the Supervising Scientist and that we need the care and dedication that that Office has given to the safeguarding of the environment in the Kakadu area. There can be no doubt about that. Those of us who have visited that area-I guess that would be most of us by now-are aware of the enormous value that it has for future generations as well as our own. We would all like the area to retain that value to ensure its continuation not simply as a tourist destination but as a place for all Australians to visit, to wonder at their land and the value of this country. Having said that, of course, I was somewhat dismayed to hear the last speaker, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), and his description of the problem of Ranger and the mines in Kakadu. One would imagine from his description that it is, or could be, the worst area in Australia, and that one should place greater emphasis on those areas than perhaps on others. I ask the last speaker: What does the expansion of cities do? Think of the despoliation of the environment that goes on continually as our cities spread into the plains and the hills and despoil the vegetation and the vistas weekly, monthly and yearly, as we extend our habitation in Australia. If he wants to see real despoliation of the environment, he should visit a place such as Leigh Creek and gaze at the channels which are hundreds of feet deep and kilometres upon kilometres in length. He should visit the dry areas of Coober Pedy or Andamooka and see wastelands that would do credit to the surface of the moon. Mr Duncan —But you wanted to flood the Murray. Mr STEELE HALL —There speaks the honourable member for Makin, who had a deep involvement in the uranium question in South Australia. In fact, I will refer to some of the remarks he made a little later. He speaks for himself now and illustrates his continued involvement in the uranium question. The protection of the environment must be taken on the widest level and in a sensible way. Tourists at Kakadu are probably of greater danger to the environment, if they are uncontrolled and not channelled into the areas which can accept them, than the mine itself. We know that tourism is a subject that has to be very vigorously attended to as far as the environment is concerned. The question of uranium is one which cuts right across the many groups in the community. Most Australians, most thinking people, would be concerned at the dangers of the misuse of uranium, certainly in weaponry and in the ill conceived energy use. However, it is an emotional question which is subjected to strange tests at times. Australian Labor Party policy is to develop and encourage the use of other than nuclear fuels in developing countries. What would be the load on the earth's atmosphere if all the peoples of the world enjoyed our living standards and used our quantities of electrical energy? It would be an impossible scene. The world could not sustain the burning of fossil fuels in that quantity, and no-one here can say that it could. No-one would expect the earth's atmosphere to sustain our living standards and to support the populations of the world if that quantity of fossil fuels were burnt. That would cause such enormous calamities in this country that it probably would dwarf the consideration of any proper use of uranium, its products and derivatives in power generation. It is those sorts of considerations which are so blithely ignored by the left wing of our friends who sit opposite. I draw attention to the activities of the factions of the Australian Labor Party and what they have done and what they threaten to do to our uranium industry. Surely, Australians must think that it is one of the most contradictory and stupid scenes that the Labor Party has written into its policy-by the faceless men, those who operate and make that policy outside of the parliamentary party-the individual mines that can be operated in Australia. Can there be anything more nonsensical than that the management of this country in relation to uranium is not taken by this Party as a general policy, but individual mines are selected and placed in the policy, which is to be gone over and harrowed and turned upside down in June? Where will those mines that are already in that policy stand in July? The honourable member for Makin should be ashamed of his attitude to the development of the uranium industry in South Australia. That development was one of the most disgraceful episodes of the Labor Party ever to be seen in my State. The hypocrisy of it is demonstrated by the Premier of that State now adopting the Olympic Dam mining project almost as his own. He is running around the world promoting it as an enormous billion dollar development. He is lauding the firms which supply the enormous quantities of material and machinery that Roxby requires. But where did he stand, where did the honourable member for Makin stand when the life or death of Roxby was discussed as a project in the South Australian Parliament? The honourable member for Makin did his damndest to refuse and destroy the indenture legislation. It is interesting how the Labor Party in South Australia treated the one person in its ranks who put his State before his Party-the then Mr Norm Foster, a man with immense courage, a great Australian and a great South Australian, as is so ably demonstrated in the Legislative Council. I remember-I have the quotes here-when he was voicing his concern about not having Roxby and the effects that that would have on his State. When he was expressing those concerns the Labor Party repudiated him. In a personal explanation, which is recorded in the State Hansard, he stated about one instance: I approached my Leader- the now Premier, Mr Bannon- in the corridor last night regarding this matter. He told me that he did not want to speak to me. He told me that he had not said that I was not wanted in Caucus. However, I have seen press reports and been told by all sorts of people that that was, in fact, so. The vote shows that the Roxby indenture in the Legislative Council, where the Tonkin Government did not have a majority, passed by one vote. That vote was Norm Foster's-the man who then resigned from the Labor Party-- Mr Duncan —No, he never resigned. Mr STEELE HALL —Well, he said he did. Mr Duncan —No, the rules precluded him. Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member for Makin is being finicky now. He is using the same sorts of tactics on Norm Foster now as were used on him then. It was a battle royal in South Australia and the honourable member for Makin and his colleagues in the State Parliament did their level best to stop one of the great developments in Australia and certainly a most valuable development for my State. Australians, knowing that we have a large industry worth over $1 billion in exports each year, now face a disruption in this industry because the Labor Party is returning to its grass roots. Many honourable members opposite are sick of their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) cavorting with his rich friends in Australia and overseas. They are tired of altering legislation to benefit those rich friends. Let them speak and say they are not tired of it. What are they doing? They demand a return to the grass roots of Labor. That means that they will return to a uranium policy which will set out to destroy the industry we have now. Mr Milton —What has this got to do with uranium? Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member asks what it has to do with uranium. Why is it reported almost every day in the newspapers that the various factions have different views on the uranium industry? Why has the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) run for cover and put everything off till June, knowing that he is facing a fight for his very existence on that policy? If he cannot carry it I do not expect him to be Prime Minister at the end of the year. That is how serious the uranium question is for the Labor Party and the people of Australia. There are enormous implications in this change of direction in the Labor Party. I believe that they are very bad implications for Australia. There is a return to those views held by the honourable member for Makin, when his was the majority view, in the South Australian Parliament. Australia will be very much the loser if it listens to the people opposite and if they can guide their Party back to this scene of an anti-Australian view in relation to one of our greatest mining industries. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.54) —I am speaking in support of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill and against the amendment. I would like to make a few comments about some of the matters raised by honourable members on the opposite side of this House. First of all, I had better correct a few points. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) made a few comments. He incorporated a table in Hansard last week when he was speaking on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill. It was a table on the world survey of nuclear power reactors in operation, under construction and planned at the end of 1986. He submitted this table to try to justify the wild claim of Opposition members that the demand for uranium will far exceed supply. They are almost saying that it does now. They do not go quite as far as that, but they are saying that demand is going to exceed supply by a considerable amount by the end of this decade and, therefore, we should open up new mines. This is quite definitely nonsense. It is interesting to see that, although four of the most developed countries in the world-Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America-listed in the document tabled by the honourable member for Bass have a number of reactors, they collectively have plans for only two new reactors. Those countries have quite a number of reactors under construction, but it will be interesting to see how many of them will be completed. Now that the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reactors have had destructive accidents, I think we will find that many of those reactors will not be completed. Notwithstanding this, we have been subject to a constant distortion of facts. Today's Australian Financial Review contains an article headed `New ALP uranium row'. The article states: In 1985- and is talking about the production of uranium- production fell 4 per cent below demand for the first time since the nuclear fuelled electricity generation industry was developed. A 1986 OECD report estimated that nuclear electricity generation is growing at 5 per cent a year and that significant opportunities were available for producers. That is quite untrue. I have circulated a report which contains two tables. One of those tables is headed `The Projected Annual Uranium Requirements of the non-communist world'. That table shows that between 1973 and 1986 the nuclear fuel industry had to revise its estimates downwards by 78 1/2 per cent. If one looks at those figures in table 1 and compares them with the other table that I have put in the report, which is headed `Estimated Production in the non-communist world', one can see what the actual position is. In my report I said: These figures, when compared with Table 1, show that uranium production will continue to outstrip non military demand until at least 1995. These estimates are taken from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Atomic Energy Agency figures. They are authentic figures. Why does the Opposition continue to come into this House and talk about the need to open up new uranium mines? Let me also deal with the fact that the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) do not understand Australian Labor Party policy. They talk about a three-mine policy. At least I think the honourable member for Boothby understands that it is just not a three-mine policy. It is a three named mines policy. All of us in the Labor Party have accepted that. It is part of our policy-that is, that Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs are the three mines. Nabarlek is now mined out. When that mine is finished selling its stockpile, there will be only Ranger and Roxby Downs left. If members of the Opposition are not prepared to accept that Ranger and Roxby Downs can supply the uranium demand around the world, they need not listen to me; they should listen to Peter Bradfield, the Chief Executive of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA). This is what he said: At the moment there simply isn't enough world-wide demand to justify bringing on stream mines like Yeelirrie, the CRA Rudall River project in Western Australia, in addition to the huge Roxby Downs project and the huge Ranger project, and the Queensland Mines project (Nabarlek) which is a terminal project but is nevertheless very important. There's plenty of scope for Ranger and Roxby Downs to supply worldwide demand from Australia in the next 15 years and I don't think it's wise to see another coal industry developed in this country where, for example, we have roughly forty mines and ten are profitable . . . It frustrates me that we can't sell any more (uranium), but here again . . . it's a buyer market . . . that's the reason why a three mine policy is defensible. I did not say that. Peter Bradfield, the Chief Executive of ERA, said it. So do not come into this House with this nonsense about how the demand for uranium is going to grow and we must have more mines in this country, because that is just plainly not true. I do not care who says it; it is not true. I suggest that honourable members opposite should read the reports of the OECD and the International Atomic Energy Agency and get their facts right. Having mentioned those matters in response to comments from honourable members opposite, I want to say something about their comments about the Office of the Supervising Scientist. In making those comments I do not intend to say any more about what the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) had to say. I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) covered those points very well. Of course, the other members on this side of the House who participated in the debate made a number of very good points, and I do not intend to cover that ground either. The Office of the Supervising Scientist does a very good job, and it has the full support of honourable members on this side of the House. I am speaking in particular as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. In my capacity as Chairman, I cannot let go unanswered the wild and misinformed statements made by Opposition members about the role and functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Honourable members will be well aware of my attitude to the location of a major mine, the Ranger uranium mine, in one of the most beautiful and important parts of Australia's and, indeed, the world's natural and cultural heritage. Of course, the honourable member for the Northern Territory has outlined to this House the beauties of the area. It remains my firm belief that any mining in the magnificent Alligator Rivers region is inappropriate. Honourable members opposite have argued that the role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist serves no purpose and it imposes unfair and unjustifiable costs on the mining industry. They claim that Ranger operates in a manner which is compatible with the region in which it is located. Let us look at the facts. In 1986 the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I was Chairman, tabled in this House a report which was highly critical of some of the operations of the Ranger uranium mine. In commenting on the number of failures in Ranger's water management system, the Committee concluded that it could not accept that a company which is located within an area of significant environmental value, that claims to be as efficient as any other operation in the world and that claims to be one of the most regulated companies in the world should have allowed the number of accidental spillages to have occurred since operations commenced. In fact, only just the other day there was another spillage. Fortunately, a Senate committee is looking at this matter. It has been to the area, and I shall be interested to see its report on that spillage. The Committee of which I was Chairman observed many other aspects of the mine's operations which indicated a lack of environmental awareness by the company. Examples included the state of the sulphur dump, exposed and decaying bags of chemicals at the water treatment plant, and the trial dry tailings plot unfenced and with animal footprints in the tailings. I shall leave it to other members to judge the environmental competence of a company that decided to import onto its site about one million cubic metres of water in excess of requirements during 1982, with no concern about the longer term environmental consequences should rainfall return to normal in following seasons, which I might add it did. What was the company's solution to this excess water? It was to make a request to the Office of the Supervising Scientist to release the water into the highly sensitive waters of Magela Creek which flows through Kakadu National Park. That is why we need the Office of the Supervising Scientist. We need it to ensure that these uranium mines and other mines do not take that sort of action to destroy the environment. Honourable members opposite argue that we do not need the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Even with the close supervision which is now in place, my former Committee, in just one quick visit, was able to see activities which could have harmful effects on the environment. Without the Office of the Supervising Scientist it is possible that we could end up with another Rum Jungle or Mount Lyell. The honourable member for Parkes spoke about Rum Jungle but he did not talk about the $16m that it cost to repair the damage that occurred at Rum Jungle. It amazes me that some members of the Opposition are so blinkered by the attitude that mining companies should be able to operate without being subject to any sorts of controls. They fail to realise how the findings of the Office of the Supervising Scientist in its research activities can be used to support the view that the operations of Ranger, in some cases, cause no environmental harm. Let us just take one example. Fish kills are frequent in the region. Research by the Office of the Supervising Scientist has shown that the acidity of rain in the region is not due to sulphur oxide emissions from the Ranger acid plant and the fish kills that are common at the start of the wet season have a natural cause and are not a consequence of the mining operations. So there is an example where the Office of the Supervising Scientist was able to point to a danger to animals or an occurrence to the animals in the region which was not a consequence of mining operations. Nobody can accuse me of being an apologist or a spokesperson for the mining industry. Yet here is just one example which indicates that, without the data provided by the Office of the Supervising Scientist, serious doubts could have been cast on the mining company concerning the effects of its operations on the various systems of the region. The research programs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist are tactical and problem-oriented. That was mentioned by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. All the projects are directly related to the promotion of environmental protection. I have a copy of the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region 1986-87. It seems to me that many honourable members opposite just have not read this report. What is said in it is very clear: Present knowledge of the environment in the south Alligator River valley is very limited and the amount of work required to establish baseline conditions and to evaluate potential impacts of mining operations could exceed that needed in connection with uranium mining on Magela Creek. What they are talking about here is the need to have research operations along the whole extent of the South Alligator valley. This includes, of course, Coronation Hill. I might say something about that a little later. The honourable member for Parkes was sneering about the work of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. He just picked out a few examples which, I imagine, people listening to the debate would have found rather esoteric. Why did he not just describe the work of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, its research work, in simple language? First, it has biologicial monitoring. The aim is to develop techniques and procedures for detecting and assessing the effects of mining and processing operations on the biota of the Alligator Rivers region. Let us look at toxicity testing, testing for the poisons of metal pollution. Experiments are used to develop prospective methods of assessing the toxic risks of mine waste waters to aquatic organisms in order to specify safe dilutions of these waters for discharge into streams. That was how we were able to find out that the Ranger mine should not discharge water into the Magela Creek. The Office also has an environmental radioactivity research program. The aim is to identify and evaluate through field measurements, experimentation and modelling, the pathways and mechanisms by which radionuclides from uranium mines in the Alligator Rivers region can lead to the radiation exposure of humans. That is very important. We have to know whether human beings could be exposed to radiation as a result of activities in those mines. The environmental modelling research program is designed to develop mathematical models to determine the impact of mining operations on the environment, in order to predict what will happen in the future. There is an environmental chemistry research program which is identifying and evaluating chemical interactions between released contaminants and biotic components of the environment that could have a significant effect on biological systems. In other words, what is happening to the animals in that area? Are the activities of the uranium mine affecting those animals? In the plant ecology research program, the Office is attempting to determine whether the nutrients, trace metals and radionuclides released by the mining operations affect the vegetation in the area. Is it possible to rehabilitate and revegetate? When people are rehabilitating the mines after they have been worked out, it is to this sort of research that they turn to find out the sorts of programs they should introduce. Also there is the geology of the area, the need for siting engineering design of tailings containments, to look at the stabilisation of the earth and rock structures and to see whether they will last for long periods, sometimes thousands of years. Research is done on all this work. Finally, the hydrology research program is something proposed for the future. I fully support the Government's decision to expand the role of the Supervising Scientist to include non-uranium mines and environmental assessments of possible mining operations in stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. In stage 3 one has the operation of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd at Coronation Hill. Many Opposition members seem to be unaware, although that does not apply to the honourable member for Boothby, that many of us have visited the area on a number of occasions. We have looked around the area and I looked at Coronation Hill which used to be a uranium mine. It is now worked out and gold has been found there. They are now reassessing the area and saying that there might be gold elsewhere along the escarpment. Mr Scott —Probably fool's gold. Mr MILTON —It might be fool's gold, as my colleague says. But I do not want to be fooled into accepting mining operations in an area that is so delicately balanced, where the mining itself will take place only 200 metres from the South Alligator Creek. In such circumstances it is essential to have a body like the Office of the Supervising Scientist to look over the activities of the mining operations to ensure that they are not causing danger to the environments or to the plants and animals in the area. I thoroughly support the extension of the Office of the Supervising Scientist to undertake that work. The effects of toxic chemicals resulting from most mining operations can be at least as threatening to human life, if not more so, as the contamination from radioactive substances. I believe that the Office of the Supervising Scientist plays a key role in the protection of the region if mining is to continue and if the environment of Kakadu is to be safeguarded. It is also appropriate that the companies whose operations are the single greatest threat to the environment should meet at least part of the costs of the research and monitoring. I fully support the Bill and I do not support the Opposition's amendment. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being approximately 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(10.15) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House a very sad and eminently correctable problem. Julie Davidson is only 4 feet 4 inches-132 centimetres-tall. She is 14 years old and her classmates are on average 5 feet 3 inches tall. Although she is two years younger, Julie's sister Christie is 5 feet 3 inches and towers above her elder sister. Julie suffers from a problem known as Turners syndrome and, at best, can expect to reach a maximum height of 4 feet 7 inches, compared with an average female adult height of 5 feet 5 inches. The sad thing is that there is a remedy. Thousands of dollars, years of research and modern technology have meant that there is a remedy called Somatonorm. It is a biosynthetic growth hormone that makes children grow. It has been used throughout the world and has had miraculous results overseas. It has produced growth rates of up to 14 1/2 centimetres a year. With Somatonorm, the younger the age of the recipient the better is the chance of achieving a normal adult height. What is sad for Julie is that time is running out. Unless she receives this drug before the end of puberty-in the next year or so-it will be too late. She will be sentenced to a life of dealing with all the physical and psychological problems very short people are subjected to. What is even sadder is that for the last 12 months Julie thought and hoped she would be able to receive Somatonorm and thus receive a chance of a pretty well normal life. Late last week she was told that the committee that decides to whom government funding will be allocated rejected her application to receive this drug. The drug is available but her parents or other sources will have to pay between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. Her parents, who are not particularly well off, are desperately thinking of ways to raise the money. I am afraid that, unless she is an exception and is approved by the committee, this drug has become a drug for the wealthy. At present the Government of this country says the poor will have to sort out this problem for themselves and they may have to accept that they are going to be short. The rich can buy the drug, achieve normal adult heights and avoid all the problems of short stature. There is a newly formed Human Growth Foundation. Unfortunately, this illustrates that Julie is not alone in her plight. Dozens of families who face similar fates have joined this foundation. The Federal Government should extend its funding allowance and widen the outdated restrictive criteria which determine who is eligible and who is not. The criteria on which this committee decides who may have the drug and who may not were formulated in the 1960s when the supplies of the drug were very limited. It was produced then from extracts of human pituitary gland which were very limited in volume. Now, apart from the Government's wish to restrain spending-an admirable wish in principle-there is no need to be restrictive. There is a plentiful supply of this biosynthetic hormone. This hormone would allow Julie and dozens of others to lead a normal life. I am unable to accept that the Federal Government and the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) have the right to play God for Julie. I believe in no other country in the Western world is such callousness displayed in dispensing such critical medication. The overall addition to the medical health bill would be small; the overall importance to Julie and the dozens of other in her situation would be enormous. When technology is available to help these children, it is nothing less than absolutely cruel to condemn them to a life of both physical and psychological problems. A little money in terms of the overall budget would solve their problems. In the next year or two an Australian drug will be available on the market but at present it is only undergoing trials. I do not believe it is reasonable to expect Julie and the others to wait a year or more, because in their situation it may be too late. This Government should make the drug available free of charge to all. At present, one has to be lucky enough to pass the outdated criteria imposed by the committee. The rich are okay, they can have the drug and attain normal stature. Unfortunately the poor are condemned to a life of short stature, with all its complications. Our community should not accept that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. As the Government dillydallies these children are losing the chance to gain centimetres which may help them to achieve a normal life under the influence of this drug. I urge the Government to show compassion and caring and to finance the supply of this drug to these people. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.19) —The election of a Liberal-National Party Government in New South Wales on 19 March would see a return to the days of the Askin Government when little action was taken to investigate complaints against police. I have today obtained a statutory declaration which confirms the allegations made by former New South Wales Ombudsman, George Masterman, in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. Under the headline, `The case of the poll pledge that could die on March 19' the Sydney Morning Herald article said: The former Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman, said yesterday that the Opposition's police spokesman had indicated that a promise to restrict the powers of the Ombudsman was ``just for the election''. The Opposition spokesman on police, Mr Pickering, has promised to restrict the Ombudsman from investigating complaints against police unless they are serious enough to involve an indictable offence. Mr Masterman, who resigned as Ombudsman late last year, said that Mr Pickering had come to see him before he resigned to discuss the Coalition's policy. `What Pickering said to us-and there was a witness present when I saw him-was' `This is just for the election . . .' The article goes on to say: Mr Masterman said a member of his staff had been present during the meeting. ``Never see a politician without someone else present,'' he said. He believed that Mr Pickering's policy was obviously a play for the Police Association vote. Under it, a number of instances of police misconduct might have been swept under the carpet. He also criticised Mr Pickering's understanding of the issues. ``He had a very limited knowledge of what was an indictable offence or not,'' Mr Masterman said. Mr Pickering strongly denied last night that he would institute a policy for the election which would not be carried through after it. ``That's nonsense. That's not true. I'm not in the business of telling two people two different things,'' That is what Mr Pickering said. Obviously Mr Pickering and Mr Masterman cannot both be telling the truth. I have today received a statutory declaration which confirms Mr Masterman's allegations. Michael Egan, a Labor member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, has made the following declaration: Last year the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Legislative Council, Mr Ted Pickering, M.L.C., asked me to his office to discuss a proposal I had made. When I entered his office Mr Pickering picked up a document from this desk and excitedly waved it around. He told me it was a speech he had written for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Greiner, to give at the forthcoming Police Association Conference. `We are going to buy the police force with this', Mr Pickering said. These were his exact words, which he repeated a couple of times. I have not previously revealed Mr Pickering's comments because I felt that they were so incredibly cynical that few people would believe Mr Pickering would be so stupid to make them to a government member. However, that has been changed by the reported comments Mr Pickering made to the former New South Wales Ombudsman, Mr George Masterman. That is where the statutory declaration ends. I seek leave to table a copy of Mr Egan's statutory declaration. Leave granted. Mr LEE —I thank the House. I remind the House that it was not just Mr Pickering's word against that of a Labor MLC; it was also Mr Pickering's word against that of Mr George Masterman, a man who proved his independence as a forthright and outspoken Ombudsman who did not hesitate to take on the Labor Government. If the Opposition is willing before an election to buy the support of elements of the police force which are opposed to proper investigation of misconduct claims, the election of a Liberal government simply means a return to the bad old days of the Askin Government, when police corruption was tolerated and indeed encouraged. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.23) —I want to bring up tonight the matter of the royal far west children's health scheme in Manly. In doing so, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the existence of Federal Government interference and attitudes to the operation of the scheme, which is really posing a danger to its continuing efficient and effective operation. Just to remind the House, the health scheme is a respected part of Australia's history and has a well-earned place in the hearts of tens of thousands of children and their parents who have benefited from its services over the 64 years of its existence. It was founded in 1924-in fact, four years before the Flying Doctor Service began its first flight. It was funded by the Reverend Stanley Drummond and was dedicated to the care of children from the far west of New South Wales. Its initial purpose was to give children some relief from the harsh living conditions normally encountered in that remote area by bringing them to summer holiday camps at the seaside suburb of Manly in Sydney. The scheme soon extended its scope to provide medical and dental treatment for the boys and girls attending the camps each year, as well as mobile health clinics to tour the outback districts. It was expanded as the demand increased, and it now has a very effective, efficient and far-reaching accommodation scheme. The scheme is non-denominational and is financed by public contributions and by the Federal Department of Community Services and Health. Because of the latter funding, the Federal Government has involved itself increasingly in the organisation and administration of the scheme, and it is aspects of that involvement to which I wish to turn my attention. The Commonwealth requires that its own medical officers approve all admissions to the scheme's health and medical services. In view of the contribution being made by the Federal Government to the deficit financing of the organisation, such an involvement is not unexpected, nor in principle unacceptable. However, in recent times that involvement has taken a form which is so unhelpful as to seriously prevent the scheme from meeting its long-held conviction that no child shall be deprived of adequate health services because of isolation or the socioeconomic status of his or her family. The parents, in consultation with their family doctor, have a right to determine what is best for their child. Let me give the House three examples of the type of interference which the Federal Government is meting out to this organisation. First, the admission of some children has not been approved by departmental medical officers, even in circumstances where requests for such an admission have been supported by the child's local doctor. One case that has been brought to my attention involved the rejection of an application by a departmental medical officer, despite that application having the support of 13 local health workers, two of whom were qualified medical practitioners. Secondly, departmental officers have recently informed the chief executive officer of the scheme that it is their intention not to approve any further admissions for medical, psychological or certain other assessments such as physiotherapy and speech therapy. Thirdly, applications for children from the greater Sydney area will not be approved for admission. I wrote to the embattled Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) last December about these matters and his reply gives us a clue as to why the Federal Government has adopted such an unhelpful and aggressive attitude. In a letter to me dated 18 February he said: The essential points are that children with disabilities and their families should be assisted to remain together and that services should be provided to them where they live. He also stated: It is the Government's view that the disruption to families and the provision of inappropriate nursing home care could be largely eliminated by the provision of the needed health and other services actually in the far west of NSW. There we have it. The Federal Government has obviously decided that it would be better for far west children if they were not separated from their families and instead, receive whatever medical and health care treatment they need from services which are alleged to be available where they live. That is the point: the services are simply not available. Too bad that getting access to medical, psychological, orthodontic and other health care services in the far west, particularly in one location, will involve many families in greater inconvenience and uncertainties than having them admitted to the multi disciplinary services available at Manly. Too bad that despite the Minister's preferences for far west children to use local services, there are far west doctors and health care workers who are clearly of the opinion that there are children-and in 1986-87 there were 1,550 of them-who have a need for the sort of care and attention offered by the royal far west scheme. It really is bureaucracy and the Australian Labor Party's socialist experiment gone mad. The simple fact is that the services are not available where the Minister alleges they should be available. It would be great if they were, but they are not. The services are available in this caring, modern and committed scheme which has been operating in the Manly area for 64 years and the departmental officers are simply not admitting children in very great need to these disciplines. That is a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(10.28) —I wish to raise a matter which I would not normally raise in this Parliament. Later this year-our bicentenary year-it is intended that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference be held in Australia. This is a conference which is viewed by member parliaments as being extremely important. However, a functionary of this Government and of the Commonwealth has decided of its own initiative to issue a calculated insult to the countries of the Commonwealth. Australia Post's stamp issue committee, a body of great insensitivity and massive arrogance, has over a long time shown itself to have no real appreciation of the importance of the function it performs and is certainly killing off one of the most profitable sections of Australia Post. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association holds regular conferences in Commonwealth countries and on every occasion when such a conference is held the host nation has issued a commemorative stamp in order that those who attend the conference can understand and appreciate that the host country recognises the importance of the conference. But Australia Post, substituting for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I take it, has decided to insult each of these nations by refusing to issue a stamp. It says that, having carefully considered and decided upon its stamp issue policy, which is an absolute disgrace to every member of that committee, there is no room in the program for a single stamp for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If one walks to the post office downstairs now one will see 12 or 13 stamps with the theme of `living together', and Australia Post is going to issue another 12 in that series next month-25 comic characters in one series. We have had fungi depicted on stamps, two lots about horses-we have had everything one can imagine. But this is not the first occasion on which an important event has been snubbed by the stamp issue policy. Apex, an organisation founded in my electorate, celebrated its fiftieth anniversary a few years ago. We had a stamp issued for Rotary International, an American organisation which has become firmly established in Australia. We had a stamp issued for Lions Clubs International, another American organisation, well respected and well founded in Australia, for its fiftieth anniversary. But Australia Post could not fit Apex into the program-until the political pressure by members of this House and persons outside it forced a change in that policy. I am not asking for people outside the House to take this matter up; I am asking that the Government direct Australia Post to do what it ought to do without direction, not to act in a pseudo foreign policy manner and certainly not to insult the countries of the Commonwealth. Some people may think the countries of the Commonwealth are not sensitive to this type of snub. Some honourable members will recall that, at the last Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Australia, when the representatives of one nation came here they left at the front door and went home because their flag was not flying and they considered that an insult by the Australian Government. Unfortunately, it was an error, but those representatives went home. I think it is about time that someone took in hand Australia Post and its stamp issue policy. Australia Post makes a lot of money out of philatelic sales. I am a member of a society in which people who have collected new issue Australian stamps for over 50 years have ceased collecting this year because of the exorbitant issues of Australia Post and the stupidity of the policy decisions on which they are based. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.33) —I wish to raise matters concerning the attempt of the former Minister for Trade to rig the Spigelman inquiry into pricing arrangements for the export of bauxite and alumina from Gove. When the Minister announced this inquiry in April 1986 he suggested that a transfer pricing arrangement existed between Austraswiss and its Swiss parent. The special investigator appointed was Mr Jim Spigelman, a former Sydney University Labor Club President and a former private secretary to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who was appointed by the Whitlam Government in 1975 to head its infamous Department of the Media. Mr Spigelman's career provides ample proof that, far from being an independent investigator, he is another of the former Trade Minister's cronies with a demonstrable bias in his area of inquiry. In 1972 he wrote a book entitled Secrecy-Political Censorship in Australia. This book provides undeniable evidence of Mr Spigelman's prejudice about transfer pricing. Chapter 6, entitled `A Farrago of Secrecy and Deception', has a subsection entitled `Foreign Investment'. Spigelman began: Under Section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act the Commissioner of Taxation is empowered to impose special taxation on a foreign-controlled business if he believes that it is earning less taxable income than could be expected. The techniques by which international companies can shift earnings from one jurisdiction to another, such as through intra corporate pricing, are well known. Section 136 is designed to counter such techniques . . . Section 136 is, of course, the section under which the current Labor Government, in an attempt to recoup revenue allegedly lost by transfer pricing in June 1984, issued tax assessments to Austraswiss for the years 1976 to 1979. The Spigelman inquiry was announced in April 1986 after what Trade Minister Dawkins described as `the Government's frustration, dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the principal parties involved' in the Gove project. In fact, it followed a vendetta the Minister was waging against Austraswiss in the media at that time. Mr Spigelman's report was intended to be part and parcel of the Government's attempt to press its section 136 vendetta against Austraswiss. Again in 1972, in his book, Spigelman continued: The Commissioner does not include any information on Section 136 in his annual report to Parliament. When asked for general information he relies on secrecy provisions. The High Court has held that the section imposing an obligation to report to Parliament is in no way qualified by, or subject to, the secrecy provisions. This decision has been ignored. In any case the suspicion that Section 136 is hardly used at all suggests that the failure to give even general aggregate information is designed to hide a vital gap in Australian surveillance of foreign investment in this country. That appears at pages 109 and 110. That is irrefutable evidence of Mr Spigelman's prejudice about transfer pricing and the use of section 136. Spigelman's appointment as special investigator into exports from Gove must be viewed as a corollary of his and the Whitlam Government's vendetta against multinational mining companies through the use of section 136. In 1975, Spigelman was appointed by Gough Whitlam to the task force to review the continuing expenditure policies of the previous Government. I now quote from Alan Reid's The Whitlam Venture: On March 28, 1973, Whitlam set up a task force to `apply a close scrutiny to the continuing policies of the previous government so that room may be found for our own higher priority programmes' . . . Rural interests was not represented either through an individual or departmentally. Spigelman, one of Whitlam's secretaries, was, like Whitlam, a lawyer . . . In 1981, Mr J. J. Spigelman co-authored The Nuclear Barons-the inside story of how they created our nuclear nightmare, a rabid tract which takes a jaundiced view of the nuclear mining industry. I was told of Mr Spigelman's imminent elevation to the ranks of Queens Counsellors prior to this occurring in November last year. In legal circles it was seen as a pay-off for Mr Spigelman's submission of a satisfactory report on transfer pricing with regard to exports from Gove, also due in November, but extended to 1987. Interestingly, a Press release from the then Trade Minister dated 20 January 1987, announcing receipt of the Spigelman report, acknowledges the fact that Mr Spigelman had been made a QC. In short, the former Trade Minister should never have appointed Mr Spigelman and he should be condemned for doing so. I note from Senator Cook's ministerial statement to the Senate last Thursday that the dispute between the Government and Austraswiss has been resolved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.38) —Today in Question Time I raised the fact that the New South Wales Opposition has proposed to sell public housing at a discount to existing tenants. In answer to my question the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) confirmed that such a proposal by the New South Wales Opposition to sell public housing stock at heavily discounted prices was in direct contravention of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) to which New South Wales is a signatory. The Minister said that Australian taxpayers have provided substantial funds to develop public housing and New South Wales has benefited in great measure from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Such an investment cannot be squandered by allowing the Liberal Opposition to get control in New South Wales. The Minister went on to say that not only does the proposal contravene the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement but also, if implemented, it would reverse advances in public housing in New South Wales over the past four years and dramatically reduce the availability of adequate, affordable accommodation for low income families. In fact, it would result in less stock and eventually in higher rents and increased homelessness, which is probably the greatest problem facing low income people in Australia, including, of course, New South Wales. The Minister pointed out that, through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the Federal Government provides funds to the States for home purchase assistance and public rental housing. Under the agreement, New South Wales will receive more than $229m in 1987-88 for public housing. All up, in 1987-88, the Federal Government will make over $344m available for public housing in New South Wales-more than double the $149.9m provided by the previous Federal Government in 1982-83. Of the Federal contribution-I referred to the figure of $299m earlier-around $230m will be provided as direct grants through the CSHA of which $184.4m is untied funds and the balance is allocated to specific purpose programs. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, signed in 1984 by the Commonwealth and all States, specifically prohibits the sale of CSHA-funded public rental dwellings at discount prices. Houses may be sold at market value or at replacement cost to keep the stock there, provided that the funds are directed back into the public housing area. This measure is designed to prevent a run-down in public housing such as occurred under previous Liberal governments. The Minister said that Mr Greiner's proposal would have serious consequences for public housing funding in New South Wales and would force a reassessment of the Commonwealth commitments under the CSHA. He said that with 60,000 people in New South Wales waiting for public housing New South Wales needs a boost in the amount of public housing, not some bargain basement sale of this valuable public asset. In the State electorate of Waverley in my electorate-the State member is my very dear colleague, Ernie Page-the Waverley Council is beginning to re-implement the housing programs that were instituted by the former Waverley Council and my colleague Ernie Page some years ago. That Council was replaced for four years by a Liberal council which immediately began to dismantle the public housing programs implemented by the former Waverley Council and which became a model for the local government component of the CSHA. Housing is basic. Public housing availability is essential. Another basic, I point out to the people of New South Wales, is public information. There are rumours going around this place that the Sydney Sun may close. If such a newspaper disappeared it would mean that Rupert Murdoch alone would have control of the evening newspapers in New South Wales, another basic to be taken away from the people of New South Wales-diversity of information. All we know about the Murdoch newspapers overseas like the Sun in London is that they are into all the things that bring disgrace on the newspaper industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.43) —I live in an area where, if one sees a big green tree, one quivers with excitement. One rarely sees a big green tree. Hence I was the greenest of all greenies when it came to rainforests until I had the opportunity of going into some rainforests, having had a new area brought into the electorate of Kennedy. There is not much of Queensland that is not in the electorate of Kennedy. I began to understand how gentle and totally compassionate the foresters were in regard to retaining the forest growth and regrowth. Let me explain. Cyclone Winifred came along and swept everything away, including a lot of the rainforests. One cannot even see where that happened now. So that is the scenario: I am not a prejudiced anti-conservationist. But what I have seen happen since the World Heritage move has been made by our present Government has been absolutely appalling. Although I love trees, I love human beings much more. Someone said to me the other day, `You are getting all worked up over the people who are losing their jobs and the small contractors who have their backs to the wall at the moment. What about future generations?'. My reply was very precise. The message was loud and clear: future generations will see what has happened in so many other parts of the world and the rainforests will be pillaged. They were being protected by a State government instrumentality. Would it not be a simple little ploy, if one wanted to infiltrate other countries, a small group of nations, to use the argument of World Heritage, the preservation of natural attributes? One could infiltrate psychologically and in every other way. Do honourable members know what is happening? The World Heritage Commission is beginning to get very worried, and for one special reason. May I say that I speak with a little authority on this subject. On two occasions I have been a delegate to the United Nations. One gets to know the people who can give you the dinky-di oil about what is really going on, and I made a number of valuable contacts there. The members of the World Heritage Commission are worried because the United States of America has withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Britain, Japan, and several others are thinking about withdrawing. Consequently the whole thing is beginning to collapse. I believe-I wish I could produce decisive evidence on this-that they are beginning to look now to whether countries that are coming forward with World Heritage recommendations are doing so for political motives. I want to read out very quickly one of a number of statements I have taken from people, ordinary working people, who are to be found in many areas of my electorate of Kennedy. A Mr John Kidner from Ravenshoe said: I am married with four school age children. I am a part owner of Kidner Logging Company . . . Mr Kidner graduated from being an ordinary timber worker to taking over his father's logging business. He said further: Both my grandfathers were logging with bullock teams. Since World Heritage Listing of our rainforest, we have tried to diversify by putting gravel bodies on our trucks. Mr Kidner went on to explain that he had hoped to be able to compensate for the loss of contracting in the timber industry by doing work for the local council. However, the local council has its back to the wall. I have a statement also from the Chairman of that local council, Mr Harry Rankin, a courageous man who has given considerable detail about how the areas for which the council is responsible are being absolutely clogged with the unemployed. An inhuman thing has happened in that area. I am sure that many members on that side of the House, if they would come with me to Ravenshoe, would totally agree with me about the inhumanity and lack of compassion associated with this dreadful World Heritage listing of the rainforests of the north. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(10.48) —I speak on behalf of a number of people who work at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital, and on their behalf I wish to acknowledge the passing of an era. Last week, on 20 February 1988, a group of 38 student nurses completed the three-year training course that they had commenced on 21 February 1985. They were the last group of nurses to complete their course at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. Why is that so? The answer is that nursing in Queensland has moved into the twentieth century-and, indeed, into the twenty-first century. Nurses in Queensland will now receive a college education. No longer will they be simply subject to the direction of the school in which they work, and henceforth to the hospital in which they work, and thus be able to move only within a very small range of people who acknowledge their qualifications. Rather, they will be able to move within a very wide circle throughout Australia. I welcome that. What really committed me to this course was my being convinced of its worth by a very honest and noble woman who has been Director of Nursing at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital for a very long time, Matron Patricia Drew. At the graduation ceremony of the group of nurses to which I have referred, Matron Patricia Drew acknowledged and welcomed the fact that Queensland nursing, and particularly nursing at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital, have moved into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Her statement made me very happy. Of course, a number of other people in their late 20s and early 30s talked about bonding and the way in which training in the Queensland nursing system had occurred in the past. But of course they spoke from their own perspective. That is no problem, but these people do have a very real problem when they talk about educating people to work in mainstream Australia. We have to acknowledge, and we are working towards this within the whole nursing education area, the relationship between nurse education and the requirements of Queensland and the rest of mainstream Australia. I was very happy to be part of that last graduation ceremony at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. I acknowledge that it was a very sad day. It was a say day for me because my Dad, who was a Rat of Tobruk, has been very ably nursed and cared for by the nurses at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. Nonetheless, we look forward to a future in which Queensland nurses, including those nurses trained at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital by Matron Patricia Drew, meet the requirements of twenty-first century Australian nursing and enter the mainstream of Australian nursing. I welcome that. This will not lead to a denigration of care, nor does it denigrate the standards of the people who have gone before. It is simply an acknowledgment of the reality of the way in which we hope to continue to care for those veterans in Australia, whom we acknowledge have very special interests. Their carers need very special training. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.52) —I wish to raise a matter of some pressing concern in the defence area. I am very glad that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is here with us in the chamber because on this issue he might actually be able to answer some questions and get some action taken. I am referring of course to the conversion of the Government Aircraft Factories located at Fishermans Bend and Avalon over to Aerospace Technologies of Australia (ASTA). There are a number of matters in relation to that conversion that are of very real concern. As an example of that concern I take firstly an aerogram issued on Monday, 5 October 1987 to all employees of ASTA by George Stuart, the Managing Director, on the matter of delivery performance. He had this to say: Our customers and potential customers are particularly interested in our ability to meet delivery price (cost) quality as agreed in contracts. At the present time, a number of our contracts are behind the agreed delivery schedules and this is causing serious concern to existing customers and will be a deterrent to potential customers. It was therefore pleasing that during September 1987 our efforts at recovering delivery backlogs were rewarded in some areas. My thanks to those personnel who supported our efforts in this regard. I would hope that, as we resolve the remaining uncertainties in the formation of ASTA, all employees will commit themselves to achievement of appropriate delivery, cost and quality requirements so as to enable the Company to consolidate its place in the markets in which we wish to compete. I gather that a lot of those delivery problems still exist. In fact, there have been very serious problems in relation to offset work for the Boeing aircraft company in relation to the completion of obligations there on components, and also work on the FA18 project has been affected most adversely. This has all come about because of the very messy way in which the conversion has been handled. Some 1,500 employees have been taken on by ASTA and some 540 were retrenched. It now appears that that retrenchment figure was higher than needed. There are a number of jobs that are now vacant where key technical personnel are required. In fact ASTA, the new company, has had to go back actually to recruiting people to fill some of those positions, and I understand that at least one person who was retrenched has had to be called back on contract to fulfil some of the technical requirements in those areas. So there are some very real concerns there. One of those further concerns has to be the fact that, in this conversion process, there are some 80 Public Service personnel who have elected quite legitimately, as is their right, not to join ASTA and who have not yet been placed anywhere. In the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of Tuesday, 9 February, their situation was covered in some detail. Of those 80 people, about 40 are located in the Kingsway in Melbourne and another 20 at Fenwick Street in Geelong doing absolutely nothing but sitting around in leased office space because they have not been redeployed anywhere. There are yet a further 20 people at what was the Government Aircraft Factories, now ASTA, at Fishermans Bend and Avalon who are also not at this stage redeployed. They have been given a whole series of very confusing and constantly changing offers of redeployment by the Department. Most of it seems to come down to just temporary make-work situations. The Department has not fulfilled its obligations to give them permanent redeployment. Their unions-that is, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the Association of Drafting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, the Professional Officers Association and the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union-have also absolutely deserted them and are more concerned about playing down the whole thing so as not to embarrass their colleagues in the Labor Government. I understand these 80 people want to work. They want permanent work. They want their statutory entitlements met by the Department of Defence so that they can be redeployed to work that is of value. They are sick of sitting around doing nothing. It does not do the image of the Department any good or the image of ASTA any good for this sort of situation to continue. I trust that the Minister at the table will kick some tails down there, get things moving and make sure that these people who want to work can get permanent redeployment and that some of the other conversion problems are sorted out so that we do not have the embarrassing situation of delivery problems, with various manufacturing commitments being reneged on or not being met, particularly in relation to Boeing and the FA18s. I trust that the Minister will get things moving in this area and that there will be no further delays. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.57) —In the few minutes remaining for me to speak tonight, I would like to raise a matter that I think represents some good news in the adjournment debate. I refer to a very important initiative that the Australian Government has undertaken at the request of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. It is very much my belief that people come to the Parliament in the hope and expectation that they can make a contribution and leave this place-and dare we say the world-in a better position than when we first arrived. To that end I think it is extremely important that we look as members of parliament to see how we can make institutional changes in society or government practices that turn out to be an enduring legacy of reform to improve the lot of humankind. To this end I make reference to the fact that the Australian Government now takes up as a formal Government initiative every single urgent action appeal of Amnesty International. On every occasion that a signal is sent out from Amnesty International, highlighting the desperate plight of a prisoner of conscience-perhaps someone undergoing torture, threatened with execution or held captive because of his religious beliefs, racial or ethnic origin or for some other reason-what normally happens is that individual citizens around the world take up a letter writing campaign to the offending government. But how much better it would be if the governments of the world would lend their weight to the campaigns of Amnesty International. I believe the Australian Government has taken a pioneering initiative by formally raising each and every one of those cases through formal diplomatic channels. I do not pretend that this policy is without difficulties because we know that there are often potential issues of trade involved, and sometimes sensitive diplomatic questions. But, if we as a country are seen throughout the world as a forthright and consistent defender of human rights, it is very much my belief that that model for action will spread to other countries and thereby create a vastly improved climate for human rights around the world. I commend the Government for this initiative. I firmly hope that it will be followed by the Opposition parties. I look forward to a response from those parties when in government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —I require that the debate be extended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.00) —I will answer a couple of points that have been made by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) both yesterday and today. I take up, first, the points he made about the Government Aircraft Factories. By way of preface, I should say that in the successive reforms that have taken place in the structure of the now company, the then Government Aircraft Factories, over the last 12 to 18 months, production from Aerospace Technologies of Australia (ASTA)-formerly the Government Aircraft Factories-is now much higher than it was in a global amount, not per capita, when there were 800 more workers in the Factories. Productivity has reached unprecedentedly high levels. The major projects which he mentioned are, I think, by now in large measure back on-stream and are delivering at the expected rates. There are some newer projects in regard to which that is not the case. We are hopeful, however, given the rapidly improving record of the company, that that will not be the case within the reasonably near future. A very good job is being done by the work force there in getting back to schedule. Jobs have been advertised at ASTA in recent months. At least some of those jobs are related to new work. Some skills are required for those activities which previously did not reside in the factory. I cannot guarantee that that is the situation in all cases. Naturally, in such a massive change inducing efficiencies in the work force and in the structure of the Factories, when reducing the work force by 40 per cent, somebody will perhaps be let go who would be better kept. Somebody with a particular skill may have been let go, which skill, it was known, would be needed, in the anticipation that somebody better with the same skills could be employed if the jobs were re-advertised. A variety of those sorts of things happens when there is that sort of dramatic change. The honourable member then raised the question of the redeployed workers. Mr Aldred —They are still there today. Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I do not dispute the honourable member's facts. Without briefing notes in front of me, I will not confirm his exact numbers, but the general propositions he made are correct. As I understand it, they have received an indication that they will take redeployment in the Commonwealth. The process under industrial legislation, some of which is of much longer standing than this Government, in dealing with Commonwealth employees who are surplus to requirement, is very lengthy. They are not matters within the control of the Department of Defence, nor will they ever be. We are, nevertheless, caught in that situation of being obliged to administer those processes. Certainly, when one is being obliged to administer those processes one is likely to find oneself spending some money that one would rather not have spent. All I can say is that we are proceeding in accordance with the industrial practices by which we are obliged to proceed, which are different from those in private enterprise, even though the company now is effectively operating in a way in which most private companies would. We need to follow that through sensitively. We are doing the best that we can in that regard. All I can do is to give the honourable member an assurance that we do not see our interests as being served by the situation persisting as it is at the moment; nor do we see the taxpayers' interests being served by the situation persisting as it is at the moment, and we want it changed. However, we are bound by laws. We will do the best that we can within that framework. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Bruce has raised these matters here. They are worth while talking about. Overall, as a result of the changes that have occurred there and at the other factories, the work force has been reduced from 14,000 to about 8,500. There is a saving of between $80m and $100m per annum on the defence budget, which is making possible, because we get our budget in global amounts, a great deal of the activity we are undertaking at the moment. These are tough times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. As no other Minister is rising, the Minister may continue until 11.10 p.m . Mr BEAZLEY —As I said, those changes which in terms of savings to the taxpayer far outweigh the costs of the particular problem referred to by the honourable member, are what in effect are keeping the defence budget on program. In fact, an amount of about $100m is equivalent to about 1.5 per cent real growth because it is available to us in Defence to spend in other areas. The House will appreciate that this makes a heck of a difference in the economic times in which we find ourselves. The honourable member yesterday raised a number of matters relating to the submarine program. I did attempt to answer them yesterday but Speaker Child thought that 8 o'clock was enough and decided that she would vacate the chair, ignoring the fact that I was standing at the despatch box. I am sure it was overlooked. The points made by the honourable gentleman I am sure I can answer. Firstly, there is no blow-out in costs reported or in prospect. The vast bulk of the work on the submarine is subject to fixed price contracts with very strict variables. We are expecting the work to proceed, and have no reason in anything we are confronting at the moment to expect that it will not proceed, in a satisfactory and cost effective manner. A point was raised on the question of detail design. Detail design is a complex matter, but the detail design is deliverable by either the end of this year or early next year-in any event in the near future. What the honourable member should appreciate is that we get one set of detail designs which to all intents and purposes is the final detail design. In fact, as the submarine development proceeds, and this would apply to any submarine, we will find situations where we will wish to make adjustments. So the final detail design will be the first submarine that is delivered. There will be subsequent design changes based on the experience of that submarine. The point is that the main design for that submarine is deliverable in the immediate future and will be delivered. As to the question raised by the honourable member on the issue of the availability of appropriate manpower, already the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) has hired over 200 people, mainly from South Australia. It is satisfied with its recruitment program. It has initiated discussions with relevant trade unions, educational institutions and employer organisations in South Australia concerning ASC's needs for skilled workers. Based on these discussions, it appears that there are no insurmountable problems in the long haul in recruiting these people. In the couple of minutes available to me, I shall refer to the points raised about the cooling systems which are exposed to external sea pressures. The British and United States submarines contain such systems. The design of these and other systems which work at higher pressures are, as in the case of the type 471, subject to a vigorous analysis to ensure a large factor of safety. The Royal Australian Navy is satisfied that the design of those parts for the type 471 cooling system which are exposed to external sea pressure are safe. The overall design of the submarine recognises and incorporates the most modern internationally accepted standards. The production of the critical parts will be subject to 100 per cent quality control, a practice that is now followed by all contemporary submarine builders, including those in the United States and Britain. These submarines will be a major addition to our defence capability in this country. They are going to be among the most effectively armed attack submarines anywhere in the world. They are going to be useful for the sorts of waters in which we operate. The honourable member can put his mind at rest on all these matters and start to concentrate on other areas of policy where no doubt his attentive research will be more useful. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 March 1988, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40 as amended for this session. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 February 1988: Defence Act-Order-Rifle Clubs (Firearms), dated 11 February 1988. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1987-Nos. 18 and 19-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Notice of consents given pursuant to section 9. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 88) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) What system of exchange control now operates in Australia. (2) Is he able to say how exchange control operates in (a) the USA, (b) Japan, (c) the Federal Republic of Germany and (d) Sweden. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under Australia's current foreign exchange arrangements, the bulk of external transactions are free of exchange control restrictions. However, some categories of external payments are subject to tax screening arrangements. This may require the prior production of a tax clearance certificate before certain overseas payments can be effected or certain declaration forms completed. In addition, the investment at interest in Australia of official reserves by foreign government monetary institutions-while essentially unfettered-must be undertaken in consultation with the Reserve Bank of Australia, which may require certain conditions be met. A general restriction also applies to foreign governments, their agencies not akin to private sector commercial entities, and international organisations undertaking borrowings or other forms of capital raising in Australia. (2) The International Monetary Fund's 1987 Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions indicates that, as at 31 December 1986 the Federal Republic of Germany and the USA were, like Australia, essentially free of restrictions and requirements of an exchange control nature. The Annual Report also indicates that while most current and a wide range of capital transactions could be readily undertaken under Japan's exchange control arrangements certain categories of capital transactions were subject to prior approval/notification requirements, the coverage of which could be extended during times of balance of payments and other economic disturbances. In the case of Sweden, most current transactions were also free of exchange control restrictions and requirements and, while the majority of capital transactions were subject to prior authorisation, these were in the main normally permitted. Certain categories of capital transactions, however, could only be undertaken on a restricted or limited basis. (Question No. 90) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: (1) What were the total volumes of capital inflow and outflow to and from Australia in each year since 1980-81. (2) What were the national sources and destinations of those flows in 1986-87. (3) What classification is available of the purposes of those inflows and outflows in 1986-87 and what does this classification show. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total amounts of identified capital inflow and outflow to and from Australia each year since 1980-81 are as follows: Year Capital inflow Capital outflow (1) $Am $Am 1980-81 ... 6,009 1,566 1981-82 ... 10,495 2,271 1982-83 ... 10,287 4,122 1983-84 ... 10,107 4,446 1984-85 ... 14,810 2,990 1985-86 ... 18,968 4,187 1986-87 ... 19,710 8,998 Source: 1980-81 to 1983-84: ABS, Foreign Investment, Australia, 1985-86, Cat No. 5305.0 1984-85 to 1986-87: ABS, Foreign Investment, Australia, June Quarter 1987, Cat No 5306.0. Note: (1) The capital outflow figures include changes in official reserve assets; (2) the latest available financial year data indicating the national sources and destinations of capital flows are 1986-87 for capital inflow and 1985-86 for capital outflow: Country Capital Inflow 1986-87 1985-6 Capital outflow 1985-86 $Am $Am $Am USA ... 3,757 4,131 627 Japan ... 1,982 2,673 (a) Switzerland ... 135 544 (a) UK ... 2,850 2,164 818 ASEAN ... -871 -837 111 International capital markets ... 7,191 6,598 (a) Unallocated ... 4,246 548 -390 Other ... 420 3,147 3,021 Total ... 19,710 18,968 4,187 (a) Not separately available; included in `Other'. Sources: Capital Inflow: ABS, Foreign Investment, Australia, June Quarter 1987, Cat No 5306.0. Capital Outflow: ABS, Foreign Investment Australia, 1985-86, Cat No 5305.0. (3) The available details on the forms of capital inflows and outflows in 1986-87 are published by the ABS in Foreign Investment, Australia, June Quarter 1987, Cat No 5306.0. Capital Inflow-The capital inflow data to higher equity investment, especially portfolio equity investment, in 1986-87. Taking account of new share issues and off-market transactions, non-resident investment in corporate equities (direct and portfolio) more than doubled from $2.2 billion in 1985-86 to $4.6 billion in 1986-87. There was a fall of $2.8 billion in non-official port folio borrowing in 1986-87 compared with 1985-86. Strong growth occurred in borrowing from related enterprises (ie direct investment borrowing), which rose by $1.8 billion. Capital inflow in the form of general government borrowing also increased (by $0.7 billion) in 1986-87. The overall percentage of capital inflow represented by borrowing declined from 84 per cent in 1985-86 to 71 per cent in 1986-87. Capital outflow-The most significant feature in respect of capital outflows, was the change of $5.5 billion in official reserve assets transactions, from a rundown in reserves of $2.1 billion in 1985-86 to the addition of $3.4 billion in 1986-87. The flow of non-official Australian investment abroad fell by $1.1 billion in 1986-87. There was a strong increase ($1.4 billion) in borrowing by Australian direct investor enterprises from related enterprises abroad, while lending to non-related enterprises abroad (portfolio lending) fell by $0.6 billion. Investment in foreign corporate equities (direct and portfolio) rose by $0.8 billion. (Question No. 214) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) What has been Australia's terms of trade in each year since 1977. (2) How is the figure calculated. (3) In the year in which the Government became aware of the decline in the terms of trade, by what amount (a) had the terms of trade declined up to the time the Government became aware of the decline and (b) did the terms of trade decline in the remainder of that year. (4) What did the Government do to reverse the decline and how was each measure expected to work. (5) Which measures were successful and to what extent were they successful. (6) What was the level of Government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1977. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's Terms of Trade Index (1979-80 = 100) Per cent change on previous period 1977-78 ... 95.8 -9.1 1978-79 ... 96.5 0.8 1979-80 ... 100.0 3.6 1980-81 ... 99.3 -0.7 1981-82 ... 97.4 -1.9 1982-83 ... 95.6 -1.8 1983-84 ... 99.2 3.7 1984-85 ... 96.5 -2.7 1985-86 ... 87.0 -9.9 1986-87 ... 82.5 -5.1 (2) The terms of trade are calculated as the ratio of the implicit price deflator for exports of goods and services to the implicit price deflator for imports of goods and services. The terms of trade measure the purchasing power of a country's exports in terms of imports. A fall (rise) in the terms of trade indicates a fall (rise) in the volume of imports of goods and services that can be financed by a given volume of exports of goods and services. (3) Australia's terms of trade are monitored continuously by the Government, as are reasons for changes and the policy implications of those changes. Movements in world prices of primary commodities (which account for over three quarters of Australia's exports) relative to prices of manufactures in industrial countries (which account for most of Australia's imports) exert a powerful influence on Australia's terms of trade; a general weakening of commodity prices of interest to Australia lies behind the sustained decline over recent years (see table). (4) and (5) Prices for relevant commodities and manufactures are established in world markets, over which the Australian Government has little or no influence. In these circumstances economic policy has been directed towards making the Australian economy more flexible and better able to cope with external shocks whether they stem from worsening terms of trade, world recession or world stock market adjustments. In essence it is a matter of making the Australian economy more competitive and more productive; details of the Government's policy response, and of the progress being made, are contained extensively in the last two issues of Budget Statement No. 2, `The Budget and the Economy'. (6) Information on Government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is set out in Table No. 1 of Budget Statement No. 7 (see page 406 of Budget Paper No. 1). (Question No. 224) Mr Price asked the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) When was the NSW State Advisory Committee of the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) established. (2) What is its role and function. (3) On how many occasions has the committee recommended (a) upgrading, (b) suspension and (c) cancellation of individual CYSS programs. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The inaugural meeting of the NSW State Advisory Committee (SAC) was held on 10 May 1977. (2) CYSS State Advisory Committees are responsible for monitoring the effective operation, management and development of the program in their respective States or Territories. Committees are empowered to: Advise the Minister on all matters relating to the operation and overall development of the Scheme, including policy and administrative matters; and development and implementation of training and development activities for project personnel. advise the Minister or his delegate on individual projects, making recommendations on provision of new or continuing funding; termination or suspension of funding; intervention in project management; requests for approval or purchase or expensive equipment or services; and other matters as the Minister may determine from time to time. (3) The number of occasions that the NSW SAC has recommended (a) upgrading, (b) suspension and (c) cancellation of individual CYSS projects is listed in the following table. (c) Year (a) Upgrading (b) Suspension Cancella- tion of individual CYSS projects 1977 ... - 2 4 1978 ... - - - 1979 ... - - 6 1980 ... - 2 2 1981 ... - - 1 1982 ... - - 6 1983 ... 8 1 - 1984 ... 28 - - 1985 ... 23 - - 1986 ... 9 1 1 1987 ... - - 1 Total ... 68 6 21 (Question No. 382) Mr McArthur asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) Are members of organisations with a religious basis exempt from paying taxes? (2) Are organisations with a religious basis which enter into a commercial operation (a) to grow vegetables for restaurants which are operated and owned by that organisation or (b) to grow flowers for sale, liable to pay tax on profits earned? (3) Do those organisations pay (a) company or (b) payroll taxes? (4) Are the employees of such an organisation exempt from paying income tax by virtue of the fact that the organisation has a religious base? (5) Are profits made by their commercial enterprises taxable? (6) Are restaurants which are operated by organisations with a religious basis and provide meals, board and lodging or accommodation for their employees liable to pay fringe benefits tax on the benefits provided? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No (2) (a) and (b)-No (3) (a)-No. (b)-Payroll taxes are generally levied by the States and thus are not a Commonwealth matter. However, the ACT Payroll Tax Ordinance exempts charitable organisations, where ``charitable organisation'' is defined as ``an organisation, society, institution or body carried on for a religious, educational, benevolent or charitable purpose, other than one carried on for the purpose of securing pecuniary benefit to its members''. (4) No (5) As for (2)-No (6) Generally, yes. However benefits provided by a religious institution to a minister of religion or a member of a religious order provided principally on account of that person's religious duties are exempt. (Question No. 394) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What was the total sum spent by the Minister's entire portfolio on public opinion polls in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. (2) What was the objective of each of the opinion polls and what did each cost. (3) Who was commissioned to undertake each opinion poll. (4) Are the results of each opinion poll publicly available. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total sum spent on public opinion polls in the 1986-87 financial year was $172,045.65. A. (2) Objective: Identify and evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of YAC clients and potential clients. Identify and evaluate the role of CES Youth Access as perceived by other relevant organisations and groups. Investigate the impact of CES Youth Access on young people's subsequent experiences in the labour market and community. Cost: $89,246.65. (3) AGB: McNair. (4) Yes, an Executive Summary is available to the public. B. (2) Objective: To provide a basis upon which to build better public relation practices between CYSS groups and the local community. Cost: $21,449. (3) Ogilvy Public Relations Pty Ltd. C. (2) Objective: Research into advertising concepts, submitted by advertising agencies pitching for the CES brief. Cost: $25,000. (3) AGB: McNair Anderson. D. (2) Objective: Victorian State Office-research to identify the employment and recruitment practices and needs of employers. Cost: $13,943. (3) Research done in-house. E. (2) Objective: Tasmanian State Office-completion of research in vacancy market penetration. Cost: $3,192. (3) Tas Tech. F. (2) Objective: Research to assist with the Departmental Local Schools Liaison Program. Cost: $19,215. (3) Banks Paton. B, C, D, E, F (4) The research was carried out for internal management decision making purposes. The results are not publicly available but would possibly be made available on request, depending on the circumstances of each request. (Question No. 420) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: What sum has the Government received from customs and excise duties on tobacco products (a) in each year since 1971-72 and (b) in total. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The revenue collected since 1971-72 from customs and excise duties on tobacco products, adjusted for refunds and drawbacks, is as follows: ($m) 1971-72 ... 340 1972-73 ... 360 1973-74 ... 427 1974-75 ... 512 1975-76 ... 588 1976-77 ... 608 1977-78 ... 604 1978-79 ... 703 1979-80 ... 749 1980-81 ... 747 1981-82 ... 763 1982-83 ... 838 1983-84 ... 900 1984-85 ... 938 1985-86 ... 1,011 1986-87 ... 1,064 (b) The total revenue collected from customs and excise duty on tobacco products over the period from 1971-72 to 1986-87 is $11,152m. (Question No. 421) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Is it a fact that there are many low income families paying sales tax at the luxury rate for the purchase of a caravan which is the sole form of housing available to them. (2) is it a fact that such sales tax is often financed by borrowing at rates of up to 30%, leading to payments of up to $4,000 in tax and $3,000 in interest payments on the accommodation. (3) Will he provide a sales tax exemption or a substantial reduction in sales tax when a caravan is to be used solely as a permanent residence. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The highest rate of sales tax, currently 30 per cent, applies to goods specified in the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. These goods include jewellery, perfumes, cosmetics, audio and video equipment and the more expensive motor cars and station wagons. Caravans are taxable at the 20 per cent rate, commonly referred to as the ``general rate'', which applies to goods not specified in any Schedule to that Act to be exempt or taxable at either the 10 per cent or 30 per cent rates. (2) The amount of sales tax included in the purchase price depends on the wholesale sale value of the caravan. The ``sales value'' on which the 20 per cent sales tax is payable in respect of caravans is determined on a concessional basis, as 85 per cent of the wholesale selling price of the manufacturer or wholesaler to the retailer. The wholesale selling price would have to exceed $23,500 in order for the sales tax payable to be $4,000. The amount of interest paid will depend on the amount of money borrowed and the rate of interest. It is possible that some persons may be obtaining finance at interest rates of up to 30 per cent. (3) Any move to amend the law to provide sales tax relief where caravans are acquired for use as permanent residences would cause administrative difficulties in attempting to distinguish between these and caravans sold for other uses. The intention of the ultimate buyer of the caravan might not be known when the caravan passes the wholesale taxing point, or, if it were known, might not subsequently be adhered to. Further, any reduction in the sales tax payable on caravans purchased as residences would tend to provide the greatest benefit to those who were able to purchase the most expensive caravans and would not provide any benefit to families purchasing second-hand caravans for use as residences. (Question No. 512) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What is the salary of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (2) What other entitlements, including travelling allowance or access to Commonwealth cars or car expenses, does the Chairman receive. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission currently receives a salary of $86,738 per annum and an expenses of office allowance of $4,332 per annum. (2) The Chairman is entitled to travelling allowances laid down by the Remuneration Tribunal, currently $145 per day for travel to a capital city and $110 per day for other than a capital city. The Chairman also has access to a self-drive Commonwealth vehicle, and is entitled to partial reimbursement of the costs of a `semi-official' telephone at his private residence. (Question No. 527) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: 1. What marketing and advertising agents have been used by the Advance Australia Foundation (AAF) since 1980. 2. For how long has each agency been used, what projects have they had and what sum have they been paid. 3. What was the tendering process involved in each contract. 4. What action was taken with the contract with Westwood Rogers Marketing Pty Ltd in February 1985 and why was this action taken. 5. How many agencies tendered for the ``Buy Australian'' campaign. 6. Which agency did the AAF prefer. 7. Were any tenders which originally were rejected given another chance to resubmit their tender. 8. What assessment did the AAF make in respect of the Weekes Morris and Osborne tender. 9. When was the decision made to award the contract to John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd. 10. Was there a sole agent for AAF advertising before the Singleton contract was made; if so, was this contract affected by the AAF contract with John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd and in what way was it affected. 11. Did any agency complain about this contract; if so, what action was taken. 12. What sum was John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd paid for each project. 13. Is the Minister able to say how many NSW and ACT clients involved in the corporate sponsorship proposals had dealings with the sole agency from February 1985. 14. Has any commission been withheld from the sole agency; if so, what sum has been withheld and when will it paid. 15. If any commission has not been withheld from the sole agency, why not. 16. Has the contract with the sole agency been infringed by the contract with John Singleton Advertising Pty Ltd. 17. Was the original sole agency owed $95,911 in commissions as at 12 November 1987. 18. Has the contract with this sole agency been terminated; if so, was it terminated on 30 June 1987. 19. Did the Prime Minister write to the AAF on 11 August informing it that the Government had selected John Singleton Advertising to produce and implement the Government's ``Buy Australian'' campaign. 20. What advertising does the AAF have planned until the end of 1989. 21. What sum is this advertising worth. 22. What advertising agencies have been contracted to do the work and what sum will each be paid. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Parts (1) to (4), (6), (8), (10) to (11), (14) to (18) and (20) to (22) relate directly to business dealings of the Advance Australia Foundation. The Foundation is not a Government authority and, given the nature of the matters on which information has been sought, I do not consider it appropriate that I should seek to respond to the Honourable Member on these matters. I have therefore drawn the respective matters to the attention of the Chairman of the Advance Australia Foundation for appropriate action. The remaining parts of the Honourable Member's question relate to arrangements for the Commonwealth's ``Australian Made'' advertising campaign and I am advised: (5) The Commonwealth received presentations from five advertising agencies for the ``Buy Australian'' campaign on 17-18 July, 1986. The campaign subsequently became known as the ``Australian Made'' campaign. (7) No. (9) The formal letter of appointment to John Singleton Advertising from the then Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism is dated 11 August, 1986. (12) During the financial year ending 30 June, 1987, the Commonwealth paid John Singleton Advertising $326,933 in head hours fees for planning and creative services. (13) No. (19) Yes. (Question No. 552) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: What did each university, institute of technology and college of advanced education student association charge for fees in the most recent year for which comprehensive figures are available. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: This information is not collected by my Department or by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee or the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education as part of their regular statistical collections. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission estimated, in January 1987, on the basis of information from a sample of institutions, that the student union fee for a full-time re-enrolling student in 1986 averaged approximately $170 at universities and about $115 at colleges of advanced education. Full-time commencing students paid between $5 and $45 more than re-enrolling students. Student union fees for part-time and external students are charged on a pro rata basis and vary considerably from one institution to another. (Question No. 556) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) What sums have been allocated to the (a) University of Western Australia, (b) Murdoch University, (c) Curtin University of Technology and (d) Western Australia College of advanced Education under the Special Assistance for Students Program in each year of its existence. (2) What are the guidelines for the allocation of moneys to students under the program. (3) What sum has been available nationally under the program for each year of its existence. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- 1985 1986 1987 1988 $ $ $ $ University of Western Australia ... 106,000 106,000 128,000 94,000 Murdoch University ... 33,500 36,000 41,000 39,000 Curtin University of Technology ... 120,500 125,000 151,000 118,000 Western Australian College of Advanced Education ... 87,000 75,500 59,500 85,500 (2) A copy of the ``Special Assistance for Students-Guidelines to Institutions-1988'' is attached. (3) 1985-$3,566,000; 1986-$4,090,000; 1987-$3,796,000; 1988-$4,108,000. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING Special Assistance for Students Guidelines to Institutions-1988 Introduction In accordance with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training is required to determine guidelines for the application of special financial assistance to students. The Act also requires the Minister to cause these guidelines to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. It is intended to determine broad principles which will ensure some degree of uniformity in the application and accountability of financial assistance to students, leaving it to each institution concerned to develop its own local procedures and eligibility criteria within the general framework. Funds being made available under the Act and subject to these guidelines are not provided in substitution for any funds currently available to institutions for loans and grants. Guidelines 1. Funds provided under the legislation are to be used for the provision of loans or grants to Australian students or students with permanent residency status attending the respective institutions. Funds are not to be used for administrative purposes. 2. Loans or grants should be made available to students who demonstrate a genuine need, particularly those who require assistance for accommodation or for other circumstances where a student's continued study is in jeopardy. In providing assistance institutions should pay particular attention to the requirements of students from country or isolated areas or who are required to live away from home to pursue their studies, and students from disadvantaged groups such as Aborigines and low income groups. Institutions should also take account of the applicant's academic record when considering any application for assistance. 3. Assistance is to be available on a needs basis to students whether residing in halls of residence and affiliated colleges or renting private accommodation. 4. Generally it is expected that financial assistance would be provided in the form of loans. In exceptional circumstances, however, the payment of special grants may be justified. Assistance provided by institutions as grants should not exceed 10 per cent of the total assistance to be made available in any year. Institutions should not regard the 10 per cent maximum as a quota for grants. 5. Administration of loans or grants including the determination of loan periods and repayment policies is to be the responsibility of individual institutions. Many institutions have emergency assistance currently available from within their own resources which could provide a pattern for the administration of additional loans and grants. 6. It is expected that student representatives will be involved in the assessment of applications for assistance, and that information on the criteria used in assessing applications will be publicly available. 7. Loans should normally be provided on a concessional interest rate basis. Institutions should provide for the real value of loan funds to be maintained. There may be cases where, at the institution's discretion, a penalty is applied for default. Students should be required to sign an undertaking that assistance provided will only be used for the prescribed purposes and that the conditions of the loan will be met. 8. The use of these funds is to be accounted for by institutions separately from the use of other funds available to the institutions. Institutions will be required to report annually to the Commission in accordance with Section 13 of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987. 9. Money obtained from the repayment of a loan (including any interest) or a grant by a student are available for relending by an institution. The Minister may direct that any funds held by an institution at the end of a year may be carried forward and applied for the same purpose in the subsequent year. 10. Institutions also will be required to report from time to time on the details of loans and grants. These reports can be expected to include such matters as: The numbers, amounts and purposes of loans and grants The terms and conditions attached to loans and grants The distribution of loans and grants to: men and women, students from country or isolated areas, students in residences, socio-economic groups; if practicable, disadvantaged groups, Aborigines and other specified groups. (Question No. 576) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) In welcoming the Bicentennial gift from Mr A. Bond of a replica of Captain Cook's barque Endeavour, had his attention been drawn to the number of square rig ships presently being constructed around the country by Government and business capital. (2) Who will be footing the bill for maintenance and crewing of Mr Bond's gift and what sum is it estimated to cost annually. (3) What sum is the Commonwealth already committed to pay in the support of other square rig vessels, including the British Bicentennial gift. (4) Did he discuss any other alternative gestures to the Australian nation which may have been more appropriate and beneficial to the wellbeing of Australian people as a whole. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I was aware that a number of sailing vessels some with historical associations had been or were being built in various States. (2) The Commonwealth will meet the cost of maintaining Mr Bond's gifts of a replica of the HM Bark Endeavour as a museum exhibit but does not propose to crew it. It is estimated that $750,000 will be provided annually by the Commonwealth for cleaning, maintenance and museum interpretation costs for the replica. This sum is expected to be partially offset by entry charges to the vessel which is to be berthed at the Australian National Maritime Museum's wharves in Darling Harbour, Sydney. The vessel will not be crewed by Commonwealth employees although Museum support staff will be allocated to assist visitors inspecting the vessel. (3) The Government allocated $2.009m in the 1987-88 Budget for the Young Endeavour Youth Scheme, the bulk of which is for salaries and administrative costs associated with establishment of the Scheme in the Defence portfolio. The object of the Scheme is to provide an `Adventure under Sail' for young people from all over Australia. In addition the Australian Bicentennial Authority has undertaken to pay the voyage costs of trainees for the first four ten-day voyages of the Young Endeavour, these trainees being other finalists from the the selection of the delivery crew of the Young Endeavour. These voyage costs are expected to total $60,000. In 1985-86 and 1986-87 the Commonwealth Government provided to the Western Australian Government a total of $336,700 towards construction of the sail training vessel Leeuwin under the Commonwealth-State Bicentennial Commemorative Program. There is no commitment to continuing Commonwealth funding for the vessel.