Tuesday, 15 March 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I formally inform the House that on 29 February 1988 I received a letter from the Hon. Daniel Thomas McVeigh resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Groom. I issued a writ on 4 March 1988 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Groom, in the State of Queensland, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr McVeigh. The dates in connection with the by-election were fixed as follows: close of roll, Friday, 11 March 1988; nomination, Friday, 18 March 1988; polling day, Saturday, 9 April 1988; and return of the writ, on or before Sunday, 12 June 1988. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Madam Speaker, yesterday, 14 March, was Commonwealth Day. It has a particular significance for Australia in 1988, when Commonwealth nations are making such a significant contribution to our bicentennial celebrations. The quarter of the world's population comprising the Commonwealth is spread amongst small countries and large, developed and developing, from all continents and both hemispheres. Within the framework provided by the Commonwealth, people from the widest range of cultures, races and religions imaginable meet on an equal footing, share their views and their friendship, and co-operate on matters of mutual concern. This is what makes the Commonwealth a valuable and constructive international institution. The Vancouver meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government, which took place in October last year, provided an excellent example of such productive cooperation. Commonwealth leaders agreed on a shared approach on issues ranging from world trade to disarmament. Constructive initiatives were taken in many of these areas. The outstanding political issue continuing to confront the Commonwealth remains, of course, the situation in southern Africa. The recent deterioration there, caused by the further repressive measures introduced by the South African Government, only underlines the continuing tragedy and the need for every effort to be made to bring about peaceful changes. Whether the Commonwealth's longstanding ambition to see a peaceful end to apartheid will be achieved will, of course, depend on many factors beyond our immediate control. I have no doubt, however, that when the histories come to be written, the Commonwealth's role in providing an international lead in the struggle against apartheid will be acknowledged and commended. Madam Speaker, Commonwealth Day provides a sobering reminder of the tragic denial of basic human rights to the majority in South Africa. I should like to assure the House that, under this Government, Australia will continue to be at the forefront of Commonwealth efforts to promote peaceful change in South Africa. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition joins the Government in this brief moment to mark the significance and importance of the Commonwealth. Many of the things that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in his statement are things with which the Opposition readily identifies itself. I certainly welcome the fact that the present Leader of the Australian Labor Party has a markedly more positive attitude towards the Commonwealth than did his predecessor the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), who, in 1981, described it as `an extravagant indulgence of little relevance to international affairs or Australia's role in the world'. Therefore, I certainly welcome the changed attitude of the Government. I also, of course, note the Prime Minister's remarks about the importance of bringing apartheid to an end as a Commonwealth goal. The Opposition associates itself with that goal. I note that, consistent with the Government's failure to give adequate emphasis in its foreign affairs perspective to the region immediately adjoining Australia, of course, there is no reference in the statement to the turbulent events in Fiji and other matters that have impacted upon regional members of the Commonwealth. I share the aspiration of the Prime Minister, as does everybody on our side of the House, that efforts to bring an end to the repressive conditions in South Africa are successful. I say in passing that we would be less than consistent and we would expose ourselves to a charge of hypocrisy if we did not also acknowledge that there exists within many Commonwealth countries basic denials of human rights and a basic denial of the principles of a free Press, and parliamentary and liberal democracy, which are at the heart and at the core of many of the ideals around which the modern Commonwealth was founded. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, left Australia on 4 March on Government business overseas. He will return on 22 March and in his absence the Minister for Employment and Education Services, Mr Duncan, is the Acting Minister. The Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, left Australia on 6 March on official business overseas. He will return to Australia on 23 March. Questions normally directed to Mr Duffy should be addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden. Mr TUCKEY —Has the Prime Minister today received a detailed and comprehensive legal opinion from the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons which asserts that the Minister for Community Services and Health broke the law in providing to the honourable member for Canning confidential Health Insurance Commission information? As the Prime Minister readily tabled the legal opinion from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General concerning the Minister for Community Services and Health, will he now immediately table the legal opinion provided to him today dealing with precisely the same subject? Mr HAWKE —If the document to which the honourable gentleman refers has been forwarded, I have not seen it. There is no need for any doubt to be expressed; I have not seen such a document. I am not saying that it has not been forwarded. At the end of Question Time I will take steps to see whether such a document has been forwarded. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I received a letter today-simultaneously, I am advised, with a letter delivered to the Prime Minister-enclosing a copy of that opinion. I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. Ms FATIN —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether the Government has done anything for sole parents, who are among the poorest families in Australia. Mr HOWE —I think that there would be broad agreement that sole parents require three broad areas of assistance. Firstly, they require adequate income to support themselves and their children when they do not have work. Secondly, they require services to enable them to work, as most sole parents are of an age at which most members of the community are at the peak of their working lives. Thirdly, assistance is required for those sole parents who have not been employed for a long period to get the confidence and skills to obtain employment. The record of this Government in all of these three areas is a proud record. We have increased payments for children from $10 to $22 a week, and to $28 a week for older children. We have increased the mother's and guardian's allowance from $6 a week to $12 a week, a 100 per cent increase, and extended it to all sole parent pensioners and beneficiaries. The poverty trap changes of last year were of major assistance to sole parents. The amount that they can earn each week before they start losing pension was significantly raised. The amount a sole parent with three children could earn increased from $48 a week to $76 a week, a 58 per cent increase. The earnings credit introduced in the last Budget means that sole parents who are just starting work or who do casual work get to keep much more of their pension. We have dramatically expanded the availability of child care places and have targeted those places so that sole parents are major users of the child care program. We have made sole parents a priority group for the Commonwealth Employment Service and for labour market programs. Sole parents are becoming major users of the range of labour market transition programs. This activity is showing very significant results. An analysis of recently released Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, shows that the income position of female sole parents improved between 1982 and 1986 and the percentage in poverty declined. Part of the improvement comes from the higher real incomes of female sole parents who are not employed, that is, from real increases in pensions and allowances. Further improvement comes from the increased number of sole parents in the labour force. While the total number of female sole parents rose by 4.6 per cent in four years, the number in the labour force increased by 23.3. per cent. When one compares the Government's approach and results with the Opposition's position, the difference is stark. The Opposition would decimate labour market programs, destroy the child care program, shed its public housing responsibilities, and cancel the pension of every sole parent whose youngest child is over ten. Mr Donald Cameron —What a lot of rot. Mr HOWE —It is not. The fact is that only a few months ago the Opposition committed itself to reducing the qualifying age for sole parent pensions to 10 years for the youngest child. This Government is about helping sole parents to live a decent life and to participate in the mainstream of community activity. The Opposition is on about taking away their pensions, leaving them on their own, without pensions, without access to child care, without secure housing and without the chance to get back into a job after years of looking after children. The Government, notwithstanding a record which compares very favourably with the record of any previous government, is committed to do more for sole parents. Tomorrow I will introduce the final piece of legislation to establish the child support scheme. The Government will be considering the Cass review recommendations regarding sole parents in the next few months. Under this Government sole parents have had a chance to live a decent life as part of the community. Under the conservatives here and those in the States, the future for sole parents would be very bleak. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It refers to the legal opinion just tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which I quote very briefly: It follows from our opinion as to the proper construction of section 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act that the offence was complete even if the provider numbers were not disclosed. Accordingly, even if the Minister held an honest and reasonable belief that the numbers were not included, this cannot negative a contravention of the section. Given the gravity of that legal opinion, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, regarding the Minister for Community Services and Health, will the Prime Minister ensure that this legal opinion, together with that of the Solicitor-General, is referred immediately to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Mr HAWKE —Until I have the document put before me by my people-if it is there, and I assume it is there-and until I have read it, I will give no undertaking as to what my course of action will be. Now that we have a second question on this issue, I wonder whether we may do something immediately to expose the hypocrisy of the Opposition on this whole issue. I ask a simple question as the basis for them going on to make some observations. I ask the question, rhetorically: Where was the outcry from the Opposition when a computer print-out containing confidential information revealing the names of hundreds of patients with bad debts was found in a Canberra pre-school? Where was the outcry then? The computer print-outs clearly revealed patients names, how much they owed and the state of their indebtedness, but there was not a word then from these great protectors of the rights of privacy opposite. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) responded. The Australian Capital Territory AMA President, Dr David McNicol, dismissed it as `a political stunt'. Another AMA spokesman, Dr Brian Richards, was reported on Capital 7 news on 26 February as saying that he believes `patients accounts are in the public domain and that their confidentiality has not been breached'. Dr McNicol went on to say that he had asked the principals of the practice to call the Australian Federal Police to investigate. The Federal Police have confirmed that there has been no request at any formal level for such an inquiry. I call on the Opposition to drop its double standards on this issue and to join with us in calling on the AMA to have the police investigate what appears to be a serious breach of patient confidentiality. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to inform us whether, if that police inquiry into patient confidentiality does not result in prosecutions, he intends to take personal legal action against the doctors in charge of the practice and to pay for it himself. He should either say that he will or he should admit to the hypocrisy of his position and to the fact that he might support a minority of doctors who overcharge, but he does not support the rights of patients. Mr SNOW —I ask the Treasurer to inform the House of the Government's reaction to today's balance of payments figure relating to the month of February. Mr KEATING —The reaction of the Government to today's release of the February balance of payments figure is a favourable one. The figure, at $737m, not only sits comfortably with the Budget time forecast for the current account at $11.5 billion, but confirms that last month's very low number of $457m was not revised up, which stands to the tally of the current account. This means that the current account forecast in the Government's Budget last year-that is, the current account for the 12 months to June of this year at $11.5 billion-should now be easily met, and, if anything, exceeded. In the eight months to date the current account is $2 billion in front of the same period last year. It now stands at $7.5 billion. So even if we were to get the same monthly numbers for the balance of this year as we had last year, the $2 billion is now secure and, therefore, the current account will drop from $13.4 billion last year to about $11.4 billion or $11.5 billion this year. Given the pattern of the monthly numbers, the likelihood is that we could improve upon each monthly figure that exists for March to June of 1987 in March to June of 1988. If we get an improvement in those figures, there is every possibility that the current account deficit will come in at a figure less than $11.5 billion, less than the Budget forecast. In disaggregating some of the data in relation to exports and imports in this release today by the Statistician, we find that exports were doing well. In the three months to February, exports were 21 per cent higher than they were for the corresponding period a year earlier. On a trend basis, we have seen a trade surplus in the accounts for the last four months. Imports have risen from the low January figure, but almost half of the endogenous or underlying level of imports, at $469m, was $190m of plant and machinery imports; most of it was brought in as machinery importation. So almost half of the endogenous import growth is from plant and equipment, and it is that importation of plant and equipment which is underpinning our current account volume change-the growth in net exports-which is changing the Australian current account and adding more capacity to our import competing and exporting industries. This change in the importation of plant and equipment squares with the investment data which we have received in recent months. The latest data, which is after the collapse in world stock markets, shows that, for actual investment in plant and equipment for the December quarter, the figures are up by 10 percentage points; and the expectations in the Statistician's expectation survey for 1988-89 show a real growth in plant and equipment of about 10 percentage points, that is a 10 percentage points real increase in plant and equipment investment. If we look at the balances of the figuring in the current account released by the Statistician today, we find that the current account is not just at forecast but ahead of forecast; that the likelihood is that it will come in under the Budget forecast; that we continue to replace and change volumes in the current account; that we are continuing to run a trade surplus; and that we are continuing to see a strong level of plant and equipment imports, which is going to enhance our capacity to import, replace and to export, and that is squaring with the very strong investment numbers which we are seeing come through for plant and equipment after the crash on stock markets and which are being confirmed in the expectations data by business taken by the Statistician in relation to 1988-89. Mr Bilney —An excellent result. Mr KEATING —All in all, as my colleague said by interjection, an excellent result, and one that confirms the trend. But it still indicates that we have a long way to go and that the restraint and the discipline of Australia will need to be maintained. But the nation is being rewarded handsomely in this very large shift in the current account deficit and the continuing change which we are seeing is promoting so much more confidence in our foreign exchange and interest rates markets. Mr BEALE —When did the Prime Minister first learn that his former Minister, Mr Young, had been employed by Qantas Airways Ltd, and from whom? Will the Prime Minister also advise the House whether over the past three weeks he has personally contacted Australian companies trying to find a job, or to facilitate the finding of a job, for this former Minister? Mr HAWKE —I will answer directly the questions put to me by the honourable member for Deakin but, before I do so, it is obviously necessary that I should again, as is so often necessary, expose the hypocrisy of the Opposition. the question of Mr Young's possible employment by Qantas was related to the question of his tenure of the presidency of the Australian Labor Party. It is interesting and pertinent to recall what happened when the Opposition was in government. The Leader of the Opposition has attempted to suggest that nothing would be further from the Opposition's mind than that it would have a President of the Liberal Party concurrently holding any office under the Government. Let us get it quite clear in regard to the President of the Liberal Party from 1982 to July 1985, the Hon. Alexander James Forbes. The Hon. Alexander James Forbes, more affectionately known as Jim, held appointments with government authorities. The Fraser Government put him on the Council of the National Library in 1979, appointing him Chairman in 1982. He held that position until 1985. The Fraser Government appointed him Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission in 1978, a position he held until 1984, concurrently with his presidency of the Liberal Party. The combined effect of these appointments was that over the two years when he was President of the Party, which in coalition was in government, Dr Forbes held two remunerated positions under the Crown. There was no problem then as far as the conservatives were concerned of jobs for the boys. Let me make it quite clear in saying that that I am not in any way suggesting that there was anything improper about those appointments. Indeed, they continued for a period under my Government. I am concerned only to point out to the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member who asked the question the hypocrisy of the Opposition is stating that Liberal Party Presidents did not hold government sponsored office. As distinct from those positions, let me make it quite clear that the Qantas post in question is not even government sponsored, government initiated or government blessed. This makes any attack by the Leader of the Opposition that he has been carrying on in the media all the more bizarre. The decision was one entirely for Qantas to make, as for any of its other consultancy requirements. I make the point unequivocally to the honourable gentleman who asked the question that I had no part in the appointment in any shape or form. Mr Tim Fischer —When did you learn of it? Mr HAWKE —I remember and understand the question. I was informed about the end of February by Mr Young that consultations had taken place between Qantas management and himself. I was told about them after they occurred. I had no part in initiating them. The first knowledge I had-- Mr Howard —Before the appointment? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. Mr HAWKE —The position is quite clear. The first I knew of these consultations was when Mr Young, some time about the end of February, informed me of them. I had no part in the initiation of it and I subsequently had nothing to do with it. Mr Sinclair —You could have stopped it. Mr HAWKE —No, I did nothing to stop it because the simple fact is that Mr Young was no longer a member of this Parliament or a Minister of this Government. Mr Young as a private citizen was entitled in his post-parliamentary situation and career to seek remuneration and positions that were appropriate to his capacities and to his experience. Not only did I feel no compunction to stop it, I did not. The honourable gentleman asked me, secondly, whether I took any action to assist Mr Young to get some possible positions in the private sector. The answer is yes. Mr JOHNS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the case of a Queensland man, Ian Grey, who has been detained in Mozambique since 3 November 1987. Can the Minister inform the House of action taken by the Australian Government in relation to Mr Grey's welfare and to ensure that he is brought to trial? Can he further inform the House when it is expected that Mr Grey will be brought before the court? Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAYDEN —I thought honourable members might have missed me without recognising that I had been away. I have not had as much publicity in recent times as I would like. Mr Ian Grey is an Australian citizen, a missionary, who was detained in Mozambique on 3 November 1987. Since his detention the Australian Government has made a number of representations on his behalf. The consular representative, Mr Alexander, from Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, has gone to Maputo, the capital of Mozambique, on a number of occasions-and I think he is currently there-to look after Mr Grey's consular interests. When I was there I took the opportunity of making inquiries in Mr Grey's interests and in particular to see what processes were in place to have his trial brought forward. It was my understanding that there was an undertaking to bring the trial forward within a relatively short time. It has been asserted by the Mozambiquans that they only undertook to bring the papers in relation to Mr Grey's case before the court. That could easily have been so in that translation may have been a problem. Nonetheless, they have said the alleged offence is collaborating with armed bandits, which I presume is the Renamo forces. They claim they have evidence of these charges. We have urged that the charges be heard properly and in open court. It has been suggested that the media will probably be allowed to attend the trial which, as far as we are aware at this point, will be held before a military tribunal according to Mozambique law. The offences themselves are quite serious and are subject to the death penalty or up to 30 years imprisonment. We have made representations on Mr Grey's behalf in relation to the form of legal representation he may have advocating for him before the court. Under Mozambiquan law it is our understanding that it will have to be a Mozambiquan lawyer. However we have sought to negotiate arrangements where-as it is the family's wish-an outside lawyer, that is from a country such as Australia, may be retained by the Grey family. The last we heard was that the trial date was set for 15 March but that has now been deferred. All I can say is that we are making every effort we can to protect this man's interests. A great deal of effort has gone into it. We have diverted the energies of a very senior diplomat to work regularly and for extended periods in Maputo looking after his interests. When the trial gets under way we will second that man on a temporary basis to Maputo to cover the trial. That will mean that we will have to send additional back-up staff to support him and to complement the vacancy which is created in our representation in Harare. I stress we are not represented on the ground in Maputo and that adds to our problems. Finally, I should say that we have been in regular contact with the Grey family on this case. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister a question consequent upon the affirmative answer he gave to the honourable member for Deakin. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that none of the companies contacted by him in relation to career prospects for the former Minister for Immigration are currently seeking any special decisions or dispensations from the Government? Mr HAWKE —So far as I know, that is the case but I have total faith in the integrity of both Mr Young and the representatives of the-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I do not know whether honourable members are sniggering about the companies or about Mr Young. I said I have total faith in the integrity of both the companies and Mr Young, which produced the usual sniggering reactions. Opposition members may be sniggering about the integrity of the companies; they may be sniggering about the integrity of Mr Young. I am simply saying, on the basis of the judgment that I make about the integrity of those concerned, that I have every reason to believe that if Mr Young does work for the companies concerned-and I believe he will-he will bring to those companies the benefit of the very considerable experience that he has acquired over the period of his life. In doing that he will be in no different position from the very many people from the other side of politics who, over the years, have done the same sort of thing. Mr DUBOIS —Will the Treasurer advise the House of the latest economic indices, particularly as they affect the most populous State, New South Wales? Mr KEATING —We have seen in the December quarter national accounts, and since in partial indicators, indications of the strength of the economy, notwithstanding the decline in the stock market during October of last year. In February employment figures were released which show that employment has grown by 116,500 since October; that is, we have seen a phenomenal rate of growth of employment which has lowered our registered unemployment rate to 7.4 per cent. I might add that that employment figure now totals an aggregate 16 per cent employment growth since 1983; in five years, about 2 1/4 times the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. In the December quarter the consumer price index was 1.7 per cent, down to 7.1 per cent over the year, and, therefore, on course for the Government's projected 6 per cent by the end of the financial year. We now have inflation decelerating rapidly from the depreciation induced rise during the past 12 months. In the same time, we saw average weekly ordinary time earnings up by 1.2 per cent in the three months to November, to provide an increase in the average weekly ordinary time earnings rate of 5.3 per cent over the year. As I said a few minutes earlier, in plant and equipment investment we have seen a 10 percentage points increase in the December quarter. In housing approvals in the three months to January we saw a rise of 29 per cent over the same period the previous year. Of course, we have seen an improvement in the current account deficit. All of those influences are even more manifest in the largest State, New South Wales. Employment growth in the year to February in New South Wales has run at an annual rate of 5.5 percentage points, which is twice the average of the rest of the country and about three times the OECD average. In New South Wales, private sector job vacancies have risen by 26 per cent since the December quarter of 1986, compared with a slight fall for the rest of Australia. The growth in overtime worked in New South Wales is five times that in the rest of Australia. The housing sector is booming; the construction sector is booming; manufacturing is buoyant. In New South Wales we see faster product growth than the average of all of the other States. We hear debate in the nation about it being a time for change in New South Wales. One may ask: A time for a change from what? A change from 5.5 per cent employment growth to something less? A change from 26 per cent growth in private sector vacancies to something less? A change in overtime figures, which are five times the national average? A change from booming housing, construction and tourism sectors? A change from the more general provision of infrastructure and facilities that has been presided over by the New South Wales Labor Government? The fact is that New South Wales is enjoying better prosperity and better conditions than any other State in the Commonwealth. That is being delivered by the Unsworth Labor Government with the support of the national Government through its economic strategy. In the Liberal Party's desperate attempts to secure election in New South Wales, it now seeks to rupture and puncture the whole climate of restraint engendered in the nation by the Commonwealth Government, by seeking to spend $1,400m of additional outlays in the budgetary year which, in the unhappy event of its election, would be the next budgetary year. That is the equivalent of $4,000m of Commonwealth spending, one bearing in mind that this Government went to an election with $400m of spending commitments. This shocking extravagance on the part of the New South Wales Liberal leader is simply mirroring the extravagance and irresponsibility of the honourable member for Bennelong at the last national election. Interestingly, in this cloning that we have seen in New South Wales, Mr Greiner is putting down his Federal leader, saying: We're explicitly not trying to do what John Howard did in terms of saying we're going to use all this to give you a lot of goodies. In other words, Mr Greiner is calling his Federal leader irresponsible. Mr Greiner said: No, I don't have the John Howard problem, I do not have a where's-the-money-coming-from problem, and I deliberately avoided trying to bribe the electorate. That is what Mr Greiner says today. The other day he said, `The same people who did not believe Mr Howard's tax cuts'-and that included the whole Liberal Party and over half the nation-`in July will ask themselves whether they believe Mr Unsworth's far more irresponsible strategy'. The implication is that the tax cut policy in the last election of the honourable member for Bennelong was irresponsible and unbelievable. Mr Greiner goes on to say today that he does not have a John Howard problem-a pretty nice condemnation from the leader of the Liberal Party in the State of New South Wales, where Mr Howard lives and where he comes from. It is not just the Federal President of the Liberal Party who is saying that the Liberal Party did not deserve to win the last national election and Senator Stone saying that the Liberal Party did not deserve to be trusted on tax and did not deserve to win the last election, but now Mr Greiner is saying that he is explicitly not trying to do what John Howard did and has said, `We do not have a John Howard problem'. Honourable members will remember that great apologia by the honourable member for Bennelong in the post-election analysis-how his demise was all Joh's fault. Now every senior person in the Liberal Party, from John Elliott down to Mr Greiner, is saying that the Liberals did not deserve to win the last election, that Mr Howard had made unbelievable and irresponsible commitments and bribes and that Mr Greiner does not have a John Howard problem. Perhaps we are starting to see some real and reflective analysis of the last national election result. We on this side of the House understand that the public would not take on this tawdry, tattered group opposite who sought to derail the national strategy of restraint on consumption and a change in our current account balance, for $8 billion of unfunded tax cuts to be now followed up by an irresponsible leader in New South Wales with the equivalent of $4 billion of Commonwealth spending in a $1,400m bribe to take him to a New South Wales poll. That is what the issues are about. The only responsible party in this country at the moment is the Australian Labor Party, which, with a modest set of electoral commitments at the last election, produced a Budget surplus from the massive $10 billion Budget imbalance those opposite bequeathed to us. Now the New South Wales Labor Leader, Barrie Unsworth, is going to an election with a modest $260m platform of redistributing resources to low income families, to people who really need it. The public is now getting a chance to make a judgment about where the decency and responsibility in Australian politics lies-and it does not lie on the conservative side of politics. The conservatives are now stabbing themselves in the back with denials about irresponsibility, their `where is the money coming from' problems, and their not having a John Howard complex. They are all remarks we will be running and rerunning until the honourable member for Bennelong understands that his goose is cooked in Australian public life. The conservatives cannot go around the world throwing away tax cuts while we have a current account imbalance of this size, and they cannot go into a national election with any confidence or have the world's financial markets treat them with any sensibility while ever they are led by an irresponsible person who has ruined the economy once and would try to ruin it a second time. Mr COWAN —I address my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. Is it a fact that at the time Mr Young entered into a short term arrangement to work for Qantas Airways Ltd as a consultant, the brief provided by Qantas to the then Federal President of the Australian Labor Party was to facilitate the subversion of the Labor Party's current policy on privatisation? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have no knowledge of the question in the brief provided. I will make inquiries for the honourable member and provide him with information at the first opportunity. Mr GEAR —Not surprisingly, my question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health and relates to the welfare of patients in New South Wales. Mr Tuckey —Do you want some more names, George? Mr GEAR —Unlike the honourable member for O'Connor, I look after patients, not doctors. Can the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House as to what impact a major expansion of private hospital beds in New South Wales would have on private health insurance contribution rates? Dr BLEWETT —I am glad that the House has returned to issues of substance in health policy. The question asked is, of course, central to health policy. The first part of my answer to the honourable member for Canning is that the effect of an expansion of private hospital beds in New South Wales would be a distinct rise in the private insurance rate in New South Wales, for the obvious reason that already between 30 and 40 per cent of beds in the private hospital system are not used. This high level of underutilisation is already keeping up private insurance rates. Simply adding to that number of underutilised beds in New South Wales would increase the burden of those who pay private insurance to cover this relatively low level of utilisation. Commonsense quite clearly points out that more beds does not equate with better health care. It has no regard for efficiency, for proper planning or for the rational distribution of health services. As an article in the Sydney Morning Herald pointed out, it would also attract specialists further away from the public hospital system. As I have pointed out to this House on innumerable occasions, I might say without much effect on the Opposition, one of the major problems we have in our public hospital system is a shortage of specialists in particular areas. We now know that in New South Wales much of that shortage is deliberately politically developed. As the President of the Australian Association of Surgeons, Mr Michael Aroney, pointed out quite clearly, orthopaedic surgeons would return to the public hospital system should the Liberal Opposition be elected. This is what he said: Yes, we will return on the express promises they (the Opposition) have given. We will take them on their word. The interesting fact is that both the Labor Government and the Liberal Opposition in New South Wales agree that one of the major waiting lists is in the area of orthopaedic surgery. We are now told by the surgeons that they have deliberately stayed out to secure their political and financial ends. We have to ask: How many patients in New South Wales have suffered as a result of that policy? Indeed, if any other group of workers in this country attempted that sort of denial of services to patients and others, it would be accused by this Opposition of industrial thuggery. Had that policy of denial of services to patients been perpetrated by any other group, the Opposition would have immediately used that kind of terminology. It is clear, of course, that these doctors and the Liberal Opposition in New South Wales are simply determined to undermine Medicare, although, of course, the present shadow spokesman backs and fills on that issue. Let us see what is positively being done about the hospital system in New South Wales. Mr Sinclair —Very little. Dr BLEWETT —The right honourable member for New England is making his usual cheap jibes. Let us see what the New South Wales Government has done. The New South Wales Government has, in co-operation with the Federal Government, very sensibly tackled what are the real issues in the public hospital system in New South Wales. It has commenced a $27.4m package of specifically targeted programs-starting in December 1986-resulting in thousands of extra patients being treated. We then took part with it in a cost sharing project-an additional package of $19m in 1987-88-which will provide enhanced services in the fields of adult cardiac services, ophthalmology, orthopaedics-provided that the orthopaedic surgeons return to the public hospitals-general elective surgery and paediatric surgery. Those measures have already had a substantial impact on improving the New South Wales hospital system. In particular, the introduction and expansion of short day surgery is decreasing the pressure on general ward beds, enabling increased throughput with reduced lengths of stay. Those statistics are available for anyone who wants to look at them. At the end of January 1988 more than 600 beds had been opened as a result of those policies and more than 25,000 extra patients had been dealt with as a result of specific policies addressed to those particular problems. It is a very good reason why the people of New South Wales will continue their support for the Unsworth Government. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I ask for leave of the House to move a motion authorising the publication of the paper relating to a possible contravention of the Health Insurance Act tabled by me earlier today. Leave not granted. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.54) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith that this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the joint opinion prepared for the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the Commonwealth Minister for Health and the Health Insurance Act, dated 10 March 1988, tabled today by the Leader of the Opposition. The reason that I seek a suspension of Standing Orders on this occasion is very simple. About three weeks ago the Opposition, after the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) had corrected an answer he had given earlier in the day, claimed that the Minister for Community Services and Health had been involved in a breach of the Health Insurance Act in that he had been involved in a course of conduct which had resulted in information being made available of a confidential kind relating to particular medical practitioners. The basis of the Opposition's argument on that occasion was that the Minister for Community Services and Health had been involved in a breach of the Health Insurance Act. That was the basis of the charge which had been made by the Opposition against the Minister for Community Services and Health. On that occasion, amid a great deal of heat, fury and sound, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Community Services and Health both waxed lyrical about how they had handled the matter with great propriety. With a great flourish, the Prime Minister came into the Parliament and tabled an opinion which had been obtained hastily and, as it now turns out, on inadequate instructions to the Solicitor-General. With a great flourish the Prime Minister threw it down and said, `There you are, this completely clears the Minister for Health'. It was perfectly obvious on the day that opinion was tabled, as the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) know, that the opinion was obtained on a very narrowly drawn set of instructions. It was perfectly obvious that if the Solicitor-General had been more fully briefed, if he had been provided with the answers that had been furnished, the answers that were briefed, in relation to the opinion that I tabled earlier today, the Solicitor-General may well have reached a different conclusion. But that was not the case. From that day on, the Minister for Health and other members of the Government front bench ran around the country saying, `The Opposition does not have a case against the Minister because the Solicitor-General has provided us with an opinion which says that he was completely in the clear'. But now, three weeks later, the Opposition has been given, as has the Prime Minister, copies of an opinion obtained by the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons which is directly at odds with the opinion that has been given by the Solicitor-General. I am not saying that the opinion provided by the surgeons is right and that the opinion-- Mr Chynoweth —I thought you were. Mr HOWARD —Hang on! Do not get too excited. I am not saying that the opinion provided by the Solicitor-General is wrong. What I am saying, and what I think this Parliament ought to be willing to accept, is that the opinion tabled by me today ought to be given the same currency and the same publication as the opinion tabled by the Prime Minister. It is as simple as that. If the Prime Minister and the Minister for Community Services and Health are not prepared to have the opinion published they can only be accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the Minister for Community Services and Health. It is as simple as that. If the Minister for Community Services and Health is so absolutely certain of his position, there is a very simple procedure for the Prime Minister to adopt. That procedure is to do with the opinion I tabled today the very same thing that was done with the opinion tabled by the Prime Minister which he obtained from the Solicitor-General. It is pretty obvious why he does not want to do that. The opinion I tabled today says in very clear terms that the Minister has been in breach of the Health Insurance Act. It says in very clear terms that the excuse and the argument of an honest mistake is not available. It says in very clear terms that the officer procedure referred to by the Minister when he gave answers in the House is also not an excuse. It says in very clear terms, and damningly for the Minister, that, even if the provider numbers had not been made available, the Minister was in breach of section 130 of the Health Insurance Act because under section 130 of the Health Insurance Act it is a breach of that Act for any material relating to any person to be made available. Even though the provider numbers may not have been provided, according to the opinion that I have tabled today the Minister was in breach of the Health Insurance Act. Against that background and in those circumstances members of the Australian public are entitled to have the contents of that opinion made available to them. We have been given the opinion of the Solicitor-General, an opinion that was based on very narrow grounds. I want to know why this opinion cannot be treated in exactly the same way? Why cannot this opinion be the subject of this motion? The only reason is that the Government, and most particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister for Community Services and Health, want to engage in some cover-up of the Minister for Community Services and Health. The Prime Minister should do one very simple thing: he should get hold of the opinion that I tabled today and he should get hold of the opinion that was tabled by the Solicitor-General. He ought to send both of them off to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he ought to ask the Minister for Community Services and Health to stand down until the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a decision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.02) —I second the motion. In support of this motion, let us look at what the opinion says. It states: It is clear that Mr Gear approached the Minister and requested details of fees charged by doctors. The Minister claims that he did not provide the information to Mr Gear personally but we understand it has been conceded by the Minister that the information was handed over with his authority. The opinion continues: In our opinion, it is clear that the Minister is an `officer' within the meaning of sub-s. (14) of s. 130 of the Health Insurance Act. The Minister is responsible for the administration of the Act. He performs many duties and exercises many functions under or in relation to the Act. Indeed, the information which was disclosed was acquired at his request in the exercise of his powers as Minister. It follows that the Minister was an officer and was subject to the obligations of confidentiality contained in s. 130. Much of the public debate which has occurred in relation to whether the Minister breached s. 130 has turned on the question whether he was aware that the information authorised to be supplied contained the provider numbers. However, even if the Minister only authorised communication to Mr Gear of information which did not contain provider numbers, it is our opinion that this constituted a breach of s. 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act. Another section states: Therefore, irrespective of whether the provider numbers were disclosed without the Minister's knowledge, there was a breach of s. 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act by the Minister because, in our opinion, there is nothing in the section which makes the disclosure of the identity of a person a necessary precondition of breach. * * * It follows from our opinion as to the proper construction of s. 130 (1) of the Health Insurance Act that the offence was complete even if the provider numbers were not disclosed. Accordingly, even if the Minister held an honest and reasonable belief that the numbers were not included, this cannot negative the contravention of the section. * * * In our opinion, the defence of honest and reasonable belief is not available under the provisions of s. 130 (1). First, there is nothing in the language of the section to suggest that the defence is open. * * * Also, the section does not impose a heavy penalty. Accordingly, in our opinion, the legislature intended by s. 130 (1) is to create an offence of absolute liability. See the discussion in the Kaw Teh v. The Queen (1985) . . . * * * If our preferred construction of s. 130 (1) is correct, for the reasons already given, we do not think, on the facts as we understand them, that the Minister would have such a defence because apart from the provider numbers, he knew the nature of the offending information. If our view is incorrect and the identifying information must be included in the disclosure to be a breach, there are a number of factors which, in our view, would militate against such a defence being successful. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. We have before the House a motion to suspend Standing Orders. There is absolutely nothing in the document from which the honourable member for O'Connor is reading that has anything to do with the reasons why we should suspend Standing Orders. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make sure that his contribution is relevant to the proposition before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is reading from a document. I take it that he is putting arguments why Standing Orders should be suspended; but it is a rather interesting circumlocution to read out the document that he is now seeking to suspend Standing Orders to enable him to table. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, the document is the reason for the suspension of Standing Orders, and I go on: Firstly, no actual steps appear to have been taken-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think we ought to be talking about why Standing Orders should be suspended rather than reading the document that you intend to table if you are successful. Mr TUCKEY —I think the best evidence available is the concern that Government members now have to stop me reading it into Hansard. If they are not worried about it, and if they can scoff about it, why should they be worried about what I have to say? Mr Holding —Who is the author? Tell us that. Mr TUCKEY —I will tell honourable members the author afterwards, if my time is not wasted. I repeat: Firstly, no actual steps appear to have been taken by the Minister to ensure that the particular information did not contain identifying material. He refers to an office practice but does not say that he made any inquiry-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is obvious that the honourable member is trying to read this into the Hansard at the present time-and he has admitted it-rather than debate the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wish to move that the honourable member for O'Connor be given an extension of time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no provision to move for an extension of time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.07) —The Government rejects this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and will reject any subsequent motions related to it, because we intend to treat this particular legal opinion, as far as the procedures of this House are concerned, in the same way as we treated ours. Our legal opinion was tabled and the Opposition's legal opinion has been tabled. We are quite happy for anyone in the public to read through our legal opinion and to quote from it as he or she sees fit. What is happening here is that the Opposition is rushing to attempt to cloak its legal opinion in parliamentary privilege, a privilege that we did not seek for ours. As far as we are concerned, that is too bad. It is going to have its legal opinion treated in exactly the same way as our legal opinion, and if the people who perpetrated its legal opinion, both those who authorised it and the lawyers who prepared it, wish to stand behind it in public, in the same way as we are prepared to stand behind our legal opinion in public, so be it; let them go ahead and do exactly that. We have no problems at all with that course of action. This bogus point that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) attempted to introduce into his speech, namely, that he was somehow trying to seek for himself the same privileges as the Government has sought for itself, is just that: a bogus point. We are cheerful about giving him the same privileges and he had those same privileges when he was permitted to table the document that he brought to the House. We, of course, have not yet had a chance to take more than a cursory glance at this document, which according to the Opposition, was apparently passed into the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) shortly before Question Time. However, we note that the opinion is prepared on behalf of the orthopaedic surgeons and that one of the two people who prepared it is Bob Ellicott. What a surprise it is. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I just want the Minister to say that Ellicott is a crook or otherwise incompetent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will not make allegations such as that. Mr BEAZLEY —The only allegation that has been made so far that Bob Ellicott is a crook has been made by the honourable member for O'Connor. The allegation I make is that he is a Liberal and a former Liberal Minister. We on this side of the House are expected to take seriously the opinion that is tabled here. We are expected to believe that it is anything other than a political get-up by the Liberal Party of Australia and its associates. We are asked to jump through hoops, to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, or whoever, on legal opinions got together for political purposes by the Opposition and its associates. We will not jump through hoops. They can stick their legal opinion in the public arena in the same way as we stick our legal opinions in the public arena. They can work out whether they will stand up to the attention that may ensue in several courts of law. As to the society which evidently has had this opinion prepared-I notice that some of its representatives are sitting here in the visitors gallery-we have already heard from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) what its political stance is when he answered questions here in Parliament today. This group has been prepared to present publicly its position: that provided it wins its points with the New South Wales Government, it is prepared to serve in public hospitals. It is prepared to have that position used by the Liberal Party in its election campaign in New South Wales. Then its representatives come in here and ask us to give special treatment for Bob Ellicott's opinion and some special treatment for people who are not prepared, unless the conditions are right, to treat patients in public hospitals. The Opposition asks us to take those people seriously. It tells us that we have to suspend Standing Orders for people who are not prepared to treat poor patients in public hospitals until their position is accepted. Is this not the Liberal Party position overall on health matters? Is this not the Liberal Party position through and through? It had six policies on health when it was in government. It has had three or four policies on health since it has been in Opposition and it is yet to develop a health policy. Why has it not developed a health policy since it has been in Opposition? It is for the simple reason that it does not quite know how to accommodate, within the framework of reasonable public opinion, the sorts of people it is supporting and the sorts of people it is supporting here when it seeks the suspension of Standing Orders. We do not get a health policy out of the Liberal Party because it is not talking to the people of Australia, the people it is saying that the Australian Government has lost touch with. It is not talking to the people of Australia when it addresses health policy. It is talking to the various wealthy pressure groups that are trying to get into the public hospitals only on the terms those groups want. These are the people who are now trying to portray themselves in the New South Wales election campaign as those who are really in touch with what the poor people in this country are concerned with. What a load of rubbish. This load of rubbish is no more emphatically exposed than in the way in which the Opposition has sought to handle this case. The Opposition has mounted attacks on the Minister for Community Services and Health. Why? It is because the Minister is trying to defend the position of the patient. He is trying to point out and establish in the public mind that something like a minority, but nevertheless a finite minority, of doctors are moving outside the framework of an agreed settled fee and attempting to take the patients down, sometimes to the tune of six times that agreed schedule fee. The Liberal Party will do anything but discuss that issue. When the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed by George Negus on the Today program and invited to make statements on that matter, after tiptoeing through the tulips he finally got around to saying, `Perhaps it is a good thing if you do put out information on that but we want to get back to the main point'. The main point, as far as the Opposition is concerned, is that it will defend the interests of those who are indefensible. That is what the Opposition has engaged in here. It is defending the interests of those who are indefensible. It has the hide to ask this government to give those people coverage, to give them legal privilege to do as they please, with an opinion got together by Bob Ellicott. We say thanks but no thanks. We are not going to engage in that process. Honourable members can put their legal opinion before the general public, that is open to them. It is open to the representatives sitting in the gallery here-oh, they have left. They have departed. What a shame! I am not surprised. They have left because they do not like to hear the hard message. No doubt they were here with joy to hear the Leader of the Opposition. They were here with the old puppet strings and had him dancing about. But when the opportunity will not be there, because they now know we will refuse them leave to cover with special privilege a document we have not sought coverage for in our own documents, they are disappointed, the strings have been cut, the puppet is deflated and has squatted in his seat. There is nothing more to be said, the matter is over. That is indeed the case. Well might they walk out of here because there is no more to be said, the matter is over. In the past two weeks in this House we have seen pathetic attempts to blackguard the reputation of, it seems, the only friend in Parliament-although he is well backed up by the backbenchers-that patients have in this country. It is an absolutely absurd position. Although the public rejected the propositions put forward by members of the Opposition in their bungled, pathetic attempts to censure the Minister for Community Service and Health in the last parliamentary sittings, members of the Opposition have attempted to do that again today. They have got themselves into a position where the public has rejected their bungled efforts on the Minister for Community Services and Health. The public has recognised the central issue so far as the Minister is concerned is that he is here in defence of the rights of patients. Members of the Opposition will never find themselves in that position. This is not a worthwhile motion to carry. We know where it comes from. It comes from the Liberal Party and Liberal Party supporters and we have no problem at all in rejecting it. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.18) —What we are debating today is a political stunt that went badly wrong. What the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) has sought to do is try to obscure the real issues. My colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has read into Hansard the salient points of a legal opinion which is in conflict with the legal opinion tabled in this House previously by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Based on that legal opinion the Prime Minister said that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) is in the clear, he is off scot-free. Another legal opinion prepared by another equally eminent Queen's Counsel, a former Solicitor-General, who has obviously been employed by the Labor Government since he retired from politics-- Mr Scholes —On a point of order; Mr Deputy Speaker: having heard the debate so far, am I correct in asking whether it is irrelevant to discuss what the content of the document is? The only effect of the motion before the Chair is to give privilege to any slanderous or defamatory remark in the document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The motion before the Chair is whether the House will suspend Standing Orders. I take it that the honourable member for Richmond is putting a point to the House on why he believes Standing Orders should urgently be suspended. Mr BLUNT —As I was saying before I was interrupted by a member of the Government's back bench, obviously the Government cannot take this. The point is that one legal opinion says that the Minister is free and clear and the other one, equally eminent, equally as valid, says that the Minister is not. The Minister should stand aside. The Prime Minister should consider the legal opinion and refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the course of action that should be followed. Members on this side of the House believe the Minister is guilty and should resign. He has an appalling track record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.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. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. T.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Downer, A. J. G. Duffy, M. J.Cadman, A. G. Dawkins, J. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -On behalf of Madam Speaker, I present the following reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, relating to the proposed works in the parliamentary zone: Heritage 200 plaques and bus shelters on the land bridge between the new Parliament House and the provisional Parliament House. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —In accordance with the resolution of the House, papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Advance to the Minister for Finance-statements of expenditure for November and December 1987 and January 1988. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd-annual report 1986-87. Poultry Research Council-annual report 1986-87-section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Homes away from Home-final report of the National Review of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority-annual report 1986-87-subsection 41 (2) of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. Australian Wheat Board-annual report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-subsection 63 (4) of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984. Schooling in Rural Australia-Commonwealth Schools Commission Report. Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport-volume 1: REport-volumes 2 and 3: Supporting Papers. OTC International Limited-Memorandum and Articles of Association-together with an explanatory statement. CSIRO-annual report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 51 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson) —On 17 February I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regarding the Australian film industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Is the honourable member claiming to have been misrepresented? Mr COHEN —Yes, I am. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr COHEN —At the conclusion of the Prime Minister's reply to me on 17 February, he remarked: They may have been made to the appropriate Minister but they have not come across my desk. I interjected at the time and said, `The inappropriate Minister'. It was incorrectly recorded in Hansard, but I am not really questioning that. The Press the following day, and for days afterwards, interpreted that to mean that I was having a shot at the new Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch). I meant that to mean that I was referring to myself. In a sense the remark that was attributed to me in Hansard does cover that exigency. I was the appropriate Minister at one stage. I was not in any way, I repeat, casting any reflection upon the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I wished him well. I did not ask the question of him because it was his first day in the office and I did not want to catch him short if he was not prepared. He obviously had not had a lot of time. I was very upset to read in a number of newspapers, including in the John Laws column, that I was trying to embarrass the Minister. I can assure the House that I was not. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1987 Commonwealth Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1988 Child Support Bill 1987 Extradition Bill 1987 Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1988 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting resolutions relating to parliamentary privilege. The terms of the resolutions will be printed in Hansard. The resolutions read as follows- PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE RESOLUTIONS AGREED TO BY THE SENATE ON 25 FEBRUARY 1988 1. Procedures to be observed by Senate committees for the protection of witnesses That, in their dealings with witnesses, all committees of the Senate shall observe the following procedures: (1) A witness shall be invited to attend a committee meeting to give evidence. A witness shall be summoned to appear (whether or not the witness was previously invited to appear) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant the issue of a summons. (2) Where a committee desires that a witness produce documents relevant to the committee's inquiry, the witness shall be invited to do so, and an order that documents be produced shall be made (whether or not an invitation to produce documents has previously been made) only where the committee has made a decision that the circumstances warrant such an order. (3) A witness shall be given reasonable notice of a meeting at which the witness is to appear, and shall be supplied with a copy of the committee's order of reference, a statement of the matters expected to be dealt with during the witness's appearance, and a copy of these procedures. Where appropriate a witness shall be supplied with a transcript of relevant evidence already taken. (4) A witness shall be given opportunity to make a submission in writing before appearing to give oral evidence. (5) Where appropriate, reasonable opportunity shall be given for a witness to raise any matters of concern to the witness relating to the witness's submission or the evidence the witness is to give before the witness appears at a meeting. (6) A witness shall be given reasonable access to any documents that the witness has produced to a committee. (7) A witness shall be offered, before giving evidence, the opportunity to make application, before or during the hearing of the witness's evidence, for any or all of the witness's evidence to be heard in private session, and shall be invited to give reasons for any such application. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (8) Before giving any evidence in private session a witness shall be informed whether it is the intention of the committee to publish or present to the Senate all or part of that evidence, that it is within the power of the committee to do so, and that the Senate has the authority to order the production and publication of undisclosed evidence. (9) A chairman of a committee shall take care to ensure that all questions put to witnesses are relevant to the committee's inquiry and that the information sought by those questions is necessary for the purpose of that inquiry. Where a member of a committee requests discussion of a ruling of the chairman on this matter, the committee shall deliberate in private session and determine whether any question which is the subject of the ruling is to be permitted. (10) Where a witness objects to answering any question put to the witness on any ground, including the ground that the question is not relevant or that the answer may incriminate the witness, the witness shall be invited to state the ground upon which objection to answering the question is taken. Unless the committee determines immediately that the question should not be pressed, the committee shall then consider in private session whether it will insist upon an answer to the question, having regard to the relevance of the question to the committee's inquiry and the importance to the inquiry of the information sought by the question. If the committee determines that it requires an answer to the question, the witness shall be informed of that determination and the reasons for the determination, and shall be required to answer the question only in private session unless the committee determines that it is essential to the committee's inquiry that the question be answered in public session. Where a witness declines to answer a question to which a committee has required an answer, the committee shall report the facts to the Senate. (11) Where a committee has reason to believe that evidence about to be given may reflect adversely on a person, the committee shall give consideration to hearing that evidence in private session. (12) Where a witness gives evidence reflecting adversely on a person and the committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to the committee's inquiry, the committee shall give consideration to expunging that evidence from the transcript of evidence, and to forbidding the publication of that evidence. (13) Where evidence is given which reflects adversely on a person and action of the kind referred to in paragraph (12) is not taken in respect of the evidence, the committee shall provide reasonable opportunity for that person to have access to that evidence and to respond to that evidence by written submission and appearance before the committee. (14) A witness may make application to be accompanied by counsel and to consult counsel in the course of a meeting at which the witness appears. In considering such an application, a committee shall have regard to the need for the witness to be accompanied by counsel to ensure the proper protection of the witness. If an application is not granted, the witness shall be notified of reasons for that decision. (15) A witness accompanied by counsel shall be given reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during a meeting at which the witness appears. (16) An officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a State shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a Minister. (17) Reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to witnesses to make corrections of errors of transcription in the transcript of their evidence and to put before a committee additional material supplementary to their evidence. (18) Where a committee has any reason to believe that any person has been improperly influenced in respect of evidence which may be given before the committee, or has been subjected to or threatened with any penalty or injury in respect of any evidence given, the committee shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the facts of the matter. Where the committee considers that the facts disclose that a person may have been improperly influenced or subjected to or threatened with penalty or injury in respect of evidence which may be or has been given before the committee, the committee shall report the facts and its conclusions to the Senate. 2. Procedures for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee That, in considering any matter referred to it which may involve, or gives rise to any allegation of, a contempt, the Committee of Privileges shall observe the procedures set out in this resolution, in addition to the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses before committees. Where this resolution is inconsistent with the procedures required by the Senate for the protection of witnesses, this resolution shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. (1) A person shall, as soon as practicable, be informed, in writing, of the nature of any allegations, known to the Committee and relevant to the Committee's inquiry, against the person, and of the particulars of any evidence which has been given in respect of the person. (2) The Committee shall extend to that person all reasonable opportunity to respond to such allegations and evidence by: (a) making written submission to the Committee; (b) giving evidence before the Committee; (c) having other evidence placed before the Committee; and (d) having witnesses examined before the Committee. (3) Where oral evidence is given containing any allegation against, or reflecting adversely on, a person, the Committee shall ensure as far as possible that that person is present during the hearing of that evidence, and shall afford all reasonable opportunity for that person, by counsel or personally, to examine witnesses in relation to that evidence. (4) A person appearing before the Committee may be accompanied by counsel, and shall be given all reasonable opportunity to consult counsel during that appearance. (5) A witness shall not be required to answer in public session any question where the Committee has reason to believe that the answer may incriminate the witness. (6) Witnesses shall be heard by the Committee on oath or affirmation. (7) Hearing of evidence by the Committee shall be conducted in public session, except where: (a) the Committee accedes to a request by a witness that the evidence of that witness be heard in private session; (b) the Committee determines that the interests of a witness would best be protected by hearing evidence in private session; or (c) the Committee considers that circumstances are otherwise such as to warrant the hearing of evidence in private session. (8) The Committee may appoint, on terms and conditions approved by the President, counsel to assist it. (9) The Committee may authorise, subject to rules determined by the Committee, the examination by counsel of witnesses before the Committee. (10) As soon as practicable after the Committee has determined findings to be included in the Committee's report to the Senate, and prior to the presentation of the report, a person affected by those findings shall be acquainted with the findings and afforded all reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the Committee, in writing and orally, on those findings. The Committee shall take such submissions into account before making its report to the Senate. (11) The Committee may recommend to the President the reimbursement of costs of representation of witnesses before the Committee. Where the President is satisfied that a person would suffer substantial hardship due to liability to pay the costs of representation of the person before the Committee, the President may make reimbursement of all or part of such costs as the President considers reasonable. (12) Before appearing before the Committee a witness shall be given a copy of this resolution. 3. Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt. The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt; and (c) whether a person who committed any act which may be held to be a contempt: (i) knowingly committed that act, or (ii) had any reasonable excuse for the commission of that act. 4. Criteria to be taken into account by the President in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should be given precedence of other business Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the President shall have regard only to the following criteria: (a) the principle that the Senate's power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for Senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and (b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt. 5. Protection of persons referred to in the Senate (1) Where a person who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate, makes a submission in writing to the President: (a) claiming that the person has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or association with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person; and (b) requesting that the person be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record, if the President is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee of Privileges; and (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of Privileges to consider the submission under this resolution, the President shall refer the submission to that Committee. (2) The Committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it under this resolution if the Committee considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character, and such a decision shall be reported to the Senate. (3) If the Committee decides to consider a submission under this resolution, the Committee may confer with the person who made the submission and any Senator who referred in the Senate to that person. (4) In considering a submission under this resolution, the Committee shall meet in private session. (5) The Committee shall not publish a submission referred to it under this resolution or its proceedings in relation to such a submission, but may present minutes of its proceedings and all or part of such submission to the Senate. (6) In considering a submission under this resolution and reporting to the Senate the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the Senate or of the submission. (7) In its report to the Senate on a submission under this resolution, the Committee may make either of the following recommendations: (a) that no further action be taken by the Senate or by the Committee in relation to the submission; or (b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person and the Committee, be published by the Senate or incorporated in Hansard, and shall not make any other recommendations. (8) A document presented to the Senate under paragraph (5) or (7): (a) in the case of a response by a person who made a submission, shall be succinct and strictly relevant to the questions in issue and shall not contain anything offensive in character; and (b) shall not contain any matter the publication of which would have the effect of: (i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (1); or (ii) unreasonably adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by a person. 6. Matters constituting contempts That, without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempts, the Senate declares, as a matter of general guidance, that breaches of the following prohibitions, and attempts or conspiracies to do the prohibited acts, may be treated by the Senate as contempts. Interference with the Senate (1) A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a Senator of the Senator's duties as a Senator. Improper influence of Senators (2) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence a Senator in the Senator's conduct as a Senator or induce a Senator to be absent from the Senate or a committee. Senators seeking benefits etc. (3) A Senator shall not ask for, receive or obtain, any property or benefit for the Senator, or another person, on any understanding that the Senator will be influenced in the discharge of the Senator's duties, or enter into any contract, understanding or arrangement having the effect, or which may have the effect, of controlling or limiting the Senator's independence or freedom of action as a Senator, or pursuant to which the Senator is in any way to act as the representative of any outside body in the discharge of the Senator's duties. Molestation of Senators (4) A person shall not inflict any punishment, penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, a Senator on account of the Senator's conduct as a Senator. Disturbance of the Senate (5) a person shall not wilfully disturb the Senate or a committee while it is meeting, or wilfully engage in any disorderly conduct in the precincts of the Senate or a committee tending to disturb its proceedings. Service of writs etc. (6) A person shall not serve or execute any criminal or civil process in the precincts of the Senate on a day on which the Senate meets except with the consent of the Senate or of a person authorised by the Senate to give such consent. False reports of proceedings (7) A person shall not wilfully publish any false or misleading report of the proceedings of the Senate or of a committee. Disobedience of orders (8) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Obstruction of orders (9) A person shall not interfere with or obstruct another person who is carrying out a lawful order of the Senate or of a committee. Interference with witnesses (10) A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force of threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving such evidence. Molestation of witnesses (11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee. Offences by witnesses etc. (12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not: (a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so; (b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or (c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular. (13) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse: (a) refuse or fail to attend before the Senate or a committee when ordered to do so; or (b) refuse or fail to produce documents, or to allow the inspection of documents, in accordance with an order of the Senate or of a committee. (14) A person shall not wilfully avoid service of an order of the Senate or of a committee. (15) A person shall not destroy, damage, forge of falsify any document required to be produced by the Senate or by a committee. Unauthorised disclosure of evidence etc. (16) A person shall not, without the authority of the Senate or a committee, publish or disclose: (a) a document that has been prepared for the purpose of submission, and submitted, to the Senate or a committee and has been directed by the Senate or a committee to be treated as evidence taken in private session or as a document confidential to the Senate or the committee; (b) any oral evidence taken by the Senate or a committee in private session, or a report of any such oral evidence; or (c) any proceedings in private session of the Senate or a committee or any report of such proceedings, unless the Senate or a committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document, that oral evidence or a report of those proceedings. 7. Raising of matters of privilege That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a matter of privilege shall not be brought before the Senate except in accordance with the following procedures: (1) A Senator intending to raise a matter of privilege shall notify the President, in writing, of the matter. (2) The President shall consider the matter and determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the Senate. The President's decision shall be communicated to the Senator, and, if the President thinks it appropriate, or determines that a motion relating to the matter should have precedence, to the Senate. (3) A senator shall not take any action in relation to, or refer to, in the Senate, an matter which is under consideration by the President in accordance with this resolution. (4) Where the President determines that a motion relating to a matter should be given precedence of other business, the Senator may, at any time when there is no other business before the Senate, give notice of a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Such notice shall take precedence of all other business on the day for which the notice is given. (5) A determination by the President that a motion relating to a matter should not have precedence of other business does not prevent a Senator in accordance with other procedures taking action in relation to, or referring to, that matter in the Senate, subject to the rules of the Senate. (6) Where notice of a motion is given under paragraph (4) and the Senate is not expected to meet within the period of one week occurring immediately after the day on which the notice is given, the motion may be moved on that day. 8. Motions relating to contempts That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, a motion to: (a) determine that a person has committed a contempt; or (b) impose a penalty upon a person for a contempt, shall not be moved unless notice of the motion has been given not less than 7 days before the day for moving the motion. 9. Exercise of Freedom of Speech (1) That the Senate considers that, in speaking in the Senate or in a committee, Senators should take the following matters into account: (a) the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner; (b) the damage that may be done by allegations made in Parliament to those who are the subject of such allegations and to the standing of Parliament; (c) the limited opportunities for persons other than members of Parliament to respond to allegations made in Parliament; (d) the need for Senators, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others; and (e) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based. (2) That the President, whenever the President considers that it is desirable to do so, may draw the attention of the Senate to the spirit and the letter of this resolution. 10. Reference to Senate proceedings in court proceedings (1) That, without derogating from the law relating to the use which may be made of proceedings in Parliament under section 49 of the Constitution, and subject to any law and any order of the Senate relating to the disclosure of proceedings of the Senate or a committee, the Senate declares that leave of the Senate is not required for the admission into evidence, or reference to, records or reports of proceedings in the Senate or in a committee of the Senate, or the admission of evidence relating to such proceedings, in proceedings before any court or tribunal. (2) That the practice whereby leave of the Senate is sought in relation to matters referred to in paragraph (1) be discontinued. (3) That the Senate should be notified of any admission of evidence or reference to proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (1), and the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the State be requested to develop procedures whereby such notification may be given. 11. Consultation between Privileges Committees That, in considering any matter referred to it, the Committee of Privileges may confer with the Committee of Privileges of the House of Representatives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The decline in the standards of government under the Hawke Administration. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. EBrown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright. K. W.Humphreys, B. C. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.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. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Katter, R. C. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Duffy, M. J. Downer, A. J. G.Dawkins, J. S. Cadman, A. G.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Smith 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 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'. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(3.39) —One of the more interesting contributions during this debate was delivered by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). Although he is a member of the Left faction of the Australian Labor Party, which is implacably opposed to the mining and export of uranium in all its forms, he indicated a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitable, apparently because it is a part of ALP policy and for no other reason. He carefully avoided reference to the sale of uranium to France, which is contrary to ALP policy, and which prompted him, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) to walk noisily out of the chamber during the Budget Speech made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which announced the resumption of sales of uranium to France. I see that the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the honourable member for La Trobe are nodding in agreement. I would not want to do them any disservice. They have their beliefs, which I respect, but with which, of course, I do not agree. One is a little undecided about being either amused or bemused at that omission by the honourable member for La Trobe in not referring to the sale of uranium to France. It is equally easy to become confused because he described as nonsense a claim by my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) about demand for uranium. It seems that electricity generation by nuclear means in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America is not to expand, if the opinion of the honourable member for La Trobe is to be accepted. The honourable member, in acknowledging that each of those countries has new reactors under construction, also correctly pointed out that they currently have plans for only two new reactors. I see that he is nodding in agreement, so I am not misrepresenting him on that point. Furthermore, he claimed that, of those under construction, `it will be interesting to see how many of them will be completed', when referring to the considerable numbers of reactors already being built. He gave Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as his reasons for speculating in that way. The news that I have for the honourable member is that the problems of Three Mile Island occurred years before he made his speech. Nothing that has happened since has hindered construction of the quite considerable number of reactors now being built. Unless the honourable member has some divine insight, he and his fellow travellers should abandon that sort of throwaway rhetoric. Projections of demand published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and referred to by the honourable member are not of much use, either. Members of the Australian Labor Party cite the OECD on every conceivable matter when it suits an argument. The truth is that the OECD is very helpful in providing figures and historical information. Its forecasts, however, are almost entirely made up of the views and wish lists of the member countries and cannot be taken seriously. Nowhere is this made more plain than in the published OECD estimates of Australia's economic prospects over the past several years which mirror exactly what it was told by the Treasurer and his Department. We all know how wide of the mark the Government has been. Unfortunately, in using the misinformation provided, the OECD has brought itself into disrepute to the extent that is forecasts are not regarded as authoritative. When honourable members opposite trot out OECD figures which may or may not reflect future demand for uranium, we on this side-and very many others-are far from impressed. The honourable member for La Trobe went on to say that because it is ALP policy it is all right that there are three producing mines in Australia. He properly acknowledged that one is pretty well mined out, with only stock piles of yellowcake to be sold, so it is really a two-mine policy. He went on to say that mining in the Alligator Rivers region is inappropriate. That leaves only Roxby Downs. The honourable member is not really supporting a three-mine policy but a one mine policy. Mr Milton —No mines at all, if I had my way. Mr ROCHER —Exactly. But why did the honourable member not say that in his contribution to this debate? We can respect that point of view without agreeing with it, but the honourable member skirted around the issue. I respect him for his beliefs but I regret that he did not express them in this debate. Although it is of interest to make some informed and not so informed guesses about the likely demand for uranium, it seems so pointless and unnecessary. That is surely not the job of politicians or governments. The miners and producers can make judgments about that and they undoubtedly would, were it not for restrictions imposed by the Commonwealth. There is no-one in this Parliament or the bureaucracy with the information which equips them to make judgments about the market for uranium products. All I would like to say about growth, or lack of growth, in demand for uranium is that it is more likely to be distorted by interfering governments than by the sellers and consumers of uranium for power generation purposes. Just as important is the fact that it is not the size or growth of the market which is at issue; it is more a matter of Australia's share of the market, whatever its size. If Australian miners-as we have been confidently told by members on both sides-are cost-efficient producers of uranium, open to competition from within Australia, it is likely that producers could obtain a greater share of the market. It is also true that Australian producers compete against producers from politically un- stable countries such as Nigeria and the Republic of South Africa. Who is to say that consumers would not be prepared to pay a premium, if necessary, for Australian yellowcake because we are a politically stable country with a reputation for reliability-strikes and industrial activity by the waterfront and seamen's unions excepted. Another factor affecting market share for all suppliers is the recent agreement between Canada and the United States which has the effect of tying up the entire North American market for Canadian producers if the letter of the law of that agreement is followed. The Government says one thing in this area, as it does in others, and does another. Politically, it feels that it cannot adopt those measures which are correct. In this case it would be right to allow the safe mining of any uranium reserves which are commercially viable. It knows that the alternative of the destructionist, anti-mining lobby is wrong. So the Government does nothing-unless some cynical political interest awakens Government members from their slumber as it does from time to time. The influence of the Jean Melzers of the ALP, as well as the Nuclear Disarmament Party senators and the Australian Democrats, has led the Hawke Government to take actions which undermine Australia's international trade, reduce employment, put employers in an untenable position of perpetual uncertainty and even threatens the security of the country. This has the support of a small minority of Australian voters. The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill involves an increase in the export duty on the tonnage of exported uranium. This is a duty on an export which the Government likes to pretend does not occur, other than in exceptional circumstances. Clearly, such exports should be subject to our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Additional safeguards are made to ensure that waste disposal and transport of uranium and its derivative products adhere to strict international standards. Under the previous coalition Government we took measures which would have allowed the Australian uranium export industry to become one of the most dynamic contributors to Australian trade as well as having some of the most stringent safeguards in the world. The present Government has not been able constructively to improve on the measures which we put in place when in government. Yet by calling a halt to the development of mining by the termination of negotiating licences, the Government has stopped Australians reaping the benefits from the structure which was already in place. The Hawke-Keating Government made exceptions to its attitude to uranium mining, just as it will always make exceptions for political advantage. The Bill before us relates to one of those exceptions. The Alligator Rivers mine within the Kakadu National Park has managed to survive because it has been around since 1983. Another exception at Roxby Downs was announced just before the last State election in South Australia. Clearly, the Bannon Government needed whatever help it could get partially to rescue the industry of that State, but the Hawke-Keating Government stooped to what must be the lowest level of pork-barrel politics in support of a political ally. There is no difference in principle between Roxby Downs and such prospects as Yeelirrie in Western Australia, Ben Lomond in Queensland and many other potential mines dotted around the country outside the south-east corner. This Bill is an example of the discrimination which this Government will apply when making more exceptions to a rule which it does not really believe in. The uranium concentrate export duty under this Bill applies only to uranium mined in one region. The duty is simply a convenient means of providing for the recovery of government costs in monitoring mining. It is said to be an application of the user pays principle, which is so hated when convenient, by the New South Wales division of the ALP under the short-lived Premier, Mr Barrie Unsworth. Yet, the user is not paying by a fee for service under these proposals. The user pays through a duty or tax on the export of a product. If `user-pays' cost recovery means only that extra revenue is raised through normal means to cover the cost of expenditure, it becomes meaningless. By and large tax revenue must roughly cover government expenditure. For all the talk of `cost recovery', the outcome after passage of this Bill is that it will increase a duty, a tax, on the operations of a company in the mining industry which provides valuable exports. It is an extra cost on the company, imposed by the Government for services which are often not wanted anyway. When the Government raises revenue it should have the dignity, the honesty, to admit it openly. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) should not hide the effect of the Bill behind the rhetoric of cost recovery, as if the Government were providing a valued good or service. Environmental monitoring and government research are not infrastructure like roads, or a service like electricity, for which the user should pay. Indeed, using this duty is a wholly inappropriate means of achieving cost recovery. As it is, the levy will recover only 75 per cent of the costs of monitoring and research. What would happen if the uranium mining industry were allowed to take the advice of the Minister, who self-righteously tells Australian industry to involve itself in further processing of raw materials? Presumably, monitoring and research of yellowcake production would continue at the same level. Would the enriched uranium be subject to the export duty? What new tax would have to be introduced then, if one were to follow the logic being advanced in support of this measure? At present Australia does not have a uranium enrichment plant, although we read in the Press today that the Northern Territory Government is very anxious to proceed with one. Very careful consideration should be given to the feasibility of that proposal. A government instrumentality might not be a suitable vehicle, but the enrichment of uranium should certainly be considered by this Government for the betterment of the prospects of all Australians. No-one here will process the raw material of uranium and yellowcake into a product which is immediately useful. A uranium enrichment plant should not be ruled out, therefore, by the Australian Government. It might not be economically feasible, but if it were, such a facility would further improve the returns from a valuable natural resource. Honourable members opposite should not, as some no doubt will, think of my defence of the peaceful use of uranium as a few throw-away lines for the wealthy corporations which mine uranium. Economic prosperity benefits everyone. The employment generated helps tradesmen, miners, clerks-everyone in our workforce and our community. The Labor Party, when it restricts enterprise, puts directly and indirectly at risk the livelihood of all. The people immediately involved almost always support development. In the Northern Territory, transport and waterside workers are quite willing to deal with uranium. Yet, time after time, the ALP seems to want to sacrifice these people to the concentrations of voters who mistakenly believe that they have nothing to lose from the distant happenings in mining and rural areas. This is the worst kind of populism. It plays on people's misunderstandings and, in the long run, it undermines the welfare of individuals. No matter how the Government tries to twist the facts about its so-called policy on uranium, it is a policy which has favoured some States and Territories over others. It favours some producers over others. It buys the votes of one group of people with the money and livelihoods of others. The ALP Government has not objected to uranium mining in principle, as two major mines are now exporting and one other, Roxby Downs, is about to come on line. The Government is very happy to accept the revenue from companies which profitably export uranium. Why should not other firms, other States, other potential workers, share in the benefits of opening new mines? We will never be able to measure the forgone wealth and lost opportunities that uranium mining and the profits from such mining might have offered. The new capital which comes from primary production is desperately needed to boost investment in Australia. Uranium mining would not be the ultimate solution to all the problems which this country now has, but it would help. We have had enough of simplistic panaceas from the other side of the House. Indeed, the double standards of the Government that are reflected in this Bill, which deals with funding the Government's intervention in uranium mining, are the result of one of these simple solutions. The opponents of uranium mining somehow argue that the miners are ultimately responsible for the emergence of nuclear weapons, the potential accidents in nuclear reactors in distant lands and a range of other so-called sins, in this modern age. It is very easy to deny the value of nuclear power from the relative comfort of Australia. However, in Japan, Europe or the United States-some of the largest consumers of uranium for peaceful purposes-where enormous amounts of energy are used for heating so that people can continue to live, nuclear power is a necessity. Clearly, coal, solar and other energy sources are no solution. Fossil fuels present problems in themselves, We all know about acid rain in the Northern Hemisphere. Energy is one of those necessities which cannot be abandoned. If Australian firms can be a major supplier of this necessity it is only to the advantage of all Australians. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.59) —I rise to support the Government's proposals before the chamber today in relation to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. The tariff was increased from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram as from 15 September 1987 on those uranium concentrates produced from the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory. The duty, which has been imposed on uranium since 1980, is partially to offset the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities by the Office of the Supervising Scientist associated with uranium mining operations in the Alligator Rivers region. The increase in the duty proposed in the Bill will recover about 75 per cent of those costs. For those who are interested in this area, the Office of the Supervising Scientist was created in recognition of the special need to protect the environment of the Alligator Rivers region, an area of great beauty and worldwide environmental significance, from the effects of uranium mining operations, both in the short term and the long term. I would like to focus my remarks on a couple of visits that I made to the United Kingdom in relation to the use of nuclear power. I will make a few comments on some of the issues which are very important to many people in Australia and in other parts of the world. I do not think there has been a product which has had as much debate and as much controversy in its mining and its use as uranium has had since it first came on stream around the late 1930s and early 1940s, particularly its use at the end of the Second World War when two atomic weapons were dropped on Japan. There has been a lot of genuine concern as to how radioactivity would affect the human race and the genes of human beings and how families would be affected. With something new we always have a situation where lack of knowledge can create caution, fear and conservatism in many people, and in this case the question is whether we should move boldly down the path of development of nuclear power and the mining of uranium or whether we should be cautious. We have had an enormous debate on this issue in Australia over many years. It has been a very contentious debate, particularly in the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The Labor Party has always had a policy of mining uranium. There was a strong move in the debating areas to try to change that policy. It was not successful. As has been expounded by this House many times, we still have a policy of moving forward cautiously in mining uranium; we will sell it cautiously to the world where we are assured that there are safeguards on its use and that it will be used for peaceful purposes and will not find its way into the development of nuclear weapons. On my first visit to the United Kingdom I was very interested to see just how nuclear waste was being disposed of. I went to probably the most contentious area in the debate; that is, Sellafield, which is on the west coast of the United Kingdom, closest to the Irish coast. There has been a lot of contention in relation to how nuclear waste is being handled in that part of the world. I am the first to admit, from going there, that mistakes have been made in the past. There was a serious fire in the 1950s. At that stage, when there was not much public knowledge made available of the nuclear industry, a lot of problems did occur; and they are problems which are still being investigated. I believe that over the period-and I came to this conclusion very strongly-that we have seen the development of nuclear power in the world there has been an extreme move on the conservative side to guarantee safety as much as possible. I think that is evident from the statistical figures of those who have died as a result of nuclear accidents, compared with other areas of power generation throughout the world. I think the extreme caution is to be commended. I pay tribute to those people throughout the world who have fought very hard to get those safety measures, bearing in mind that until the 1960s it was a very secretive industry. There was not much discussion as to the future of nuclear power and there was a lot of caution and conservatism. People were not taken into confidence by the powers in command at the time in the industry. I think they are paying the price for that right now in the late 1980s and going into the 1990s-there is a lot of mistrust of organisations which are heavily involved in the nuclear industry. My concerns were to look at what was happening with nuclear waste and what we were doing with it. Its final depository is still a major problem throughout the world. However, I am convinced that the methods that are being adopted throughout the world are such that the scientific capacity is there to overcome the problems. There is still a long way to go in relation to urgency for the disposal of high level waste because of the small amounts that are being controlled around the world. There is a more urgent reason to look at the way of disposing of the mid-level waste; that is, the not so highly toxic pieces of material and equipment that are being used within the process and that are still being stored at present in drums around the world. It still has not been decided where it will go. I have always been concerned about the publicity that the industry receives around the world and some of the issues that occur. I was in the United Kingdom when a big test was made. Containers were used to transport the rods from the power station to Sellafield for final stripping and disposal. I was in the United Kingdom when a test was made of one of these containers. The rods are taken from the power station and are put into a container made from steel and concrete. Once they are locked inside that container, they are immersed in what is virtually a massive swimming pool. Provided there are five feet of water over that container it is absolutely 100 per cent safe as far as radioactive release is concerned. There is no danger to anybody. A lot of concern has been expressed around the world about these large swimming pools. They are built on ground level; they are made from concrete and steel. It has been found that over time there is the possibility of their leaking. If there is a slight reduction, minute though it may be, in the amount of water in these massive pools, the headline is that there will be a nuclear waste leak at some power station. The water is quite pure and is checked every day. There is no radioactivity actually in the water. It is as good as any water one would find anywhere and it is monitored and kept in order. The water at that power station has been known to leak at times, but it is quite harmless. When I went to the Sellafield site the people there were aware of the problem and of the fears that people have. A completely new structure was being developed and has now been completed. I went back to have a look at the completed project. These steel and concrete containers with the rods in them that have been used in the power stations are now in a container of an astronomical size. The investment is enormous. The whole project has been built on stilts. The container now holds thousands and thousands of these steel containers. The water inside those containers is purer than the water that Londoners drink. If honourable members have had a cup of tea in London they will realise that that does not say a great deal for the water. But the water is pure and is not a risk to health. For safety reasons, these containers have been built on stilts. There is no way that any leakage could occur from that container without it being recognised and being collected at another point underneath it. So the efforts of people around the world to impose their views on safety have been heard. There is a massive investment being imposed on the nuclear power industry, which is adding to the cost and making the industry fight hard for its competitive position. But it is being made so safe and so much is being spent on it that I am quite confident that there is no chance that that area alone could cause any problems, even if there was a water leak from that container. I also looked at the area of high level waste disposal. If honourable members have had the opportunity to look at a nuclear rod of six feet in length they will know that 3 per cent is eventually what is called high level waste. A nuclear rod is about as thick as a finger and is inside a stainless steel container, and 3 per cent at the end of the rod has to be stored as high level waste. When I was there the last container of seven was being built at the site where the high level waste is being disposed of. It is extracted from the rods in the reprocessing plant. After the rods have been processed the 3 per cent liquid high level waste then goes into a stainless steel container. I will describe it for honourable members: it is a building which now houses the total 30-year supply of the United Kingdom's waste plus a fair supply of waste from other countries, all of which is being reprocessed on the one site. It is inside a concrete bunker-type building, which was fascinating to walk into because I was able to see the last one that was being built. From now on the waste is being taken out of the process and going into vitrification, into glass, which is the next process that is required before it is finally stored away at some time in the next century. To get into this chamber and see where the high level waste was stored we went through a concrete wall which would have been 4 feet 6 inches thick. Then there was a space of about 12 feet, another concrete wall 4 feet 6 inches thick and then a chamber, about half the size of this chamber, in which there were two massive stainless steel tanks one inch thick. Inside one of those tanks the liquid waste was stored. Each of those tanks had a backup cooling system. If the water did not circulate through the stainless steel tank, that high level waste would heat up, eventually to the point where it would split the tank. So there were three systems, those two backups and the one that was operating, which could automatically take up the operation if there were a safety problem due to one of them breaking down. In the event that all three backup systems broke down, the bunker itself inside the concrete container had wall linings of stainless steel one inch thick and a floor lining of stainless steel one inch thick. All gravitated to a central point, where there was another series of pumps in case everything went wrong and the tanks split. It would then pick up the waste and put it into a spare tank in that very container. Both of those tanks cost #100m to build. One sat empty at all times as a backup for the one in operation. So there were seven of those tanks constructed inside the bunkers and they held the total supply of the high level waste which had been processed at that plant. At the moment the plant is spending in investment #1.2 billion per day-not all on site, but a lot of it on site-in building thermal oxide reprocessing plant, or THORP as it is called, which is another stage in reprocessing. In that plant it will also be developing the vitrification plant, where the high level waste from the first tank, which was built 30 years ago, would be extracted, put through the glass process and into storage, with just air circulating through the vitrified glass, which is the process required for the next stage. At some time, in about the year 2010 or 2020, the quantity of waste will be such that the plant will then have to dispense with that vitrification process and store the waste somewhere in the world. That decision will be taken probably 30 years from now. That is a very interesting subject to study and to look into. I fully understand and appreciate the conservative attitude that people have. If people did not have that approach I do not think we would see the great safety measures that are being developed in relation to this very important issue. Nothing would be more harmful to an industry like the nuclear industry than to have repeats of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, bearing in mind that the Three Mile Island incident did not cause a single fatality. But people died because of Chernobyl, a lot from burns received on the site and some who were affected by radiation. I do not think there is any way that we will go backwards and see the nuclear industry put aside. Forty democratically elected governments have decided, by free vote, that they will have nuclear power. Australia of course has the largest proportion of the actual source of supply of uranium, but that does not mean we should take a position which is irresponsible and which should not take into account the views of members of the general public who have concerns and who want to be assured that future generations will not be affected by incorrect decisions made in haste. Whilst I believe we now have a great opportunity to supply the markets of the world with uranium, we should not rush in. The supply is not going to go away. It is an asset that Australia has and, unless there is an invasion and somebody takes it from us, it will be in our control and we can decide when and where we sell it and what safety measures we put upon it. I think we have a great responsibility. I think it is a good thing that in this nation, Australia, with 16 million people, we have a government and people who are concerned and who need to be assured that, while we are still moving down the path of having a policy on mining and selling uranium for peaceful purposes, our uranium will not end up in nuclear weapons. There is an enormous debate going on in the world about that. Can we really be assured that it cannot happen? I take the view that quite clearly there is a need in this world for this type of power generation. There is a need for this technology to advance. I hope that one day the experts and the scientists will develop even safer ways of using nuclear power than we have at present. But we have to go step by step and proceed with caution. That is why I am very pleased that, although those of us on this side of the House concede that there are supplies of uranium, we are certainly not going to open the floodgates and say that just because we have the opportunity to sell thousands of tonnes we will sell them to anybody who thinks that it should be sold. With those few comments, I support the legislation before the House. I am sure that the extra money collected by this duty will go towards very good measures in Australia and that the Supervising Scientist will put the money to good use. This is just part of the ongoing policies of this Government. It will not be stampeded into decision-making in relation to this matter. We want to be absolutely sure that, while we are progressive, we err on the side of conservatism in relation to the future development of nuclear power. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.16) —The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill proposes to amend the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Act 1980. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the levy that is imposed on uranium concentrate produced in the Alligator Rivers region in the Northern Territory from 80c to $1.02c per kilogram. This duty commenced at the higher rate on 15 September last year. I take part in this debate for four principal reasons. Firstly, because I acknowledge and recognise the importance of the nuclear power industry to development and progress in the world. Secondly, I acknowledge the essential role of government to ensure that there are adequate levels of research in all areas of human endeavour. Thirdly, I take part in the debate because my re-election to this House in 1972, as the member for Sturt, led to the third mine that honourable members have been talking about in this debate. For, in my election in 1972 as a Liberal member, I defeated a Labor member, Norm Foster, who had been the member for Sturt for three years. Following his defeat he became a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia. It was as a result of his courageous vote in support of legislation proposed by the Tonkin Liberal Government that the Roxby Downs indenture Bill was passed. We have been talking about the present Government's three-mine policy, and one of those mines in Roxby Downs. So in some small and indirect way it may have been my electoral success in 1972 that led to a very important decision being taken in South Australia. In other circumstances-if it had not been for the subsequent election of Norm Foster to the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament-that decision may not have been taken. The fourth reason I take part in this debate is that for a period while I was Minister for Home Affairs and Environment I had responsibility for the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region. I want to focus attention upon that question. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up as a result of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry into the Ranger developments in the Alligator Rivers region. It was given certain objectives. In fact, by agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments regulation of the mining industry in the Alligator Rivers region is carried out to the maximum extent possible through the laws of the Northern Territory, with the Supervising Scientist exercising only supervisory and coordinating roles in addition to a research role. Essentially, under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, the Supervising Scientist is required to do five things: firstly, to carry out research on the effects of uranium and other mining operations on the environment of the Alligator Rivers region, research within a narrow frame into the effects of the mining in that region; secondly, to supervise the implementation of the Commonwealth's and other environmental requirements which mining developments must meet; thirdly, to develop and promote standards, procedures and measures for the protection and restoration of the environment from the effects of mining operations; fourthly, to coordinate environment protection, research and supervisory activities relating to the uranium mining industry in the region; and fifthly, to advise the Minister on these matters. The point I want to emphasise is that the focus of the functions and role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is the Alligator Rivers region and mining in that region. Whilst I recognise that general research into the nuclear industry is something in which Australia should be involved, I do not believe that the role of the Supervising Scientist should be subverted to give him a generalist research role that should be carried out by others. His role is region specific. It is for that reason that I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), which states: 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'. Ten years have gone by since the Office of the Supervising Scientist was established. I would have thought that in that time he and his staff could have had the opportunity to develop and promote the standards and procedures that are required to protect and preserve that region. I would have thought that in 10 years he could have developed programs and plans for the supervision and implementation of the requirements the Commonwealth sets for the mining of uranium in that region. I would have thought that he could have developed strategies and plans for the coordination of the environment, protection, research and supervisory activities in that region. Remember that it is not the role of the Supervising Scientist actually to carry out the monitoring of the regulations. That is being carried out by Northern Territory officers under the supervision of the Supervising Scientist. But he is a supervising scientist to supervise those who have the responsibility for the proper monitoring and environmental protection of that area. That being the case, I ask: Why is it necessary for the head office of the Office of the Supervising Scientist to be located in Sydney? Whilst there might have been good reasons at the time his office was first established for having the head office in Sydney, the time has long since passed when the base of his operations should be in the region or at least in the Territory where the region is located. I would have thought that it would have been much cheaper for the Australian taxpayer in general and for the uranium industry in particular to have the office closer to the region. I would have thought also that over that 10 years and with the fulfilment of a large number of the responsibilities that were given to the Office of the Supervising Scientist, instead of continuing in his annual report to comment upon the size of his staff and to look to increasing it, he should be telling governments how he could effectively decrease his staff to carry out those supervisory, monitoring and standard setting roles and to carry out research that is region specific. I assume that over 10 years he has carried out a lot of successful research. The scientists I met seemed competent and capable and seemed to be producing adequate papers and material identifying the sort of scientific information that that research was designed to carry out. Having done that, why do we need to have this region specific organisation on such a huge basis? We find that he has a staff at present of either 68 or 69, 42 of whom are located in the Northern Territory and 26 in Sydney. Of the 69 staff, 40 are research scientists. Why are they not all in the Northern Territory, based in Darwin or in the Kakadu National Park? The Kakadu National Park is very different now from what it was 10 years ago. It is a beautiful World Heritage area and needs to be monitored, maintained and preserved so that we get balanced development, the appropriate exploitation of the mineral resources in a manner which preserves the environmental beauty of that area. I do not think people dispute that fact. One of our growing industries is tourism, and where do tourists go when they come to Australia? One of the major attractions shown on tourist publicity brochures is Kakadu National Park. There has been a huge increase in the number of people wanting to go to the Northern Territory and visit the national park. The national park's facilities have been improved and they are being supervised in a manner which is designed to preserve the park values for future generations of tourists. Just as we are expecting the Supervising Scientist to develop plans that enable mining to proceed, at the same time we are expecting it to be done in a way which preserves the park so that it is available for future generations. I am a great supporter of Australia's investment in research in general. I am a great supporter of Australia's involvement in a comprehensive research program where we ensure that the humanities, the sciences-the applied sciences as well as the more theoretical abstract research-are funded in a proper way. But it should not be through the Office of the Supervising Scientist that Australia carries out its nuclear research. The research that is carried out through the Office of the Supervising Scientist is, by its legislation, required to be area and region specific and the research that he carries out should be limited to that. To the extent that Australia wants to have general research into nuclear issues, that research should go through and be tested by the Australian Research Council and get its proper priority in the context of Australia's overall research program. In any event, why should Ranger uranium, the Kakadu National Park uranium, pay a special levy to fund research of a general nature? If we want an industry to provide its research funds on a user pays basis, the tax, the customs duty, should not be an area specific customs duty, as is proposed in this legislation. On the other hand, if we believe that our research should be funded by the general tax imposed on individuals and on corporations then the general research into the nuclear industry should be funded in that way. If we look at the expenditure of the Office of the Supervising Scientist we find that in 1986-87 it was $6.1m, of which $4.67m was for research. Under $500,000 was spent on supervision and assessment and about $1m on coordination and corporate support-I suppose that is administration. If $6m was spent on research, was it all region specific? I doubt it. We have created an office with the specific purpose of satisfying the recommendations of the Fox inquiry. It had the specific purpose of ensuring that as mining development went on in one of the most beautiful parts of Australia it was done in a way that the park values were preserved. We wanted to ensure that because of the high risk, the relatively high dangers of mining radioactive substances, those park values were not in any way degraded. So, we appointed the Office of Supervising Scientist. We gave him certain roles, but over the years the roles have changed and his research base has extended. I think that is inappropriate. It is my view that the time has come when the Office of the Supervising Scientist should be subjected to an external review. The purpose of the external review should be to ask, firstly, whether the role he is performing is within the narrow framework of the legislation that established his office. Secondly, the external review should examine the question of the extent to which the research that is being carried on is essential and necessary to the fulfilment of the objectives of the preservation of Kakadu National Park or whether it is of a more general nature, albeit on nuclear research. If it falls into the latter category, then $2m, $3m, or $1m of the research money now going to the Office of the Supervising Scientist should go to the Australian Research Council and those who are interested in nuclear research should then have their proposals for research tested along with researches into cancer, researches into other forms of medical science, researches into engineering and researches into the humanities. Otherwise, over time we will create other offices like the Office of the Supervising Scientist and our research effort will then lack the balance that hopefully will be given to it throughout the Australian Research Council. I do not criticise the sincerity and the level of dedication of those who discharge their duties as members of the staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. However, I do believe that that Office was set up originally with a specific purpose in mind. After 10 years, many of the purposes for which the Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up should have been established, certainly all the initial investment in enabling the monitoring and supervisory roles to be carried out. If it has not been completed in 10 years, it will never be completed. That is why I think we should now have that external review so that Parliament can be advised whether the job has been done. If it has been done then the general research role should be transferred to other areas. Implicit in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bass is the suggestion that much of this research might well be effectively carried out at the University College of the Northern Territory and many of the other supervisory roles might now, with the growth and experience and maturity of the Government of the Northern Territory, properly be considered for transfer to that Territory Government. I hasten to add, I believe there will be a continuing need for Commonwealth involvement and responsibility in this area for a long time to come, but the day to day work could easily be carried out by competent officers of the Northern Territory Government. While I support the legislation, I want to see the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bass carried because I think the time has come for us to ensure that the levy imposed upon one uranium producer is set at a level that is sufficient to discharge the responsibilities related to the area in which that producer is operating. If we want to levy the nuclear industry for general research, then the levy should be imposed upon all producers or, alternatively, the funds come from the more traditional sources-and this is what I favour. I do not particularly favour the hypothecation of any particular tax to discharge a nominated role but rather to gather from the general tax base the funds needed to carry out the research role that this country wants fulfilled, recognising that we are a small country, a country with a small population and limited resources. Therefore, we have to make sure our research is comprehensive and, then having determined that it will cover a wide range, within each area of the range we have to be specific with a view to achieving good and effective results in contributing to the overall research that is going on amongst the developed countries of the world. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(4.36) —In supporting the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill I oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition that would seek to limit the role of the Supervising Scientist. The last thing we need to do in this field is limit the work of the Supervising Scientist. I was tempted to respond in this debate to the speech by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) who touched on a number of issues I would like to canvass as arguments or reasons why the role of the Supervising Scientist should not be diminished in any way. The honourable member for Curtin referred to the Roxby Downs venture in South Australia. In response to the points he made on that, I raise the question of the cost to the taxpayers, particularly of South Australia, of the infrastructure of Roxby Downs. Quite frankly, I think it is a scandal that taxpayers' money should be invested to supply the infrastructure for a mining venture which in my view is certainly dubious and not the kind of venture we should seek to put moneys into. On this occasion I would have to agree with the principle of user pays. I would like to see the Western Mining Corporation pay for the infrastructure that is Roxby Downs and we would see then if there was an almighty rush to dig up uranium and further pollute this planet. The other issues that were canvassed went to this question of the end uses of uranium. The point that prompted me was the argument canvassed that apart from Chernobyl there have been no recent problems we should be concerned about. Those who canvass that kind of argument should look at this morning's Canberra Times. I cannot give the House the page number but the headline to which I refer read, `N-plant shuts down after two days'. I think it is significant because if technology is as advanced and as safe as some would say, then this kind of thing surely could not happen-but it did. The report in the newspaper, which came from New York, went on to say: The United States' most expensive nuclear plant shut down automatically last night-just two days after being opened permanently. The double nuclear power plant automatically shut down when a water pump malfunctioned, a plant official said. Officials described shut-down of the $US6.3 billion ($A8.63 billion) facility as an unusual event. Let us hope that kind of thing is very unusual. The article continued: Mr Robert Burtch, spokesman for the Niagara Mohawk Power Corp, said the problem happened at 5.45 p.m. yesterday, when the plant lost its main feed water pump, which provides water pressure to the reactor. I interpose there to say that one could be forgiven for thinking that this article was part of the script of the film The China Syndrome. The report continued: The plant was operating at 99 per cent power but when that [the water pump] tripped, the water level in the reactor dropped and caused the plant to automatically shut down. Later in the report it was stated that the 1,088- megawatt plant, which was meant to have been completed in 1977 at a cost of $US423m and was opened only very recently, had to close because of the accident. These incidents, which occur constantly, need to be brought to the attention of the community to arrive at a proper balance in any debate on the question of nuclear power. This was not an isolated incident. One could go on and on. So that I cannot be accused of bias in my arguments I wish also to refer to an article that appeared in the Australian on 29 January this year. The article, a Reuters report from the Times, which carries the headline `Soviet protest blocks new N-plant', reads: MOSCOW: Public protests in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster have, reportedly, for the first time halted construction of an atomic power station in the Soviet Union. The Soviet youth party paper . . . said yesterday that the authorities had decided late last year to stop building a plant in Krasnodar, a city in the northern Caucasus, and almost all atomic Soviet plants under construction or already built were opposed by local residents. It said the world's worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl, which caused 31 deaths and the evacuation of more than 130,000 people from areas around the Ukrainian plant in April 1986, had provoked a `chain reaction' of opposition to nuclear power. The whole world is talking about Chernobyl . . . The 20 operating stations and nearly all those under construction are bitterly opposed by residents. Construction of the Krasnodar station was stopped after 25 million roubles ($57.54 million) had been spent on the project, it said. The protest movement against nuclear power is indeed worldwide. The reasons why we should be much more cautious about the rush to nuclear power and more protective of the role of organisations such as the Office of the Supervising Scientist are dealt with in perhaps one of the most frightening articles one could read on this subject. The article appeared in the Melbourne Age on 11 March under the headline, `40,000 extra deaths in US after Chernobyl'. I shall read that headline again; it is quite stark: `40,000 extra deaths in US after Chernobyl'. The author of the article is Peter Kellner. When reading the article I shall refer to the statistics that the author referred to. The article reads: I have recently been looking through some remarkable calculations being published by the New Jersey Medical School about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. The New Jersey study is mainly the work of Dr Jay Gould, one of the United States' foremost data base statisticians. Dr Gould's expertise involves the computer analysis of population data. In the late 1970s, he served on the Science Advisory Board of President Carter's Environmental Protection Agency. A few months ago, as the 1986 mortality figures became available across the US state-by-state and month-by-month, Dr Gould started analysing them to see if Chernobyl had caused any variation. It had. Between May and August 1986-the four months immediately following Chernobyl-between 30,000 and 40,000 more people died than was normal for that time of the year; more than 690,000, compared with the 650-660,000 who usually die in the summer months. Could this difference be simply a statistical freak, signifying nothing? On average, 31.7 per cent of all deaths in America occur in the summer months; 1986's figure was 33.1 per cent. Why make any big deal out of that 1.4 per cent variation? The reason is that the seasonal mortality pattern in America has proved to be remarkably stable. Monthly statistics go back to the beginning of the century and 33.1 per cent is higher than any previous year on record. The chances of it having been a statistically random event are less than one in a million. So it is as certain as anything in statistics can ever be that something happened to kill an extra 30,000 or more people in America during the summer of 1986. Yet Chernobyl detonated half-way around the world. More evidence is needed to find a connection between that nuclear accident and the American mortality figures. Dr Gould believes he has found that evidence. There is no dispute that fallout from Chernobyl reached the United States in early May. The article then reported on the radioactive iodine, I-131, levels recorded in the United States of America. I commend that article to all honourable members and to the public as something that we should think about more seriously. It is far too easy to say that Chernobyl killed 31 people and caused the evacuation of so many others. I believe the report goes to the basis of the problem of nuclear power. It is obvious that at this point in time we are not able to cope with that kind of accident. The report is not an isolated one. In the Adelaide Advertiser of 30 August 1986 a Reuters report appeared with the following headline: `Report lists 3000 nuclear mishaps in US'. The article reads: US nuclear power plants had nearly 3000 mishaps last year, 23 p.c. more than the previous year, a private energy monitoring group has revealed. The Public Citizens' Critical Mass Energy Project says in a report that in the past two years 18 nuclear accidents have been so serious the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had to report them to Congress. `There is every reason to believe that an accident as serious as Chernobyl can happen here,' project director Ken Bosson says. Mr Bosson says information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and the NRC show that in 1984 and 1985, US reactors came close to catastrophic accidents on several occasions. Emergency shutdowns last year totalled 750, a 28 p.c. rise since 1984. Again I refer to the article in the Canberra Times this morning detailing a similar accident reported only this morning and in addition to the statistics. On the question of the disposal of these radioactive wastes from the nuclear industry I want to touch on an experience I had in Japan in 1983 when leading a parliamentary delegation there. We had the opportunity to meet with the Japanese atomic energy people and found them most cooperative in the information they were prepared to give us. They gave us a document on the safety of sea dumping of low level radioactive wastes. They were, at that time, waiting for the report from Europe dealing with sea dumping of nuclear wastes. I am glad to say that that report came down against it, but it left the Japanese Government with the problem that it revealed to us when we were there. I covered this matter in the report I gave to the House on returning with that parliamentary delegation. But it is important and relevant enough that I should touch on it again to show the degree of the problem we have with the nuclear industry. I am going to be talking about low level waste. The document with which the Japanese Government provided us talked about low level waste and included diagrams of the 44-gallon drums, or 200-litre drums, which it was going to use to dispose of this low level waste. The low level waste consisted of waste hand towels, gloves, overalls and anything that may have been in contact with radioactive sources. The material was to be burnt down to ash before being cemented in these drums and disposed of in the sea. The Japanese have so many of these drums of radioactive waste that, quite frankly, they do not know what to do with them. In a Press release of December 1982, the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission admitted that the Government was actively involved in a publicity campaign aimed at winning public acceptance in Japan, as well as in the Pacific island countries, of the necessity and safety of ocean dumping of low level radioactive waste and is currently undertaking research and tests designed to improve the techniques for safety evaluation of inland disposal. The Press release also recorded that at 31 March 1982 there were approximately 410,000 units of low level radioactive waste, each unit being equivalent to a 200-litre drum. That means that almost half a million drums are stored in Japan's nuclear power sites. It was forecast that, at the current rate of waste accumulation, 1.1 million units would be stored for disposal by 1990. That means there will be 1.1 million 44-gallon drums of low level waste. The Japanese will not know what to do with them. The document provided by the Japanese Government states: 2 days after the visit to the Agency an editorial appeared in the Asahi Evening News- which is a Japanese newspaper printed in English- entitled `Nuclear power generation' and it canvassed some of the points raised in the discussions. The document went on to point out that the accumulation of these drums of low level radioactive waste was astronomical. As I said earlier, the Japanese do not know what to do with it. The document went on to say: Even more serious is the problem of disposing of the nuclear power reactor after it completes its effective life. This will become a realistic problem in Japan in about 10 years from now. If nothing is done to resolve this, `nuclear reactor graves' which require supervisors will spring up here and there. If they are to be dismantled and removed, there are the problems of what to do about the radioactive wastes which come to about 10 000 tons per reactor and who will foot the cost which will come to 20 per cent of the construction cost. Since my time is running out, I will leave the other figures that I could cite to show that the industry is very dangerous. It is an industry that should not be taken lightly. Certainly the amendment by the Opposition would be nothing less than irresponsible. I hope the House will oppose and defeat the amendment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.56) —I thank honourable members for their contribution to what has been a very long and what I think can be fairly described as a wide-ranging debate. Community attitudes in Australia about nuclear matters have changed very dramatically from a spirit of euphoria and critical acceptance of the British atomic tests in Australia in the 1950s. I thought I would share what is a bit of a period piece, something that happened in this House back in 1956. I will quote from the book Maralinga by Adrian Tame and F. P. J. Robotham. I will read from page 10: The Melbourne Argus of 27 September 1956 captured the mood- of euphoria, that is- best with its coverage of the Maralinga test . . . `Bombs Away!' trumpeted the paper's front-page headline, followed by the immortal first paragraph: `Maralinga, Thursday: The atom bomb's gone up at last.' Worse was to follow. `Minutes after the explosion, Government members cheered and Labor MPs shouted: ``Thank goodness,'' and ``At last, at last,'' as Mr Beale- the father of the honourable member for Deakin- Supply Minister, announced in the House of Representatives the test had been successful.' Still later in the story the euphoria and hysteria increased: `As the cloud [radioactive] faded, convoys of trucks and jeeps brought back the servicemen who'd faced the blast at close range. AND EVERY FACE WORE A SMILE. [Their capitals, not ours.] They could have been coming back from a picnic.' Thirty-two years on, I do not think that one could quite get away with that spirit of enthusiasm. Having said that, I have to say that the Government will not accept the second reading amendment of the Opposition. First, taking the latter part of the Opposition's amendment, dealing with the imposition of a levy of uranium mining, I want to make it clear that this Government, like the Fraser Government before it, is committed to ensuring that the Kakadu National Park is fully protected from any possible effects of uranium mining operations. Accordingly, in 1978, the Fraser Government decided, in view of the international environmental significance of the Alligator Rivers region, that uranium mining operations which may adversely affect the environment should be subject to oversight by the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) of 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 the uranium mining in the region. The levy recovered only a small fraction of the cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. It has now become an accepted principle of government that the costs of providing necessary regulatory services should be recovered. Accordingly, the Government increased the levy on uranium oxide mined in the Alligator Rivers region in the 1986-87 Budget from 11c to 80c per kilogram while in the 1987-88 Budget the Government increased the levy to $1.02 per kilogram. The Government does not believe that the export levy will significantly affect the competitive position of companies mining uranium in the Alligator Rivers region as the amount raised is small compared with the amount of money made on uranium already mined pursuant to existing contracts. Rather, the Government submits that the amount raised is a very small price to pay to protect a part of Australia's heritage that is of international significance. The second ground of complaint from the Opposition, relating to the supposed need to limit the role and functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, is also rejected. As to the role and duties of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, I want to emphasise that the Government is determined, first, to ensure the highest standard of protection of the Alligator Rivers region, which includes Kakadu National Park, and, second, to be confident in the assurances it gives to the world that the whole region is in fact being so protected. Accordingly, some form of independent, credible scientific advice continues to be required. The OSS is a key element in the environmental protection arrangements put in place by the Government. As I have said, it is not too dissimilar from the provisions already put down by the Fraser Government. The legislative functions and responsibilities of the OSS have been determined by the Commonwealth as being the minimum necessary to enable the Government to assure this Parliament and the public that a sufficiently high standard of environmental protection is being achieved. This is a region not just of national significance but of international significance. The structure of the OSS, and its research program in particular, is based on the program endorsed by the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. Its programs have been reviewed and endorsed on a number of occasions, including by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) scientists, as well as by the Australian Science and Technology Council. Its research program is also reviewed regularly by the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region, which provides a forum in which all interested parties-including the various uranium mining companies, the unions and the traditional Aboriginal owners-have the opportunity to raise any reservations about the conduct or direction of the work of the OSS. The research program is 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. The high level of protection of Kakadu National Park from pollution from any of the uranium mines which has been achieved to date testifies to the success of measures and standards being developed and applied by the OSS. It seems to me to be a grotesque reading of that to say, `Well, that shows we don't need it'. In fact, I think it is a tribute to the OSS, and there is no guarantee that if the OSS were removed the same level of environmental respect would remain. Prominent research activities of the OSS include water and tailings management, geomorphological studies that provide information necessary to ensure that tailings can be contained and isolated from the environment for thousands of years, and the development of strategies for the revegetation of decommissioned mine sites. OSS work has helped keep radiation exposure of the public and workers well below national and international health limits. The OSS program has been strategically applied to major potential environmental impacts arising from uranium mining, both during operations and, even more particularly, in the long term. The job of the OSS does not end with baseline studies, though: the job of monitoring the environment is continuous. As the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) noted, the baseline studies by OSS related to uranium operations, although a prominent earlier element of OSS work, now comprise only a minor component of the institution's work. The present emphasis on problems arising during the operational phase of mining in the region and on long term environmental considerations is entirely consistent with the statutory role of the OSS and with the research directions envisaged by the Fox inquiry. That, I think, is the fundamental fallacy that was expressed by the Opposition in its case against the OSS. There were in a sense two conflicting points of view-one that it should be dealt with on the micro level, and the other that it should be dealt with on the macro level. The amendment put up by the honourable member for Bass approaches it from a micro point of view. It condemns the Hawke Government-pretty strong language-by saying: . . . the Hawke Government should be condemned . . . 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 . . . I would have thought that it was an extraordinary non sequitur to say, `Well, we have done it successfully for 10 years; that is enough'. That argument does not follow. The amendment goes on: . . . the grant of self-government to the Northern Territory- I cannot understand why the Opposition has not mentioned the adoption of the Northern Territory flag, the emblem and the territorial flower, because they are about as relevant- and the establishment of the University College of the Northern Territory; The University College of the Northern Territory is not, as I understand it, jumping up and down saying, `We have got to do it, it has to be ours'. I am by no means opposed to the future development of capacity in the region, and no doubt the University College will be involved at some future stage, but the infrastructure, the capacity and the personnel requirements need to be planned first and put in place. In a thoughtful speech-thoughtful, but I think also missing the point-the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) looked at the macro level and said, `Oh, well, this can all be done by the Australian Research Council'. There are a couple of puzzling things about that. He spoke of the Australian Research Council (ARC) as if it were an organisation which initiated and executed research. The ARC will be essentially a granting body. It will make some contribution towards setting priorities but it will not be initiating or executing research in the way that the CSIRO, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation or ANSTO do. The result is that those jobs that are essentially research projects relating to monitoring are, it has to be said, not the kinds of projects that would concern people who are avid for promotion and eager for post-doctoral status, fellowships and so on. They are not concerned with all that monitoring stuff, which is difficult, and often tedious, involving simply doing the same kind of thing over and over again. I would think it very unlikely, even if we said that we would put $2m for the development of the nuclear industry into the ARC budget, that any project of this nature would be funded in that way. It really has to be thought out. What I thought was really puzzling was this sense of saying, `Well, we think it's got to be done, as long as it is done by somebody else. It mustn't be done by this mob. We do think it should be done, it should be done somewhere, but we are not too sure where it ought to be done-by the University College of the Northern Territory of the ARC, or somewhere else. But it is not to be done by this organisation.' I thought that thinking was a bit bizarre. When the honourable member for Bass spoke last week I kept thinking of that line about the Irishman who said that the famous plays were not written by William Shakespeare but somebody else with the same name. We all agree that it should be done-as long as it is not done by the guys who are doing it, who have got the proven capacity in this field. That is a bizarre point of view. The other thing that has to be said is that if one looks at who is actually carrying out the research, if one looks at the consultancy program for 1986-87 in the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, one finds that there is consultancy work being undertaken by the Chisholm Institute of Technology, the University of New England, the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, the CSIRO Division of Land and Water Resources, and the University of Wollongong. Mr Hollis —A good university. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, and an excellent member too. Consultancy work is also being done by ANSTO, the Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences, the University of Sydney, the CSIRO's Division of Soils, and the Australian National University. So the research is being done. Their role is largely a co-ordinating one but the research work being done, to use the ghastly cliche, is all region specific. In other words, it is done on the site and people come in from outside. Some criticisms have been raised, not as vociferously in this debate as in the debate exactly 12 months ago along the same lines, of the fact that about a third of the personnel are in Sydney. These always sounds like awkward fractions but 41.5 of the staff are in Jabiru and 26.2 of the staff are in Sydney. That always suggests that they share a digit or a forearm or something. Mr Lloyd —The rest are travelling in between. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, something like that. Obviously if one thinks of executive work such as policy co-ordination and information, getting material out, printing, computer modelling, computer support, mathematical modelling and things such as that, I do not think it is too difficult to see how one can get a figure of 26 staff outside the area. The overwhelming bulk of the research capability is on the spot. We can see no cogent reason why the role of the OSS should be changed, nor change the arrangements by which the OSS is ultimately responsible to the national Parliament. Having said that, that is not to say that it will go on like this forever. It depends on the circumstances. I put it to the House that the case has not been adequately put. The result is that the Government rejects the amendment which has been moved to the motion for the second reading and urges support for the legislation. 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGES COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1988] Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.12) —The purpose of the legislation relates to the ability to make charges for export inspection services. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988 will allow effective recovery of the costs of inspection services at establishments not registered for the preparation of food and primary products for export. The principal purpose of the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988 is to enable charges to be imposed in relation to export inspection of fruit, vegetables, live animals and animal reproductive material, and some grains. However, the amendments primarily affect horticultural and grain exports. The Bill also makes other amendments that are consequential to the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill to which I have previously referred. These Bills basically relate to new export inspection charges imposed by this Government by way of export control orders relative to the horticultural industry and sections of the grain industry for their exports commencing on 1 January this year. The Bills provide some ability to assist in the collection of those charges or for the inspection services that are to be undertaken in a better and more flexible way than would otherwise be the case. The horticultural industry and sections of the grain industry which have been affected by these export inspection charges are violently opposed to the whole procedure of the Government in relation to the issues that we are debating. It imposes dramatically increased costs on their exports at a time when the Government is supposedly wanting all the exports that it can get. Australia desperately needs them. Today we heard that we have run another monthly trade deficit of over $700m. Our total foreign debt on a net basis is over $90 billion and is continuing to rise by at least two-thirds of a billion dollars a month. I have been advised that the full cost of these additional charges amounts to almost $8m of which, on a 50 per cent cost recovery basis imposed by the Government, almost $4m will be recovered from the industry, of which almost two-thirds will come from grain exports-particularly the new types of grain which we need for our export program-and the rest will come from horticultural exports. Because we are referring to part of the year, from 1 January to the end of the financial year rather than to a full year, the figure will be approximately half that of a full year. Therefore, the actual charge, after allowing for the 50 per cent cost recovery, will be approximately $900,000 for the horticultural and grain industries-the higher figure is to make up the not quite $2m. The charges-and I quote from a notice put out by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy-are as follows: FEES FOR INSPECTION OF FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLES AND NON-PRESCRIBED HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS The Minister for Resources has approved new fees for the inspection of fresh fruit and vegetables and non-prescribed horticultural products. The new fees, to be introduced on 1 January 1988, will be as follows: 1. On-Site Attendances $28 for the first half-hour or part thereof; $11 per half-hour or part thereof after the completion of the first half-hour. 2. Inspection at Inspector's Base Work Location $14 per half-hour or part thereof. 3. Issue of Phytosanitary Certificates $20 per certificate + $5 for each certified copy of an original certificate. The above fees will not apply to inspections of product being supplied under a contract entered into on or before 7 December 1987. In general detail that is how those bulk figures, which I cited earlier, are made up. Many people in the industry have views on what that means in actual cost per hour and in total cost. For example, I have received today a fax from the Sydney Market Authority which states in part: Some of the major fruit and vegetable exporters report that their combined time and phytosanitary charges equate to $100 plus per hour. At 50 per cent recovery this means that the total cost is in excess of $200 per hour. That contrasts with the calculated figure of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy of about $28 per hour total cost when one includes both a direct and indirect cost of inspection. I commend the Department-in spite of other criticism that will be made of it during my comments-for providing to the industry, to me and to others detailed calculations of those costs. It is the first time that I have seen detailed calculations for any of the 50 per cent cost recovery charges imposed at the will of this Labor Government on these export industries. I will refer to that again later. As I said, this opposition has come from every export group including apples and pears, citrus and nursery products. The nurserymen in particular are incensed at the way in which charges are applied because they are exporting in smaller parcels. For example, a lot of cut flowers are air freighted. Therefore, the charges on the certificates and the charges at the minimum rates of so much per half hour, et cetera, amount to a far greater percentage of the final price than would be the case, for example, with bulk exports for grain. But the grain exporters are also complaining because we are referring here not to the traditional grain exports-because there has been a cost recovery on them for some time-but to some of the newer types of grains which this country needs as exports which have been forced on the grain producers of this country because of the fall in price of the traditional wheat, barley and oats. The grain exporters have responded magnificently by their diversification in developing these new export markets. There is also opposition from the general horticultural exporters. I want to refer in detail to how one important sector of the horticultural export industry of this country sees the way in which the Government has imposed these charges on the horticultural section of the industry. I refer to the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association Ltd. These growers, who are in my electorate of Murray, are the major fresh fruit exporting group of Australia, particularly of pears. They are also the major exporters of canned fruit and a range of other products. The horticultural producers of the area are leaders in Australia because irrigation enables them to grow their products in abundance. They have been able to diversify into a new range of products. I quote a document of the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association. Under the heading `Export Inspection Charges' it states: For several years, it has been the objective of the current Government to recoup 50 per cent of the cost of providing export inspection services for fruit and vegetables. In July 1986, the proposed new inspection procedures were referred to during the Apple and Pear Growers Association Annual Conference in Adelaide, although there was no reference made to the basis of charging. We are really talking about two things at the same time. This Government promised to reduce the cost and the inflexibility of export inspection by the implementation of the approved quality assurance scheme. That was to reduce the cost of inspection significantly by allowing a more random sampling, putting the emphasis where I believe it should be put-back on the individual exporter to maintain or guarantee the quality of his product. When the Association talks about procedures and systems it is really referring to that scheme. Nothing has been heard since of how the scheme is to be implemented. The document continues: The draft inspection orders were circulated to industry in September 1986, and industry was asked to respond by the 31st October 1986. Basically the draft orders related to registration of all sheds, a two-level inspection system to reflect `risk' and shed performance, export registration cancellation criteria, approved quality assurance- which I have referred to- and commodity standards. Subsequent to the receipt of industry comments, seminars were to be held in `specified centres'. In December 1986, the annual meeting between Australian Horticultural Officers and Goulburn Valley Packing Sheds, to discuss the results of the previous season's exports, was held in Shepparton. At the end of the meeting, attended by some six to eight shed representatives, Mr Mike Jefferies of the DPI, spent approximately ten minutes briefly summarising the draft inspection orders. Not only did this transpire to the DPI's `seminar' for the Goulburn Valley export sheds, but again there was no reference to the basis of charging. Additionally, the industry was advised that the draft orders would be finalised by 31 March 1987. No further communications or discussions with DPI occurred until 10 December 1987, when an AQIS circular detailing the proposed export inspection charges and procedures to apply from 1 January 1988, was received by grower Associations. The circular concluded by advising that a meeting with export packing sheds would be arranged `early in the new year'. Industry objected to this proposal on the basis that: (i) The meetings were to be held after the proposed start date of the charges. (ii) No details as to how the charges had been derived had been provided. Mr Peter Fisher —The same could be said for citrus and grapes. Mr LLOYD —That is right. The same could be said for everybody involved in the export horticultural industries. I am using this example of one sector of the total horticultural export industry. The document goes on: Despite protestations from AQIS and DPI, a meeting of Goulburn Valley sheds was held in Shepparton on 21 December 1987 to discuss: The three tier inspection procedure The inspection charges On 21 December 1987, Industry was provided with a document entitled `Charging Guidelines For State Horticultural And Grain Inspectors' which set down: What activities would attract fees Details of time recording. At the conclusion of the meeting it was resolved `That this meeting reject the recoupment of inspection fees for season 1988 because of the lack of consultation with industry'. Subsequent meetings between AQIS, DPI and sheds were held in Shepparton on 13 January 1988 and on 2 February 1988. At the 2 February 1988 meeting, the basis of the proposed charges was provided to industry for the first time. . . That is a month after the charges began. I say now, and I will say it again later, that that is still better than what some other industries, which have been providing 50 per cent cost recovery, are still waiting to receive. The document continues: It was made quite clear that the decision to introduce the charge was political and that the charges were embodied in the 1987/88 Budget papers. In other words, the Government was out to get all the money it could, and to hell with the need to increase the volume of Australia's exports. The document continues: The VAPGC and the AAPGA have both written to Minister Kerin seeking deferment of the charges until after 30 June 1988 on the basis of: (i) Lack of consultation (ii) The seemingly exorbitant charging basis Concurrent with these representations, the NSW Horticultural Exporters Association has had meetings with Mr Peter Morris- the Minister in charge of that part of the DPI at that time- seeking deferment of the charges, and specifically the withdrawal of separate charges for the issuing of phyto-sanitary Certificates. The Government proposes to recoup $1.899m from the fruit and vegetable industry, which represents 50 per cent of the total direct and indirect costs associated with providing the service. The New South Wales Horticultural Exporters Association estimates that on the basis of 1987 actual results its contribution alone will result in charges of $2m. So one can see that there are significant differences in how much it will cost the industry-all of them expensive. I have already put to honourable members what that basis of charging will be. The document then dissects how the Department reached certain of its conclusions. For example, it states: For fruit and vegetables, attendances are based on two attendances per inspector per day. However, in reality, inspection staff providing inspection services to the apple and pear industry would average significantly higher daily attendances than assumed above. In this case, the charge for indirect costs should be approximately one-third of that calculated by DPI. PHYTO SANITARY CERTIFICATES A fixed charge of $20 for every phyto issued. Out of an estimated total of 28,500 phyto sanitary certificates, horticulture generates 21,500. Although this reflects a `user pays' approach, the apple and pear industry believes the phyto charges should be eliminated, as the inspector's time in attending the shed to issue the phyto is already being paid for by the exporter. The same charge is repeated right throughout the export industry-the industry is not only being overcharged but also is being double charged on the overcharge. That is why the industry is supercharged in its opposition to this imposition by the Labor Government which is supposedly encouraging our exports. In reality it is doing its best to kill off any profitability in those industries. In summary, the apple and pear industry seeks deferment of the charges at least until 1 July 1988 in order, firstly, to participate in meaningful consultation with the Department; secondly, to establish the equity of the charges; thirdly, to receive details of the review requested by the Minister; and, fourthly, to consider alternative means of charging. Similar motions, letters and requests to those by the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association have gone to the Minister from all the other export groups. Reference is also made in the document I have just read from to a review. Some people in the industry have been advised that the Department is reviewing the whole procedure. Some people have not been advised and have been trying to obtain such information. At this stage to my knowledge nobody has been openly and completely advised that a review of the procedure is under way, when it will be concluded, what are its terms of reference and when the industry will be consulted. So far no-one in the industry has been asked to participate in this review. This is a charge that the Government cannot run away from. Time after time, right across the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, industry is not being consulted. The Government is imposing its will in a clumsy way without having any discussion with the people on whose product the Department is imposing these restrictions and charges. Industry representatives are finding it increasingly difficult to reach the Minister. The Minister is no longer available to industries which represent thousands of growers and millions of dollars of exports-that is, the chief Minister in this absurd senior-junior Minister situation. The senior Minister is Mr Kerin. The junior Minister has changed three or four times in the last three months. Nobody in the industry knows who the junior Minister is at the moment and what his responsibilities are because they have also changed between the various shuffles that have gone on as this Government lurches from problem to problem and crisis to crisis. Those opposite do not have to take my word for it. I will quote to them what this industry sees as the situation: There have been changes in the responsibilities for the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) and the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook). Mr Andrew —A very perishable product. Mr LLOYD —Yes, particularly junior Ministers in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy-very perishable. The industry does deserve an answer on this review and does require open and complete participation in the review. I have been critical of the Department. The Department is carrying out its orders. I hope the Department is able to get through to the Minister some of the messages that are being given to its officers by those with whom they come into contact. I do say again that, in this whole, absurd imposition of this Government in applying 50 per cent of the cost recovery of export inspection charges for agricultural exports, at least with this particular category, horticultural exports, the Department has provided detailed costings to the industry. The industry may not agree with them, but at least there is a basis for debate. To my knowledge, that is more than the meat industry, the wheat industry, the dairy industry or all these other agricultural export industries that have had these costs imposed know about those charges. When a government imposes a charge, whether it is a 100 per cent cost recovery or a 50 per cent cost recovery, the question is: 100 per cent or 50 per cent of what? When the Government is not accountable it is not providing the details of its charges and there is no way in which the industry has the opportunity to question those charges. At least with these figures that have been provided there is some ability to do so. The position of the coalition parties is quite clear on export inspection charges for our agricultural exports; that is, they are a national responsibility. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to cover those charges as part of the export encouragement that any Federal government worth its measure should be providing to encourage and to assist these most important export industries. This Government has decided that it will impose a 50 per cent cost recovery charge. The question generally is: 50 per cent of what? It is just a vague, unchallenged, unaccountable loading system which the Department applies. There are several measures that the Opposition parties can try to take to prevent these unfair charges being imposed, at least until there is adequate consultation with the industry and better procedures are sorted out. These include the possibility of disallowing the export orders in the Senate. I have made it plain to the horticultural industry that the Opposition parties will consider such a proposal if we receive a clear, firm and united indication from the horticultural industries that they want us to take this course. So far they are living in the hope-I hope it is not a false hope-that there will be a Government review and that something will be done. The time for the disallowance of those orders is running out. There is a 15 sitting days requirement from the start of Parliament in February. The second action is to move an amendment. That is what I propose to do now. It encompasses, within the limits that this Bill allows, the problems that this Government has brought on this industry in the way it has introduced these charges from 1 January. It is also in line with the motions, pleas and correspondence that have been flowing to the Minister's office for some time now on this issue. I 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 horticultural export inspection charges should not be implemented until the appropriate industries are consulted and more equitable and accountable charges and procedures are established'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Andrew —The amendment is seconded. I reserve my right to speak. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.38) —I am pleased to speak on this important legislation. It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who has painted for us the worst possible scenario. I support the legislation. I will identify a couple of worries I have afterwards; nevertheless, I support the legislation and reject the amendment. We are dealing with the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill in a cognate debate. I will not greatly delay the House with my contribution, especially because I know that there is quite a list of Opposition speakers on this legislation. As an aside, it always surprises me that the Opposition constantly harangues this Government about cost recovery and about how we have got to have the user pay principle, but criticises the Government immediately it brings in some of the user pay principles. As has been said, these Bills amend the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985 to provide greater flexibility for the recovery of costs incurred in providing export inspection services. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 imposes a charge on the provision of an export inspection service at an establishment which is registered for the preparation of food and primary produce for export. Increasingly, inspection services are provided at places that are not registered. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill will allow effective recovery of the costs of these external export inspection services, without imposing unnecessary registration requirements upon the exporter. External export inspection services would normally be performed to assist the exporter by providing certificates required by the importing country, rather than to ensure compliance with Australian export controls. The principal purpose of the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill is to enable charges to be imposed in relation to the export inspection of fruit, vegetables, live animals and animal reproductive material. This will allow the Government to use the most effective legislative means to recoup inspection costs. But, as the honourable member for Murray has indicated, these Bills apply very much to horticultural products. Export inspection and certification provides clear commercial benefit to agricultural exporters by ensuring that their products have access to overseas markets. In view of the commercial benefit, but recognising the benefit to the community from the generation of export income, the Government requires industry to meet 50 per cent of the cost of providing the export inspection service. This policy has applied for a number of years to the inspection of all agricultural products, except horticultural products. It is really bringing horticultural products into line with other agricultural products. With substantial progress now being made in the development of uniform inspection procedures for horticultural products, it is appropriate that this industry begin to meet its share of inspection costs. I listened to what the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia said; namely, that a lot of the industry is violently opposed to what is proposed. It has always been my experience, since I have been in Parliament, that immediately a cost is put upon anyone or any product there is opposition. The violence of that opposition varies, but I have yet to see the day when any government of any political persuasion imposes a cost on someone and there is no opposition to it. He also made a lot of the point that the industry had not been consulted. My information is that there has been extensive consultation with the industry. Indeed, it has been aware of the likelihood of inspection charges for about four years. The intention to introduce inspection charges on 1 January 1988 was announced as part of the Budget in September 1987. Industry was consulted during the development of the inspection procedures, which was a precondition to the introduction of inspection charges. It is true, as the honourable member for Murray has said, that there is to be a review of the charges, and the Minister has given that undertaking. I have indicated that I support the legislation and reject the amendment. Having said that, I do have some worries about the legislation, especially as it applies to the horticultural industry. Returns in, for instance, the cut flower industry are not great. It is a growing export industry that I believe we, as a government, should support. I worry that the inspection fees could have an impact in particular on the cut flowers export industry. This could come about because cut flowers are very perishable. They must be exported in small consignments at close frequency-say, three times a week-and because the growing areas need to be clustered around the fringes of metropolitan areas, where the international airports are located-- Mr Andrew —Bunched rather than clustered. Mr HOLLIS —Bunched together, yes. Because of that there is rarely a cohesive growing area where all the products can be inspected together. Separate bits of a consignment are often consolidated at the airport. I believe that the effect of these two related factors makes for multiple inspections, and if these are charged for at some of the rates proposed the resultant cost could, I believe, do damage to what is a fledgling export industry. I represent a group of people from the Robertson area who export proteas, and there is a growing demand for these flowers in the Japanese market. Those people have put to me that they are worried about the cost of this inspection fee to their industry. They have suggested that perhaps the phytosanitary certificate could be paid for all exports, but the charges for on-site attendance could be regarded as a normal agricultural extension role, especially for the small packing sheds. They have argued that they should be waived below a certain threshold, perhaps $1,000. I ask the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) to consider this, if not in relation to this legislation, then certainly when the fees are being looked at. Another problem that has been brought to my attention by one of my constituents is the cost of the inspection and the issue of the certificates for sending samples abroad. A constituent of mine has built up a very successful business over the last three years exporting kentia palms. By his hard work and diligence he has built up a very important and profitable export business to the United States of America. He has now expanded that business to Europe and he is about to enter the Asian market. Having recently been in Asia, I believe that there is a market for these kentia palms there. I know that the business expertise that he has built up will mean a very good and profitable export business which will earn valuable export dollars for Australia. He has put to me that he would have to pay these costs just to have his samples inspected and to receive the certificate. As anyone in business knows, samples are a cost that has to be outlaid and for which one cannot expect to get a recovery. He is worried that if these costs are imposed he will not be able to afford to send his samples overseas. I ask the Minister to consider carefully waiving these costs for people sending horticultural samples abroad, because this is a very important and growing market for Australia. It is like the cut flower market. I believe that we can break into especially the Asian market, and that will bring valuable export dollars to Australia. I support the Government's stand on cost recovery and on the user pays principle. But I think that sometimes we have to balance this delicately and ask ourselves whether we are being wise in the short term but foolish in the long term. I am sure that the Minister will either address this in his summing up or look very carefully at it during the review. As I said, I do believe that valuable export dollars can be earned and I would not like us to do anything rash that may jeopardise that. I have also said that I know that the Minister will give this consideration, because he has no intention of crippling a small but important and growing export trade for Australia. Mr Bilney —A sunrise industry. Mr HOLLIS —A sunrise industry, indeed a bunch of sunrise industries, and we must do nothing to hinder their growth and blossoming into even more important industries. I said that I would not delay the House for very long. I know that my colleague shares some of my concerns because we have briefly discussed this. I commend the Bills to the House and I oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.49) —I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in this debate and to follow my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), which I have already seconded, and I wish to make an observation or two about the comments made by the honourable member for Throsby. It seems to me that he has found himself in a rather vexed position. I am not one who believes in star signs. I tend, if anything, to follow them merely to get something of a giggle. I do not know under which star sign the honourable member for Throsby was born, but I would not be surprised if he were a Gemini, because in this afternoon's debate he is clearly suffering from something of a split personality. The electors of Throsby ought to know that, while their member of parliament claims to support the legislation and reject the amendment, a perusal of Hansard will reveal that he has gone a long way towards supporting the amendment and that he sympathises with this side of the House. The honourable member for Throsby quite rightly said that this is an important piece of legislation and I have no doubt that he was sincere in so stating, but a glance at the speakers lists would leave anyone who is listening to this debate wondering precisely how important the Government feels this legislation is. While the honourable member for Throsby, speaking from the Government benches, was supposedly speaking in support of the legislation, a perusal of Hansard will reveal that he has found himself in a rather vexed position. I now turn to the only other speaker on the Government side, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), who will follow me. I think I might be forgiven for asking, without any intention of being uncharitable, just what particular rural interest the honourable member for Kingston has and why it is that the only people on the Government side speaking in support of this legislation are the honourable member for Throsby, who seems to be in a rather difficult position, and the honourable member for Kingston, who, so far as I am aware, has no rural involvement at all. By contrast, I rise in this debate as one who has long been involved in the importance of both quarantine and inspection in one form or another. I spent most of my primary production life in the Riverland area of South Australia, the one area of the nation that claims proudly to be fruit fly free. No-one will stress to me the importance of quarantine. There is no doubt that rigid standards are required if we are to maintain our reputation in any of our export markets. I am very much aware of how the level of inspection that was provided on road blocks in the fruit fly area kept the Riverland of South Australia fruit fly free. The legislation before the House today will enable the inspection of horticultural crops that are about to be exported to maintain the sort of standard that our export markets demand. I suggest that we need to see as much diligence and enthusiasm from the Government in enforcing quarantine restrictions on imports as we currently have for export crops. Anyone in this House representing apple and pear producers, as some members on this side of the House do, would be aware of the concern of the apple and pear producers about the current level of inspection of imports and the threat of fire blight, for example, from New Zealand crops. I have been besieged, as have other members of the House, by members of the Australian Nurserymen's Association Ltd, who are concerned that we be as diligent about the inspection of imports as this legislation is about the inspection of exports in order to protect our nursery crops, our floricultural crops and our horticultural crops from the viruses that may well be contained in plants brought into Australia which are not necessarily evident when those plants first land on our shores. There is in this legislation a demand that our export markets be serviced with quality products, and that demand is echoed and supported around the chamber. The real concern expressed by the Opposition and, if I may be repetitious, by the honourable member for Throsby, is about the present fee structure and the fact that there has been no consultation and that the fee applies regardless of how large the export order happens to be. The legislation before the House affects principally, but by no means exclusively, horticultural crops. This legislation provides the facility for the export inspection of crops about to be exported from non-registered premises. The fact that the legislation gives the inspector the opportunity to enter non-registered premises provides the focus on horticultural crops. Our major export products-wheat, sheep, meat and wool-have principally been exported from what have historically been registered premises. In the horticultural area we have a number of smaller crops such as orchids, cut flowers, plants and even fruit that have been packed in non-registered packing houses, and this legislation allows the charging of a fee for the inspection of that export preparation in non-registered premises. A number of packing houses have been registered under various Acts, some of them State and some Federal. Fruit has been prepared in these houses, the export inspectors have been there and a fee has been charged for that export inspection. As the honourable member for Throsby says, with the growth in the floricultural and cut flower areas, there have been a number of small packages prepared for export, and this legislation allows the consignment to be inspected on site. This legislation also allows a fee to be charged for the export inspection that that Department of Primary Industries and Energy inspector then undertakes. No-one is quibbling about the application of some fee for export inspection. No-one, to restate my case, is quibbling about the fact that there must be export inspection in order to maintain Australia's reputation overseas. The Opposition's concern and the concern expressed by some honourable members opposite is that there has been too little consultation with industry and no flexibility in the application of this legislation. So a horticultural crop that may be valued at $100 will attract exactly the same fee for inspection as a container load of horticultural crops valued at $100m. Today in the House we had a great illustration of the importance of horticultural exports to the national economy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) came into the House, as is his wont, and regaled us all with the great job he saw the Government doing because it happens that our balance of payments deficit will fall to something like half a billion dollars a month instead of over $1 billion a month. I find it difficult to know why as a member of the Opposition I am supposed to rejoice at a deficit of $11 billion per annum, but that was the premise put to me by Treasurer Keating. What he failed to say, and what honourable members in Opposition representing rural industries will keep reminding him of day in and day out, is that the improvement in our balance of payments deficit has largely been reflected in the way in which our primary industries, principally wool, have made it possible for us to earn additional income overseas. I refer the House to a recent article in the Australian by Julian Cribb, who wrote: The wool industry, riding on the crest of a continuing market surge, is set to break the $4 billion export barrier in 1987-88. * * * Total shorn wool production in the coming year has been estimated at 805 million kilograms, the second largest clip in Australian history. Much has been made of our wool exports, but I ask the House to consider that even the beleaguered grain industry is performing well. Julian Cribb went on to say: Another industry performing well in the face of ferocious world competition is wheat. The Australian Wheat Board has announced that, barring disputes, wheat shipments in the 12 months ended September will be 15.6 million tonnes. This is only slightly less than the record 16 million tonnes shipped the previous year . . . Much of the recovery Treasurer Keating has alluded to has come from existing rural industries and, furthermore, the opportunities for further national recovery will come from the opportunities that horticultural crops currently offer to the Australian economy. One industry affected by the legislation before the House but which promises enormous growth is the floricultural industry. Currently we are exporting $10m worth of flowers a year into a global market estimated at $16 billion. There is a chance, in spite of the legislation before the House, for a further rural industry to take steps to address the present balance of payments deficit that continues to haunt the Treasurer. The Australian newspaper of 18 February1988 refers to the South Australian Director of the Department of State Development, Mr Keith Smith, as having said that horticultural exports to the Asian region, particularly Singapore, have been growing steadily during the past three years. Mr Rocher —Especially in South Australia. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Curtin points out, especially in South Australia. The article went on: The increase began when Adelaide's international terminal was opened, allowing perishable fruit and vegetables to be sent directly to overseas destinations. `Fruit can be picked in the cool of the morning, packed and sent out on the afternoon plane to be over there in time for the opening of the markets next morning,' Mr Smith said. Produce exported from South Australia includes rockmelon, cauliflower, lettuce, apricots, cherries, celery and broccoli. The honourable member for Kingston will be anxious also to identify with the opportunities South Australia has to capitalise principally on horticultural exports. I could go on listing the number of other opportunities in the Hong Kong market, and in the United Kingdom, for example, where, in spite of the European Economic Community, the sale of dried sultanas has increased from 2,000 tonnes in 1982 to 17,000 tonnes last year. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) will want to stress to the House what is happening to nurseries, and to wild flower exports from Western Australia, and what that is doing further to redress our balance of payments deficit, and the opportunities that horticulture provides in turning around Australia's economic fortunes. The difficulty is that we have before the House this afternoon a piece of legislation one would think was specifically designed to stunt the horticultural exporters in their endeavours to find new markets. Everyone must be aware that in most of our horticultural markets, indeed in most of our rural markets overseas, the margins are still very small. Only the falling Australian dollar has given the opportunity for the horticultural industry to move into new export markets. Yet we have before the House legislation that has not been taken to the horticultural industry and which has not been discussed with it. This means the industry will face a further cost burden in opening up further export markets. Again I stress that the Opposition is not opposed to the concept. It shares with the honourable member for Throsby a good deal of concern about inflexibility and lack of consulta- tion that has occurred in this legislation. I wish to illustrate my point by referring to two letters, one from the Northern Victoria Fruitgrowers Association Ltd which reports on a meeting-this was referred to by the honourable member for Murray-of the major export fruit packing establishments. The letter stated: This meeting rejects the proposal to implement 50 per cent inspection charges from 1st January 1988 because of the lack of consultation, allocation of unfair charges and lack of the practicability of implementation. The other letter, from Wondabah Orchids Pty Ltd of Carlingford, stated: When this Fee for Inspection was decided upon there had not been any discussion with anyone in this particular industry . . . That letter is signed by one of the staff for Mr Robert Giles, the managing director. There has been no consultation with the orchid industry, one of the industries which may be affected most because it is one industry where a consignment could well be valued at anything from $100 to $100m, who knows what, in orchid values. The lack of consultation is the thing that the Opposition has found most frustrating in its endeavour to give some credibility to the legislation before the House. It would be sufficient if the only concern we had was the concern expressed by horticultural industries, but this legislation does not affect just the horticultural industry. It affects all new primary production exporting industries that have not been covered by some form of inspection fee for service. I refer to a letter I had handed to me by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), one of whose constituents wrote to him saying: Exporters are very unhappy about the enclosed information. As a reg. packing house with DPI we are not happy. No one from DPI or Dep Ag consulted us about it. That constituent is Ambiack Pty Ltd from Warracknabeal, and the product that company is exporting is not floricultural or horticultural. That company is a pea and grain exporter. It is affected not only by the level of charges in the legislation but by the fact that there was no consultation, no opportunity for the company to put a point of view to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) or to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Another area directly affected by the legislation and so far not referred to in this debate is animal reproductive exports. I was fascinated to discover that among the areas covered by this Bill is the potential to export animal reproductive material. At the heart of my electorate is the Collinsville merino stud. As recently as last week Mr Neil Garnett, the principal of Collinsville, announced his intention to provide some sort of export industry to New Zealand and give New Zealand the opportunity to share some of the benefits of the remarkable Collinsville merinos. Mr Lloyd —It is an embryo exporting industry. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Murray points out, that is an embryo exporting industry. No doubt that too will be affected by the legislation before the House. I have no doubt that Mr Garnett has not been approached by anyone from the Department, much less the Minister's office, to see what this particular burden will do to this fledgling industry. The concern of the Opposition is that the people it represents are not being consulted. These people do not expect simply to be allowed to export willy nilly. They welcome the concept of some sort of export inspection. More than that, they are prepared to accept a fair level of what ought to be their participation in the cost recovery, but they resent that with a dictatorial attitude the Government has come to them and said, `This is what you will pay'. There has been no level of consultation and no opportunity for them to point out to the Government what may well be inequities in the legislation before the House. Most of all, people in the industry are just a shade cynical about the role of departmental inspectors. Most of them have seen these inspectors working in registered premises. They know that the inspectors will be gone at 5 o'clock whether the export parcel is ready or not. If inspectors are asked to stay on later there will be double time and all sorts of other inflexibilities. The exporters work under arrangements that provide a good deal of give and take between employers and employees. They see this legislation as breaking down that level of give and take and the sort of family atmosphere that they have managed to create in their own export premises. Their cynicism is understandable, particularly as they have seen no consultation at all. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(6.09) —It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, to which there have been some useful contributions, and to follow the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). I might begin by enlightening the honourable member for Wakefield about the industries I have in my electorate that are affected by this legislation. In my electorate I have some state of the art orchid growers and exporters, growers of plants and growers of cut flowers. In my view they are very much in the mould of the industries we ought to be encouraging to attack the problems we now suffer with our balance of payments. I would like particularly to commend my colleague the honourable member for Throsby on what I thought was a very intelligent and well-reasoned address to this House, much of which applies to my own electorate. I intend to support the Bills and to oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition for reasons that I will now outline. The two Bills we are considering, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill, raise funds to offset the cost of inspecting goods for export in line with the Government's policy of recovering 50 per cent of the cost of providing export inspection services. This will enable the export inspection service to continue to match the growing demands for its invaluable and essential services as a guarantor of the quality of Australian exports of primary product and at the lowest possible cost. Moreover, it will enable the export inspection service to do so in the best possible manner by striking a balance between the need to provide assistance to emergent exporters by providing low cost inspection services, and, on the other hand, the need for both exporters and the inspection service to pay heed to the true cost of providing such services. That, I might add, is a very important consideration if we are to avoid creating mendicant and artificial export industries that are forever dependent on subsidies, industries of a kind with which we have been much too familiar in Australia in the past. In this sense these two Bills fit well into the Government's strategy of rebuilding Australia's economy so that we can become internationally competitive and continue to be so in areas where we are already competitive. Like our opponents when they were in government, we are not prepared to sit back and wait for the world to come to us. We realise that in an increasingly complex world economy we cannot afford to rely on our abundant natural resources alone. We must be prepared to use our minds, to work harder, to work better, to work smarter, to build a reputation for our processed value added exports as well as our raw materials exports. That is the export philosophy of this Government and we are doing something about that philosophy. Throughout the Government's first five years we have worked hard to create both a domestic and international climate that is suitable for increasing Australia's exports. What is more, this has been done in the face of a deterioration in world trade brought on at first by increasing protectionism overseas and now, allied with that, a tendency to look for bilateral solutions that owe nothing to a philosophy of free trade. At home we have been actively promoting outward-looking, export-minded, and internationally competitive manufacturers and service industries through the efforts of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and others. These efforts have brought about a boom in tourism to the point where we are expecting almost two million overseas visitors this year, and a rise in merchandise exports to the point where they brought $3.5 billion in overseas earnings last month alone. Through initiatives such as the Button plan for the motor vehicle industry, the steel plan, and the heavy industry packages unions and businesses have been encouraged to shrug off protection at a pace that gives them time to restructure rather than condemned to some kind of supply side slaughterhouse. As a result, we have firms such as Comeng exporting trams to Hong Kong, and Mitsubishi's Lonsdale engine plant, in my own electorate, exporting engines around the world. An even bigger employer in my electorate is the firm Sola Optical, which is easily the largest manufacturer in Australia of plastic spectacles lenses. It has some nine subsidiary plants around the world and it is likely to become the biggest manufacturer in this extremely competitive field. In my electorate this company does its own main value-added work and carries out its own research and development. If there were more companies like it, we would not have a current account problem. This same philosophy has encouraged the Holden's engine company to get its act together so that it has become the largest manufacturing exporter in this country. Recently it exported its one millionth family two engine to overseas customers. The Government's efforts to restore our international competitiveness have been such that in December we recorded a balance of trade surplus of $518m. February's figures show that that trend is continuing and improving. However, we now recognise there is much more to be done. To this end the Hawke Government has put in place a range of programs to ensure that exports will continue to grow and diversify. In our last term the present Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), created the Australian Trade Commission, Austrade, to advise and assist exporters. Also the Minister launched a two-year national export drive campaign. The video cassette that the Minister put together to encourage exporters, which I showed to a number of potential exporters in my electorate recently, is a first-rate demonstration of that commitment. The Government also has overhauled the export market development scheme. Although it is fair to say that there are still a few bugs in the new scheme that deserve to be ironed out, the overhauling of the scheme has attempted to target assistance more directly to those actually performing in the export field as distinct from those who show no particular result for their efforts. A further aspect of the Government's efforts is the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Trade, which will unite trade and foreign policy in a way that recognises the importance of international policy to our economic future. As a part of that amalgamation a special trade lobbyist has been appointed in Washington to promote Australian trade and economic interests, particularly on Capitol Hill among congressmen and senators. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr McCarthy when he was in Australia and I believe the enterprise is proceeding well. I mention also the convening of the Cairns group of free traders, which is campaigning extensively at international meetings for more open access to non-subsidised agricultural products, particularly in the United States and European markets. We realise, however, that if we are to sustain the competitiveness we have nurtured, we cannot afford to rely just on shifts in the value of the dollar or the strength of salesmanship. Worst of all, if we were to retreat into some sort of cloud-cuckoo-land of McEwenism, that would be hypocritical and stupid. With the help of the trade union movement particularly the Government has embarked upon a program to improve the quality of our work force by revitalising our education and training systems and restructuring our industrial relations system. These changes will make us desirably more flexible and, ultimately, much more responsive to changing technology and economic circumstances. The reduction of work classifications in industries such as the metal industry is a step in that direction. Nor is the public sector being neglected, as the recent decision by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to direct the Industries Assistance Commission to review the impact of government services and charges on our economy demonstrates. Just as changes are being made as a result of these two Bills, this review will make the public sector more mindful of how it fits into our export economy. It is against that background that I wish to comment specifically along the lines of what my colleague the honourable member for Throsby said about particular provisions of the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill. There are in my electorate two companies that deserve special mention: Adelaide Orchids Pty Ltd and Valley Orchids. Their products are absolute state of the art so far as this industry is concerned. Mr Hollis —You should bring some orchids in here some time and let us see them. Mr BILNEY —Perhaps I will do that because they are absolutely beautiful. Those members of the House who have not visited an up-to-date orchid growing establishment recently should do so; I believe they would find it well worth their while. As much as anything, this is a high tech industry. Once the grower has succeeded in breeding a prize winning or new orchid, the plant is cloned and tissue cultured so that from the one new orchid a great number of plants can be produced for export. By and large these exporters have a pattern of exports for which these particular charges are somewhat discriminatory. For example, exporters of Western Australian wild flowers export large volumes all at once. Traditionally, the orchid grower makes large numbers of small value shipments, yet each of those shipments has to be inspected, usually on site. The charges which are proposed, $28 for the first half-hour and $11 for each half-hour thereafter, plus $20 per certificate and a $5 inspection fee, mean that growers may well be up for a minimum of $53 per inspection of one small parcel of export-directed shipments which might, for example, be worth only $200 altogether. I have seen figures which suggest that the average value of orchid exports from one of the growers in my electorate is less than $700, so the charge really is quite a considerable proportion of the value of the shipment. We need to remember that in all cases, at least so far as orchid exports are concerned, the growers themselves complete the certificate which is required to accompany the export. In all cases it is they who ensure that the goods meet world standards. It would be quite senseless commercially for them not to do so because they would cut themselves off from the very markets they are trying to sell into. It is also fair to say that in many cases the inspectors have been trained by the growers, who know far more about the industry and the things to look for than does the best inspector. I do not mean to be disrespectful to the inspectors but the orchid grower has lived with his product, knows it better than anybody else and knows what needs to be looked for. The suggestion I would like to put forward in this debate is that instead of a per shipment inspection, which as I have said is discriminatory against growers with the pattern of exports I have spoken about, there be something of the order of an annual registration system. This has been introduced successfully by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species under its cost recovery program. That cost recovery is carried out by issuing a six monthly licence for which the grower pays a fee. However, it was originally proposed that there be a per shipment inspection. An annual registration system would also remove a burden from the inspection service, since current demands for inspections tend to be erratic. I think it was the honourable member for Throsby who pointed out that these facilities are often established some distance from the main cities. That requires inspectors to travel a long distance and results in a disproportionate drain on the staff of the inspection service. The differing requirements of the very many countries to which exporters send flowers, in particular, are another aspect. I would like to echo the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield about the value to Australia of the floricultural industry. He said that exports at the moment are running at around $100m. I think it is somewhat more than that. I was recently in Japan-I had better add, at the expense of the Japanese Government and not the Australian taxpayer-and while I was there I took the opportunity to look into the market for flowers, both cut flowers and potted blooms. I found the size of the market that exists there to be absolutely staggering. We are well placed to enter that market in a bigger way-we are already in it in a certain way-because of the quality of the product that is produced, at least in my electorate and I guess in the rest of Australia as well. The flower market has also been identified by Austrade as worthy of continued attention in Japan. It is one of only a few such areas that Austrade proposes to devote special attention to in the next year or two. I reinforced those impressions gained by talking to Australian officials in Japan by visiting the Ministry of Agriculture there and speaking at great length with Japanese officials who encouraged me in my belief that this is an extraordinary and very lucrative market and one in which we are well placed to get into, provided we have the quality and expertise, which we do, and provided no undue difficulties are put in the way of exporters who intend to attack that market. There are in my electorate orchid growers who are prepared to undertake considerable capital investment to do better in this market, but it would be helpful if the current regime of inspection charges were changed to something a little more rational. Having dealt with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) and his predecessor over several months about the export charge regime, I have been very encouraged to have from him an undertaking that after several months it will be possible to look again at the export charges regime. I believe my colleague the honourable member for Throsby would agree with me that we need some sort of a system which, while not negating the principle of this legislation, which I support, would relate the cost recovery program more clearly to the value of the exports rather than to the number of shipments. Some periodic licence system which would be pretty well self-regulating, because the growers have a very great interest in seeing that they play the game, would be the way to go. I support the Bill and oppose the amendment. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(6.27) —We have before us apparently harmless legislation to amend the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985. The Government would have us believe that these amending Bills have only a minor financial impact upon the costs to the industry and that charges simply will replace the cost recovery measures that currently apply. It may well be that, in the insulated bureaucratic environment from which these amendments grew, they are simple measures and the impact minor. In reality, Australia's horticultural exporters and producers operate in a harsh and competitive environment. Any government imposition has a major impact on the industry. Unfortunately, the Government would not know the impact of these Bills because the people most affected, the producers and exporters, have not been consulted. The net effect of this legislation will be to penalise an industry that has taken up the challenge of seeking out and servicing the highly competitive fresh fruit, vegetable and flower markets of the world-and has done it very successfully. The horticultural sector is already doing what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) begged of other primary industries when he addressed the Committee for Economic Development of Australia in Melbourne on 28 January. He said: The fall in world commodity prices and the demand for primary products, compounded by traditional weakness in our internal economy, have highlighted the importance of improving the efficiency and competitiveness of our primary industries. At the same time, we need to achieve greater export returns and reduce our dependency on overseas capital, and reduce our current account deficit. To succeed we must develop a more efficient, competitive and innovative export sector. What the Minister did not say in his speech but embodied in this legislation is that, while the industry is doing something about our trade imbalances, the Government will take more than it is entitled to for providing an export inspection service. While we are asked to believe that the inspection charge will have only a minor impact on the Treasury coffers-in the Government's estimate about $1.8m-the Minister was so keen to get his hands on the money that he issued an order last December for the fees to be collected. As a result of the Minister's indecent haste, since 1 January exporters of fresh fruit and vegetables and non-prescribed horticultural products have been required to pay the inequitable and unfair inspection fees. The industry is confused and angry at the Government's so-called minor financial impact that will amount to some $4m annually Australia-wide. In my own State's case, it will represent an additional cost of some $1.5m and, on our export sales in Western Australia, that will amount to a 3 per cent increase. Those increases cannot be collected from the purchasers-they have to be passed to the producers. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr PROSSER —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was speaking on the impact of these Bills on the Government's expenditure estimates. A classic example of the Government's bungled attempts to estimate the cost of programs such as those foreshadowed in this legislation could well be the estimates given for the revenue to be raised from the fringe benefits tax. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his 1986-87 estimates indicated that we would raise $325m from this tax, and in fact we raised $535m. An additional $121m was raised from crude oil, and pay as you earn tax receipts were up by $100m. These Bills do not show us the ludicrous inequities in the fee schedule. Some exporters will be severely disadvantaged by the burden of inspection fees they have not previously had to pay unless overtime was involved. A Western Australian flower exporter will struggle to stay competitive in a knife-edged competitive world market because the change will cost him, generally, $20,000 extra per year. Make no mistake, our market share will gladly and rapidly be taken up by countries such as Taiwan, Holland and South Africa. The charges will cost a medium size fruit and vegetable exporter in Western Australia some $40,000 and, in Queensland, $50,000 to $60,000. As an example of the inequities, an apple exporter sending one aircraft container load overseas must pay $5 to have it inspected and to have a phytosanitary health certificate issued-that is, 89c a carton-but the exporter's commission is generally only around 80c. Clearly the extra cost must be passed on to the producer. The value of a carton of apples is around $12, not including freight costs. The extra 89c raises the cost to the buyer by some 7.4 per cent. Companies wishing to break into the new flower markets are generally required to send potential buyers small shipments of sample seeds. The cost of a health certificate and the inspection of a package of sample seeds is some $48, but the seeds would not be worth more than $20 or $30. The new charging system costs low value low volume exporters proportionately more than others in the industry. If it costs $48 to inspect a 15-tonne container of carrots and issue one certificate, that charge can be absorbed more readily than in the case of a flower exporter loading three containers into an aircraft. In addition to the $28 inspection fee, each container requires a health certificate, at a cost of $20 each. Profit margins in the floriculture industry are too lean to absorb such charges. Unfortunately with these charges it is not a two-way street. Under the fee schedule the exporter and producer are at the mercy of the inspector. They have no control over the costs imposed regardless of the level of efficiency of the service. We are talking about an industry that has been an international success story for Australia. Australian exports of fruit and vegetables have increased by some 168 per cent since 1981-82. In 1986-87 Western Australia's fruit and vegetable exports were worth some $35.8m, a rise of some 91 per cent over the same period. Flower exports have been a real success story, with a growth of some 204 per cent over the last five years. In all respects the horticultural industry is doing what the Government continually bleats about. Senator Peter Walsh, in his address in January to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, said: We must have great efforts towards improved domestic productivity and improved international competitiveness. Treasurer Keating said to a meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council on 19 February: The EPAC scenario envisages a rate of economic growth just sufficient to maintain the present level of unemployment. Even this outcome depends on a continuation of strong export growth and continued responsiveness to the domestic economy. Yet the Government rewards efficiency and achievement with arrogance. It failed to consult the Western Australian horticultural industry on this matter. The first advice of the Government's intentions was a media release last December by the former Minister for Resources, the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris). Letters from the industry have not even been acknowledged. I have letters from the industry to that Minister and Minister Kerin in regard to these charges. To date the Ministers have not even had the courtesy to acknowledge or answer the letters. The industry clearly deserves a better deal. Coalition policy is to meet 100 per cent of the cost of export inspection charges because it is in the national interest that we have our exports facilitated. At the very least, the Government should defer the charges until a fairer system can be devised and until the revenue estimates can be corrected to enable a lower schedule of charges to be set. Earlier tonight some honourable members from the Government spoke on this matter. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) spoke of methods he envisaged for charging the industry more fairly. The honourable member went on to say that he thought there would probably be inequities in the system, that different industries would have to pay proportionately too much, and that there might well need to be an annual fee. Quite clearly, what we are asking for in the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and shadow Minister is that a more equitable and accountable system of charges and procedures be established. The problem has been that the industry has not been consulted. The industry has had this position lumped on it with little or no opportunity to respond to it and it has had no time to look at passing on the costs or absorbing them. Our amendment asks simply that the charges be deferred until such time as the industry can be fully consulted and a fairer method of charging worked out. In this respect I support the amendment put forward and ask members on the Government side, if they are fair dinkum, also to support it. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.09) —The interesting thing about this debate is that speakers from both sides of the House have spoken about the potential of the markets we have for horticulture. I totally agree with this and it is principally the reason why I wish to speak in this debate. Undoubtedly Australia is on the launching pad so far as the future of horticultural exports is concerned. I and I am sure the members of the Party to which I belong have great faith in the future of agriculture in Australia. We solidly believe that over a period, considering the economy of this nation, basically we must come back to the production of agriculture and the sale of goods we have made to get the Australian economy back on line. We are not shortsighted with respect to other production sources within Australia, particularly in the manufacturing field, which covers many types of product. However, I want to emphasise that Australia is basically a country dependent upon the soil, and we have a great responsibility as the years progress to produce the type of food that the rest of the world is looking to consume. We will not be able to satisfy the needs of countries such as Ethiopia and others around the world whose people, we are told, are starving. But we should be in a position to be able to supply those countries which can buy goods from us. The Bills that are before us-the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill 1988 and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1988-have implications regarding the matters that I have just spoken about. They may appear to have rather small consequences, but that is not the case when one considers the effect that they may have on inducing Australian farmers to produce those goods that we expect them to produce, to meet the expectations of trade. It certainly affects them so far as the cost of production on the farm is concerned. If we look at the retail price of any horticultural or primary products that we sell in Australia, we will see that what the farmer receives is very often well below 50 per cent of the product's shelf price. Undoubtedly, if we look at the export price, the price received by the farmers would possibly be well below 50 per cent. So the farmer is concerned that those proportions do not grow too far apart. In other words, the producer should receive a reasonable price, having regard to the retail price of the product. I know that farmers in Australia have no control over what Japan, or any other country to which we sell, will charge for the product on their domestic markets; nor should we have. We should not look at that aspect. That is a matter for the countries concerned. They impose import duties so far as our exporters are concerned. We are concerned about the price that will be received by farmers in Australia. In the last couple of days I have read some articles that have been written in this country over the last year or so, particularly since the start of Austrade. From what I have read, and from what I have learnt from a few exporters in my electorate, Austrade appears to be doing a pretty good job. I congratulate it, particularly so far as horticulture is concerned, because it has seen the opportunity to start new industries that are conducive to the type of soil and climates that occur in Australia. I represent an electorate on the New South Wales coast which is basically rural and tourist based. However, many of the farms are being subdivided. There has been some inducement for the owners of farms that were previously dairy farms or used for grazing purposes to subdivide the properties. Many of these smaller acreages are now being turned over to small crops. I am speaking in the debate tonight because the two Bills before the House to some degree affect those people. Many more of these types of people will set up properties to produce such crops in Australia. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), who is seated in front of me, represents an area which has some of the choicest irrigative land in Australia. If the markets can be found, there is a tremendous opportunity to produce such goods for processing in Australia and for export. I have a lot of citrus growers in my electorate. Over recent years these people have been terribly disturbed because they have not been able to find a market for their goods. There are opportunities for Australian farmers-this can be seen by looking at Queensland, which produces about 40 to 43 per cent of our rural exports-to export tropical fruit to Europe. Europe does not produce tropical fruits because they are basically seasonal. We can produce them here, just as we produce oranges to send to Canada and the United States of America at certain times of the year. There is also an opportunity to export up to 20,000 tonnes of oranges a year to Japan. I spoke earlier about fruit and vegetables being sent to Canada. Vegetables are also sent to New Zealand and the Middle East at certain times of the year. We do not just want to fill a gap in the market at a certain time of the year because that will not be conducive to getting a permanent trade. We are looking to establish a permanent trade in all of the products that we are speaking about. As I said earlier, there are special markets, such as Japan, for oranges. The potential customer for Australia's horticultural market is the Pacific Basin. If we can cultivate the trade by showing that we can package and produce the product that is required by the countries concerned, undoubtedly we will have the opportunity to trade in products that are specifically controlled by the United States, the Canadian markets and by other parts of the world. These people are on our doorstep. They are not too far away for us to market the products. We have to tee up the shipping companies and the airlines. But that is the area in which the potential lies, if we are in a position to make up our minds about meeting the demands. We must never forget that this country is full of entrepreneurs. It is full of people, particularly within the farming and business communities, who see the opportunity to expand their business. Within my electorate is the Port Stephens rose farm. It is a wonderful tourist attraction. Over 100,000 people a year go to see the rose farm. The property is owned by the Hollidays-Eric and his son, Peter. They are wonderful local people. At present they are exporting cut roses to Hong Kong. I know that you enjoy roses, Madam Speaker. We all do. The Hollidays have the potential to export a tremendous number of roses to different parts of the world. This afternoon I spoke to Peter Holliday. He informed me that they have a potential order of eight tonnes of roses per week to Hong Kong. There are 40 buds to a kilo. Honourable members should think of the multitude of roses that have to be grown to be able to supply eight tonnes per week to any market throughout the world. The important point is that he is sending them there successfully, and he initiated the market himself. Furthermore, he also manufactures rose petal jam. I can see that you are smiling, Madam Speaker. I would smile also, because every time I leave Taree to go to the south of my electorate, some of the ladies ask me to buy some rose petal jam next time I visit the rose farm. The jam is made on the farm. The Hollidays have sent a trial consignment of jam to Switzerland, Holland, Japan and Great Britain. Undoubtedly, they will find a market in those countries. The owners of the rose farm intend to erect a large greenhouse. They have a commercial kitchen to do the job and, because of their markets, they will employ at least another 50 workers. We can see the potential of that little industry. As I said earlier, there are a lot of these entrepreneurs throughout Australia who will take the opportunity to explore the markets of the Pacific and elsewhere around the world. I am pleased that I have made an impression tonight. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) has taken flowers up to Madam Speaker, which I think is nice. They are roses but they were not produced on the rose farm I speak of. If they were they would be red and they would be beautiful. One of these days I will bring you some, Madam Speaker, so you can see them. The Hollidays have found that they can grow the product themselves, using over four million buds a year in the manufacture of their rose petal jam. We are very proud of what these people are doing. They are an illustration of what can be done in regard to the export potential of flowers. This relates also to vegetables and various other products we could find markets for around the world. Austrade sees the potential. It has written many articles identifying where it sees opportunities for these markets. It has encouraged people, to the best of its ability, to invest in and produce these products. It is nice to see that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is so interested in what I am saying that he is also presenting Madam Speaker with a rose. I note that it is a red rose. So I know that the House is taking what I am saying on board. The Government has great responsibilities. I appeal to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, who is at the table, to consider some of the problems. The Government should not impose any more duties or costs upon the exporter now. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) spoke about quarantine earlier this evening. I agree with everything that he said. The Government raised the charges from 1 January without consulting people in the horticultural industry. If the Government had consulted them, if it had explained the reasons why it wanted to raise the charges, whether it was to their advantage or otherwise-the Minister must have felt that it was to their advantage-it may have received more support. The Bills before the House impose extra charges on the producer. A producer would not worry about a reasonable inspection fee. He would be prepared to meet that fee. But he knows that he has to meet the import duties of countries to which he exports. To encourage producers in Australia we want to give the farming industry a hand. If one travels throughout Australia, particularly in the farming areas, one finds that farmers believe that this Government is the highest taxing government they have ever experienced. No matter what legislation the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy or any other Minister brings into this Parliament-whether it concerns finance, Treasury or inspection charges-one can bet one's life that the producer, or somebody within the community, is going to pay extra charges. I instance the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax, the tax upon superannuation and other issues of concern. I know that there has been a reduction in personal taxation for some wage earners, but there has been considerable overkill, a considerable increase, in the amount of tax every Australian is paying. Not only are we paying tax from our payrolls but also we are paying tax on every article we buy. An article in one of yesterday's newspapers tells people the tax we pay on every motor vehicle we buy in Australia. Over half of what we pay for the vehicles we import into Australia goes to the Commonwealth Treasury in the form of tax. Mr Peter Fisher —More expensive than houses. Mr COWAN —Yes. If every Australian were to sit down and examine the amount of tax he pays on what he eats throughout the day, the clothes he wears, the vehicles he travels in, every commodity he touches, he would be astounded. We do not want to overburden our farm and industry producers who have the ability to balance this country's trade. We do not have a balance of trade. It is in a deficit, worsening month by month. We are buying, not rose petal jam, but plum jam and other jams manufactured in other countries. In every supermarket in Australia are shelves with many items on them manufactured out of Australia. As I said earlier, we are a primary producing country. We should be meeting demand for these products. The argument could be addressed to our iron ore, our coal and the other commodities we are turning out of the soil. If we were to manufacture products from them the balance of trade might be in a different position and we might employ more people. I spoke earlier tonight about a person who employs people, the person at the Port Stephens rose farm, the little fellow who has a go, who borrows the money at a high interest rate, who is prepared to go out and work and place himself in active competition with everybody else around him to establish a market and export his product. I take great pride in these people. They are prepared to have a go. They have the pioneering spirit which this country needs in a bicentenary year. Perhaps we do not have that spirit to the extent that we ought to have. No matter what side of politics we represent we have a great responsibility to see that whatever we do we do not tax our people out of existence. We should give them the incentive to work, to raise their families, to produce and export commodities that are competitive with those of other countries. Let no one tell me that Australia cannot do so. I am sure that it can. I have sounded the warning. I support the amendment moved by the shadow Minister. I hope that the Government will take this matter into consideration. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Cowper and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for their gifts and congratulate them on their initiative. I have a fair idea where the yellow rose came from. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(8.27) —I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), who was the last speaker for the Opposition, known also as rosy Cowan in various circles, touched on quite a few issues, some not germane to the debate. He touched on jam, among other things and talked about overseas jams coming into Australia. The sugar industry in Australia gets a bit sensitive about that. Jam is about 40 to 45 per cent sugar. We charge our producers of jam the domestic price, which is far different from the world price. That is part of the reason why overseas jam is coming into this country. It is a problem. Both parties for a long time have had a policy of 50 per cent cost recovery for export inspection. Part of the reason why this issue has been around for five years with respect to these products is due to the very complexity of it. The 50 per cent cost recovery policy has now been put in place for most commodities. The taxpayers' subsidy for these exporting industries now amounts to over $100m a year. The industry pays the other $100m or so. In this whole area there are two key philosophical issues, two issues that have been raised in the debate. One is the question of inspection for quality. I think the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) defined export inspection in terms of a need to maintain Australia's reputation overseas. It is Government policy that export inspection occurs solely because of importing countries' requirements. To define export inspection in that way shows a total lack of understanding. I know full well that in the horticultural and floricultural areas there is a constant argument about whether or not inspection should concentrate on quality, but at this stage it seems to me that it will be very difficult to address the question of quality and try to put government certificates onto perishable commodities affirming that a product is of such and such a quality. This is a real problem for perishable products. I do not believe that we really should get into quality inspection. I believe that is best determined in the marketplace or it is best determined by a statutory authority or a private body in terms of taking decisions about some sort of quality assurance. The other issue of a general nature that was raised in the debate is the question of consultation. I really am a bit disappointed in the Opposition because this tired old tale of a lack of consultation comes up every time as some sort of an excuse or some sort of reason to put forward arguments against what is really the Opposition's true opposition to the legislation; that is, it is a cost on industry and, therefore, it will be unpopular. But we cannot really talk about lack of consultation in this area. The reason I say that I am tired of these old arguments coming up is that I recall very well that, about three years ago when I was told by the Opposition-not the present spokesman on primary industries, but the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)-that there was no consultation on a dairy matter, I went back through the records and found there had actually been 155 consultations with the dairy industry on this inspection issue. So it will always be used as an excuse. In this case there has been ongoing consultation with the industry over the past five years but certainly intensively over the past four years. The industry was aware for at least the last four years that there would be charging in this area and the decision to charge was announced in last year's Budget. The industry was consulted in the development of the inspection procedures and the product standards themselves. This was a precondition of the introduction of charging. Industry was also aware that charges were to be imposed for the issue of phytosanitary certificates. The delay in implementing such charges mainly concerned the quantification of the costs of this activity. This involved an enormous amount of consultation, particularly with the State governments which carry out the service basically for the Commonwealth. The new fees reflect the inspection patterns provided in the standards and procedures which were developed in consultation with industry. I think it is fair to say that I did not take part in each and every one of these consultations, but my departmental officials did ad nauseam; and the correspondence, travelling and work that have been put into this are truly remarkable. That is what the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service is all about. When the orders were made in August 1987, the orders in draft form had already been circulated to industry-in 1985-86. As a consequence of that consultation and circulation, many provisions were deleted, in particular the construction standards for preparation and for the packing establishments. Specific product preparation standards were developed with the particular industry and presentations on the orders were given to various meetings with industries. These presentations were conducted to advise and seek industries' views. This has not come before the Parliament for the five years that my Party has been in office carrying on the policy of the previous Government because of the complexity of the matter. I will address a few of the points that were raised in the debate to put some things into perspective and correct some things. The total costs for grain and horticultural inspections amount to $8m, as stated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), with $4m recoverable in a full year, but $2m was already recovered through existing charges. The $100 per hour figure for market-based exporters is not strictly accurate. It reflects the pattern of phytosanitary certificate issue-I will get on to that in a moment-but the structure of fees is currently under review. The reason we are reviewing it after all this consultation with industry is that we found, as we found in other industries-I well recall aspects of fisheries inspection where we put the charging into place and we are moving to a fee for service, wherever we possibly can-that there were anomalies that we could correct. As I say, I will get onto that in a moment. The new inspection arrangements are currently being finalised. Costing details have been available on request from my Department since the new fees were introduced and industry costings not accurate with respect to estimated revenue will not be exceeded on current indications. The phytosanitary certificate fee is not double charging. It represents the cost of developing, maintaining and updating product standards required by overseas countries and the cost is visible to exporters in terms of actual inspector effort. As I said, there is a review under way. We have already identified 65 bodies to be involved in the review. We are still gathering charge statistics and again we will be going through the whole process. We will be contacting industry bodies within the next few years, as promised. We propose to adopt in this review the approach of providing an analysis of the charges over the first two months. We propose a series of alternatives of getting the 50 per cent recovery, including one for the orchid exporters, which are of particular concern, and we are inviting comments from the bodies concerned on any other possible alternatives. During this time we will be setting up a working party comprising representatives of the five or six major industry sectors and the States, which carry out this inspection on the Commonwealth's behalf, as I have already stated, under the Commonwealth's chairmanship. The working party will examine industry responses and bring forward recommendations it considers appropriate. There is no reason why the working party cannot bring forward the recommendations before the end of April. I will end where I started. I thank people for contributing to this debate. I believe that, with horticultural exports and exports of floriculture and now with plant variety rights exports, we will be developing new species for export overseas. I believe that some of the comments of members on both sides of the House did present the exciting prospects in this general area. But if we are to export to the world, we need to be able to give phytosanitary certificates to importing countries because of their quarantine requirements, the same quarantine requirements that we have in this country and the ones that we apply to other countries as they export to us. The taxpayer subsidises 50 per cent of that charge. As I pointed out, there is an enormous amount of consultation. There are areas where we believe there are anomalies that may be solved and we are setting up a review process at the outset of this charging regime to try to fix these problems. It is for these reasons that the Government rejects the Opposition's amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Lloyd's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A.Bilney, G. N. Johns, G. T.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V.Chynoweth, R. L. Lavarch, M. H.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Cohen, B. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. SAldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Duffy, M. J. Downer, A. J. G.Dawkins, J. S. Cadman, A. G.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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.47) —Tonight I wish to address two matters: first of all, I wish to say something about the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill; and, secondly, I wish to move and to speak to the amendment which has been circulated in my name. The Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill is designed to amend two Acts, the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 and the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972. Its purpose is to provide that tax imposed under any of the various sales tax Acts is not payable in respect of goods intended for the official use, and not resale, of a diplomatic mission or consular post of a prescribed overseas country provided the goods are purchased from a registered sales taxpayer. This is fairly dry stuff but there is good reason behind the Bill. The reasons are these: the amendments are the result of increasing difficulties Australia is experiencing overseas in claiming exemption for its missions and posts from sales tax and value added tax (VAT). Under the two relevant conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, personnel at foreign missions and posts are exempt from direct taxes but have a liability to pay indirect taxes of the kinds which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services. The Australian Government has maintained that the Australian sales tax is an indirect tax and payable by foreign missions and posts, whereas the United States of America and western European sales tax and VAT are direct taxes from which Australian personnel are exempt. This interpretation of the two conventions has been disputed, and on a number of occasions other countries have sought to collect sales tax and VAT not only from Australian personnel but also from Australian missions and posts. Therefore, to maintain Australian exemption overseas it may be necessary, while upholding our interpretation of the conventions, to grant certain companies exemption from Australian sales tax in respect of their official purchases. Amendments to the two Acts are therefore brought forward. It is intended that as a matter of policy a foreign state will be proclaimed a prescribed overseas country and therefore have the benefit of the exemption only where Australia is receiving a reciprocal exemption from sales tax or VAT and where the cost of providing sales tax exemptions in Australia is outweighed by the financial benefits of such reciprocal exemption. That is a rather curious policy objective in the sense that it is more than a little difficult to see how in practice it can be determined that the future operation of a reciprocal exemption will, in fact, operate to Australia's benefit. That is something that can be worked out in the administration of the scheme proposed by the Bill. I now 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 believes that the confirmation of locally-imposed tax exemption for personnel and missions should be supported, but is of the opinion that the morale of professional officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been severely affected by this Government's abuse of political appointments to diplomatic postings, and that such political appointments, coupled with the consequent adverse effect on morale, are not in Australia's public and international interests'. The foreign service is the foundation of policy advice for the purposes of determining Australia's foreign policy. It provides intelligence, opinions, assessments and advice. It is very truly the eyes and ears of Australia overseas. It demands highly skilled and highly qualified people. If it does not have highly skilled and highly qualified people, Australia suffers. It suffers in representation and it suffers in making decisions on questions that affect our interests overseas, decisions that may be of great importance to this country. The foreign service under this Government has become the trough for the greedy, for the desperate, and for the discarded. It has become a dumping ground for politicians and it has become politicised. Damage has been done to the morale of the foreign service and to its ethos. There are of course justifications for outside appointments. Mr Hayden —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With respect to the honourable member, what he is raising in the House, as I anticipated would be his intention, has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill before the House and under the Standing Orders cannot be introduced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —It has been the custom of the House to have fairly wide ranging debates on second readings of Bills. The honourable member for North Sydney has moved an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words which particularly relate to matters of personnel and things which come generally in the ambit of the debate. Mr SPENDER —It is always a very useful thing to be in at the beginning so that objections can be made then. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member might continue with the debate rather than pursuing the point of order. Mr SPENDER —Yes. There are justifiable outside appointments and there are cases where members of this House, through experience and the positions they have held, should be qualified to go to particular posts. In the past governments have certainly from time to time misused appointments to the foreign service, but nothing has been like the practice under this Government, when we have seen the sleeze factor rampant. No question of qualification arises. It seems that membership of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), membership of this House or former membership of this House, a connection with the Labor Party, is all that is needed. It is as though there is a claim of right of legitimacy to the spoils. Indeed, one could say of the Australian Labor Party that it has done one thing very effectively in the case of the foreign service-it has reinvented the spoils system. If ever there were an exemplification of it, it was the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). The Foreign Minister is a very outspoken man and he is remarkably and refreshingly candid in his views about things. We know that he is a republican by nature. In the last few days the Prime Minister, who appears to have some difference of recollection with the Foreign Minister over events, said, `Yes, of course if Bill wants to be the next Governor-General he should be the next Governor-General'. It is as though he were handing out candy to a baby. That is the way in which it is treated. Let us look at the appointments that have been made since 1983 under the Hawke Government. Mr Gough Whitlam was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; Dr Harry Jenkins was appointed Ambassador to Spain; Mr Doug McClelland was appointed High Commissioner to London; Mr David Combe, a man the Labor Party dearly wanted to get out of this country, was appointed Trade Commissioner to Vancouver; Mr Alan Oxley, a former adviser to John Cain, Premier of Victoria, was appointed Ambassador to GATT-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; Mr Ross Garnaut, a former economic adviser to Mr Hawke, was appointed Ambassador to China; Mr Richard Butler, former adviser to Mr Whitlam, was appointed Ambassador for Disarmament, a position that has since been junked because the Foreign Minister's preoccupation with disarmament seems to have waned somewhat; Mr Ian Taylor, a former Western Australian Labor Deputy Premier, was appointed Administrator of Christmas Island; Dr Don Grimes was appointed Ambassador to the Netherlands; Mr Tom Burns, Deputy Leader of the ALP in Queensland, was offered, I understand, as a means of settling a factional row, the position of Ambassador to Greece; Mr Bill Morrison, who I would say is a former foreign service officer of longstanding, was appointed Ambassador to Jakarta; Mr Les Johnson was appointed Ambassador to Wellington; and recently we had those glittering diplomatic luminaries, Mr Brian Burke, who was appointed Ambassador to Ireland, and Mr Chris Hurford who was appointed Consul-General to New York. I should like to take three examples to analyse the kind of damage these sorts of appointments can do. Let us take the appointment of Dr Harry Jenkins. When I saw the announcement that was made by the Foreign Minister on the appointment of Dr Harry Jenkins I thought for a moment that his well known sense of humour had got the better of him. This is what was said in a news release of 16 March 1986: Mr Hayden said today that Dr Jenkins was a distinguished parliamentarian who would bring a wide range of abilities, experience and personal qualities to the task of representing Australia overseas. Dr Jenkins was certainly here for a long time-for 25 years-and before that he was a doctor. The news release continued: Mr Hayden said that Dr Jenkins' appointment reflects the importance- I ask the House to listen to those words- Australia attaches to its relations with Spain, particularly following Spain's entry to the European Economic Community on 1 January 1986. Reflecting the importance we attach to Spain, this Government appointed a man aged 60 who had retired from this House, as we all believe, because of ill health-we all know the difficulties Dr Jenkins had because of the injury or damage to his leg-who spoke not a word of Spanish, who had been to Spain once, on his own admission, in 1980, but who regarded himself as singularly well qualified for the job. The Age interviewed Dr Jenkins. He said, according to the Age of 8 January 1986, that he loved the Madrid art gallery, the Prado, and believed that his 25 years' experience as a member of parliament qualified him for such a job. What possible qualification does sitting around this House for 25 years provide to represent this country overseas? None. If the Foreign Minister and his Government were in the least concerned about our representation in Spain they should have borne in mind that the Spanish are very proud people, that they have a language, and that if one goes there-and I suggest that one does-they like one to speak that language. Dr Jenkins says disarmingly that he has even mastered the Spanish phrase `Would you mind saying that a little more slowly, please?'. One can see him these days saying, `Por favor, hombre, lentamente', and perhaps, `Habla usted Ingles?'. As I understand it-the information comes back to me-Dr Jenkins has yet to learn to speak Spanish. My information is that he does not enjoy the post. He does not speak Spanish and I am informed further that a female secretary was denied a posting to Madrid because of her sex. Amongst other things, her job was to assist Dr Jenkins physically in a number of ways, including helping him get in and out of cars. Because of her sex-and this is from a government that prides itself upon its affirmation of equality-she was denied that job. If the information is wrong I shall be glad to hear from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on that subject. So here we have a man who cannot even read the morning papers in Spanish, who cannot conduct a conversation in Spanish, who places the burden therefore on the professional people in Madrid and is entirely dependent on their advice. Next, I turn to Premier Burke. What possible qualifications did this man have for the job? What debt was he owed? Honourable members know that Premier Burke retired in his mid-40s after five years as Premier of Western Australia. He retired with considerable superannuation and he got a nice, easy, plum posting in Ireland. What are his qualifications? He is a member of the Labor club. He has his snout in the trough and that is enough, along with every other member of the Labor club. On his appointment the Australian Financial Review of 23 December 1987 reported: This is more than the total of similar appointments by the Fraser Government-and in about half the time. It was also reported in the same article: The Foreign Affairs and Trade Association, the staff body for Australian diplomats, said the appointment would be a further blow to the low morale of the Australian foreign service. The association should say that, as in fact it was. Perhaps revealingly, the article continued: Mr Burke's diplomatic posting reflects a view at senior levels of the Government that the Australian diplomatic service should involve a considerable number of political appointees to key diplomatic posts. Mr Hayden has made it known that he favours the US system of a highly politicised diplomatic service in which the administration appoints people with political backgrounds to represent the political attitudes of the administration more effectively. That kind of politicisation represents the destruction of a highly professional, highly competent foreign service. Perhaps that is what the Minister wants, perhaps that is what the Government wants-certainly that is the way it is going. Let me turn to the third and perhaps the most humorous appointment. That is the appointment, seven days after the announcement of Mr Burke's appointment, of Mr Chris Hurford-a glittering nonentity, dropped from the Ministry or dropped by his factions. His appointment was announced by the Foreign Minister on 31 December 1987. As I pointed out, he was getting to be a pretty dab hand at announcing the appointments of Labor colleagues who had decided to move to greener pastures or who, having been kicked out, wanted plum jobs or who had made good deals with their factions or factional agreements with the Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in a Press release said: Mr Hurford, with his strong economic and political background was well-qualified for the post. That was the post of Consul-General in New York. The Foreign Minister's news release went on: Mr Hurford entered Parliament in 1969. In Opposition he served as Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce. Since 1983 he has been the Minister for Housing and Construction, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Honourable members will notice that none of those, save the last, has any possible bearing upon finance in the way that is understood in the city of New York. Honourable members know why he was Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He was there to sign the Treasurer's correspondence because the Treasurer will not sign it himself. He is too busy engaged on other matters. Of all posts, New York is in some ways the most high-powered, critical and demanding in the financial scene. Mr Hurford is an extremely decent man. I made the criticisms I now make of him while he was still a member of this House and to his face. He did not like them. I can understand that, but what will this decent man, known around here as Moo or Scoop, do in New York? He will be lost in that city. He will be left behind by the financial community which will regard him, and the Government in sending out this nice, kindly man to New York, as some kind of eccentric joke. He will not understand what the name of the game is in that tough city. What has been the consequence of all this? Morale has suffered. Everyone who has anything to do with the Australian foreign service knows that. We have seen careers displaced and disrupted. For example, when Mr Burke was appointed to Ireland he took over from a career officer who had been there for a little more than one year. The more non-career officers who are appointed, the more politicians who are appointed, the more hangers-on of the Labor Party who are appointed, and the more failed, retired or exhausted Labor Party politicians who are appointed, the more damage is done to morale and the greater the strain imposed on the foreign service. Somebody has to do the hard work. Somebody has to make the assessments. Honourable members should not think that it is just a matter of getting up and scanning the local papers, if one can read the language, and writing home. At its best it is difficult, demanding and highly expert work. This factor, that is, the damage to morale, has been compounded by the obvious politicisation of the foreign service and the downgrading of professionalism that has accompanied this Government. I understand that if one wishes to join the foreign service these days one is no longer required as a matter of course to go overseas. The advertisement says that one can go overseas if it is mutually acceptable, as though it was just like any other service. No doubt the Minister believes that, because that is the way he administers his foreign service. That has led to the destruction of much of the professionalism in his own foreign service. If honourable members want a foreign service like the American foreign service I can only say this: some of the American representatives overseas are good; some are appalling. Overall, I believe that in the past our foreign service at the middle and top levels has been very much better. To conclude what I am saying on this subject, what we have seen is a symptom of a wider disease, a corruption of the political spirit in the Labor Party. It was exemplified once again today by the Prime Minister, who told us that he made a few telephone calls to a few friends when Mr Young went out. Of course, what that does, although apparently he does not realise it, is to put him under an obligation to any of those friends who help Mr Young. They are entitled to say later, `Look, Bob, we helped you with Mick. Now we would like sympathetic consideration for a view we have to put to you. Can we come and see you?'. The Prime Minister will have many calls to make in the future. We may see an exodus from the Party. We believe a few bodies will go from this place in the next few months. Whether we see that exodus, one thing that needs to be done and will be done when we return to power after the next election is to review the political appointments made by this Government and to restore the morale and professionalism of Australia's foreign service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr MacKellar —I second the amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.09) —Usually I am not taken aback by the utterances of members opposite but today honourable members have heard a speech that really takes the cake in the sense that the honourable member who delivered it must have the biggest gall of anyone in this Parliament. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in his speech talked about the appointments this Government had made. Of course, he did not talk about the 30 years of government that he was a part of for some time, the 30 years of conservative government that one assumes never made appointments if one listens to the speech made by the honourable member for North Sydney. May I remind the honourable member of just a few appointments. I start with one he surely would remember, that of Sir Percy Spender, who was an ordinary suburban solicitor. The Prime Minister at that time, Sir Robert Menzies, decided that Sir Percy Spender had better be shifted on, so he was appointed to Washington. That was not a political appointment, was it? Oh, no! The father of the honourable member for North Sydney was shuffled off to Washington. The same thing happened to the father of another member of this chamber, Alexander Downer. He was shuffled off to London during the term of office of a conservative government. What about Bob Cotton? He finished up in Washington. What about Victor Garland, with whom the honourable member for North Sydney sat in the back of this chamber when in government between 1980 and 1983? Victor Garland did not sit alongside the honourable member for long. He was shuffled off to London. What about Senator Webster? He found himself over in Wellington. What about Gordon Freeth? He was an interesting character-- Mr Spender —One of the great Foreign Ministers and a great ambassador. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. His contribution was heard in silence. Mr CHARLES —I am not concerned about such frivolous nonsense. Gordon Freeth brings to mind another interesting point that the honourable member made about people not being able to speak the language. The honourable member for North Sydney said that Harry Jenkins, a former Speaker of this House and the present Ambassador to Spain, was not as well qualified to speak Spanish as the honourable member would have liked. What about Gordon Freeth? He was the Ambassador to Japan appointed by a conservative government. Could he speak Japanese? The answer is no. The honourable member's tirade about the few appointments made by this Government is drivel. There is a list as long as two arms of appointments to overseas postings that have been made by conservative governments. What about Kerr? An attempt was made to shuffle him off to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. John McLeay finished up in Los Angeles. Sir Garfield Barwick would not accept such an appointment; he wanted to become the Chief Justice of the High Court. And so the list goes on. The honourable member should not come into this chamber making such galling comments about appointments made by this Government. The appointments made by conservative governments during their 30 years in office more than equal those made by this Government. The honourable member's comments were arrant nonsense. What about the latest appointment by the honourable member's friends up north, the appointment of Tommy McVeigh? Good old Tom is off to London. He saw the writing on the wall. He said, `By golly, we are not going to get back into government. We will be over here for a while. I had better speak to Joh. I am off to London'. Mr Hayden —They are training a donkey to interpret for him so they can understand what he is saying. Mr CHARLES —That is absolutely correct. The list goes on and on. It is appalling for a member of this House to say such things when his own father was a major appointment by a previous conservative government to an overseas diplomatic posting. He should not contend that governments should not make political appointments. I have a firm belief that to some diplomatic postings, such as Washington and London, governments are perfectly entitled to make political appointments. In some respects ex-politicians with the appropriate qualifications are better appointments on occasions to those positions than career diplomats. The former honourable member for St George, Bill Morrison, is the present Ambassador to Indonesia. He has done a magnificent job in a very touchy area. I am sure that no-one from either side of the House would dispute that. Bill Morrison was a member of this House for quite some time. He was a former Minister. He brought his political skills to his posting, and I doubt that his performance could be bettered by anyone else. Having put the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney to rest I now request the Government to look at a decision it has made with regard to overseas postings. The matter to which I ask the Government to turn is the sale of Australian Embassy land in Japan. I have reservations about that sale and the Government's decision in that regard. The sale of the land would realise for the Government in excess of $500m. I may be a fraction out in the calculation of the acreage but I believe the land is just over 1.5 acres in size. Land values, therefore, in Tokyo are between $350m and $400m an acre. I realise that some find that incredible, but what I have said is the absolute truth. I have not misquoted any figures. Whilst one could argue that such a return would be good for the Budget now, I believe that down the track we will find that the portion retained for the ambassador's residence and diplomatic area in Tokyo will be incredibly cramped. We will be handing the Cabinet of the day in about 10 years time a rather large problem. We will have to rent premises. Obviously, we will not buy premises when the cost of land is $400m an acre. We will have to rent, and one can imagine the rent scales at that land cost. Recently I read a survey which showed that rents in Tokyo were seven times higher than rents in Singapore. Although this return may be good for the Budget now, the Cabinet of 1998 may not thank us when the bill for renting premises in Tokyo reaches an astronomical figure. I should like the Government to review its decision and consider whether it has made the correct decision. I understand that a lot of money is involved; around the $600m mark. I am sure the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would not be too happy about letting that sort of money go. However, this is a long term proposition. I am not talking only about the gardens that are in the embassy grounds. If the land is sold, those gardens will be replaced. I am suggesting that, even if the land were not sold, the gardens may have to be replaced in the not too distant future as a result of the accommodation problems that we will have. At present we have many people in Tokyo and that number will obviously increase, not decrease. Only a matter of weeks ago I visited the Embassy and its grounds. The problem only really comes home when ones sees it in totality, surrounded by the massive infrastructure in Tokyo at present. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) to give the Minister for Finance a further nudge on this subject. It is important for the future operations of our diplomatic service in Tokyo. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has done a fine job in his portfolio, particularly in the diplomatic area. For example, the quality of our representation in the South Pacific has increased dramatically. The Minister took a quite conscious decision to upgrade our representation in the South Pacific. That decision was acknowledged at a public meeting of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee recently when a number of well-qualified witnesses agreed that the quality of our representation had increased markedly during the past few years under the guidance of the Minister. Appointments to the South Pacific used to be purely for retiring members of a government. Although the Opposition bleats about the South Pacific now, its members did not attempt to put together a coherent package of representation policies. This Government has done that and we are starting to see the fruits of that now. There is still a way to go and none of us here pretends to have all the answers to all the problems. However, we are a long way down the track from where we were when we came to government just over five years ago. I am sure I have successfully debunked the galling speech made by the honourable member for North Sydney. It was absolute nonsense. This Government has nothing to be ashamed of. It has selected people of high quality for important postings. The Minister, in conjunction with a Cabinet, will obviously continue to do just that. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.20) —I thought that just for a change I might turn to the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill and discuss some aspects of it. This Bill has been introduced because the Government is claiming that it will overcome difficulties which, it is said, are being experienced in some overseas countries in obtaining exemption for our diplomatic missions and posts from paying certain sales and value added taxes. By making provision in this Bill for the Australian Government to exempt a prescribed foreign country from paying Australian sales tax it will achieve reciprocity for our diplomats serving in overseas countries. That concepts seems to be quite simple and its application appears to be uncontentious, but there are aspects of it which not only puzzle me but also have encouraged me to give consideration to the wider question of conditions of service for Australia's diplomatic personnel. I would like to go back to the very basis of the Bill, namely, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which was agreed to in Vienna on 18 April 1961, signed by Australia on 30 March 1962 and entered into force for Australia on 25 February 1968. Article 34 of that Convention states: A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except: (A) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services. . . And it goes on at length. The intention of that provision seems perfectly clear. Diplomatic staff must pay sales tax and other indirect taxes of the kinds that are normally included in the price of goods and services. Yet the Bill before us today provides for the Australian Government to exempt certain foreign countries from the payment of such taxes. One has to ask why. In the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill we are informed: Due to the manner in which sales tax operates in this country- that is, Australia- the Government has always taken the view that Australian sales tax is an indirect tax and as such must be paid by foreign missions and posts. However, the Government has also taken the view that certain foreign sales tax and value added tax systems, due to the manner in which they operate, are direct taxes and as such do not apply to personnel at our missions and posts. The divergence of these interpretations has increased between Australia and some foreign countries to the point where amendments to the legislation are necessary as a mechanism to achieve reciprocity and mutual benefit. That goes to the nub of the matter. I want to describe this problem in my hopefully uncomplicated way. Australia is a signatory to a treaty which requires diplomats to pay indirect taxes such as sales and value added taxes. Some foreign countries have sales and value added taxes which they regard as indirect taxes but which Australia does not because of the way they are applied. As a result, the Australian Government is insisting to those foreign countries that those taxes are not really indirect taxes and, therefore, need not be paid by Australian diplomats. It seems to me that these circumstances raise three distinct issues. The first is to consider the intention of the Vienna Treaty; the second is whether the action of the Australian Government is in keeping with that intention; and the third is to consider whether there might not be an administratively more efficient means of overcoming this problem. The intention of the Vienna Convention is unambiguous. It simply seeks to have diplomatic staff pay the sorts of taxes that are normally added to or included with goods and services such as buying vegetables, clothing, toothbrushes or whatever. Unless there is information about the nature of the overseas sales and value added taxes system which has not been brought to our attention, the facts before us suggest that there is an overseas country which applies sales and/or value added taxes and identifies them as indirect taxes. Australia refuses to accept that identification because of the particular manner in which those taxes are being applied. Is our refusal in keeping with the intention of the Vienna Convention? The answer would appear to be no. As I understand the situation, our concern about the manner in which these taxes are being applied is largely irrelevant when one acknowledges that in the country of their application they are identified as sales and value added taxes, regarded as indirect taxes by that overseas country and added to or included in the price of goods and services. I cannot help but feel that Australia is being far too pedantic on this matter, particularly when there are numerous examples of the Australian Government having accepted, without reservation, the proposition that value added taxes are indirect taxes. Consider, for example, the June 1985 White Paper, Reform of the Australian Tax System. Appendix 13b is devoted to a consideration of the value added tax (VAT) and the broad based consumption tax and states: A VAT is a multistage sales tax on consumer goods and services . . . Whether one applies either a VAT or another tax system, the paper states: The consumer bears that full incidence of the tax. Furthermore, it states: The United States and Canada have had long experience with retail sales taxes . . . Again it states: Most European countries have adopted a VAT rather than a BBCT. The explanation for this lies mainly in the history of indirect taxation in Europe and in the requirements for tax harmonisation within the European Community. The point I am making is that in an Australian Government White Paper there is no hesitation in referring to value added taxes and broad based consumption taxes, as they are applied in America and Europe, as being synonymous with sales taxes and indirect taxation. Why then our reluctance to do so for the purpose of the Vienna Convention? Are there reasons, unstated in the explanatory memorandum, which are causing the Australian Government to be so adamant on this matter of definition that it seeks to enshrine its point of view in legislation-or are we witnessing a piece of misplaced intransigence? This leads to the third issue-whether this Bill is the most effective means of achieving reciprocity between countries on the matter of sales tax. I do not think this for a moment. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the existence of special reciprocity provisions in legislative form will actually add to Australia's administrative problems over time. I cannot help but return to the simple proposition that the best administrative solution would appear to lie in the Australian Government accepting that the form of sales tax being used overseas is indirect taxation within the intention of the Vienna Convention. That this is so is reinforced by the existence of two provisions in the Bill before us, namely, clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 provides for this legislation to be made retrospective to 1 July 1987. The reason for this, the explanatory memorandum tells us, is to give legislative backing to an arrangement between Australia and the United States that they will grant sales tax exemption in respect of goods purchased by the mission and posts of the other party. Can we accept, from the existence of such an arrangement, that the disagreement over the definition of indirect taxation is largely between Australia and the United States, and that those differences have not only been impossible to resolve in terms of the Vienna Convention, but have led to a letter of arrangement between the two countries, and now subsequently to legislative backing. There is an implication here that there has been a longstanding dispute with the United States over this matter. It compounds my concern as to whether Australia is not being unduly obdurate in insisting that what the United States considers to be an indirect tax is not so regarded by us. Furthermore, we have obviously taken that insistence through an initial stage of putting it in the form of a letter of understanding between the two countries and now into a final stage of the full weight and authority of legislative enactment. This seems incredibly strong action for an administrative matter which one would have expected to be resolved at departmental level. My puzzlement increases further when we come to a consideration of clause 5 of the Bill and its associated comments in the explanatory memorandum. Clause 5 merely amends section 4 of the principal Act by inserting a definition of `prescribed overseas country' and of `registered person'. But, in commenting on those insertions in the explanatory memorandum, that document tells us: A country will be prescribed by regulations only where the foreign state is providing reciprocal treatment to Australia; and it is in Australia's financial interest to do so. So, not only are we sticking to our guns and insisting to the world that our definition of what constitutes an indirect tax is correct, but we will grant reciprocal exemptions only where it is in our financial interest to do so. What does that mean-that we will grant reciprocal exemptions only where there is financial neutrality, or where there is a financial advantage to Australia? The answer is provided elsewhere in the explanatory memorandum, under the heading `Financial Impact Statement'. This states that we will proclaim a prescribed country only where the financial benefits to Australia outweigh the cost of granting sales tax exemption in Australia. That is an incredibly long way from the intentions of the Vienna Convention. Not only is Australia now insisting on special bilateral exemption provisions, but also those exemption provisions must be to our financial advantage. I suggest to the House and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) that a requirement to calculate financial benefit seems to present an almost impossible administrative task. How does one effectively calculate the amount of sales tax to be forgone over a period by the diplomatic staff of a particular foreign country and compare that to a similar loss of sales tax by our diplomats in their country? One has only to think about that to see how stupid and nonsensical it is. All this leads me to speculate whether it might not be to our financial advantage and administratively simpler to accept that the system of sales tax used by the United States is an indirect tax and must therefore be paid by Australian diplomatic staff. I would be very interested to be informed by the Government as to the value of sales tax involved in these exemption proposals and to compare that to the cost of preparing the letter of understanding with the United States, the cost of this Bill and the ongoing costs of administering the regulations which this legislation will create. Nothing that I have said so far should in any way suggest that I want to increase the financial hardship for Australian personnel in overseas missions and posts; quite the reverse. Their working environment is already a most unenviable and dangerous one in many countries, particularly those where there is a likelihood of terrorist incidents, civil disorders and serious levels of domestic crime. While the heavy officialism which is identified in this Bill is somewhat puzzling, I can appreciate that the benefits it seeks to achieve are very important to staff who are located in those countries where the matter of indirect taxation has become an issue. This concern may also point to the broader question of the conditions of service applicable to Australia's diplomatic staff, and in particular their allowances. It is a matter of public record that there are continuing difficulties and discontent within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade over the revised overseas living allowance system introduced about 18 months ago. I understand this system was intended to improve the remunerative conditions for overseas staff but it certainly has not been well received, and little wonder. It is more complex than the system it replaced, it has actually created rather than removed disincentives to overseas service, and it is more difficult than its predecessor to administer. If we add to that the well publicised difficulties within the Department in integrating its recently acquired trade responsibilities, we gain a picture of one of Australia's most important and respected departments in a state of considerable instability. I readily acknowledge that the sales tax issue being addressed in this Bill would be only a very small part of the totality of factors making up the conditions of service for overseas staff and the less than satisfactory working environment presently being experienced within that Department, but I cannot help but wonder whether the inadequacies we have seen with the introduction of the overseas living allowance and the absorption of the old Department of Trade are not also being reflected in the manner in which the Department is attempting to resolve its indirect taxation dilemma with the United States. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that, had the overseas living allowance been properly designed, it might have incorporated an allowance for this sales tax difficulty and obviated the need for special legislation and its supporting regulations. The shadow Minister has made his comments about the Bill and has moved an amendment which goes to the very great concern so many people feel that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is being progressively downgraded by the burden of rejected Government members it is required to absorb. But that, in essence, is another issue. The fact remains that we have here a piece of unnecessary legislation. The cost of drawing up the legislation must have been considerable, the objective which led to its drawing up is questionable, and the thinking behind it is very much open to question. In fact, it does give the appearance of something placed before the Minister either shortly before or shortly after he went on one of his frequent overseas trips, and he has signed it, saying, `Well, that seems like a good idea'. It is a little like the good-idea-at-the-time syndrome that we have seen exemplified in recent years in the Senate. I urge the Government to have a close look at this piece of legislation. I do not think it is necessary. We are not opposing the Bill's second reading; we simply suggest that a consideration of it would show any clear minded person that it is unnecessary, it is administratively complex, it is expensive, and it should not have been brought in in the first place. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.36) —This necessary and excellent piece of legislation, the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill, will amend the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act of 1967 and the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act of 1972. The Bill provides, inter alia, that goods purchased from registered sales tax payers for the official use of missions and posts of prescribed overseas countries shall be exempt from Australian sales tax. The Governor-General has the power to make regulations proclaiming particular foreign states to be prescribed overseas countries. The then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy), said in his second reading speech: These amendments have become necessary due to increasing criticism which Australia has received in relation to our interpretation of particular provisions of the two Vienna Conventions. Those conventions, of course, were on diplomatic and consular relations. I understand the origin of this Bill can be traced back to disputes over the meaning of direct and indirect taxes. The definitions of direct and indirect taxes, according to economic textbooks, are quite simple. However, the practical application of the definitions is apparently not so simple. Direct taxes are sometimes defined as those which are imposed directly on and paid by those who are ultimately to bear the burden of the taxes-for example, income tax, capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. Indirect taxes are sometimes defined as those which are imposed on taxpayers who are expected to shift the burden to others. Examples of indirect taxes are consumption taxes such as sales tax and value added tax. The legal liability to pay the tax to the taxation authorities is with the seller of the goods or services but the person who will ultimately bear the burden of the tax is the consumer, hence the title `indirect'. The Minister for Trade Negotiations in his second reading speech stated that the Australian Government has been of the view that the Australian sales tax system is an indirect tax but the `sales tax and value added tax systems operated by the United States of America and certain western European countries are direct taxes'. There is a difference between the sales tax systems operating in Australia and the United States of America. The general policy of the legislation in Australia is to levy tax upon the sale to the retailer by the last wholesaler in the chain. If there is no middle man the sales tax is levied on the sale by the manufacturer to the retailer. It is the last wholesaler who is liable to pay the tax to the taxation authorities. By the time the final consumer purchases the item the amount of sales tax paid has been lost in the price. In the United States of America sales tax is levied on the retail price of goods. Generally the retail price tag of an item is marked with the before tax price. The tax is added at the time of the purchase. Therefore, although it is the retailer who actually collects and passes the tax to the taxation authorities, the consumer is aware of how much tax has been paid on the article. It is probably the ability, or lack of it, to identify the sales tax component in the retail sales price which causes the confusion as to whether the tax is direct or indirect. For example, with the United States system the ultimate taxpayer, that is, the consumer, knows how much sales tax has been paid whereas an Australian consumer does not know and, generally speaking, gives little thought to the matter. Further, until recent reforms were made the United States Federal tax system allowed individual consumers an income tax deduction for sales tax paid as if the tax were a direct tax. In Australia it is generally the last wholesaler who pays the tax to the authorities. Transactions after that point do not refer to the tax component in the price. To overcome the difficulties associated with a person buying at the retail level and claiming exemption from the tax, this Bill provides in clauses 7 and 12, among other things, that in Australia goods must be purchased directly from a registered manufacturer or wholesale merchant. Clause 5 of the Bill refers to `registered person' who is required to lodge Australian sales tax returns. In 1985 the United States withdrew sales tax exemption from our diplomatic and consular missions and personnel and argued that Australia was not providing a similar exemption to its mission and posts in Australia. During bilateral negotiations it was agreed that, first, Australia would retain its United States exemptions in full, and, second, the United States would be exempt in respect of the official purchases of diplomatic and consular missions, provided that the purchases were made from a registered sales tax payer, that is, wholesaler. This understanding is in line with our longstanding position that the Vienna conventions do not require us to grant exemptions to privileged personnel from indirect sales tax at the retail level. Indeed, article 34 of the 1961 Convention refers to that point. The settlement is in Australia's financial interests, as the cost of granting exemption to the United States would be about $185,000 per annum while the benefit of retaining our exemption in the United States would be approximately $800,000 per annum. I understand that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has agreed, in the short term, to use his powers under the Audit Act 1901 to reimburse the United States for sales tax paid by United States missions and posts on official purchases made after 1 July 1987. However, it is necessary, in the long term, to provide a specific statutory basis for the exemption. Rather than simply legislating to grant the exemption to United States missions and posts, the Hawke Government decided to enact a more general provision under which other countries could be granted similar exemptions where it was in Australia's interest to do so. These amendments to the Diplomatic (Privileges and Immunities) Act and the Consular (Privileges and Immunities) Act will continue the process of consolidating all legislation dealing with diplomatic and consular missions within Acts administered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The two Acts give effect to Australia's legal obligation under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. Those two conventions represent a codification and clarification of the rules of diplomatic and consular law which had been developing among states for over 200 years. To date, more than 150 countries have become a party to the conventions. The amendments proposed in the Bill follow very closely existing provisions dealing with exemption from customs and excise duties-that is, sections 8 and 9 of the Diplomatic (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1967 and sections 6 and 7 of the Consular (Privileges and Immunity) Act 1972. The only substantive difference is that, under these amendments, only missions and posts of a foreign country are exempt from sales tax, while under the existing provisions the missions, posts and personnel of a foreign country are exempt from customs and excise duty. The Hawke Government is willing to negotiate with other countries as necessary, provided that there is a clear financial advantage to Australia. Clauses 7 and 12 of the Bill also provide several safeguards against sales tax avoidance including the provision for the Treasurer to declare that a mission has sufficient goods of a particular kind to meet its reasonable needs. While such a declaration is in force the mission would not be able to claim the sales tax exemption on those articles. This piece of legislation is necessary, reasonable, and well thought out, and it is the type of legislation that deserved a better contribution from the two Opposition members who have spoken in this debate. The first of them-the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-did not do himself justice or credit in his speech this evening. I expected a much better standard from him, particularly in his gratuitous and insulting references to former members of this House. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) criticised the Bill. I do not know where he got his information from, but even a cursory examination of the implications for the application of indirect and direct taxes, as has been interpreted by the Australian authorities relating to article 34 of the 1961 Convention, should have convinced him immediately of the need for a statutory basis if any exemptions are to be applied to any country, whether it is the United States or anywhere else. The contributions from the Opposition have been disappointing. Both honourable members are capable of a much better contribution. Their performances this evening do not bring them or the Opposition any credit. I commend this Bill to the House. It is necessary, as I said, to give statutory effect to the exemptions that can be applied under the Act. It is another hallmark of the excellent job being performed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in the administration of his Department on behalf of our country. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade)(9.45) —I would like to commence by making reference to the rather curious speeches of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). I thought their approach was most extraordinary for this House and a departure from convention, as they spoke to the Bill. Many of the factors raised by the honourable member for Warringah were quite adequately and technically addressed by the honourable member for Herbert, so I shall not go over them. It is correct that there has been some dispute as to what the Vienna conventions mean when they refer to taxes and whether they cover indirect taxes or only direct taxes. The Government has a longstanding position that the Vienna Convention does not require Australia to grant exemptions from indirect sales tax at the retail level. That is a view that has been held by a succession of governments, not only by this Labor Government but also by earlier Liberal- Country Party governments. The honourable member for Warringah made the observation that the principle we ought to follow is that, if we were ahead, we would be interested in making an arrangement with another country. That is not a bad sort of principle to be pursuing. Certainly, the principle at the bottom line is that we do not aim to be behind. We intend to persist with the longstanding interpretation of what the Vienna Convention covers in respect of the granting of exemptions on taxes. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) raised some queries about the mission in Tokyo. The Government regards the arrangements which have been concluded in respect of the development of alternative accommodation in Tokyo to be entirely satisfactory. The cost of land in Tokyo City is astronomical, particularly in the inner city area where the Australian mission is situated. We have managed to achieve the sale of 6,000 square metres of surplus land and an adjacent apartment block for a revenue level of $640m. That is not a bad income. On top of that and at no cost to Australia the developer, MITA, will build: a four-storey chancery with basement parking; 43 staff apartments-at present there are 36 A-based staff in Tokyo, not including the Ambassador; an ambassadorial residence; and some recreational facilities. I am sorry that we will see the break-up of this delightful and aesthetically attractive development in Tokyo that we have had for so long. It is a beautiful house. I think it was built at around the turn of the century or some time in the early part of this century, judging by the style of it, by a Japanese nobleman. It has a magnificent Japanese garden which is to be preserved as part of the national heritage of Japan. That will not be destroyed. The construction will blend tastefully with the surroundings. It will take advantage of the picturesque and aesthetically impressive garden setting. For all that, we get the accommodation we want and we are $640m ahead. With straitened economic circumstances such as we have at present, we have to make arrangements which will maximise the advantages for this country, either domestically or where we have external obligations. Should it transpire that there is a potential arrangement whereby we can not only dispose of some surplus land at considerable net income to the country but also get other advantages, such as the accommodation we require, we would be unwise not to pursue that advantage. If, as is the case in Tokyo, we are sorely pressed to accommodate all of our staff, and these arrangements will provide more than ample accommodation, I think we would be quite reckless not to take up the opportunity which is before us. I know that the head of mission is disappointed. I know that those who have been heads of mission before him there who are alive today will be disappointed by this arrangement which we have been forced to conclude. I am particularly disappointed. It is a beautiful setting. There is no doubt about it. Architecturally, historically and aesthetically it is very impressive. But there are other factors we have to consider, too. The garden will be preserved. We will be much better off as a result of those arrangements. I go on to comments made by my good friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who is here as an exile from the bad debts court of central Sydney where he had his greatest triumphs. He is here to grace the front benches of the Opposition, one of its brightest and best, which probably explains why the Liberal Party is nearly in liquidation at present. But no matter. He has made his contribution. He has, as they say in popular parlance, led with his chin. He has complained about the number of political appointments made by the Hawke Government. We ought to get some facts about this. Some time ago I got the figures from my Department. They have been updated. There have been 48 political appointments by Liberal-Country Party governments. They started the business of political appointments, and they certainly packed them in. Fifteen such appointments were made by the Fraser Government. Twenty-one of those 48 appointments were ex-politicians. Seven such appointments were made by the Fraser Government. Let us consider the Hawke Government. There have been 12 political appointments, eight ex-politicians. One cannot quibble that the Hawke Government has been disproportionately engaged in either political appointments or the appointments of ex-politicians, either against the long term record of Liberal-Country Party governments or the record of the Fraser Government. As I said, there have been 12 political appointments by the Hawke Government. I repeat: there were 48 by the Liberal-Country Party governments of the past in the post-war period. There were 15 such appointments by the Fraser Government. So they are a long way ahead. Of those political appointments by Liberal-Country Party governments, 21 were ex- politicians. There have been eight appointments of ex-politicians by the Hawke Government and seven such appointments by the Fraser Government. The honourable member seeks to quibble about one extra appointment. Let us see who invented the business of political appointments. Let us see who graces the head of the list. The first political appointment was a suburban solicitor, Spender. He went to Washington in 1951-a Liberal member. Let me say this about the late Sir Percy Spender-- Mr Spender —Suburban solicitor? Have you descended to that kind of stupid comment? Mr HAYDEN —But he was a suburban solicitor. There is nothing wrong with that. I was about to say some kind things about the late Sir Percy Spender. I have said them before. I will be kinder than the honourable member. Mr Spender —He was the youngest King's Counsel in the British Commonwealth. Mr HAYDEN —My advice is that he was a suburban solicitor and that he has been written up as such. I will not delay any longer. Mr Spender —I don't believe for a moment that that is the case. Mr HAYDEN —If the honourable member claims that I am wrong on that fact I am frightened to say anything that goes to his credit in case I am wrong on that also. Let me go on to other people. The late Sir Josiah Francis was the Consul-General in New York. I heard a few minutes ago that there were questions in the mind of the honourable member for North Sydney about the suitability of Mr Chris Hurford. Mr Hurford is a qualified accountant. He has degrees from the London School of Economics as well as his professional qualifications. He has practised as such. He has worked in economics. He has worked as assistant to the Treasurer and has gone much further than signing letters. He has done a great deal of policy development in the economics area. He is eminently qualified to be in New York. But the late Josiah Francis came from Ipswich, my home town. He was good at saving money. He did quite well while he was in politics, as I recall. However, he had absolutely no knowledge of the money markets. He had no qualifications in fiscal matters, accountancy or economics. He went to New York. But then he was a Liberal. That is different. If that is the way it is going to be argued, I will have to move on and remember my position in the Australian Labor Party. Then there was Roberton. I remember Roberton when he was Minister for Social Services in this House, when I first came here. He went to Dublin, one of the cruellest practical jokes that Menzies ever carried out on the Irish. Roberton spoke with a broad Scottish accent. He was incomprehensible here but absolutely incomprehensible in Ireland, I should imagine. Every time Roberton was asked a question in Question Time on social services matters he had the same stock answer. If he were asked 12 questions in the one Question Time he would give the same answer to every one of them. There was no variation. Is that the sort of scintillating intellect we have to try to emulate when we send someone overseas? Hubert Opperman went to Malta. Hubert Opperman had enough trouble speaking Australian English, let alone Maltese. The honourable member for North Sydney was making some points about language abilities. Hubert Opperman could not speak the language of Malta. He was a professional bicycle rider before he came here. If the honourable member is going to sneer about people's qualifications from this side of the chamber unfortunately I have to remind him of some of the choices his people have made in the past. Roger Dean sat on the back benches when I arrived here and was still there when he left here. I do not want to say anything more about Roger Dean because he is a very pleasant man. He went to San Francisco. If the honourable member is going to force me to talk about people's experience and qualifications I will do so next time he raises the matter, and I will go into some detail. But some of these people are still living and it may be a little discomfiting. For their families it may be unpleasant. But if the honourable member is going to do that, two can play the same game. Honourable members opposite invented the business of political appointments. It was invented with the late father of the honourable member for North Sydney. So he should not come in here moralising about political appointments, demoralising the foreign service. The late Annabelle Rankin went to Wellington. She was a Minister in the Senate before she went there. She had that distinction. I refrain from making any other comment on Annabelle Rankin's qualifications at this stage, but if the honourable member wants to enter into that debate in future I will. I have been here 27 years and I have a very reliable record of people's performances when they were here. Fairbairn, a Liberal, went to the Hague in 1977. He could not speak a word of Dutch before he left here and he could not speak a word of it when he finished his period there. But I am advised that he did a good job. Let us be fair about people. Webster went to Wellington. Again, I refrain from making any comment. I have given an indication of the sort of comment that can be made on these people if the honourable member wants that. If he wants to be personal about people who have come from this side of the House we can be objectively personal about people from his side of the House. John McLeay left school at about 14 years of age and sold carpets until he arrived here. He went to Los Angeles as the Consul-General. Is the honourable member going to start posturing about people's qualifications? McLeay had a lot of common savvy and was an intelligent representative in this Parliament. I think he did a good job when he went to Los Angeles for the period he was there. The honourable member for North Sydney should not stand up making cheap points at the expense of people who are no longer here to defend themselves because in his view they might not have had sufficient education. The person he was jibing at in particular, Dr Harry Jenkins, has a range of tertiary qualifications that are superior to those which the honourable member holds. So he should not make cheap points. Jenkins had some competence in Spanish when he left for Spain and was much improved in the language before he got there. But it is not unusual for people to be appointed as heads of mission who do not speak the language. The man who has gone to Spain to replace Jenkins does not speak Spanish. It sometimes happens. Someone else mentioned a few minutes ago the case of Gordon Freeth who went to Tokyo. He did not speak the language. There is a whole range of people who were Liberal appointees. I repeat: the numbers show very clearly that, when it comes to talking about who invented political appointments and who put most of them in there, one goes to the Liberal-Country Party. If we go back to the Menzies days, we find that there are clutches and clutches of worn-out military officers who presumably were mates of his that he had known from around Canberra. There are stacks and stacks of them here. If we go to the people who have been appointed by the Labor Party as heads of mission overseas, in all cases in the period I have been Foreign Minister I am satisfied that they are more than competent to handle the range of tasks which are before them. I say this also: the Liberal and Country parties having invented the business of political appointees and its having become well entrenched over the very long period they were in government until 1972-23 years-I do not think that they should be the ones to be casting stones if the Labor Party in government should follow a well-established precedent that they put in place and persisted with under Fraser. I do not think that the honourable member for North Sydney has particular credibility when he stands up and condemns these people, when his own father was the first beneficiary of a system of political appointments to heads of mission. I have heard him say on one or two occasions when he sought to score the cheap point that there are some exceptions-people of particular distinction who can go to a place such as Washington. Read for that `my late Dad', and the particular distinction, I suppose, is siring a son such as the honourable member for North Sydney. That is more than enough distinction for any man to have to bear in his own lifetime or thereafter, if not a burden. But do not stand around here moralising. The fact is that Liberal-Country Party governments have put covenants on the past, invented this sort of practice, put it into place and pursued it with persistent enthusiasm. All we have done is to follow the standards they have laid down. The only other thing I want to say is this: the people we have selected have been selected because they are people of proven competence. We are confident that they will do a good job. Many of the people that the Liberal-Country Party put into positions overseas as heads of mission also served with distinction and did good jobs. But if we are going to go into the business of trying to score cheap points at the expense of people's reputations, both sides of the House can do it. I do not think it is terribly productive and it is not terribly elevating. 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 Hayden) read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.04) —The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill before the House tonight is extremely crucial to the future of democracy in this country. I say that because we are dealing with one of the most basic platforms of our democratic system-the calling of a referendum, the referral of an important matter relating to our Constitution or other facets of life here in Australia to the people for them to choose, to decide and to determine the outcome of these important issues. Fundamental in the successful running of any referendum or election must be the people's faith in and the integrity of the system that runs those elections or referenda. It is fundamental because, if people do not believe in the integrity of the electoral system, have confidence in its administration and accept its results, democracy will eventually fail. All of us in this Parliament could cite examples of countries that lose that confidence by weakening the integrity of the electoral system to the point where no-one believes or trusts in elections or referendums and, as a consequence, anarchy eventually prevails. Tonight we deal with changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act as they relate to the holding of referendums. The Opposition recognises that there is a need from time to time to finetune the electoral processes. We recognise too that this is an extremely complex and difficult area in which to enact change as so often the full ramifications of these changes are not fully understood until after an election, when it can possibly result in weakening the strength and security of the electoral processes in a way not previously thought of. We appreciate the difficulties encountered by any government in making reforms in this area. In tonight's debate let me make it quite plain that I do not intend to try to score political points from the Government over this legislation. Rather, we, in our amendments, make known to the Parliament and the people what our genuine concerns are and the reasons for them in the hope that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) will take them on board, consider them and adopt them-not, as I said, for any political gain to us, but rather for the benefit of this Parliament, the people of Australia and our democratic way of life. Having said all that, the Opposition intends to move three amendments deleting clause 8 (b), clause 10 and the first four amendments to subsection 30. Mr Tim Fischer —Very significant amendments. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Farrer points out, these are significant amendments. I believe they are crucial to the stable and efficient running of our democracy in the future. If these amendments are not agreed to in the committee stage, the Opposition will vote against the legislation and will look forward to the Senate debate in the hope that our shadow Minister, Senator Jim Short, and the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) can come to some agreement. This Bill has come forward in response to the work done by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and the recommendations it has made to the Parliament relating to the operations of the electoral reforms enacted for the 1984 general election. May I just say on behalf of the Opposition how much the work done by the Joint Select Committee is appreciated. I will give honourable members some background to this legislation: in its 1986 report No. 2, the Joint Select Committee made a large number of recommendations-I think there were some 150 of them-for amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in light of the experience gained at the 1984 general election, which was the first election held after the fundamental revision of the Act in 1983-84. The Government announced in early 1987 that it accepted most of the Joint Select Committee's recommendations and that legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations would be introduced in stages. In May and June 1987, the Electoral Act was amended prior to the July election to give effect to those recommendations considered essential for implementation before that election. There are many common provisions in both the Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which is an Act relating to the submission to the electors of proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution. This Bill proposes amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to incorporate the same changes that were made to the Electoral Act in June 1987, thereby restoring the pre-June 1987 consistency between the two Acts. The Bill proposes three additional amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act which were the subject of specific referendum recommendations in the Joint Select Committee report. That report, however, was almost exclusively concerned with reviewing the Electoral Act rather than the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Whilst I said that we were not happy with some of the components of this legislation and will be moving amendments to that effect shortly, I just want to take a few moments to point out those features of the Bill that we find acceptable. We are reasonably happy with the following points: the first is that the existing provisions for Commonwealth money to be spent on the preparation and distribution of written arguments be extended to have that material prepared in forms suitable for the visually impaired, a most commonsense approach and one that we support. The second point we support is the removal of the obligation on broadcasters and publishers to furnish returns for a referendum where it is held in conjunction with an election. The third point we support is the making of overseas polling officials subject to the same penalties for neglect of duty as officials in Australia. Once again, that is a commonsense approach. The fourth point we support is the extension from 10 to 13 days of the period for the return of all postal votes sent by electors directly to district returning officers. The fifth point we support is the repeal of the requirement that printers furnish returns of referendum printing. The sixth point we agree with is the requirement of Commonwealth and State governments to comply with the Act to the same extent as other participants in the electoral processes; that is, the bind the Crown provision. The last point that I wish to make known tonight is that the Opposition agrees with the removal of the existing time limits on the Governor-General's ability to alter the referendum polling day and/or return of the writs if the referendum is held on other than an election day. Those are the points that we agree with. So, it is quite plain that we do not disagree with the entire legislation. But there are areas of concern, and I want to state those to the House tonight. The first area of concern relates to clause 8 (b). This clause defines the means by which a voter's intention is ascertained. Basically it says: . . . regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. The Opposition believes that this will only add to the confusion in determining a valid vote rather than, as it attempts to do, clarify it. If honourable members refer to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and look specifically at section 24, they will find that this matter is easily classified in points (a) and (b), which state: The voting at a referendum shall be by ballot and each elector shall indicate his vote- (a) if he approves the proposed law-by writing the word ``Yes'' in the space provided on the ballot-paper; or (b) if he does not approve the proposed law-by writing the word ``No'' in the space so provided. On reading that section of the Act it is quite clear, it does not confuse one; and the Opposition believes that to try to define it any further will actually defeat the purpose and will create more confusion and cause more problems. So, for that reason we are concerned about this issue. Going back to the Government's amendment which is designed to clarify, it is possible to find different interpretations of clause 8. There is always difficulty in exactly defining how to determine a voter's intention. If we look at recommendation 99 on pages 143 to 145 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform report No. 2, we will see some of the debate that took place and advice that was given in forming the Committee's final recommendation. But from our point of view this amendment proposed by the Government is superfluous and will only add to the confusion of whose job it is to determine these things. If section 24 in the original Act is adhered to, it is painfully obvious that it will actually clarify the matter quite easily and distinctly and leave minimum room for confusion. So, we ask the Government to consider this point, because we believe that adding this amendment that it proposes will actually add more confusion to the issue. Our next concern relates to clause 10 of the Bill. This clause enables the Australian Electoral Commission to extend, by 48 hours, the time in which acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function. The 48-hour extension proposal first emerged before the 1984 election, when potential and actual industrial action was threatened and that threatened the ability of the Electoral Commission to meet its statutory obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the allotted time. The Electoral Act contained provisions that could have been invoked against officers of the Electoral Commission involved in industrial action, including a mandatory injunction directing an officer to perform the duties required of him under that Act. The Commission considered that these remedies were not adequate; and it did not consider that an increase in existing penalties would be a suitable solution. The Joint Select Committee therefore recommended the 48-hour extension rule, and this was incorporated into the Electoral Act last year. However, it is the Opposition's view that this proposal is bad in principle, because it is a virtual acquiescence in the acceptance of industrial muscle and industrial action. We believe that no government should fall prey to this type of activity. We note also that, in the course of trying to justify this extension of 48 hours, the Government has included things like acts of God and goodness knows what else. But there is no doubt at all from our reading of the situation that this inclusion in the Act is designed purely and simply to acquiesce in the use of industrial muscle, and that is something that no government can afford to bend to. Our last concern relates to the requirement that a voter must have lived within the division within which he or she is voting for at least some time during the three months prior to the polling date. This of course brings the Electoral Act as it applies to referendums into line with the Act as it applies to general elections. This Act relating to general elections was passed through the Parliament during May and June last year and was subjected at the time to considerable debate, with the Liberal Party and the National Party taking opposing views on the matter. The Nationals voted against its inclusion. However, this was not the majority view on the day. Since then, following the 11 July 1987 election, considerable concern has been expressed by a wide range of people in the community, in the media and throughout the country. This concern should cause alarm in our community, because there is apparent in this part of the Act a gaping hole that threatens to weaken or even destroy the integrity of our electoral system, thus causing people to lose confidence in the results of an election in the future. Why is this so? Because it is now possible for a political party in a marginal seat to move on paper a couple of hundred of its supporters to that particular electorate, thus possibly changing the outcome of an election in such a marginal seat. This can be achieved by using the very lenient residential requirements which are now in the Act and which the Government wishes to install in this Bill relating to referendums. It is possible under these relaxed rules for itinerants to enrol wherever they like, with the requirement that a residential address be given but that a post office box number may be used as the point of contact. How does the Electoral Commissioner get in touch with a person to confirm that he still lives in the division? He can do this only by writing a letter to the post office box. This is not a sufficient guarantee. It does leave open the opportunity of abuse of the system and, of course, this opportunity, as I have mentioned before, has been the subject of quite a wide ranging debate in the community, which has expressed concern. I believe that it deserves further consideration by the Minister and the Government. Mr Tim Fischer —How many new enrolee letters do you get back marked `address unknown'? Mr SHARP —The honourable member for Farrer raises a particularly pertinent question. I have heard in debate around the countryside that these examples are evidence of the fact that there could be gaping holes in our legislation, which were not intended in its original drafting but which could be apparent now and which do deserve consideration. So, with hindsight the Liberal and National parties agree that it is vital to review this aspect of the Act to ascertain exactly what deficiencies there are in it. In fact, it is most important that the Government take note of our concerns. To delay this aspect of the legislation is eminently reasonable, particularly in light of the fact that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform will be reviewing this very matter in a few weeks time. So, why does the Government not wait until after the Committee has considered this matter and made its recommendations? If the Government does not follow this up by waiting for the Select Committee to report, I believe that it will leave in place one of the most dangerous aspects of the Electoral Act which could threaten the very future integrity of our electoral processes. I state once again that the Opposition sees merit in some aspects of the legislation. However, we are genuinely concerned by those three matters we have raised and we do hope that the Minister will give them due consideration. I ask him to do this for the sake of an electoral system that has served us well, that has never had its integrity questioned, that has the confidence of the people and that forms one of the most basic platforms of our democratic system. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.20) —I support the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988. In doing so I wish to commend the people involved, especially the members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, who worked hard to put forward proposals on this matter. Those proposals are the ones which are incorporated in the Bill. Referendums are extremely important in a democracy because they allow us to shape the Constitution and to change it when circumstances warrant such change. Australia has a pretty poor record in its capacity to change the Constitution even when changes are warranted. We have seen this in constitutional conventions and commissions which have been bipartisan and have accepted a number of changes, but when those changes have been put to the people in a referendum unfortunately it was not possible to get a majority position. That is partly because the rules for changing the Constitution are very tough-probably amongst the toughest of any constitution in the world. Not only do we need a majority of the voters of the nation-what would be considered a democratic majority in most countries-but also we need a majority of the States, which is a very difficult proposition to achieve. That goes back to the concern of the fathers of the Federation to ensure that the Constitution could not be changed in favour of the major States as they existed then. Perhaps it is time to rethink this provision in the Constitution in view of the fact that we are now a much more mature nation. We think of ourselves more as a nation. Perhaps the view of the majority of the people should be sufficient to change the Constitution rather than having the problem of also getting the majority of the States in favour of a change. It is possible to misuse that provision in such a way that the smaller States could theoretically completely frustrate the performance of the larger States in what might be essential constitutional changes. We are concerned in this Bill to ensure the machinery for the changing of the Constitution in the sense of people's understanding and comprehension of what is going on in a referendum, to ensure that that process is satisfied, to ensure that we maximise that process. That is an important matter because it has often been argued that a kind of emotion overtakes people in Australia when it comes to referendums. That emotion is, I suppose, summed up in two letters-NO. When people vote in referendums in Australia most of the time they vote no, even when there has been bipartisan agreement on some of the proposals put forward. Obviously one of the reasons for that has been the failure of people to comprehend sufficiently what is at stake in the referendum proposal. In order to overcome that problem we are inserting provisions in the legislation which require the case for the yes vote and the case for the no vote to be put to the people. Mr Blanchard —In simple language. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes, in simple language. The provisions as they stand require the case to be put only in pamphlets, in written form. There is no provision for the case to be put in verbal form, to be communicated to people who cannot read or who may be visually impaired. With these provisions we are allowing for an audible form of the yes and no case to be put. That proposed new provision is relevant not only to people who are visually impaired but also to people whose reading capacity unfortunately is not very good. Let us face it, those people who know something about what is happening in education know that there are a considerable number of people whose reading capacity is poor and who therefore would not be able to read the various yes and no cases that are presented. It is important that they be able to comprehend those cases by having them verbally presented in the way the provisions allow. That is a very important provision and it ought to be supported. I think the Opposition supports it. I was surprised, however, to hear that the Opposition is going to oppose certain provisions, even though some of them were members of the Select Committee and even though they appeared to support the general thrust in the Select Committee. I was mystified to find that they will oppose the provision which relates to the question of the yes or no vote, which seeks to make it clear what the intention of the voter is. In situations where we have problems with referendums, where we want to improve the ability of people actually to express their opinions in a democracy, what is wrong with making it absolutely clear whether it is a yes or no vote? There is nothing wrong with that, yet the Opposition seems to think that there is some sinister conspiracy behind this view. Mr Goodluck —There is. Dr THEOPHANOUS —What is it? We certainly did not get anything out of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), about what this conspiracy was supposed to be. Proposed new subsection 93 (9) states: For the purpose of ascertaining a voter's intention, regard shall only be had to the word `Yes' or `No' written alone or without words of qualification. What is wrong with that? That is just to clarify the position. Any confusion that may arise in the mind of an electoral officer, for example, in relation to the intention of the voter with respect to the constitutional amendments and other referendums would be clarified. I do not see why the Opposition thinks that there is something sinister about it. The Opposition claims that the present Act allows for that situation, but the point is that, as honourable members will see if they read the report of the Select Committee, there has been some ambiguous interpretation of these matters and this provision will make it absolutely clear. I do not see that the Opposition's argument has any validity. There was also some complaint from the Opposition about the relaxed rules in relation to the residence requirements and the period people had lived in an electorate when voting in a referendum. The argument presented by the Opposition spokesman was based on the view that somehow people could move from one electorate to the other and that this was a problem in the electoral process. it might be a problem in the electoral process-I do not know whether it is-but it is certainly not a problem with referendums. It is an absurdity to argue that we are going to move thousands of people from one State to another in order to get a referendum result. It has no impact at all on a referendum if people move from one electorate to another because the counting is on the basis of the whole nation in the one instance and the whole State in another instance. The argument presented about what might be happening with people changing from one electorate to another may have some relevance to general elections and maybe it needs looking at, but this Bill does not deal with that issue. This Bill deals with the referendum question and it is not relevant whether a person is in the electorate of Calwell or Burke. Whichever electorate a person is in, his referendum vote counts as one. This argument raises problems where none exist, in my view. If there is some concern about previous rules and laws in relation to the electoral system for voting in general elections that matter ought to go back to the Select Committee for consideration. If they make some recommendations which ought to be adopted, those recommendations can be dealt with at the appropriate time. We reject the arguments being presented by the Opposition in this matter. I go back to the importance of our ensuring that referendum proposals are dealt with in the most democratic fashion, that people know what they are doing when they are dealing with such proposals and that we do not have any problems in relation to them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.30) —We are all representatives in this House and we all represent people. We will have our political dogfights over certain issues but mainly we deal with the day to day problems of our electorates. If we do not, we do not get elected and we are not worth our salt. People come to see us about various problems-lack of housing, matrimonial breakups-where we have to help families. We have even had the case where the husband of a decent woman with a young family was murdered in front of the children. We have had to try to put the pieces back together and help by giving moral support. We are representatives of the people. It absolutely sickens me sometimes that we have these single issue politicians who march around and get involved in one single issue without thinking about why they are elected. They are all over Australia but there is a predominance of them in Tasmania. They are only interested in one single issue. I repeat, we are representatives and we look after every group of people we can. People come to see us and we do our best. It happens that a fellow I knew years ago came to see me. He is a normal, decent Australian with five children and he came to see me about a problem affecting his family-spina bifida. When one has a family one is sometimes unaware of the sicknesses and illnesses other people are afflicted with. This chap told me a story about one of his daughters and he wrote me a letter. I thought I would read the letter tonight. It might co-opt support from both sides of the House and it might acquaint some honourable members with the problems of having a family and having one child afflicted by spina bifida. The letter commences, `Dear Bruce'-that is my name, Bruce Goodluck, if anyone does not know me-and goes on to read: I have left with you a copy of the submission which was forwarded to the Federal Minister for Health in April 1987. Incidentally, I am not being political about this. The letter continues: It was submitted with the feeling that the Federal Government would recognise the concern that ASBA has for its 2000+ Spina Bifida sufferers throughout Australia. Spina Bifida incidence in Australia is one in a thousand live births and is thought to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, although extensive research has not yet determined the real cause. The effects of Spina Bifida to a child are: 1. Paralysis and Loss of Sensation-as the spinal cord becomes defective the nerves therein are damaged. The result of this is that the messages from the brain to the muscles (causing movement) and the body to the brain are impaired. 2. Lack of Bladder and Bowel Control (Incontinence)-The nerves which control the bladder and bowel are located in the lower region of the spinal cord. This having been damaged in a Spina Bifida person causes incontinence. 3. Hydrocephalus-in about 80%-90% of Spina Bifida births an associated abnormality known as Hydrocephalus occurs. This is a build up of spinal fluid in the head arising from a blockage of the natural drainage of this fluid caused by the defective spinal cord. Spina Bifida strikes right across the community; the rich, the poor, single mothers and the unemployed. The birth of a Spina Bifida child to any family is devastating. The joy of the impending birth of a new baby is something which most families hold dearly. To the 2000+ families throughout Australia who have had their expectations shattered by the birth of a handicapped child, it is quite something else, I can assure you. Within 24 hours the baby will have its first operation, and from that day on the visits in and out of hospitals become neverending. The child will have shunt blockages, orthopaedic problems, physiotherapy and the continuing infection to kidneys-because of the lack of bladder control. Costs in the raising of `normal' children are to the average Australian earning the average wage, at the least very high-the cost of raising a handicapped child to an average family becomes a large burden. When we talk of cost we must also look at effects on other family members, ie time/money spent on the handicapped child . . . This man is just an ordinary everyday family man with problems with which I and others would be completely unaware. We may be aware but if it does not happen to us we probably do not get involved. The letter continues: . . . to the detriment of other children/family members. The cost of social impact-how much time are the parents restricted to staying in their own environment restricting other family members in their movements. ASBA believes the parents and the Spina Bifida child have a right to lead as normal a life as is humanly possible and that all resources and appliances required for Spina Bifidas to achieve their ultimate should be available at little or no cost. To this aim, we are requesting that you, in association with any of your parliamentary colleagues and any other person in your opinion would assist in persuading the Federal Government that the wrong decision was made originally, take up our case to have all incontinence aids made available through Government Schemes. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.36) —We know that next Saturday in New South Wales will be a significant time for members on both sides of this Parliament. In recent days we have seen a plethora of public opinion polls which suggest variously that the Australian Labor Party led by Barrie Unsworth ranges anything from 10 per cent to 13 per cent behind the Liberal Party-National Party coalition led by Nick Greiner. It is interesting to compare some of the swings and roundabouts that exist between pollsters to see just how accurate these people can be. Tonight I would like to compare two of these polls that appeared, one by that famous pollster Mackerras and his equally famous pendulum and the other by Dr Chaples from one of the universities in Sydney. When one compares those two polls it is interesting to see the swings anticipated and how people can extrapolate from previous election results the swings necessary to change government in New South Wales. I say it is interesting because if one takes the seats in the Illawarra and surrounding areas one sees that there is an incredible difference between what Mackerras and Chaples have to say is required to change government. Let us run quickly through some of the seats. The first is the seat of Kiera, a newly created seat located in the main within my electorate. Under Chaples predictions a 9.1 per cent swing is necessary to change that seat from the projected Labor Party to the Liberal Party. Mackerras, on the other hand, says it is 15 per cent plus. In the seat of Wollongong they are both about the same-a 0.2 per cent or 0.1 per cent swing to change hands. In the seat of Burragorang Chaples says about 11 per cent and Mackerras says somewhere between 12 per cent and 15 per cent. It is hard to extrapolate on this particular graph. In the seat of Illawarra, once again they are fairly close together, somewhere in the order of 14 per cent, 16 per cent, 18 per cent or even 20 per cent. In Kiama, Chaples says 13 per cent while Mackerras says it is somewhere slightly above 10 per cent. In Camden, Chaples says a swing of less than 2 per cent is required to change hands while Mackerras says 7.3 per cent. In Minchinbury, Chaples says the swing needed is 9.8 per cent and Mackerras says somewhere over 10 per cent. In Heathcote, Chaples says less than one per cent is necessary for it to change hands to the Liberals while Mackerras says 4.3 per cent. I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to take notice of the sets of figures I have gone through. I believe they demonstrate how inaccurate it is to try to project from one election to another, particularly where new seats have been created-and there are 10 in New South Wales-and how inaccurate it is to publish findings of this nature or indeed any of the other subjective findings we have seen in newspapers and other forms of the media in the past few weeks. It is all well and good to talk about swings and how things have changed and how everyone will support one particular party this week, but when a policy announcement is made here or a campaign launch takes place somewhere else suddenly overnight another poll comes out from 200 people which shows that there is a perceptible swing of 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent to the other side. I defy anyone who knows anything about statistics to argue that that is a reasonable way to look at what will happen on the weekend. I do not think anyone would disagree with the proposition that for a variety of reasons the election this weekend in New South Wales will be a close affair. I suggest, to a number of people in particular, that what they should look at is the number of seats that will need to change hands to cause the Unsworth Government to be removed from office. Eleven seats is a great number of seats to change hands, as is the percentage of the vote that will be necessary to achieve that result. I suggest that with the plethora of independents and quasi-independents, National Party members and Liberal Party members that have been thrown up against the New South Wales Government people should carefully examine the polls and not become too complacent. The polls in the main are terribly inaccurate. I suggest also on what I have been able to detect in my electorate, where there is a high element of support for the Australian Labor Party, that that support is not wavering. Mr Hand —It has a lot to do with the Federal member. Mr MARTIN —It probably has. In the Illawarra region what will result is the return of a very strong contingent of Australian Labor Party members. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.41) —I wish to raise tonight the Government's announced policy to close Medicare agencies around Australia. There is no question that this particular move, which will come into effect on 31 March, will be detrimental to people living in country and regional areas throughout Australia. The closure of agencies will not be restricted to any one State; it will affect all country and regional areas throughout Australia. I question the Government's motives as to why it has introduced this particular measure. The reason stated by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) when the legislation closing Medicare agencies was introduced, was that it was intended that the Government would save taxpayers' money by implementing this measure. Mr McGauran —$1.2m. Mr BURR —I correct my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland. The Minister may have referred to $1.2m but the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia Ltd, the private medical insurers, decided that it did not agree with the Minister's figures. The Association engaged the well respected private consultant, the Touche Ross organisation, to conduct a far-reaching investigation into the cost savings associated with this measure. Touche Ross, in its report, pointed out clearly that rather than the savings claimed by the Minister being effected by this measure, the savings would in fact be negligible and in some cases the measure would cost the taxpayers more than the present Medicare agency arrangements. To confirm that claim by Touche Ross I refer to Cessnock where the Health Insurance Commission itself has admitted that it will have to pay $85,000 a year to run a Medicare agency to provide the services which cost taxpayers less than $42,000 a year under the previous agency arrangements. That is one example of where this measure will cost taxpayers more money, not less. In addition to causing inconvenience to people living in country and regional areas, this proposal will be damaging also to people working in private health insurance firms that are at this stage able to provide agency arrangements. I was contacted by St Luke's Health Insurance in Launceston and I was advised that it could cost in the order of 35 jobs for those who currently work in that organisation in a regional centre such as Launceston. These facts will be apparent when this measure is introduced by the Government on 31 March. In addition to these matters I point out to my friends on the other side of the House that a number of people associated with Australian Labor Party organisations around Australia equally cannot understand why the Government should introduce this measure. I refer honourable members to a letter that I received that was signed by various union representatives representing unions at Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Those union representatives are concerned at the closure of the agency at the Associated Pulp and Papermakers Council. The letter was signed by Maureen Walters, Australian Workers Union site representative; Vere Woolley, Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association site representative; Glen Muir, Electrical Trades Union site representative; Bob Rodman, Australasian Society of Engineers site representative; and Carl Brill, Amalgamated Metal Workers Union site representative. They commenced their letter to the Minister for Community Services and Health by saying: We write to you in the strongest possible terms, seeking a reversal of the decision announced in the 1987 Budget papers to close the Medicare Agency operated by the Associated Pulp and Paper Makers' Council. That will give honourable members some idea of the strength of feeling of these people about this measure being taken by the Government. The closing paragraph is equally as interesting. It reads: Given that the cost saving is at best negligible, we in the labour movement would not expect a Labor Government to proceed with such a proposal. That is the feeling from labour organisations. The grass roots of Labor's constituency is not satisfied with the action to close Medicare agencies. The action will not save money for the Government. It will cost jobs in country and regional areas. It will not provide the services that people living in regional areas want. I strongly urge the Government to review its decision. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.46) —Madam Speaker, I am pleased-- Mr McGauran —Here we go, Mr Reasonable. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I rise tonight to support the remarks of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) about the New South Wales election. We ought always to proceed with caution when making judgments about elections. The honourable member was accurate in the observations that he made. I inform the House also that in Western Australia this weekend two by-elections will be held. The Australian Labor Party will win both of them. For those opposite who have a faint hope that there will be a resurgence of the conservative parties, I suggest they look at recent experience. Failure has become their companion and it will continue to be their companion in this place. They should not get too much energy and enthusiasm from some faint glimmers of hope. The honourable member for Macarthur said that one may well be deluded by polls. Certainly in this Parliament the conservative parties have a much tougher job than they realise. Mr Martin —There is only one poll that counts. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —There is only one poll that counts and recent history has shown that the Australian Labor Party wins that poll. I wish also to commend the decision by this chamber to remove parliamentary broadcasts from Radio 1 and Radio 2. This weekend will see the commencement of an important event in Perth, the Sheffield Shield cricket final. It would not have been possible to listen to that final under the previous broadcasting arrangements. The new arrangements will make that possible. Mr Hand —Who is playing? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Western Australia is playing Queensland. I wish to comment quickly about Western Australia, and I am sure that honourable members will understand. The captain of the Western Australian cricket team is Graeme Wood. His current average this season is 70 runs. He has scored 909 runs and recently scored 186 not out against South Australia and won the game for Western Australia. I think it is only a matter of time before the Australian cricket selectors look seriously at putting Graeme Wood back into the Australian Test team. I wish to congratulate Graeme Wood on his performance as captain. Western Australia won the Sheffield Shield competition last season and I am confident that it will do the same this season. Mr McGauran —Talk about something important. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland would do well to heed the Chair. He must not interject as it takes his fancy throughout the contribution of the honourable member for Stirling. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Graeme Wood's record in terms of his achievements in cricket is quite outstanding. His average in Test cricket is 32. In first class cricket he has scored 11,000 runs at an average of 40 runs. His performance as a leader of the Western Australian team is quite outstanding. It is time that the Australian selectors looked seriously at reinstating him to the Test team. I am sure that the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) would join with me in wishing the Western Australian cricket team well in its encounter this weekend. On this matter, I also want to sound a note of warning to the mandarins of football. I speak to many people who follow the code. If we look at attendances in recent years-and I am sure that my friend the Minister would recognise the privatisation of football-we see that total attendances in 1984 were 2,951,000 in the Victorian Football League; in 1975 they fell to 2,727,000; in 1986 they lifted again to 2,899,000 with the success of the Sydney Swans; but last year they rose by only another 1,007 to 2,900,000, despite the inclusion of two new teams, the Brisbane Bears and the Eagles. This suggests that this privatisation and corporatisation of football have left behind the ordinary football goer. It also needs to be acknowledged that the football administrators are part of the only code I know that deliberately encourages the umpires and players to ignore the rules. People who have traditionally followed football have lost interest and young people who would normally follow football have lost interest because it is becoming a modified version of rugby union. There is no longer any good kicking and marking. It has become a scramble-and rugby union is the better game when it comes to that. So we ought to put on notice that the people who are managing football need to recognise that they are killing the game. In terms of the hard facts and figures-and, Madam Speaker, you would recognise that only 92,000 people attended the grand final last season in which Hawthorn played-football, as a consequence, is in grave danger. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.52) —In my electorate of Parkes the Western Aboriginal Legal Service has one of its offices in the town of Bourke. The office has a shopfront with living quarters behind it. It is staffed by a caretaker and a field officer, both of whom are Aborigines. As well, there are presently four white solicitors who come to Bourke, usually from Dubbo, and take turns, often in pairs, to live on the Western Aboriginal Legal Service premises when the court is sitting. This may last for periods of a week or two at a time. The solicitors' names are Tony Parker, Robert Fitzgerald, Anthony Krone and David Hancock. The solicitors represent the Aborigines in court and are kept very busy as there are usually several hundred cases to be heard. For example, there were close to 400 pleas of not guilty entered on Aborigines' behalf over just a seven-week period extending through last December and January. These pleas alone will be sufficient to occupy the court's time until next August. I have been concerned about this office for some time because I have often had comments made to me when I visit Bourke about illegal activities that people say are going on involving drugs and stolen goods. The truth or otherwise of these stories I have never been able to fully ascertain. Apparently the police in Bourke have had complaints too because recently they obtained a search warrant and raided the Western Aboriginal Legal Service premises early one morning. The raid must have been productive because it is alleged they found a considerable quantity of drug equipment and stolen goods there. I understand that both the Western Aboriginal Legal Service caretaker and the field officer, who happen to be brothers, have been charged with possession of these articles. It is alleged the drug equipment consisted of several marijuana bongs and the stolen goods included such items as car stereo speakers. Their cases will come before the court later this year and I assume they will be represented in court by Western Aboriginal Legal Service solicitors. The caretaker's de facto wife was also found on the premises. The caretaker is already on charges for assaulting her three times. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Could I ask the honourable member for Parkes whether there is a court case proceeding? If there is, I will have to ask the honourable member to stop. Mr COBB —I am not commenting on the guilt or otherwise, just the facts. Madam SPEAKER —No, if a court case is proceeding, I ask the honourable member to cease his comments. Mr COBB —He is not in a court case; he is on bail. Madam SPEAKER —Well, there is a court case proceeding. I must ask you now not to refer to it. Mr COBB —I will not refer to the matters before the court. Madam SPEAKER —Or to the people whose matters are before the court. Mr COBB —I am commenting only on what is in the newspapers and what is public knowledge. I will move off that and say that I guess most people would be appalled that there could be such activities occurring out of a legal aid office, activities that have gone on well into the past. However, what concerns me even more is how these two persons who have been charged came to be employed in the first place in such positions. Both of them have records as long as one's arm for criminal activities going back several years. The caretaker alone has 27 criminal charges that I can find out about. The field officer of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service has 45 criminal charges against him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I will have to ask the honourable member to cease his comments. His remarks are sub judice. Mr COBB —I am referring to comments about things in the past. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable members will cease his comments. He is now entering into a field that he cannot enter into. Mr COBB —But I am commenting about their records in the past, not what is before the courts now. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not argue with the Chair. He is moving into an area of sub judice. Mr COBB —The solicitors who work from these offices must be aware of the history of their employees. I have had concerns expressed-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will cease the comments. Mr Hand —It is a low attack, and you know it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is not helping by interrupting. The Chair requires the honourable member for Parkes to cease talking about the whole matter because he is right outside the field he should be in. I suggest it might be better if he resumed his seat. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.56) —I wish to use this opportunity to bring honourable members' attention to the continuing abuses of human rights taking place in Malaysia. Quite properly, human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and some other countries are often debated in this place. Very little, however, is said of such abuses by our close neighbours. On 28 October 1987, the Government of Dr Mahathir swooped on its opponents, rounding up and gaoling 90 persons under section 73 of the Internal Security Act. Those arrested were Government critics, social activists and conservationists who were involved in exposing poverty, governmental corruption and environmental vandalism. They included members of parliament from both the Government and Opposition parties who had dared to criticise the Government, including the leader of the Opposition Democratic Action Party, Mr Lim Kit Siang, and his son, Mr Lim Guang Eng. Also arrested was the Democratic Action Party member of parliament and barrister Mr Karpal Singh-a man known to Australians through his defence of Barlow and Chambers in their trial on drug charges. Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Leader of the respected public interest group Aliran and numerous other academics, trade union leaders, consumer rights activists and anti-nuclear and native rights lobbyists were also arrested. These arrests took place late at night, when Special Branch police swooped on these people's houses and dragged them from their beds. Many of the detainees have had to suffer appalling treatment in prison, including torture. Honourable members may also be aware that the Malaysian Government has closed down three opposition newspapers-the Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan. The laws under which these arrests and newspaper closures have been made are an affront to democratic nations and have the aim of silencing the Opposition. Honourable members may be aware that the Malaysian economy is experiencing serious difficulty due to the decline of commodity export prices. Whilst there is widespread poverty, there are rumours that many in senior Government circles, including the Prime Minister, have gained financially from controversial business ventures. Honourable members may also know that Dr Mahathir has recently survived a close-fought leadership battle within his own Party which he won only narrowly. One hundred and six people have been detained since 28 October last year. Of these, so far 55 have been released; 33 have been served detention orders of up to two years; and the rest have been placed under restriction orders and relocated from their principal place of residence. The restrictions on the Press are still in place. The relaxations that have taken place thus far have been partly because of the embarrassment caused to the Mahathir regime by international protest, including from Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists. This international pressure cannot be relaxed. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) should intervene repeatedly on this important issue of human rights. He should utilise international fora to expose the Malaysian Government for what it is-a racist regime which parades as a democracy and is a disgrace to the Commonwealth of Nations. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Dr Blewett —Madam Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue to 11.10 p.m. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.00) —The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) raised a number of issues about the termination of Medicare agency agreements and he did tend to make, as usual, a number of sweeping remarks without basing them on very much fact. I would like to take up some of the points he made. First of all, he said that this decision to terminate a number of agency agreements was something affecting people in all rural areas throughout Australia. The first point I make is that it has no effect at all on Queensland, no affect at all on South Australia, and a marginal effect on Western Australia. So it is related to the three States I want to talk about-Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. Those agency agreements were made in 1984 on the introduction of Medicare in order to provide a measure of relief from the impact of the introduction of Medicare so that the small regional funds would have time to restructure and adapt to the new Medicare system. They were always seen as likely to be a temporary measure to cover that transition period, and of course in the time since Medicare was introduced all of those funds have been freed up to take on other insurance activities so that they are no longer restricted just to health insurance. Provided they have developed those other activities, they should safely be able to cope with the Government's decision. The honourable member for Lyons alleged that this measure would not save any money. If he looks at the Budget Papers he will see that the money is saved. The Health Insurance Commission will have its administrative costs reduced by $1.5m next year as a result of not having to pay these agencies. That is a clear saving to Government. I think it is about time the Liberal Opposition recognised that we face these tough rationalising decisions. Is it better to provide a massive spread of Medicare offices giving the administrative service, or reduce the number of Medicare offices somewhat, provided people are still looked after, in order to have more nurses, more hospital beds and more nursing homes? My decision will always be, when faced with issues like that, that we can make some savings on the administrative side at marginal inconvenience to some people and in turn be able to put more money into services. So this $1.5m saving is a real saving, a saving which can be used to provide these services. Again let me point out the rather wasteful nature of these agency arrangements. We are not faced just with the cost of paying for the agency; every transaction dealt with by the agency has to be dealt with again in the Medicare office itself and entered into the computer system. So we have a very wasteful, repetitious system, and the honourable member for Lyons when doing his financial calculations left out altogether the need to get these transactions from the agencies and put them into the Medicare system, which really means dealing twice with every transaction. So that is another major source of saving. Finally, in a number of these places the agencies will be replaced by full Medicare offices, which of course can do more than the agencies. They can provide the total range of Medicare services. In Tasmania, for instance, which already has more Medicare offices per head of population than any other part of Australia, the only area which might be significantly affected is the west coast. We decided to put in a new full Medicare office in Queenstown and there is to be a reduction of one agency in Wesley Vale, but there is a good Medicare service very close to hand. Mr Smith —What happened in Launceston? Dr BLEWETT —There are already Medicare offices in Launceston, so the closing down of that one agency will not have any real impact on people able to get their services in Launceston. In the other areas in Victoria and New South Wales we tackled the problem in the same way. We replaced a number of agencies with full offices so that there was a proper spread of offices across the country. I think anyone who looks at this kind of decision will say it was right to make these administrative savings in order to have money to provide real services on the ground. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.05 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Punch to move- That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 10 December 1987, namely: The construction of high capacity fire hydrants within the Parliamentary zone. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts providing for the payment of bounty or subsidy, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 15 March 1988: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 25. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 24. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 32. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act-Australian Horticultural Corporation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988- No. 1-Australian Horticultural Corporation (Nomination of Members of Selection Committee). No. 2-Australian Horticultural Corporation (Appointment of Members). Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1988-MS12/88-Carriage of Meat by Sea to Canada and the United States of America. Australian National University Act-Statutes-No. 199-Statutes (Law Reform). Australian Trade Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 29. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 19. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1988-No. 1. Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 31. Defence Act- By-law-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 13. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1988 Nos. 1, 2, 6. Determinations-1988- No. 4-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 5 and 6-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 7-Vehicle Allowance and other allowances. No. 8-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 9-Extra Tuition Allowance. No. 10-Reunion Travel. Order-Rifle Clubs (Firearms) (Amendment), dated 4 March 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 17, 18. Export Inspection Charges Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 23. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 15, 16. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 14. Fisheries Act- Notice-No. 203. Plan of Management-No. 13-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 30. Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 3c (1), dated 17 February 1988. Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act-Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Regulations-Orders-1988- No. 1-Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (Nomination of Members of Selection Committee). No. 2-Horticultural Research and Development Corporation (Appointment of Members). Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Law Reform Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 26. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 21. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 20. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 28. National Health Act-Determinations under subsection 4 (1) for purposes of following paragraphs of the definition of `basic private table'- (dc), dated 15 February 1988. (dd), dated 5 January 1988. Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 22. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35-1 March 1988. Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1987-Sections 14, 42, 43, 44 and 51-1 March 1988. Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32-1 March 1988. Export Inspection Charges Collection Act 1985-Amendments made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 March 1988. Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Act 1985-Subsection 9 (2)-1 March 1988. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Act 1985-Subsection 11 (2)-1 March 1988. National Health Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987-The Act, except sections 1 and 2-1 March 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 27, 29. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination listing fees and/or charges for purposes of ACT Ordinances-1988- No. 1-ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education. No. 2-Schools Authority. No. 4-Public Trustees. Housing Assistance Ordinance-Approvals, dated 16 December 1987, of Housing Assistance Programs pursuant to section 12, in respect of- Community Organisation Rental. Defence Force Rental. Long Stay Caravan Park. Public Rental. Short Term Lodging. Ordinances-1988- No. 3-Parole (Amendment). No. 4-Adoption of Children (Amendment). No. 5-Agents (Amendment). No. 6-Taxation (Administration) (Amendment). No. 7-Air Pollution (Amendment). No. 8-Water Pollution (Amendment). No. 9-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 10-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 11-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 12-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). Regulations-1988-No. 2 (Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Ordinance). Services Trust Funds Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 27. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act- Declarations under subsection 9 (1) deeming to amend- Schedules 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, dated 25 February 1988. Schedule 6, dated 23 February 1988.