Wednesday, 16 March 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.02) —Madam Speaker-- Mr Cunningham —Dandy Andy! Mr PEACOCK —We knocked off the Fourex Cup, too. You should have picked it up-nine wins. The legislation we are debating-- Mr Lamb —Like you, 125 to 1. Mr PEACOCK —He got up, too-a winner. The honourable member would not even be in the market. He is hardly a statesmanlike character whose name is on the lips of all Australians. The legislation we are debating here today is the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill 1988. This is a non-controversial Bill which seeks to make a technical alteration to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act because of the change in status of Australian Airlines from a statutory authority to a public company. The coalition parties do not oppose this Bill. The principal Act which this Bill amends was the subject of parliamentary debate in about October last year. It is an Act that imposes a charge on Commonwealth authorities for the use of either an explicit or implicit Commonwealth Government guarantee on its borrowings. An implicit guarantee is apparent from the very fact that all Commonwealth authorities such as Australian Airlines are wholly owned by the Government. If they were to run into financial strife, lenders to these authorities could be assured that the Government would back those authorities with the necessary dollars. What was noteworthy about that legislation passing through Parliament was that it was just 12 months after the Government first passed legislation on charging for the use of explicit guarantees. The natural consequence of that ill-considered and what seemed to be hastily prepared legislation was that authorities stopped requesting Government guarantees and all of a sudden the Government's revenue estimates fell. We all know that the one thing that really brings a gleam to this Government's collective eye is the raking in of more and more revenue. Therefore, the Government brought to Parliament legislation which would allow it to charge for the use of implicit as well as explicit guarantees. The Opposition supported that Bill to the extent to which the charge truly reflected the cost of the Government guarantee and required a publicly owned authority properly to appreciate the commercial costs of its borrowing programs. This brings me to the topic of Australian Airlines-the specific reason for the amendment proposed by the Government. The Opposition has little doubt that the commercial future of a publicly owned Australian Airlines is bleak, to put it mildly. We have continually argued for the only sensible course which will avert this from occurring-that is, the sale of the airline. Therefore, we 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 endorses the sale of Australian Airlines, and therefore supports the Prime Minister's statement that ``I believe that an Australian Airlines, whether totally in private hands or an Australian Airlines with a significant private holding, with therefore corres-pondingly diminished demands upon public resources, could perform the function of Australian Airlines at least as well as they are now and, I would say, arguably, better'' '. That is a remarkably candid statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I note that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), is reading the Prime Minister's words on privatisation with the due care and attention that all members of the Left faction give this question. As I said, it is a remarkably candid statement by the Prime Minister. We have moved this amendment, quoting his words in favour of the privatisation of Australian Airlines, to ensure that those members of the Australian Labor Party who stand with the Prime Minister will vote with us on this amendment, endorsing his very words. Even at my most persuasive I know that I would find it hard to engender a degree of support from members of the Left faction to vote with us on this issue. But before the House in the next hour or so there will be a vote on an amendment on which we can see whether the Prime Minister has lost touch not only with all average Australians but also with the parliamentarians in this chamber. The Left, the Centre Left, the Right-where will they go? I could quote some further words of the Prime Minister. Honourable members should listen carefully and see whether they can comprehend them. The sentiment is there supporting the words we have put down in the amendment. The Prime Minister, on the occasion that he used the verbiage in the amendment, went on to say, in what could be described euphemistically as classic Hawkespeak: I think there is a case, a very strong case, for arguing that given the demands that there are and will increasingly be upon government, for instance in the provision of facilities and income for the aged, that I find it difficult to justify as a matter of priority the utilisation of scarce public resources to provide a funding base for running an airline as compared to the provision of those same resources for those things which I say only government can and ever will provide. That is, as The Macquarie Dictionary now terms it, and contains within it, classic Hawkespeak. I am very grateful to the editors of The Macquarie Dictionary for citing me as the derivation of the term Hawkespeak. I have been an interested student of the tortuous language that pours from the mouth of the man who, at least until the end of this year or perhaps a few months earlier, will remain in the office which he currently holds. As I said, that is classic, convoluted Hawkespeak. The material in the amendment, however, is not. It is saying to this chamber, `Are you prepared to stand by the Prime Minister and support him in his words on the privatisation of Australian Airlines, not simply as a political act but because the economics of the situation, the sound business sense, compel you to support the sale of Australian Airlines?'. The sentiments that exuded through the convoluted tautology which I quoted are sentiments, nevertheless, which my colleagues and I in opposition have been calmly laying the groundwork for over the last few years. I use the word `calmly' quite deliberately, for that is in complete contrast to the Government's hypocritical approach to privatisation. That approach has taken the same course as was taken in the days in the early 1980s when the then Labor Opposition hysterically opposed the coalition's rational poli-cies of financial deregulation and, therefore, effectively slowed down needed reform. When that Opposition reached government and had to show responsibility beyond its facile rhetoric, it was forced to change its tune and adopt at least some of our more sensible policies-much to the chagrin of the left wing, I should add. We in the Opposition have always supported free enterprise over government ownership. The associated incentives that that involves will, in the main, deliver society the greatest potential. But not the Prime Minister. He likes to make bets both ways. We will be supporting him in this amendment that I have moved on the statement, but there were different statements from the Prime Minister in his darker days. Honourable members heard me quote the Prime Minister just before, obviously in favour of privatisation. However, on 21 November 1985, notably just before the last South Australian State election, he said: They know, as anyone who thinks about the issue of privatisation knows, that it would mean higher prices, higher costs, higher taxes and higher fares. What socialist piffle. What did the Treasurer (Mr Keating), that leading light in the field of deregulation, have to say in this House on 23 May 1985, bearing in mind that yesterday at a Press conference the Treasurer in a few short but well chosen words because he has been keeping very quiet on the issue of privatisation-- Mr Hunt —He has bigger things in mind. Mr PEACOCK —He has much bigger things in mind and he is having a look at the factions and seeing where they will line up at the demise of the current Prime Minister. Whenever he is pressed at a Press conference he says, yes or no or words of two syllables very quickly in favour of privatisation, but only as recently as 23 May 1985 he had this to say: No matter where one looks, whether it be at TAA or the other authorities, there is no case for the Opposition's argument in economics, except simply to indulge ideologically in a Thatcherite, vandalistic splurge to try and destroy these authorities. That is good, tough stuff from the Treasurer, but he has bigger things such as the assumption of the prime ministership in mind. Economic theory has changed. He is now in favour of privatisation of Australian Airlines and I am sure he will be inveigling the Opposition to support the Prime Minister's words in this amendment that I have moved. The Treasurer ought to cringe when he hears the quote sent back to him these days. As I have said, we all know that he is one of the major players pushing for privatisation, but in the inner sanctums of the Go-vernment, with hardly a word said publicly. Honourable members will recall that this is just what occurred on the ID card. It was said that it was central to the proper and effective control of taxpayers' money for strong economic argument in favour of the ID card. When did honourable members hear the Treasurer come out powerfully day after day? He says, `Oh, cut it out mate. See you later, mate, as I am off on that issue. I am not going to upset the Left. I have got the Right and part of the Centre Left behind me. I have got to keep them in tow. I am not going to disturb them'. The same principle applies on the question of privatisation. He is slinking away when the heat is turned on on an issue that he is fighting for in the inner sanctums of the Government but is craven publicly with a yes or no and a couple of well-chosen words of two syllables, in two lines, in two sentences, and no more. Mr Hunt —It smacks of hypocrisy. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, I get the feeling that he is distancing himself from the Prime Minister and behind the scenes factional power plays regarding his ambitions and they demand silence wherever possible. But the Treasurer really knows because he has worked for it and in fact his Press comments yesterday confirm in softer Hawkespeak terms-do honourable members remember the phraseology the Prime Minister chose to use instead of the word `privatisation'?-that he is going to campaign in favour of privatisation on the basis of optimisation of resources. Mr Hunt —Optimisation. Mr PEACOCK —That is the way. Why use one word when you can produce three? `Optimisation of resources' is the phraseology of the current Prime Minister. The Opposition has never said that we should privatise for its own sake. We have always said that we would sell a public asset only if there were a clear public benefit in so doing. Public and consumer benefit is our paramount consideration. That means that we are particularly watchful of the need for deregulation or, to put it in simple terms, we are ever watchful of maintaining a competitive environment and to avoid exploitive monopolies. Australian Airlines' position is a case in point here. Is it not ironic to note that the present Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) when in opposition said in this House in 1981: It is the policy of the Labor Party to ensure that TAA remains a 100 per cent government owned enterprise. He went on to say: Converting TAA into a public company will simplify its sale and it meets the prime demands of this Government's- that is, the Fraser Government's- backers, the multi-millionaire proprietors of Ansett. They were the reasons the Minister gave a few years ago for opposing privatisation. It is somewhat ironic because, firstly, the Government only recently introduced legislation to convert Australian Airlines into a public company, as witnessed by the legislation we are debating here; and, secondly, it is ironic when one realises who are the multimillionaire backers of Ansett and whose well known friends they currently are. It is the two-airline agreement and the neglectful public ownership of Australian Airlines that has contributed to a significant lack of competition in the domestic airline industry. Up to 60 per cent of the market is now dominated by Ansett Airlines of Australia as the capital starved Australian Airlines limps along, to misuse a phrase. What does the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) think, the man who the Prime Minister says is `so completely master of his portfolio in all respects'? In 1984, as Minister for Aviation he said: This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority in that it can then remain an arm of government policy to ensure that the best interests of the consumers are serviced. How can that be? As the Prime Minister says, how can public ownership be justified in this case? Because of it Australian Airlines is now in a position where it does not know where to get the money to fund a needed capital expenditure program in excess of $1,000m over the period to 1991. The airline must re-equip its fleet with efficient aircraft to maintain competitiveness. Senator Evans's recent Caucus discussion paper on Australian Airlines notes that its net impact on the Budget since 1981-82 has been payments of $115m. No dividends have been paid since 1981-82, although one of $13.3m is expected in the current fiscal year. More telling than that is a debt to equity ratio as at 30 June 1987 of 86 : 14. That compares with what it is understood the airlines own management considers to be a commercially appropriate gearing ratio of 70 : 30. What that all means, Senator Evans's paper tells us, is that to remain competitive an appropriate borrowing program and the payment of reasonable levels of dividends during the period 1990-91 require injections of equity capital of $250m in 1988-89 and $50m in 1989-90. We know that the Treasury is now flush with funds-all taxpayers in this country have become aware of that as more and more is taken from them-and it is quite conceivable that without trying the Government could have a Budget surplus next year of well over $2 billion. There need be no change in policy at all; it will occur simply by the massive increase in revenue derived from taxpayers through tax creep-I am not talking about the Treasurer-bracket creep. Mr Hunt —Fringe benefits tax. Mr PEACOCK —Fringe benefits tax has brought in significantly more than anticipated, the honourable member is absolutely correct; but in overall terms of total take that actually is relatively small beer compared with the amounts this Government is ripping off ordinary taxpayers, with the most significant increase coming from the pay as you earn taxpayers. Anyone on average weekly earnings working overtime pays half his money to the tax man. There is no incentive for it at all. This Government is now so flush with funds that it could in fact be tempted, and the Minister at the table will argue that this be done, not to privatise, not to give tax cuts and to give the money it now has, that it has drained out of people, to Australian Airlines. If the Government walks down that route it will destroy the opportunity in this forthcoming financial year, 1988-89, to do substantial restructuring of the Australian economy, and I trust the Australian people will condemn the Government for it. The Treasury is flush with funds, and it is quite conceivable that without trying the Government could have that Budget surplus that I mentioned of well in excess $2 billion. In fact I would say that without any policy change at all the Budget surplus could be around the $3 billion mark. It would not be surprising to see the Prime Minister rolled by the left wing of his Party, as he has been rolled on the appointment of Bob Hogg, and forced to use part of the extraordinary amount of revenue that has been taken from ordinary working Australians for injection into capital deficient authorities such as Australian Airlines, and not take the opportunity that is before him. It would be the wrong course. Such a surplus, or in fact a bigger one, contributed to by a reduction in wasteful expenditures, is important on macro-economic grounds to reduce the enormous accumulated public debt of this country and indirectly facilitate the reduction of our foreign debt difficulties. Instead, not surprisingly we have seen very little action by this stumbling Government in the area of proper micro-economic reforms, which were to be the hallmark of this third term of the Hawke Government. Honourable members will recall that the Government alleged that its first term was to rectify the ills of the previous Government, and the second term was to put down the appropriate macro-economic settings. What rubbish! It lost our country's AAA credit rating for the first time in our history. This was the stuff and nonsense that were being put. But the third term was to deal with micro-economic reform. How much do we hear of that today and how much progress has in fact been made? It is an area where for effective reforms the sale of this airline is absolutely necessary. Not only is it capital deficient, but its operations are hamstrung by the restrictions on executive remuneration, its participation in the non-commercial government superannuation scheme, and its need for industrial relations co-ordination with the Government. In order to provide effective competition for Ansett Airlines of Australia, which Senator Evans's paper notes has already `established a dominant intra-State position with virtual monopolies in its nationwide regional feeder networks', deregulation is called for. The end of the two airlines agreement is part of the solution. An endorsement of the Prime Minister's call to sell Australian Airlines will be another. In conclusion, I put to the House that there is the strongest argument for privatising Australian Airlines. That has been accepted not on simple grounds but on sound economic grounds which sit well with our own philosophy on this side of the House. After the convolutions of recent years elements of the Australian Labor Party have come to agree with us, and the need for the privatisation of Australian Airlines has been endorsed by some statements of the Prime Minister. In order that this House can stand by the Prime Minister's latest call in favour of privatisation of Australian Airlines, I remind the House of his words and that I have moved: 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 endorses the sale of Australian Airlines and therefore supports the Prime Minister's statement that ``I believe that Australian Airlines whether totally in private hands or an Australian Airlines with a significant private holding, with therefore correspondingly diminished demands upon public resources, could perform the function of Australian Airlines at least as well as they are now and I would say, arguably better'' '. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Jull —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.25) —I have listened to the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Members on this side of the House listen regularly to the attempted contributions by members of the Opposition on economic debate. But in the five years we have been in government members of the Opposition largely have been spectators on economic debate, they have not been contributors. Again today we find their attempt to contribute to economic debate has been without substance and without purpose. There is no consistency. As the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is at the table, would recognise, whether it is a question of looking at the relationship of taxes to expenditure activities, whether it is a question of looking at the efficiency of government expenditure or whether it is having a set of policies that have to be in place to enable a government or an opposition to be credible, on all those counts the Opposition fails. If we were to do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been saying and look at his organisation as a business arrangement and business prospectus, it would fail. One could not sell shares in the Opposition. If the shares had a par value of 50c, they would not attract an offer. The Opposition has a credibility problem and a liquidity problem. I would like to deal with those issues but I wish to point out some other inconsistencies in the Opposition's position. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made great focus this morning on the role of Australian Airlines, its shortage of capital and the two-airline agreement. We need to remind the House and the Australian community that it was members of the Opposition when they were in government who brought in the two-airline agreement. We were the inheritors not only of the $9.6 billion deficit but also of the two-airline agreement. It was this Government that had the courage to face up to and to dispense with the two-airline agreement. Members of the Opposition introduced the two-airline agreement when they were in government because that was how they wanted to organise the airline industry. We have taken the difficult decision and reorganised the airline industry. The other thing that has to be pointed out in this debate, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has focused intensely upon it, is the asset backing of Australian Airlines. Who was in government for many of the years when asset backing was deficient? Members of the Opposition were in government and they did not do anything about addressing the fundamental question of Australian Airlines and its asset backing. They did not address it with Qantas Airways Ltd either. They ran away from that question. They cannot now say they will remake the world and remake history. It is just not possible. We will not let them do it. We will remind them of their record. The Australian community will not let them do it either because there is a credibility problem. When one talks to Australian Airlines and to Qantas Airways Ltd about their asset backing and one goes back through the figures, one sees that the figures demonstrate that when honourable members opposite were in government they were incapable of making those business decisions. We have inherited that difficulty and we are trying to come to grips with it. We are trying to make Australian Airlines into an effective public company. We have done much along that path but it is not good enough for members of the Opposition to say, `We have this idea of privatisation. Because it works with Margaret Thatcher it will work with us and we will impose that upon a number of public authorities. That will solve all the problems. Incidentally, while we are about that, this Government is awash with revenue because it has made some tax changes but we do not want to make any of those tax changes, we would not want to go down that path'. Members of the Opposition have stated on record in this House and out in the community that they do not want these base broadening measures in the tax system. They oppose the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the assets test, all measures designed to broaden the base of tax, to increase our revenue base and to limit our expenditure activity and target it more effectively. The Opposition is saying it does not want any part of that rational economic management. What it wants to do, depending on which audience it is addressing, is to make a selective promise that will attract the votes it wants to win government. The trouble is, its record catches it out. The $9.6 billion deficit we inherited in 1983 was the big problem but we have caught the Opposition out subsequently. We are not really sure where the Opposition stands on economic policy. As my colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care pointed out earlier, it is no good talking about consumer matters when the Opposition does not have a consumer policy. The substance that has to be put before this chamber and the Australian community is that, when the Opposition puts up a series of propositions in this House, it will be tested-not only in the ballot box but also by the media and by the Government. On those tests the Opposition is failing. One of the commitments that were expressed here this morning was that we might be able to fund Australian Airlines from the increase in revenue that the Government has developed. However, that revenue would not have been available to the Opposition, because it would not have addressed the tax system. The next proposition, which I find equally extraordinary, is that this Government is a high-taxing government-a high taxer of the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer. I remind the Opposition and the Australian community that this Government reduced the top rate of marginal tax from 60c to 49c in the dollar. As well, the other areas of taxation in that bracket were reduced. The Opposition cannot get away with that proposition. The Government has also improved the company tax system. There is now full imputation of dividends to try to make the economy more competitive and effective. Today, when talking about micro-economic reform, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, `We are not going down the path of micro-economic reform'. Where was the reform in the business sector when the Opposition was in government? What existed was a recognition that tax lurks, tax privileges, and bottom of the harbour schemes, were the order of the day. There was not a recognition, however, that something ought to be done to modernise the economy. That question was not addressed; it was too difficult. It was considered too difficult because the political mates of the Opposition in the background would not permit any modernisation. Today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned financial deregulation. All honourable members are aware of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. But when it got to the tough issue, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as Treasurer got to the barrier with financial deregulation, he fell over. He was not a starter. He was not a starter because basically some of the troglodytes in the National Party of Australia and members of the Liberal Party of Australia would not let him start. When Labor came to government, we implemented the Martin report, which examined the implications of the Campbell report, and the financial system was deregulated effectively. In recent times the Opposition has been shrieking about doing away with the 13.5 per cent ceiling on housing interest rates. That is easy. We will go out and inform the 880,000 householders who have such loans that the world will be made difficult for them. That is what the Opposition is on record about in terms of financial deregulation. The Opposition wants the bank ceiling lifted. The Government will not stand for that. The Government stands for an effective housing policy and fairness in the system. The word `fairness' never crosses the lips of Opposition members; it is as if the word did not exist in the lexicon of political language. But it does, and record of the government provides substance for it. I should continue this story because I find, when I analyse the record of the Opposition, that it is damning on many fronts. The record of what the Government has achieved and attempted to achieve will stand the test of any social democratic country. Let us examine a further damning situation. Earlier I spoke about the Opposition being unwilling to provide an injection of capital into Australian Airlines or Qantas. Those enterprises were starved of capital in the same way as the housing industry was starved of capital. The housing industry experienced the lowest level of starts for a period of 20 years when 105,000 people were ruined and put out of their homes. The Opposition did that in the name of the notion that we all still remember, because it echoes around the political museum of the Liberal Party: bearing down on inflation. Certainly the Opposition bore down. It bore down on the ordinary Australian community. During the last year of the Leader of the Opposition's term as Treasurer in the Liberal Party-National Party Government 200,000 jobs were lost. We should remember that. Today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that extra revenue was available. That is so, because we have broadened the base; we are getting people to pay tax who have never paid tax before. That is the first thing. Second, we have got into work people who have never actually worked before. I remind the Opposition that since 1983 a million new jobs have been generated, an extraordinary achievement in a work force of only 6.5 million. They are paying tax, and they are people who, under the Opposition's arrangements, would not have been participants in the economic process; they would have been the losers. We all know how much time the Liberal Party and the National Party have for losers. The members of those parties are themselves losers. They recognise what losing is all about, but they have no pity for others who lose. The Government made some changes. The first change was to get the country going again; we got the country back to work. We have got the country back to efficiency. We have got the country performing in international terms. It is no good Liberal members coming into the House and saying, `You will not face up to this question or that question'. The record of the Liberal-National parties in government is a sorry one, and is summed up in the $9.6 billion credibility gap. Secondly, Liberal members come into the House and take as a proposition the fact that the sorts of changes in revenue that this Government has brought about will be wiped away. The Liberals want to wipe away the base-broadening measures because they cannot sell them to the sectional interests to which they are trying to appeal. They cannot sell them so they will not face up to those issues. Having ducked away from that, Liberal members say, `We have got that revenue anyway, despite the fact that we have not changed the tax system. What we will now do is spend the extra revenue that we have not got from anywhere'. I ask the House and the Australian community not to believe that sort of story. The electorate did not believe it in July 1987 nor will the electorate believe it today. It still does not jell. Mr Staples —Disneyland. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Indeed, it is Disneyland. It consists of a series of propositions that do not link up. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on record in the program The World Today on 8 March as follows: There's far, far more revenue now. When I say more achievable it makes Mr Howard's proposals-which I believe to be right at the last election, even more credible now. And in terms of the revenue that the Government has coming in from its high rates of taxation it's virtually awash with revenue. I again put the proposition to the Opposition. The revenue has come from the base-broadening and tax reforming measures introduced by this Government. Yet the Liberals would do away with those reforms. Well, they have a problem. The problem is that they will not have that revenue if they follow through their arguments. They cannot address the important issues of Australian Airlines or Qantas as to how to provide them with assets, because there will not be that revenue to provide. The argument we have heard from Liberal members today will not suffice. It is incorrect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to talk about surplus Budgets when Labor inherited a $9.6 billion deficit. Let us again consider the Liberal Party's business perspective in relation to Australian Airlines. What will its wages policy be? Will it involve incentivation? Will that be its wages policy? We have to ask the question as to what its wages policy is. The Liberal Party has no consumer policy, no wages policy and we now know it has no tax policy. There are all kinds of problems in developing policy. As the Liberals have no economic policy or industry policy, it is realistic to ask: other than having picked up something from the stop Press on Margaret Thatcher, where do the Liberals stand? They have one or two slogans about privatisation but where do they stand in terms of a cohesive address to these issues? Opposition members cannot come into this House and pretend that they have not a history. Secondly, they cannot pretend that they can put up one policy without its being linked to others. That is what the Government does. The difficulty of being in government is that one has to sit down and make decisions, put policies together, make them cohesive and come up with a reasonable proposition. The clear record shows that that has worked. We have got people back to work, we have got the economy growing and industry performing. Industry is performing in the export sector and also in the manufacturing sector. Industry is also performing in terms of manufacturing investment. Opposition members cannot be selective in any economic debate because the world is not selective in such debate. A big world out there is watching. It is a deregulated world-a world that was deregulated financially by Labor. It is a world in which the dollar was floated by the Labor Government, a world in which economic growth was achieved by Labor, and a world in which manufacturing industry is being revived by us. We have a wages policy that has worked. All those things fit together. People are watching the Opposition and they have not seen a lot that is convincing. Certainly nothing that has been said today has added to that conviction-except that we now know that the work has not been done by the Opposition and its policies are not cohesive. We are talking of Australian Airlines as a public company which has been freed up by this Government in the context of an airlines agreement which has been wiped away by this Government because it was unnecessarily restrictive. It was a view of the world that had more to do with the 1960s than the 1980s, and we recognised that. Australian Airlines and Qantas are out there competing in a very competitive environment. We pay attention to that. Let me deal with another of the issues raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is, the question of the asset base of these organisations. There are a number of propositions we might consider. This Government is considering those options. I might add that we are not looking at privatisation as a simple slogan. We are asking about the kinds of decisions that have to be made to make these organisations operate effectively, given the demands upon the Budget. There are in the papers put out by Senator Evans's office propositions concerning the capital shortage of Australian Airlines and Qantas. I recognise that problem, as do my colleagues in my Party. We have this problem first of all because of the legacy brought about by the fact that asset backing was not provided in the past, but we need to address that matter now in order to make Australian Airlines as competitive as possible with Ansett. We must also include Qantas; we must make it as competitive as possible with an organisation such as Singapore Airlines, let alone Continental Airlines, United Airlines and British Airways. We need to put them in that circumstance. It is true-the figures are on the record-that $250m will be put into Australian Airlines as a first injection, and in the order of $650m into Qantas. It is also true that in relation to those proposition papers the people on this side have had a series of positions to put. Some say there ought to be no move towards privatisation; some say we might well consider that move. Having looked at the record, and if we are to face a budgetary decision, if we are trying to make decisions about spending in particular areas, a 49 per cent sell-off of Australian Airlines and Qantas and the possible merger of those two organisations to make them more competitive are propositions that I would look at, as an individual member of parliament. As a member of this Party I would have to say that that would be on my own agenda. Deliberations about that are going on within the Government, and they will continue. Having put that on the record, I must say that we are looking at this matter in terms of the business criteria involved-how we can make these organisations more efficient and more competitive. We have certainly done something in the statutory area in terms of changes to the legislation; we now have to do something in terms of the assets area. We also have to do something in the industrial relations area. I again remind the Opposition that we have a policy there, but I come back to what we are going to do about the asset backing of Australian Airlines and Qantas. These are questions that this Government has sought to address realistically, given that we have a budgetary target. We have the proposition of $250m coming from the private sector. Mind you, we on this side would say that if there were to be a move that way, we would not want to relinquish the sort of control we believe is essential in terms of airline management, whereas the Opposition seems to be prepared to go much further than that. I do not think the Australian people are prepared to let the Opposition go that far. It seems to me that a merger of Australian Airlines and Qantas would be feasible, to enable them to operate more effectively, but it also seems that a 49 per cent sell-off is a realistic proposition and one that we ought to look at. Clearly, though, there would need to be some provisions in relation to the Trade Practices Commission about ownership and market concentration. I, as an individual, say that those are propositions that ought to be seriously addressed, but they are matters for further debate and this Party is debating them. It is continuing to debate them bearing in mind that, first of all, we are about making the economy more efficient, we are about industry reform, we have a Budget that is now in surplus and we have in place an industrial relations policy which is working. We also have a situation in which industry in Australia is back at work. We have to say that. Despite what else can be said, Australia is back to work. In 1982 Australia was going out the door. Australia was heading towards becoming one of the underdeveloped countries of the world. Industry was going out the door. People were going out the door. Australia is back at work; business is back at work. People are back at work and the economy is on the move. This side continues to face a series of issues, and we will continue to debate them. One of those is the effectiveness of industry operation. The airlines industry is but one of the many industries concerned. The motor vehicle is another. We are examining the efficiency of a whole lot of industries, but I suggest that, much as I respect the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as an individual, he cannot come in with the series of propositions he put today without going over the Opposition's history and the logic of his argument. On those grounds the Opposition's argument is not credible. I do not say this in the context of some election campaign; I am simply saying it in terms of a calm debate here, because the policies do not link. The Opposition cannot talk about allocating Budget expenditures from increased revenue when it has forsaken that increased revenue because it will not go for the base broadening measures we have gone for in the tax area. It cannot do that. Opposition members cannot add a proposition that says, `Oh, you are high taxing PAYE taxpayers', when they were the people who went out of office with the 60c rate still in place. The marginal tax rates were very high. This is an interesting debate because it causes us to focus on the fundamentals. I think that that is always attractive to members of this House, but it is also interesting because it reveals that after five years members of the Opposition continue to be spectators in the economic debate instead of real participants. In the meantime this Government participates in the economic debate and has contributions to make. The record shows that those contributions have worked. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.45) —It seems to be my lot quite often to follow the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) in debate, but today was the first time that I have heard that honourable member sound forth, as do many of his colleagues, about how the efforts of this Government are leading the world in some respects. While I appreciate some of the things that he said, it would seem to me to be almost diabolical to think that what was being done by the Government at the moment was taking us into the realm of world leadership. I do not think that we are anywhere near that level. I wonder whether, if he went onto the highways and byways of Australia, had a yarn to some businessmen and made a close examination of some of the very real difficulties that Australia is facing at the moment-not the least of which is in its export efforts-some of the aspects of his speech would really hold true. One point that he did make in his speech was that this was a quiet debate about a number of varying principles that are taking some precedence in our community at the moment. I think we have a tremendous opportunity in this debate to focus on the whole issue of privatisation. I am delighted to speak in this debate and, indeed, to support the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), to the motion for the second reading of the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill, particularly as it concerns Australian Airlines and the lack of foresight of the Government at this stage to take the bit, go forward and sell that airline. I know that there is a lot of debate going on on the Government benches, but one would hope that the calm rationality that the honourable member for Stirling talked about this morning might prevail among some other members as well, and that they would see the very real need-in fact, the crucial need-for the Government to address matters such as the privatisation of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. In terms of privatisation, an awful lot of red herrings are being put around the community at the moment. The real facts are that nowhere is the Government's presence more disruptive or disturbing than when it supplies goods and services that could be offered much more effectively and efficiently by the private sector. Public corporations which restrict competition are the most obvious source of the over-extension of Government authority. Government intrusion into the marketplace is also seen in over-regulation of supposedly private enterprise. I suppose that the most striking example in Australia today is in the domestic airline industry. Admittedly, public enterprises exist to provide revenue to the Government. They are there to ensure the security of certain vital sections of the economy and to perform social functions such as health and welfare services. But public enterprises are also justified on the ground of protecting the public from exploitation and providing other goods and services which the public sector has no incentive to supply. But the real point is that in practice public entities are usually ineffective, as they distort price systems, allocate resources inefficiently and impose wasteful burdens on the national Treasury. That is exactly the situation that faces Australia at the moment in terms of Australian Airlines. Absence of a profit motive and access to the public treasury contribute to the problems of public corporations. Lack of competition is an especially vexing aspect of government intrusion into business, as it also means a limited choice for the consumer. In many areas the existence of a public corporation blocks the development of a wider range of goods and services that better meet consumer demands. The issue that we are debating today in terms of the Australian Airlines situation is not so much public versus private enterprise, but monopoly versus competition. That is the reason that the Opposition parties have taken this particular line in identifying Australian Airlines as one of the prime targets of privatisation. It is true, as the honourable member for Stirling has said, that the very structure of what was known as Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) over the years has been less than correct. In the 1940s, when the airline was first established, the capitalisation of the then Trans Australia Airlines was insufficient. That situation went from bad to worse under successive governments so that it now needs an injection of some $250m. Let us not forget that this proposed injection of $250m is not the first time that the public purse has had to help out Australian Airlines or TAA, as it was then called. There has been an injection of public funds before, simply to prop up its superannuation scheme. I wonder whether the Australian public realises what is going on. I wonder whether people would be particularly happy if they knew that their hard earned tax dollars were subsidising the cost of air fares for people who use the Australian air services. As I have said in this House before, only 16 per cent of Australians have travelled in an aeroplane. It is a pretty small section of the community that utilises that service. If we have a user pays principle, that is well and good, but the plain facts are that in Australia over the years we have not had a user pays principle in the operation of the government airline. Now we have a little bit of light on the hill down the track, but it will not be until the 1990s that we get a truly competitive, user pays principle applying in the airline industry. One of the things that we must be aware of is that if some people argue-and they do-about the high cost of air travel in Australia, the cost of that air travel must, in part, be pointed back to the structure of Australian Airlines. The Independent Air Fares Tribunal was established some years ago under the coalition Government to make sure that people were not overcharged and to set the prices of air travel in Australia. But what happened? Air fares in Australia had to be set to cover the operating costs and everything else that was involved by the least efficient carrier. Mr Shack —Cost plus. Mr JULL —Yes, cost plus. The plain facts-it was not too much its own fault-were that Australian Airlines, or TAA as it was then, was the least efficient operation. Those fares were set to cover the TAA situation. One might ask what happened in the case of Ansett Airlines of Australia. Since the takeover of Ansett Transport Industries one of the things that I find very hard to gain any knowledge of is the profit made by the Ansett Airlines division of Ansett Transport Industries. I defy anybody to go through an Ansett annual report and dig out or verify the profit of the airline operation. There are all sorts of figures floating around-for example, that last year Ansett made anything from $60m to $120m profit, or somewhere above or below that amount. While Australian Airlines is going through a bit of a purple patch at the moment and is producing profits, the plain fact is that Ansett Airlines is laughing all the way to the bank. Nobody on this side of the House is going to argue about a private enterprise being efficient and making a profit. I put on the record that I have a great deal of admiration for Ansett Airlines. In terms of its domestic operations, it is one of the best in the world. The expansion of the Ansett organisation has been spectacular. It is now perceived as being one of the world leaders in aviation business. But that has been done at a very real cost to the Australian travelling public. Ansett has benefited so well from our system in recent years. One could perhaps argue that that is well and good. But the travelling public of Australia have been very restricted. They have been paying fares that I believe have been far too high. Most importantly, as I said before, that competitive edge-the provision of new services-in the Australian aviation industry has been stifled because of the situation that exists now. A number of people in our community have already expressed very great concern about the recent takeovers by Ansett of some of the lesser carriers. The one that has caused most concern in this House-particularly to members of the National Party of Australia-is in regard to the future of East-West Airlines. Ansett has already said that East-West Airlines will be its low fare carrier, specialising in the tourist industry. That could well happen. But at this stage we have no real evidence that we are going to see any dramatic reduction in the cost of getting around Australia, whether it be for domestic or international tourists, or perhaps for somebody in business who wants to save some money and take advantage of a lower fare regime. We have no vision of when such a regime might come into operation. It could be more than a decade down the track. That is the point that worries me. I believe that the Government and its various factions should be looking very closely at trying to get their act together on what the future of Australian Airlines is going to be. If cool heads prevail on the Government side there is no option other than to look towards the privatisation of Australian Airlines so that we can get ourselves back into the mainstream of the world aviation business. We have argued in this place before about the effects of deregulation in the United States of America. A lot of red herrings are floated around. In a recent debate one member of the Opposition said that deregulation in the United States had been a terrible thing, that safety standards had gone out of the window and all the rest of it. That does not really stand up to the statistics. The United States has had a safer air regime since deregulation there. Fewer people have been killed in air crashes in the United States in the last 10 years of deregulation than ever before. In the United States suddenly air travel has become available to the public. I mentioned a moment ago that only 16 per cent of Australians had ever flown in an aircraft. The principal reason that that figure is so low is the cost. As has been proved in the United States, people will fly if the fares are right. We can look beyond the United States to other highly protective regimes such as the countries of the European Economic Community. The countries of Europe have had very high air fares. But what is happening now? We are seeing a breakdown of that as well. Already there has been major deregulation on routes such as London to Amsterdam. The fares have dropped dramatically. One of the major achievements of the Japanese Government in recent years has been the privatisation of Japan Airlines. Japan Airlines was a big and cumbersome government instrumentality that had protection on its various routes, was designated virtually as the sole international carrier and, although it was a very fine airline, bumbled along. Only 12 months ago Japan Airlines was freed from the restrictions of government. What has happened? All of a sudden, Japan Airlines has become highly profitable. It has been allowed to finance its own aircraft acquisitions and to diversify into various industries. It now has a huge hotel and resort division. It is going into all sorts of technical areas which are proving to be highly popular. In terms of research and development the airline is one of the leaders of Japan. It might be difficult, too, to compare the Japanese national railway system with that of Australia, but the railway system in Japan has been the other interesting example of privatisation. Twelve months ago Japan National Railways (JNR) was privatised. The railway system was split into six networks, all but one of which have proved to be highly profitable. JNR has been able to diversify its activities and get into all sorts of other areas, which is resulting in a better and cheaper service for the user. In the first 12 months the only division of Japan National Railways still not to show a profit is the freight division, but it looks as though it will probably come into the black during the next 12 months. There is room for the privatisation debate to be extended in Australia beyond just Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, which are currently taking the headlines. I believe that everybody in this place, no matter what party he represents, should be thinking very carefully about the effect of the intrusion of government into so many areas which exist to serve the public, and to serve the public at the right price. We should be prepared to be flexible enough in our thinking to study fully so many of the sacred cows we have been taking for granted that could go out into the private sector and deliver a better and cheaper service. That is really what government is all about. We are here to serve the best interests of the people. I doubt whether some of the things we have been doing traditionally over the last 10 or 20 years have been in those best interests. While the revolutionary fervour regarding privatisation is abroad, certainly on this side of the chamber but also in a fair section of the Government, let us make the most of it and see whether we can meet our true commitments to providing services that are efficiently produced and economically priced for the people of Australia. With those words it gives me very great pleasure to second the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong. I sincerely hope that Government members, or the two Government members who are in the chamber now, are prepared to consider the amendment and take its spirit to heart. In the interests of all Australians, we might be able to get away from some of the ideological rhetoric and get down to the business of providing cheap, decent and profit- able services for the people of Australia-I know that it might hurt some of the Government members-even if it has to be through the private sector. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.02) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, said that we needed to get away from the ideological battles on this issue, yet his whole argument was based on ideological statements and suppositions. When one is dealing with the concrete world of the real economy one has to ask whether the performance of the private sector, which the honourable member eulogised and supported throughout his speech, has been as laudable as he claimed-indeed, whether it has been even reasonable. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to this chamber that the investment performance of the private sector in recent times, which is the key issue, has been very poor. It has been poor in circumstances in which it should have been much better, that is, in circumstances in which the wages of workers have been reduced, and profits have increased substantially, in real terms. In that context one might have expected an increase in investment and in the investment performance of enterprises in Australia. So before we eulogise the private sector we have to ask whether all the theoretical nonsense put forward, the ideological claim, about the wonderful performance of the private sector and the supposedly bad performance of the public sector-I will come to that point in a little while-has any substance in reality. If one looks at the performance of the private sector and at investment patterns in a number of countries one sees that there are serious problems in private sector investment in the Western world at the moment, and in Australia in particular. This is occurring in a context in which it is not justified. It is not justified because, on the one hand, there has been increasing profitability and, on the other hand, there has been an increase in the wealth of individuals who own companies through the imputation of company dividends, where companies do not pay tax on the wealth they accumulate and through other tax measures. Why is enough of this accumulated wealth not being reinvested, especially in manufacturing but in industry generally? That is an issue which those people who begin with the premise of eulogising the private sector ought to be able to answer. They have not been able to answer it. They ought to look at whether they are just simply making ideological or theoretical statements about the supposed role of the private sector as distinct from the actual concrete performance. A similar thing in reverse terms applies in relation to the public sector. We hear many attacks on the Australian public sector. There have been claims about inefficiency, claims about how it can never deliver the goods and claims about its profitability in the case of public enterprises. Most of the claims that are made are false and are not based on fact. Anyone who has travelled around the world and who compares the performance of the Australian public sector with many of the other public sectors around the world will see something which is not admitted by our opponents, but which we ought to look at in cold terms. The Australian public sector's performance stands up. The Australian public sector has been positive in its performance. There are some exceptions, of course there are, but in overall terms when we compare the efficiency of private and public sector operations in Australia, especially the efficiency of private and public companies, and even if we use criteria of the levels of return, the fact of the matter is that many Australian public corporations have performed very well. The problem is-we readily admit this-the restrictions which in the past have been imposed on public corporations. These restrictions were imposed on Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and on many of our other corporations. As a result of those restrictions those corporations have got themselves into trouble. That will be a key part of the privatisation debate which seems to have been initiated here in this chamber today. Let me make it perfectly clear that it is not enough to make wild statements about inefficiency of enterprises, we have to support those statements with the evidence and the history of those corporations. If we look at Australian Airlines and compare it with Ansett Airlines of Australia we see that Ansett has not had any of the restrictions which have been imposed on Australian Airlines in terms of its borrowing capacity. Imagine any company, whether public or private, that has severe restrictions placed on its capacity to expand and on its borrowing capacities. Obviously it cannot compete in a proper fashion. This is what has happened in the past to Australian Airlines and to Qantas. As a result of these restrictions and other rules and regulations that are imposed on those enterprises in terms of their performance, their situation has deteriorated. Leaving aside Australian Airlines for the moment, if we look at the other major public corporations we see that in some cases their performance has been excellent, in other cases it has been good and we have had problems in only a few cases. In the case of Australian Airlines, as I said, problems have been imposed by undue and unnecessary restrictions on capital raisings, on its borrowing capacity and on its capacity to expand when required. There have been excessive regulations in the requirements of those enterprises. We all recognise that. That is something that is accepted on this side of the House-the need for more flexibility and the need for public enterprises to be able to go out and compete in the general environment. But to accept all this is a very different proposition from accepting the selling off of enterprises. The amendment moved by the Opposition is that Australian Airlines should be sold off. Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden, one would think that this was a panacea for the problems of Australian Airlines, that this was going to solve all its problems and was going to create some wonderful environment for airline flight in Australia. This is just utter nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the problems that have arisen in the aviation industry are much more complex than that. They do not have to do with the fact that there is one publicly owned airline. That is not the cause of all the problems. Some of the problems have been caused by the nature and operation of the two-airline policy-everyone admits that-the way in which it was imposed and the rules and regulations that went with it. But that is very different from saying that what is required is to sell off Australian Airlines because if Australian Airlines is sold off what will be the positive benefit? First of all we have to ask: Where would the money be coming from in terms of purchasing the shares in Australian Airlines? Obviously if Australian Airlines is worth a few hundred million dollars, or perhaps more than $1 billion-which obviously it is-those who are buying it will have to borrow money. If they borrow money from overseas, what happens? It means that our overseas debt will increase. Mr Beale —Gross debt. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Our overseas debt increases. The honourable member should just follow the argument because he needs to learn a lot about this privatisation issue. If our overseas debt increases, how does that help the economy? I thought that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do at the moment is to reduce our overseas debt. One might say, `All right, it is not going to be taken out of overseas debt, it is going to be taken out of Australia'. Well, if we take out $1 billion from the Australian capital market just so that people can buy shares in Australian Airlines so as to privatise it, that means that all that money which could have gone into investment, new enterprises and new jobs is not going to go into that investment but will go into effectively moving an existent operation from the public sector to the private sector. We still have that same operation but we miss out on all the money which could have been used for investment in other purposes. What is the net benefit? Further, if Australian Airlines needs a $250m capital injection, whoever buys it will still have to put in that capital injection. So that capital injection still has to be found, whether it is in the private or public sector. Can anyone explain to me how all this makes economic sense in terms of taking all that money out of an existent operation to transfer it from the public to the private sector? What will it achieve? It is clearly a situation which obviously needs to be argued out a bit more than what we have heard from the Opposition. Let me ask those opposite the following question: `Why not sustain Australian Airlines as a public enterprise and give it the power to really compete?'. That is the question that needs to be asked. I believe that if Australian Airlines were put into that position, not only would it be able to compete, and efficiently, but also it would be able to make a reasonable profit and deliver a service to the Australian people at a reasonable price. Contrary to what the previous speaker tried to suggest, the cost of airline flight in Australia has in no way been caused by the fact that we have a public corporation in Australian Airlines. The cost of fares has a lot to do with the cross-subsidisation problem because people flying on longer routes have to be subsidised by people flying on shorter routes. That is not something which we would want to take away. This is an important matter in a continent like ours where we have places such as Perth which is far away. You would know about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely we do not want to get rid of this cross-subsidisation situation and say to the airlines, `Well, if it only costs a certain amount to fly somebody from Canberra to Melbourne, that is the price he will pay'. Forget about the poor fellow that has to try to fly from Perth to Melbourne or from Perth to Sydney. Obviously, we would not want to get rid of that situation because we would then be in a very serious position in relation to the servicing of this continent. It is time we recognised that we have a vast continent with few people, and infrastructure, including airline infrastructure, is very important, just as telecommunications are very important. I am surprised, for example, that the members of the National Party of Australia are going to support the proposition put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If we sell Australian Airlines it will not be very long before the cross-subsidisation policy will disappear and country people, people in the far regions of Australia, will have to pay exorbitant fares to fly on airlines. If that is what members of the National Party want they do not represent the interests of the country people. They ought to reject the proposal put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is all right for the Deputy Leader, coming from Kooyong in Melbourne. It will suit his purposes to be able to fly from Canberra to Melbourne at a cheaper rate, but what about the poor fellow who is living in a country town in the far reaches of Australia? What effect will these arrangements have on that person? Another important reason why public enterprise ought to be involved in the aviation industry is that in such a vast continent physical infrastructure, including airline infrastructure, is a key issue. We are not a very small country where one can fly wherever one wants. Airlines are a key part of the infrastructure because of the size of this country and the geographical distribution of the people. It is because of that that we have a public interest in the outcome of the airline industry and that public interest needs to be supported. That public interest should be supported by ensuring that there is a public company that can compete with the other airlines. What will we get with the forthcoming deregulation of the airline system? If people want to establish airlines they will be free to do so and to compete with the government airline. But if we get rid of the government airline we might end up with two companies supposedly in competition with one another. What will happen if they collude? A previous speaker in this debate talked about the airline industry in the United States of America. The US has more than 200 million people. Obviously it can sustain a number of airlines. It can ensure genuine competition among a number of airlines. Do honourable members think that if we had two private enterprise airlines-since obviously Australia is not big enough to sustain five or six airlines-we would be able to ensure genuine competition between them? I do not believe so. But if we have a publicly owned company, whose charter it is to compete on a proper basis with private airlines, we can ensure that any attempt at collusion is broken and we can achieve the very goals we are aiming for, which are cheaper air fares and a better service for the Australian people. If there are people who want to get involved in establishing alternative airlines they will have their chance in a little while when the deregulation policy goes through. Why should they want to take over Australian Airlines, a publicly owned enterprise whose purpose is to keep the others honest, to ensure that there will not be any collusion? That will be the situation in a deregulated environment. I put it to the people who are thinking about selling off parts of Australian Airlines that, leaving aside the fact that the economic arguments for privatisation are foolish and ought to be rejected, firstly, there are social arguments for our being involved as a government through the public sector in the airline industry; and, secondly, we can ensure that competition among whatever airlines are going to exist under the deregulated environment is genuine by ensuring that at least one of the carriers is a public enterprise. It is a very similar situation to that of the banks. The Commonwealth Bank plays a very important role within the banking system. If the Commonwealth Bank were sold off we would be in a position where the other banks could collude, and that collusion could be the destruction of the banking system in terms of its delivery of services. I support the Bill. I totally reject the amendment moved by the Opposition and I suggest that it is time for us to rethink much of the ideological rubbish that has been put forward as fact by those supposedly supporting the privatisation of government enterprises. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.21) —There are times when I feel rather sorry for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He has to put up with the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who comes in here today to debate the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill and says that public enterprises should not be eliminated, that Australian Airlines should not be sold. Yet two weeks ago he voted for the legislation to sell 50 per cent of Australian Airlines, and so did other members of the Left. One gets very confused. I am sorry for the Prime Minister. I know the problem he has with members of his Government-we read about it daily in the Press-about whether the Government is going to privatise certain public interests throughout Australia. I do not think the Prime Minister will have any trouble with privatising Australian Airlines. I believe that he will succeed because people like the honourable member for Calwell will come into the House and vote for what the Government puts up. It appears to me that the Government intends to go ahead with its privatisation policy. Not only is the Government talking about selling Australian Airlines, it is also going to have a go at Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian National Line and Australian National, the railway. It is this Government's policy to proceed along those lines. The Australian Labor Party will meet at its conference in July and we will see how good the honourable member for Calwell and other members of the Left are. Will they be able to convince the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and other people on the Right or the Centre Left that they should not privatise public utilities? The outcome will be interesting. While all this proceeds, the Australian aviation industry does not know where it is going. It does not know where it is going because of the attitude of certain members of the Government. Does Australian Airlines proceed to invest? Does the Government continue to back it up financially so that it can operate efficiently? What is the attitude of Qantas? Does Qantas intend to pick up and put down here, to travel the domestic, the interstate, routes of Australia? Where does it stand? What is the attitude of Australian National and the Australian National Line? That is what really matters. Let me finish this point by commenting on the comments of the honourable member for Calwell. He began by criticising the poor investment of private enterprise in industry and its expansion in Australia. There is only one reason why it is so poor, and I will tell honourable members why. It has not got confidence in this Government or the confidence to borrow money and to invest it in industry expansion in this country simply because of our national debt of $105 billion. With our inflationary trends, interest rates and the balance of trade, that have not been helped by yesterday's announcement, is it any wonder that private industry has not got the confidence to go ahead? It has to be given that confidence; that is important. There are Ministers of the Government and members on the Government side who are genuinely trying to get Australia back on the road. I believe the Treasurer is genuinely trying, but there are certain principles of policy that must be met, and this country has to get back to work. Only one thing will get us out of our economic problems and that is efficient productivity in industry. I know that this is a wide-ranging debate, simply because of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). We on this side of the House support the amendment because it is important. The fact is that the legislation before the House supports the levy that is being brought about by the legislation that we passed here a few weeks ago. We have to look at the privatisation of public utilities in Australia in a sensible light. I concur with the honourable member for Calwell that we have to consider cross-subsidisation, particularly with airlines and transport generally, but this can be allowed for. The Government may not want completely to sell out Australian Airlines. It has taken the proper step, the step which we took when in government in 1981. But this Government put the legislation aside and said it was not needed. Now it has brought in almost identical legislation. We allowed for the little investor. If the Government is concerned about who is going to buy 50 per cent of the shares that are for sale in Australian Airlines, it should always be concerned to ensure that the person to whom it gives the opportunity to buy shares is the little Australian investor, the working man out in the field. He may have only a little to spare, and if he has $500 or $1,000 to buy shares in a public utility, he should have that opportunity. Do not always think that it is the Japanese or some other overseas investor who will get the opportunity to buy up our interests. Do not forget that it is this Government's Treasurer who has opened up the door to foreign investment in this country. There are now far more Japanese, German and American funds coming into Australia to purchase real estate and shares than ever before. I am sorry that because of the action that this Government has taken, which I personally and the other members of the Opposition certainly do not condemn, but which is a reality, its policies are going to be torn apart. They will be retarded simply because the philosophy of the people on the Left-I am sorry the Government has the Left-and possibly the Centre Left does not concur with the attitude of certain members of the Right. No leader of any political party, particularly when in government, can lead a government that is divided into two or three sections. That is exactly what is happening today with this Government. The Prime Minister has to contend with this. Instead of being able to focus his attention on those matters of basic national interest to Australia, he has to divert much of his time to try to quieten down the people who are opposing him within his own political regime. Mr Millar —They will take the soft options. Mr COWAN —What the honourable member for Wide Bay says is right. Let us look quickly at the history of Australia. This is our bicentennial year. Ever since the turn of the century governments have had a responsibility to establish public utilities and services. It has been necessary over the past 100 years or more to cater for the wide geographical situation that demands this type of attention. Commonwealth and State governments have had to attend to this and have had to provide, from the public purse, the services that were necessary to cater particularly for the widespread country areas of Australia. This has been done. We have done a very good job as far as transportation by our railways, roads and airways is concerned. We could all criticise them, but I will not because I think that the Australian taxpayer realises that we have built Australia up to the crescendo we are now at, where we can compete with the rest of the world in industry and transport. We have to if we are going to export. We have heard debated in the House this morning that the airlines of Australia have to compete with overseas airlines that are bringing people here. Qantas cannot be protected forever. Ansett does not want to be protected because it has the get up and go attitude built within it. Australian Airlines has to compete with Ansett, and that is what is concerning the Government. These services have been built up within Australia but we have now reached the stage where whichever party is in power has to look at privatising part or all of the public utilities that we have. A while ago I mentioned cross-subsidisation. Built into the policy of the Party that I represent here would be a commonsense attitude to the necessities arising to cross-subsidise some parts of public utilities. It might be in the telecommunications area, in Australia Post, in Qantas, in the Australian National Line or in Australian Airlines, but that attitude is there to ensure that certain people in this country are not being disadvantaged. But where we can, we have to look selectively, on a proper basis, to see what part of the public utilities can be privatised and given out to the Australian people who have the money to invest in something within Australia. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is in competition with other banks. I do not worry much about that, but there would be nothing wrong with selling off an interest in the Commonwealth Bank to its staff and other people. Why should that not happen? Why should Australian Airlines be a public utility? Why should it be half-owned by the Australian people? This Government is destined, due to its policies, to build up its social security payments to what it believes are the underprivileged people of Australia. If that is its policy, we accept that. But if the Government is going to continue with this, even with its high taxation methods, even with its new initiatives on capital gains, fringe benefits and the tax on superannuation, even with the legislation that was before the House yesterday, even with the benefit of those extra billions of dollars-I think the honourable member for Kooyong said this morning that there should be a Budget surplus at the end of this financial year of $2 billion-it will find that it will probably not be able to commit itself to spend what it wants as far as social security is concerned. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wish to sell part of the public utilities in Australia so that the Government does not have to prop them up, that would appear to me to be a natural way of looking at policy over the years to come. So it is that if Australian Airlines is to compete with Ansett within Australia it has to be made efficient. The Government has to provide it with the money. It has to give the airline's board the initiative to create the efficiency to supply a service that is efficient and economic for the Australian travelling public. Those are the two basic things the Government must look at-providing services, and that they be economic services at reasonable prices for the consumer. That is why the amendment is before the House today. I solidly support that and I ask the Government to consider it seriously. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.36) —The last couple of contributions I have sat through from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) have tended to concentrate a great deal on the question of privatisation, whether Australian Airlines should be retained in public ownership or whether it should be privatised and parts offered for sale to employees or to the general public. Obviously, it is a subject that has exercised the minds of a number of people in recent weeks within this place and certainly without. Many comments have been made, and a number of journalists have been kept fairly busy trying to suss out the real situation or the real attitude inside the Federal Government towards privatisation. They are probably still guessing, and the resolution of that will come towards the middle of this year. It is a subject I will return to shortly as part of my contribution this morning. However, we need to re-establish just what we are talking about within this debate. The Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill provides for a technical amendment to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 which will be required as a consequence of the passage of the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. I would like to take up just one point in the contribution by the honourable member for Lyne on that issue. I think the honourable member was a little confused about what the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 actually does. He talked about the fact that this Government and the honourable member for Calwell had voted to allow 50 per cent of the airline to be sold through the passage of that Bill. That is not true. That Bill simply created Australian Airlines as a public company and removed a number of the statutory controls on that company that presently exist. Of course, the Bill comes into effect on 31 March this year. It will improve the efficiency of Australian Airlines by removing a number of controls that presently exist and the necessity of having to seek support from government or the imprimatur of government and Ministers on some day to day decisions the airline has to make. This is an issue I debated during the passage of the Bill and I do not propose to touch on it any further except to say to the honourable member for Lyne that he is a little confused as to the content of that Bill as it was debated, and what it means. The amendments we are talking about in this Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth borrowing levy will continue to apply to Australian Airlines and its wholly owned subsidiaries even after the airline itself has converted to a public company through the passage of the earlier Bill. People have to recognise that the Commonwealth borrowing levy is actually imposed on borrowings by all Commonwealth semi-government authorities and government owned companies other than those engaged in business and financial intermediation. This Bill will ensure that revenue of the order of $1.3m, based on 1987 figures, is raised through this levy and that the changed legal structure of Australian Airlines will not be affected in any way by the imposition of this levy. Having said what this Bill seeks to do, I think it is political in the extreme that the honourable member for Kooyong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), put forward an amendment to the motion which obviously seeks to embarrass the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and this Government about the debate that is presently under way within the Australian Labor Party on the whole issue of privatisation, and specifically the question of Australian Airlines. What has to be said, and it has been said by the Prime Minister and others on this side of the House in this place, is that we within the Labor Party are not afraid of debate on issues of major concern and significance to the Australian people. We provide for that debate within our party structure. We provide at the most basic level, within local branches, the opportunity for people to express a view-they are, after all, the average persons within our respective electorates. We then convene State conferences of the Party to consider measures of State significance, philosophical issues that the Labor Party believes as a party it must fairly represent. Finally, of course, every two years the Labor Party has a national conference where issues affecting the national platform and policy of the Australian Labor Party are debated, in some instances changed and in others simply left as they are. The issue of privatisation of publicly owned instrumentalities, including Australian Airlines that we are considering during the debate on this Bill, is one that has captured the imagination of many people, to which I have already made reference. But I do not think that the honour- able member for Lyne has correctly represented the Government's position at this time. In fact, I think he has somewhat misrepresented not only the Government's position but also the position of the Australian Labor Party. It is often the wont of the conservatives in this country to point the finger at the left wing of the Australian Labor Party and suggest that anything that faction might care to raise as an issue is lunatic, is on the far-out of Australian politics and therefore has no credence. I refer the honourable member for Lyne to statements that have been made variously by people within the Australian Labor Party including John MacBean, the President of the Labor Party in New South Wales, certainly not a left winger, and a number of other notable people about the issue of privatisation. I point out also to the honourable member the position that was unanimously adopted by the administrative committee of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party on the question of privatisation-that was opposition. If the honourable member had any knowledge of the operations of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party-as he comes from New South Wales I am sure he does-he would quickly see that the views expressed in the resolution of opposition are not those of a lunatic left fringe within the Party but indeed a consensus position arrived at by all members of the Party in New South Wales. Australian Airlines as it stands today has to be commended. I say this especially with reference to a media release issued on 24 February 1988 headed `Profitable First Half Year for Australian Airlines'. In that Press release Australian Airlines announced a consolidated group profit from all sources of $42.5m for the first six months to 31 December 1987, which represented an increase of 32.3 per cent over the corresponding period in 1986. That says something about the operation of a publicly owned company. We have heard people say that one of the basic rationales for having Australian Airlines privatised is that it gives the company the opportunity to bring in whiz-bang people from the financial sector or from the business community who can do a better job than those already employed by Australian Airlines. The profit levels that have accrued to Australian Airlines in the first half of this financial year, I suggest, give the lie to the concern that people have put forward and suggest also that publicly owned companies can operate just as efficiently by remaining publicly owned as they can if they are privatised or sold. There is no question that some of the service being offered by Australian Airlines has been rationalised. Throughout Australia, since the inception of airline services a number of ports serviced by various airlines have been rationalised. However, that is simply a matter of economics and a question of a public enterprise and a private enterprise-Ansett Airlines of Australia-responding to market forces. Trans Australian Airlines, as it was then, now Australian Airlines, responded to those market forces in the same manner as the Thomas National Transport Ltd group did through Ansett Airlines. The total furphy that publicly-owned airlines or publicly-owned enterprises cannot function as efficiently as those in the private sector skirts around the basic issue. This probably says something about those who are at the moment on the board of Australian Airlines, in particular the General Manager. I defy anybody from the conservative side to suggest that James Strong has done anything but a marvellous job for Australian Airlines since taking up his position. I should think also that, although there would not be too many members on this side of the House who applauded his appointment initially, they would have since acknowledged the effect that his appointment has had. We also have to look at some of the questions that surround Australian Airlines, and the removal of government controls that have been implemented, to get a real feel for this headlong rush towards privatisation, of selling to shareholders of a particular company or to the general public, and to determine why it might be beneficial. We have to examine the statement of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in October last year when he announced the Government's decision to remove a whole series of controls over such matters as all but exceptional significant expenditure decisions, detailed terms and conditions of borrowing and leasing arrangements, investment of surplus money, choice of auditor, dividend recommendations, and the provision of insurance against risk. All those matters are simple business transactions that take effect whether a company is a public company or a private company. Additionally, as I indicated earlier, the Government introduced the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 whereby a public company has been created and many of the controls lifted. The Government, through its structural adjustment committee of Cabinet, is giving consideration to removing a number of broad controls that also exist over Australian Airlines, as they exist with a number of other public enterprises. This action will free the company up and, at the same time, will retain it in public ownership. We are talking about such issues as borrowings being subject to Loan Council considerations, and the remuneration of board members and senior executives being determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Obviously that matter is of concern to those who are with Australian Airlines at the moment. Further issues include industrial relations arrangements being subject to Government oversight and coordination and restrictions on superannuation arrangements. All those issues have been or are being addressed by the Government. So far as the financial situation is concerned, the honourable member for Lyne commented that a public company requires an injection of government finances all the time to keep the company afloat. Again that is a slight misrepresentation of the facts. Interestingly enough, the last capital injection into Australian Airlines was of the order of $115m in 1982-83. That injection was made not by this Government but by a conservative government led by Malcolm Fraser and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I wonder whether that decision was taken on the basis of that Government's having to do something about a public company or whether at that stage the consideration was: `Yes, this company is in a little trouble'-as it was in the early 1980s-`so why do we not flog it off now? We are the great believers in privatisation and private enterprise'. Why was it not done then if the Opposition is so gung ho about the issue now? I hope that, if any Opposition member follows me in this debate, he might care to answer that particular question. This Government has not made an injection of finance since 1982-83, which indicates that this Government is not lending to Australian Airlines in any way at all. The Government acts as a guarantor of borrowings of the company in a truly deregulated, normal and commercial sense, which is advantageous. I see nothing wrong with that practice. The two-airline policy was, again, of the making of the conservative parties in this House. The Australian Labor Party did not put that policy in place. The Government did not enshrine the policy of only two airlines operating in Australia. Yet the Opposition talks about having to sell off the company that the Australian people already own. By virtue of the fact that we can act as guarantor for the finances of that company, it has been kept afloat and a monopoly situation has been prevented from developing in this country, with Australian Airlines going under and being subjected to total dominance by companies such as the Ansett group of companies. Mr Beale —What absolute rubbish! The same guarantee applies with Ansett. Mr MARTIN —I suggest to the shadow Minister at the table, who endeavoured to interject a moment ago, that he provide clarification of the position that the Opposition will adopt once the deregulation of the airline industry takes place in 1990. He is holding up the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but a simple sentence such as that does not carry much weight in the absence of a firm policy. We would like to know what that might be. To summarise this legislation, what we have witnessed is concern being expressed yet again by the Government that for a publicly-operated company to be able to continue to compete effectively and efficiently in a truly deregulated and competitive environment and at the same time remain under public control requires the removal of some government controls and regulations. This Bill seeks to do that. It is complementary to a Bill that was debated in this House recently, and passed. With the creation of Australian Airlines as a public company on 31 March we will see a more viable, stronger airline being able to compete effectively with the Ansett group and, at the same time, being part and parcel of the Australian scene in terms of being publicly owned. I advise the honourable member for Lyne that it will take a lot more than some of the arguments he put to me to convince me that there is a need to step back from the position that exists currently within Australian Labor Party policy about the public ownership of Australian Airlines. However, I might be persuaded by or entertained to consider the proposition that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), my neighbour from the Illawarra, is presently running with; that is, looking at the viability of combining both Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines in such a manner that an overseas carrier could operate as a domestic carrier in the deregulated environment that will come in 1990. That proposition may have some attractive features, but again I remain to be convinced about it. However, the Government should address it, which I am sure it will, in the proper forums that exist-through the Government's committee structures and so on. I am sure that, once that consideration has taken place, without the glaring headlines and the criticisms of the Party for discussing issues of great significance for the Australian public, the Government will have achieved an effective policy that will clearly reflect the desires, wishes and requirements of the Australian public. I join with my colleagues in rejecting the attempt by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to politicise statements attributed to the Prime Minister about privatisation, particularly as they affect Australian Airlines. I suggest that as time goes by we will see the wisdom of the decisions that this Government and this Party ultimately will make. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(11.56) —I wish to speak to the Opposition amendment in relation to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill, which in part is in the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House endorses the sale of Australian Airlines, and therefore supports the Prime Minister's statement that ``I believe that an Australian Airlines, whether totally in private hands or an Australian Airlines with a significant private holding, with therefore correspondingly diminished demands upon public resources, could perform the function of Australian Airlines at least as well as they are now and, I would say, arguably, better'' '. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which is rather unusual because there are not many issues on which I agree with him. I wish to give five reasons as to why I agree with him. If one looks at the situation of Australian Airlines now, after many years of government control, one finds an organisation that is really struggling to compete. First, if one looks at the corporate structure of Australian Airlines compared with that of its competitor, Ansett Airlines of Australia, one sees a glaring difference. Ansett has a broad corporate structure with airline passenger, airline freight, road passenger, road freight; general trading; manufacturing; hotel, resort, and restaurant operations; insurance interests; furniture insurance; furniture removal and other associated companies. By comparison, Australian Airlines, the Government controlled airline, has a very narrow corporate structure with airline passenger, airline freight, Hertz Rent-a-Car and two tourist resorts-hardly an equal competitor. The second reason why I support the Prime Minister's statement and support the amendment is that, if again one compares the two companies, one sees that Australian Airlines has fared very badly with its network base, that is, its feeder aircraft system which is very important to any domestic carrier. Ansett Airlines controls Air Western Australia, Air New South Wales, Skywest New South Wales, Skywest Western Australia, Kendall Airlines, Lloyd Airlines and, through a parent company, Bodas, controls Aeropelican. Australian Airlines has a fairly sad record. Two years ago it bought Air Queensland for $9m. That has gone broke and the company has closed it down. The third reason why I support the Prime Minister's statement and support the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is the government constraints that exist on Australian Airlines. If one listened only to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), one would think that there were virtually no constraints now on Australian Airlines. The fact is that Australian Airlines still needs Loan Council approval for major equipment purposes; the Government still has discretion to alter profit objectives, and as a Federal organisation Australian Airlines is excluded from some intrastate routes. The remuneration of board members can be influenced by tribunals, and the broader government policies on industrial relations may hamper operations of Australian Airlines. This was tellingly revealed in the briefing document that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) gave to Caucus. He raised several points. They were that during lengthy disputes Ansett has achieved an earlier return to work, while Australian finalises Government approval, that the negotiating status of airline management is diminished through unions' knowledge that Government approval is required; and that the arrangements reinforce the Public Service image of the airlines and, most importantly, they restrict the ability of airline management to respond directly to industrial issues. These are the constraints still on Australian Airlines by virtue of its public control. The fourth reason that I agree with the Prime Minister's statement and support the amendment is that an examination of the structure of the two airlines is also telling. Australian Airlines has nine government appointees who are appointed for five years at a time with average length of service 3.8 years; three out of nine have a strong background in aviation or transport. When one compares that with its competitor, one sees that it does not have those government constraints. Ansett has 11 directors with average service of 9.2 years, 2 1/2 times that of Australian. Some nine out of the 11 directors have a strong background in transport or aviation. There are seven alternates who stand in for directors. These people have an average length of service of 6.1 years-still vastly greater than Australian. Five of those seven have a strong background in transport or aviation. The fifth reason that I support the Prime Minister's statement and the Opposition's amendment is on the basis of efficiency: I have listened to every Labor member talk in this debate and query whether there is any evidence that efficiency in a public company is different from that of a private company. The honourable member for Macarthur called it a furphy. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) made several statements which I shall mention in a moment. But the efficiency of the two airlines has been looked at. The May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation in an appendix put in a report by the firm of accountants Travers Morgan Pty Ltd. It looked specifically at the relative efficiency of the two airlines, and specifically at five measures. In those five measures Australian came out on top in only one. The five measures were aircraft utilisation, in which Australian because it was strapped for cash used its aircraft more than Ansett. But in regard to the other parameters, such as unit cost, which is cost per passenger kilometre, Australian Airlines cost 10.5 per cent more for every passenger kilometre travelled. In regard to passenger revenue yield, the revenue per passenger kilometre saw Australian 15 per cent lower than Ansett. In terms of labour productivity Australian was 8 per cent lower than Ansett. In profitability Ansett was 9 per cent, Australian 5.1 per cent. Those differences will not be changed by altering a few of the controls that government has over the public airline and leaving the majority still intact. The honourable member for Calwell raised several points to which I should like to respond. First, he spoke of the poor performance of private sector investment and challenged the Opposition to provide some reason for this. It is true that private sector investment as a percentage of gross domestic product is at its lowest level since the 1950s. The honourable member for Calwell raised two points. He said that the profitability of companies was up and the wealth of individuals was up. He said that those who eulogise the private sector should answer why we have a low private investment performance. I shall give him two answers. The first is that in the 1985-86 figures for company after-tax income-the most recent figures we have-the level is still below any year in the 1970s. With company tax increased by this Government, investment will continue to remain low. The second reason why investment is low is found when one looks at rates of return of business, which perhaps are a better indicator to private sector investment. Statement No. 2 of the 1987 Budget Papers conveniently omitted the fact that rates of return for private companies are much lower than they were in the 1960s or in the early 1970s and the risk now is much higher than it was previously. This is the reason why the private sector is not investing. The honourable member for Calwell mentioned that the Opposition was making wild statements about the inefficiency of the public sector. He said any comparison showing that the public sector was less efficient than the private sector was false, had no substance in reality and was not based on fact. I suggest that the honourable member should go a little further and read something other than his Australian Labor Party briefing notes. He may care to read anything by David Davies of Duke University, Peter Forsyth of the University of New South Wales, Richard Hocking of the University of Melbourne, Michael Kirby and Robert Albon of the Australian National University-not writing Labor Party briefing notes, but writing in the Economic Record or the US Journal of Law Economics-who, writing over a period of 18 years, have examined the relative efficiencies of Australian Airlines and Ansett. These two airlines, in economic terms, are called twins-they are very rare in the world-where there is one public and one private company operating within similar environments with similar constraints. Every writer in the economic literature over a period of 18 years has come to the same conclusion-that is, all other things being equal, a public company is less efficient than a private one. There is very good economic evidence for that. The honourable member for Calwell also put forward a curious argument against the privatisation of Australian Airlines by saying that if it were privatised the private sector would have to borrow $1 billion overseas, and this would increase our foreign debt. To use his own words, `Explain to me how all this makes sense'. Well, I will do that gladly. The $1 billion that is raised to pay for Australian Airlines will be paid to the Government. If the Government obtains $1 billion for Australian Airlines it will decrease the Government's own borrowing requirements. Part of the reason our foreign debt has increased so much is that, because of the level of borrowings onshore of the Australian Government, the private sector was forced to go offshore. If the Government receives $1 billion to add to its surplus this will reduce the Government's borrowing requirements and contribute to reducing our foreign debt. Secondly, if the Government brings in an additional surplus it will reduce pressure on exchange rates. For those two reasons it makes good sense. Two speakers on the Government side spoke about capital injection. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Macarthur talk about the Fraser Government's $115m capital injection. I tend to agree with him. I had a debate in the House with the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) some time ago when the honourable member chided the Fraser Government for not injecting enough money, and suggested that the Hawke Government had done a wonderful job. What actually happened was that in 1961 an initial capital injection of $15m was given, and that was sufficient for many years. Australian met its requirements through borrowings, and it had no trouble with the Loan Council. It only became a problem in the late 1970s, and when it did become a problem the Fraser Government instituted an inquiry, which reported in 1982. That inquiry mentioned the need for further capital injection; $25m was given as an interim measure, and then a further $90m was given eight weeks into the Hawke Government's term. I imagine that with that $90m injection they just changed the Minister's name on the letterhead. The honourable member for Macarthur said that the Hawke Government had not made any further capital injection into Australian Airlines. Quite true, but I cannot see how he sees that as a benefit. Australian Airlines is now totally strapped for cash. It needs a major capital injection if it is to continue and compete equally. The honourable member for Macarthur said the two-airline agreement was introduced by a Liberal government. Yes, sir, that is correct. People on the other side seem to mention this as though there was something wrong with it. The two-airline policy was introduced at that time to remove a competitive advantage. With respect to airlines, there is an enormous barrier to entry for new players, and it is quite reasonable, when there are these enormous barriers to other entrants, for government to come in and try to level the playing field. One existing airline must not have the ability, because of these barriers, to stop others entering. Also, one airline run by the Government may in fact have an unfair competitive advantage over a privately run firm. Again, to stop this happening is a reasonable role for government to play. The two-airline policy was appropriate in the 1950s. It is not appropriate in the 1980s and it will be abolished. Finally, I support this amendment and I support the Prime Minister's statement. He is absolutely correct on this, and unless this Government has the courage to fully free Australian Airlines from all the constraints placed on it-this will happen only by allowing it to compete as a private company with Ansett Airlines-we will have a one-and-a-bit airline policy and the Australian public will be the sufferers. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.10) —I start my contribution today by welcoming back to the chamber the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), who has been ill. In some comments I made to the House recently I wished him a speedy recovery; we are glad to see him back. We are glad to see him back to talk about aviation matters not only because he has recovered his health but also because in his absence we have had an absolute cavalcade of Ministers purporting to speak on aviation matters, and I can assure the Minister at the table that they also will be glad to see him back because they made an absolute hash of it while he was away. The Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill, presented on 7 October last year, seeks to amend the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 to reflect the fact that the Government has now converted Australian Airlines from a statutory authority to a public company. The wording of the Bill introduced on 7 October last year reads, in clause 4: This Act applies to borrowings of money, otherwise than from the Commonwealth . . . What this Bill really seeks to do, and it is what the previous Bill sought to do, is ensure that statutory corporations borrowing funds other than from the Commonwealth pay the levy so that they do not bypass the financial markets, which in any event had regarded those statutory authorities as being such that the Government would stand behind any borrowings. The first question this raises is what the relevance of this is in so far as the competitive marketplace is concerned between Ansett and Australian Airlines. The first observation to be made is that the effect of this Bill is to penalise Australian Airlines to the extent of the borrowings that are not made from the Commonwealth. We have the two airlines competing with each other, both in the process of borrowing money from sources other than the Commonwealth. One of them, Australian Airlines, is required to pay this levy; the other, Ansett Airlines of Australia, is not. We have a situation where the playing field is not level. It is not only in this Bill that we see the Government taking action that penalises Australian Airlines compared to Ansett. We saw it recently in a Bill we debated in the House on the superannuation associated with Australian Airlines. In that Bill, the Government required that, for those employees of Australian Airlines who were still part of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, Australian Airlines should bring to account those funds it was required to bring to account so that the Commonwealth would not be forced to pay out those additional moneys for Australian Airlines to honour its obligations under its superannuation requirements. That meant that Australian Airlines was required to bring to account an additional $4.9m. Comparing the superannuation funds of Australian Airlines and Ansett, which are essentially the same except for those employees who remain in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, this had the effect of putting Australian Airlines at a $4.9m disadvantage against Ansett. So we have two recent examples of Government actions that are putting Australian Airlines at a competitive disadvantage with Ansett. We do not have any objection-and we did not state any objection-to the Government introducing this levy or asking Australian Airlines to account for this superannuation amount. But we point out that, by virtue of its current policies, which maintain Australian Airlines in the public sector while Ansett competes from the private sector, this Government is penalising Australian Airlines and putting it at a competitive disadvantage with Ansett. It seems odd, to say the least, that at a time when the Government is considering what it should be doing with Australian Airlines, at a time when it has this raging internal debate on privatisation, at a time when the factions of the Australian Labor Party are trying to establish their position on privatisation, it should introduce two separate pieces of legislation, within a few months of each other, both of which put Australian Airlines at a competitive disadvantage with Ansett. One must ask the question: is this just another one of the things that happen when a government is in trouble as this Government is in trouble? It is now demonstrably clear that the Government is completely out of touch with the Australian electorate. Is it one of the things that happen when governments are out of touch and floundering around-to legislate to put Australian Airlines at a competitive disadvantage with Ansett on two occasions-or is it part of the scenario that will be used at the Australian Labor Party (ALP) conference in June? Will those people who attend the conference be told, `Look, we have to privatise Australian Airlines. One of the reasons why we have to privatise Australian Airlines is that it is operating at a competitive disadvantage with Ansett.'? What is the Government all about regarding these two recent pieces of legislation? This brings me to the whole question of the financing of Australian Airlines. We all know that the Government has created an advisory group to advise on future financing options for Australian Airlines. That advisory group was due to report in March. Today's date is 16 March. One wonders why the Government is not waiting for the report of the advisory group before it goes ahead with this amendment. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that the composition of the advisory group is very interesting. It is chaired by Mr Harris, the new Chairman of Australian Airlines. I wish Mr Harris much success-as I have on previous occasions-with his administration, even though in recent times the Government has lumbered him with two pieces of legislation, both of which will put him at some disadvantage in competition with Ansett. Mr Harris will lock in Australian Airlines to the decision made by the group in its recommendations. Mr Kelty, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), is a member of the group. One could reasonably expect that, when this group reports, Mr Kelty's views will be very strongly taken into account by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We know that no decision can be taken by this Government without reference to the ACTU and without getting its blessing. Mr Kelty's views on the future financing options and the recommendation that the advisory group makes to the Government will lock in the ACTU. Dr Wilenski, the head of the Department of Transport and Communications, is a member of the group. No doubt the way that Dr Wilenski feels will lock in the Department of Transport and Communications and, with it, the two Ministers in the other place and the Minister at the table. Mr Redlich is a member of the advisory group. He is a former President of the Labor Party in Victoria and no doubt will be in a position to ensure that those fractious members of the Labor Party in Victoria, particularly some members of the left wing, are also locked into the decision. Mr Peacock —Is that Peter Redlich, the President of the Labor Party, who was Clyde Holding's partner in a legal practice? Mr BEALE —He is the one. Mr Peacock —He has just been made chairman of the Victorian TAB. Mr BEALE —He is the one. My friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that Mr Redlich has extensive-- Mr Peacock —Mateship runs strong. Mr BEALE —Mateship runs strong in the Labor Party, in Victoria as elsewhere, but I will come to that in a moment. I am delighted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), is in the chamber. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill that he put forward today, stating that the House endorses the sale of Australian Airlines, and which includes some statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on this matter. In supporting the amendment one has to ask: What will happen to Australian Airlines if it is not privatised? The answer is well known because the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has put out a policy option paper describing the situation. It is well known that Australian Airlines will need a capital injection of $250m over the next few years. In fact, Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd between them will need, in order to re-equip their fleets and remain competitive in their respective markets, about $1 billion over the next few years. The source of that information does not come from some reporter who is writing things up, but from the Minister. Where will that money come from? It can come only from one of two sources. It can come from the Treasury or from the private sector. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) have frequently said that there will be no more money for Australian Airlines to re-equip its fleet. The Prime Minister does not talk so much about privatisation; he uses that word that he says he does not use, but he also uses another phrase, too, that is, `optimisation of resources'. The Government has made it very clear that it would prefer to see the money that is to fund the fleet development for Australian Airlines coming from sources other than the taxpayer. It is clear that at least the senior members of the Government are setting themselves up to argue at the ALP's National Conference in June that, firstly, Australian Airlines is not able to compete on equal terms with Ansett and therefore it should be privatised and, secondly, there is simply no money in the Treasury to re-equip the fleet for Australian Airlines. That is an additional reason why the ownership of Australian Airlines should be transferred from the public sector to the private sector. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made clear in his amendment to the Bill that that is our policy. It is clear from the Prime Minister's statement, as quoted in the amendment, that the Prime Minister supports that proposal. I point out to the House that the Government is acting with some hypocrisy in this matter. After all, the coalition brought in legislation in the early 1980s to convert Australian Airlines, or Trans Australia Airlines as it was then, from a government statutory authority to a company. That legislation was repealed by this Government in 1984. A few short years later it has reintroduced legislation, similar to that passed by the coalition in the early 1980s, that converts Australian Airlines into a public company and will have the effect of eliminating a large number of the government controls that exist on the operation of that airline. I again ask why the Government does not wait for the report of the advisory group which is presumably due fairly soon. Perhaps the Minister for Transport and Communications Support, who is at the table, when he responds to this second reading debate on what is essentially a matter to do with airlines, as I presume he will do, will be able to tell the House when the report of the advisory group is due. Let me make it clear again that the coalition would transfer ownership of Australian Airlines from the public to the private sector. That was the policy we brought forward at the last election. We believe that the privatisation of Australian Airlines would bring benefits to consumers and would allow the travelling public to have access to the airways of Australia with relatively lower fares and relatively better services. One cannot make remarks about the privatisation of Australian Airlines without saying a few words about the extent to which the coalition would be prepared to see one airline or another trend toward a monopoly situation. I make it quite clear that there is no way in which the coalition would condone a monopoly situation arising in our domestic airlines. What we would do to make sure that that situation did not arise would be to use the Trade Practices Act to ensure that the travelling public of Australia were appropriately protected. While touching on government policy on airlines, I would like to say a few words about what has happened in recent days regarding the possibility that the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, who resigned from this House a few weeks ago, will become a consultant to Qantas Airways Ltd. The Prime Minister said in answer to a question that was asked yesterday-- Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I appreciate the honourable member's interest in matters other than those relevant to the Bill before the chamber, but the Bill is a very narrow Bill. It is a technical amendment to one of our Acts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the matters the honourable member is raising. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he be brought back to the issue before the House and not raise the matters he is proposing to raise. Mr BEALE —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill we are debating is a Bill to amend the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act, which includes in its schedule all the airline activities associated with the Commonwealth. I therefore submit that a few short remarks on the Qantas situation are in order. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said, the Bill is a very narrow Bill. It is a technical amendment to the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act and has nothing whatsoever to do with the matters the honourable member wishes to raise. I ask that he be directed to refrain from making the kind of remark he wants to make. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —The Chair appreciates the point of order raised by the Minister. However, the debate this morning has been very wide ranging. Accordingly, the Chair must rule that the honourable member for Deakin is in order. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that time does not allow me to develop this point to its full extent. In regard to the Government's dealing on airline matters, the Prime Minister knew some weeks ago that Mr Young had been offered a job with Qantas. He did nothing about it. At that time, Mr Young- Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a new point of order. I read to you from the Bill. The Bill deals specifically with Australian Airlines. I refer to the schedule, clause 3 of the Bill. It does not refer to other airlines. I understand from your remarks that there may have been a wide-ranging debate, but I take the point of order that the Bill is narrow in its compass and deals specifically with Australian Airlines. If the matters being raised deal specifically with Australian Airlines, I understand that. I again ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you rule the honourable member out of order on this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair appreciates the point which the Minister raises. I do not think the Minister has been in the House this morning to listen to the debate, which has been very wide ranging indeed. Practically every airline throughout the world has been spoken about this morning. So I feel that I have to rule that the honourable member for Deakin is in order. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the sensitivity of the Government on this matter. The Minister has made a very strong effort to curtail my time. Government members are sensitive about this matter because undoubtedly a conflict of interest has arisen. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(12.31) —I thank the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) for his good wishes on my return to duty and for the concerns he expressed for me during my absence. I did read them, but I will join in discussion on those matters another day, a day to which I look forward with some relish. As I was saying to you in my points of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Amendment Bill is a very narrow Bill. Whilst the debate may have been wide ranging, I thank all of those who participated in it. I am utterly fascinated by the new-found concern of the Opposition for the welfare of Australian Airlines and of air travellers. Having spent some years in debate on the other side of the chamber and having opposed the policies then pursued by those who now sit in opposition, I am utterly fascinated by this new-found concern. Talk about a rebirth! They are born again consumer advocates. Suddenly honourable members opposite are interested in the role of public sector enterprises and their financial viability. If those who now sit in opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), had had those views in 1981 there would not be a two-airline agreement in existence today. Had they supported the amendment we moved in 1981, the existing two airlines agreement would have terminated in January 1987. It would not be there. So I find a great deal of hypocrisy in the words expressed by the honourable member for Deakin. They ought to be discarded from the outset for what they are-a piece of hypocrisy that represents a complete reversal of attitude by the Opposition. It is to the Opposition's eternal disgrace that for decade after decade the people of this country were denied the kinds of air services they could have had, the level of competition that ought to have existed and the presence of a strong, viable public sector operator in domestic airline services because of the Opposition's policies, because of its two-airline agreement and because of the way it treated Australian Airlines. We should not forget, Mr Deputy Speaker-you would recall this, as you were here then-the non-commercial dividends extracted from Australian Airlines by the Fraser Government. When the honourable member for Bennelong, the current Leader of the Opposition, was the Treasurer, the Government subjected that airline, that public sector enterprise, to continual criticism, destabilisation, attacks, and charges that the organisation was technically bankrupt. It imposed upon it a superannuation burden which the airline still has to cover today. So whatever problems Australian Airlines may have developed when this Government came into office, they were problems created by the present Opposition. To listen to the criticism today about this Government's policy towards Australian Airlines makes one realise what hypocrisy and cant are coming from those who now speak on aviation policy for the Opposition. I can best summarise this by referring to the words spoken by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in this chamber a few years ago. He said that, as a former Minister for Transport and former Minister responsible for Australian Airlines, he had to say that, in his period of government, those seven dark years of Fraserism, Australian Airlines was forced to fly with one wing tied behind its back. So let us not hear any more of this mock concern for the position of Australian Airlines from the Opposition. The Opposition ought to think back with shame to the way it managed the organisation when it had the responsibility of government. I thank those honourable members who have participated in the debate. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government rejects the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Peacock's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr D. B. Cowan) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. J. (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. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Duffy, M.J. Downer, A. J. G.Dawkins, J. S. Hall, SteeleHawke, 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 Peter Morris) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Mr SINCLAIR —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will he confirm media reports that he contacted Mr Frank Lowy of the Channel 10 group and Mr Dick Pratt of Visy Pty Ltd Board regarding employment opportunities for Mr Young? What other companies or persons did he contact? Mr HAWKE —I have no difficulty at all in terms of what I have done in this matter and whom I have contacted. I believe, however, that should any contractual relationship occur between Mr Young and either of the two people I have contacted that is a matter properly to be disclosed, if they wish, by the people concerned and Mr Young. I make it clear that I have absolutely no problem, no difficulty, at all, where a contract is entered into between Mr Young and either of the two people whom I contacted, if they wish to disclose that fact. That is a matter for them. I respect their rights. I repeat: I have nothing of concern in this matter, nothing at all. Mr Sinclair —But you are Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I know I am Prime Minister and a very good one whose record will stand against the right honourable member's miserable performance and those with whom he is associated, a record that will stand examination at any time. I repeat: I answered honestly in this Parliament, as I always do, that I had contacted two people. I make no apology for that at all. I would do it again. A situation exists now, as I understand it, where there is no contract between the people I contacted and Mr Young. If such a contract does emerge I have absolutely no concern, no problem, about the names being exposed publicly, none at all. It is proper, there being discussions between the two gentlemen and Mr Young, that they should conduct them and if they wish to disclose that fact that they do so. I will put no bar at all, and I will attempt to use no influence at all-- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —It is all very well Opposition members laughing before they have heard the end of the sentence; it is an indication of their stupidity. They should exercise a little good sense and let me finish the sentence. I will attempt to exercise no influence at all to prevent them from disclosing those facts. Mr O'KEEFE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, concerns the first home buyers scheme. I draw the Minister's attention to the article in the Australian newspaper yesterday regarding the Government's first home owners scheme. The report mentions the likelihood of payments exceeding the Budget estimate this year. In my own electorate over $10m has been paid out to first home buyers, which is very good. Can the Minister outline the current situation with regard to the take-up of the first home owners scheme? Can he indicate the impact of the growth in housing starts that has occurred with the decline in interest rates in recent months? Mr STAPLES —I can well understand why so many people are rushing to live in the electorate of the honourable member for Burke. The real situation with the first home owners scheme, as I have been advised by my Department, is that there is no basis for that small article in the Australian yesterday. The 1987-88 expenditure to the end of February was approximately $140m, which is slightly below the Budget estimate at this time. Any extra demand which may come into the scheme for the rest of the year will certainly be accommodated by the improved accountability processes we have brought in. The first home owners scheme is one of the most popular and effective programs introduced by any government in Australia's history. Last week, I point out to the House, $1 billion had been handed out to first home owners since October 1983. The billionth dollar was handed over to a family from Mount Druitt in the western suburbs of Sydney. That family, I think, was from the electorate of the honourable member for Chifley. That is a family on below average weekly earnings with two children, and is one of 67,000 households in New South Wales that have benefited to the tune of a total of $250m. The housing future of the people of New South Wales looks pretty rosy when we combine that with the effect of the New South Wales Labor Government's promise to abolish stamp duty after the next election. That success in New South Wales is indicative of the situation right around Australia. As I said, $1 billion has been expended on the first home owners scheme and that covers 270,000 Australian households. When we combine that first home owners scheme with other forms of housing assistance provided through the Commonwealth and the States, more than 500,000 households, or 1.4 million individual Australians, have been assisted into housing in the period of this Labor Government. To put it simply, roughly the entire population of South Australia or of a city the size of Perth has been assisted into housing. The Prime Minister the other day in Port Adelaide said that the first home owners scheme was one of the greatest achievements of this Government. That is certainly the case. It shows the priorities of this Government despite the harsh world conditions and despite the financial restrictions that have been placed on the Government in having to get this economy back on the tracks and moving forward. We have proved in the most tangible and concrete way our priorities for assistance to first home buyers. I highlight also that we are not content with that; we are about to initiate a major campaign to increase public awareness. Two weeks ago I launched a first home owners scheme leaflet in 18 languages so that people from non-English speaking backgrounds could also have maximum accessibility to the scheme. If we compare that to the record of the Opposition on housing, when we came in there were 105,000 starts; this year there will be probably about 140,000 new starts, with a few more next year. That is the reality of it. To make a final point about the first home owners scheme let me read from a letter I received in my office yesterday. The letter said: I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks for your assistance. I am a supporting mother and although I work, getting the deposit together seemed like an impossible task. Thanks to the help of your scheme I was able to use the $3,000 for the deposit on an old home. The continuing allowance has covered the rates each year. Your department has given myself and my children a chance we would not have otherwise had. So sincerely thank you. That thanks, I am sure, comes from 270,000 other households who have been helped by the first home owners scheme. Mr BEALE —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I give him a further opportunity to confirm that one of the people he contacted with a view to obtaining a job for Mick Young was a senior officer of the Westfield-Channel 10 group, as leaked by his office last night. Is the Prime Minister aware that senior management of Channel 10 is on the record as wanting the Government to increase the television reach rule from 60 per cent to either 75 per cent or 100 per cent in order to create a national television network? How can the Prime Minister say, as he did in this House yesterday, that he saw no conflict of interest between seeking a favour from Channel 10 by employing Mick Young and that organisation's national television aspirations? Mr HAWKE —The House will appreciate, from the answer I have already given to the question from the Leader of the National Party of Australia, that I do not intend to say to whom I spoke. If they wish to disclose it I have no concern about that being done, none at all. Having said that, let me address myself to the part of the question that I can respond to without in any sense being in conflict with what I have said. I am aware, as is the honourable gentleman, that within the television industry generally there is a view, I think not confined to Channel 10, that the 60 per cent rule is not the most appropriate. The honourable gentleman will be aware that in the first place the Government proposed a higher figure, but due to the total inability of the Opposition to begin to formulate anything resembling a policy in this area, and due to the total conflict of positions on the other side of this chamber and of the other House, a 60 per cent figure was finalised. It is no secret that within the television industry generally, and I understand this includes Channel 10 and its proprietorship, there is an attitude that that 60 per cent is not a sufficiently high figure. But that comes as no surprise. Indeed, I repeat what I have said already: the Government, in considering this earlier, had talked about a higher figure. Mr LAMB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns the issues of social justice. What has been the effect of the family allowance supplement on the living standards of families earning below average weekly earnings (AWE)? How does this compare with their experience under the Fraser Government? Mr HOWE —The question is about the living standards of low income people during a time of considerable wage restraint. Indeed, if the Opposition had been in government in the period we have been in office, that wage restraint, or at least the wage restraint argued for at hearings of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, would be very much greater than it has been. Nevertheless, the Government has had a policy to restrain wages. At the same time the Government has recognised that those people within the work force who are more disadvantaged ought to be protected. Indeed, at the beginning of the Government's term, when an accord was negotiated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, there was an understanding that the Government would look not only at real incomes in terms of wages but also at real incomes in relation to taxation, and at what could be done with what was called at the time the social wage. Let me come to the facts. At present some 11 per cent of all full time wage and salary earners are on 50 per cent or less of average weekly earnings. A person supporting a spouse and three children and on 50 per cent of average weekly earnings experienced a 1.5 per cent average annual increase in disposable income under the Fraser-Howard Government. As a result of the family allowance supplement, the real disposable income of that family has increased on average by 3.6 per cent each year under this Government. That family disposable income on present values increased from $260 per week in March 1983 to $307 per week in December 1987. Forty-four per cent of wage and salary earners are on 75 per cent of average weekly earnings or less. A family with three children and on 75 per cent of average weekly earnings under the Fraser-Howard Government had a stagnant disposable income, which increased by only 0.3 of one per cent. Under this Government the family income at present values has increased from $343 to $378 per week, a real increase of just over 10 per cent. The success of the family allowance supplement is even more remarkable given the decline in the terms of trade. At a time when this Government has had to deal with an inherited deficit, at a time when it has had to deal with the massive problems of the current account and the position Australia is in and therefore the living standards of low income wage earners, the Government has in fact provided real increases for those people, and I am talking here about the 40 per cent of people in the work force whose income is either at or below 75 per cent of average weekly earnings. For people in electorates such as mine and in the western suburbs of Sydney, the family allowance supplement scheme is a revolutionary and highly significant reform. I think one of the problems in this Parliament is that too many people on the other side of the House have very little feeling when debating wage cuts; they argued for no wage increase in 19 out of 20 cases. When they put that view they forget about the average factory worker in an electorate such as mine, where a worker in a textile factory, for example, earns between $300 and $340 a week. I am not sure how many members of this Parliament could live on that income. The adult base rate for a worker at one major footwear producer is now between $260 and $290 a week, with overtime averaging $50 a week. Almost all of these workers who support a spouse and children will be eligible for a payment under the family allowance supplement. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOWE —I know members of the Opposition do not like the facts, but they are going to cop some. These families, renting privately and with three children and a spouse relying on one breadwinner in the footwear industry, could therefore be better off by around $61 to $64 a week as a direct result of the family allowance supplement, or more if their children are in the 13 to 15 age group. What this Government has been arguing about in terms of economic policy is directing all of our energies and efforts to creating the wealth that will provide the basis for long term higher living standards. But despite the restraint that necessarily has had to be imposed, we have been delivering the most significant real increases to low income working families in the post-war period. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the Government has justified its requirement for declarations of the pecuniary interests of members of parliament on the grounds that a public, as distinct from a private, judgment should be made as to whether or not conflicts of interest exist between private interests and public duties? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister, by refusing to disclose the facts and circumstances regarding his job hunting exercise for his former colleague, refuses to apply to his conduct on this occasion, regarding a potential conflict of interest, the same standards as are required of all members of parliament? Mr HAWKE —The reasons for this Government's decision in regard to the statements of pecuniary interests of Ministers and members of parliament are quite clear, stand in their own right and will be adhered to. In regard to the second part of the honourable gentleman's question, the answer is no. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Could he explain to the House whether he supports the proposed establishment of a Senate select committee into agricultural and veterinary chemicals? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Calare for his question, and I understand any concern he may have, given statements made about him by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. I spoke with the Deputy Leader last night and I have since had a chance to review the proposal, and I take this opportunity to set the situation out very clearly. I have looked at the correspondence between my colleague the honourable member for Calare and the President of the National Farmers Federation, in which he says that the Opposition supports such an inquiry-the inquiry being the one that the honourable member has referred to. Last week the Deputy Leader of the National Party issued a Press release claiming that the Opposition had never supported such an inquiry, that is, the proposed Senate inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemical usage. The Opposition is making some attempt to divorce itself from farmer organisation complaints about the proposed inquiry. In doing so, I must say, having had a chance to look at the Press release and the letter, the Deputy Leader of the National Party has maligned the honourable member for Calare in his capacity as chairperson of the Caucus primary industries and energy committee. In the Senate on 15 December 1987 Liberal Senator Austin Lewis gave notice of a motion calling for a select committee into agricultural chemicals to look at: . . . regulation by governments of the sale and use of agricultural chemicals in the beef industry, the use of such chemicals by governmental instrumentalities and questions of compensation and assistance for growers. This motion was designed clearly to find guilty parties connected with the beef residue problems. The proposal was backward looking and because it would achieve nothing for the beef industry the Government decided to support an alternative inquiry sponsored by the Australian Democrats who were determined to have some form of inquiry. The final details of this inquiry have not been set out yet and I will be speaking with the Democrats in the near future to do that, but at least any inquiry will look towards the future of chemical usage in this country. I make the point that at no stage did the Government initiate such an inquiry. In the simplest of terms, the Democrats proposal was the best option and the Government had little alternative but to support it. This was all initiated by the Liberals in the Senate. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the beef industry and all the State governments and people concerned with it to correct the residue problem. If farm organisations have any concerns about the proposed inquiry, they should address them to the people who started it, Opposition members, and particularly the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who does not seem to know what went on in the Senate. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask him why he apparently misled the media and the Australian public when he said on Monday that he knew nothing about the Qantas Airways Ltd job and had nothing to do with it, yet in Question Time yesterday he told Parliament that he was informed at about the end of February by Mr Young that consultations had taken place between Qantas management and himself. Mr HAWKE —The answer is so obvious that I thought it would not have escaped my friend who asked this question. I have made it clear that I had nothing to do with Mr Young's consultations with Qantas Airways Ltd. I knew nothing about them occurring until he told me. As a matter of obvious logic, when he told me I knew about them. Mr PRICE —I address my question to the Minister for Employment and Education Services. Can the Minister inform the House of the current situation with unemployment in Australia, especially the Government's performance with respect to young Australians? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. He and other New South Wales members of this Parliament, particularly on this side of the House, should be able to take particular pride from the February unemployment figures released just a few days ago which showed such an excellent performance by the Unsworth Government in this quite critical area. It is interesting to see the way New South Wales has led the country in this area. It is important to note that unemployment in New South Wales last month dropped to 7.1 per cent, which was down from almost 9 per cent 12 months before. I do not think anyone could deny that that is an excellent result. In fact New South Wales has led the country with a 5.4 per cent increase in the number of jobs created during the past 12 months. That is an excellent result in anybody's judgment. It compares particularly well if one looks at the quite pedestrian performance at the other end of the country by the Tasmanian Liberal Government, which has been running the highest unemployment policy in the nation. There is no doubt that, if a fiscally irresponsible Greiner government were to be elected on Saturday, the results for this nation would be absolutely disastrous. Fortunately, that is not about to happen. There is no reason why the people of New South Wales should believe any of the outlandish promises made by Mr Greiner, nor should they move away from the excellent record in this area of the Unsworth Government which will continue to be the Government after Saturday. To get back to the honourable member's question, I want to refer to the quite significant achievements of the Hawke Government which now can boast the lowest unemployment rate in this nation for almost six years. We have seen, I think it is fair to say, the most far-reaching reconstruction of the Australian economy since the post-war period. Like Chifley, this Prime Minister has provided the sort of visionary leadership that has led to the creation of one million jobs in this nation during the past five years. That compares very favourably with the last year of the Fraser-Howard regime when 186,000 jobs were wiped off in this nation-lost. This Government has created, on average, 200,000 jobs in every year of our term on the treasury benches. That is an incredible record by anyone's judgment, whether one looks overseas at any of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries or anywhere else in our region. This Government's performance in this area stands unsurpassed. Honourable members on the other side ought to look at this nation's economic management under this Government and take a real lesson from it because there is no doubt that we have achieved this in spite of a very dramatic and difficult turnaround in the terms of trade, difficulties that have been created as a result of the stock market crisis last October and, of course, notwithstanding the constant carping and criticism that has come from the other side. It is interesting to review the comments made by the shadow Minister, who claimed in his woolly mutterings over the January figures that the unemployment figure was stuck, as he put in, at 7.4 per cent. That has been proved quite wrong and I can confidently tell the House that we predict that the Budget time forecast that unemployment would be around 8.25 per cent has been exceeded. I am confident that the figure at the end of the financial year will come in well below 8 per cent, a very good result for this Government and the nation. Of course, all of our achievements would be put in jeopardy in the unlikely event that Greiner and the New South Wales Liberals were elected on Saturday. I turn to the second part of the honourable member's question where he sought information on the Government's good record on youth affairs and youth unemployment. Last month's Australian Bureau of Statistics figures confirm the trend in declining numbers of teenagers without jobs. The number of teenagers looking for full time work as a proportion of the total teenage population dropped to a healthy 7.3 per cent in February. Mr Reith —This is an abuse of Question Time. Mr DUNCAN —Honourable members on the other side do not like hearing this because when they went out of government the figure was well over 12 per cent and we have brought it down to 7.3 per cent in five years-a very creditable effort on the part of this Government. We have encouraged kids to prepare themselves for the work force. We have not simply labelled them as dole bludgers, we have not simply taken the negative attitudes that members opposite have taken. We have ensured that school retention rates have gone up from the quite pathetic 36 per cent under the former coalition Government to well over 50 per cent now. We have ensured that the entire youth area has been given a high priority. On this particular issue Opposition members should hang their heads in shame. Mr LLOYD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that at the time the Prime Minister contacted certain companies regarding employment for Mr Young it was his intention that Mr Young remain Federal President of the Australian Labor Party? Mr HAWKE —I could have no intention because whether Mr Young remained the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party was a matter for the decision of Mr Young. At the time, that was his position. Subsequently, for reasons which he has announced and which I respect, he decided not to continue in that position. Mr KERR —I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the result of the tender process for the redevelopment of the Australian Embassy in Tokyo? Mr WEST —The contract for our Tokyo embassy redevelopment, including the sale of 6,150 square metres of land surplus to requirements, together with 16 adjacent staff apartments, has been awarded to the MITA consortium, which will pay 57.573 billion yen, approximately $A640m at an exchange rate of 90 yen to the Australian dollar. However, the final amount that Australia will receive will depend upon the exchange rate at the time the contracts are finalised in a few weeks time. So I am pleased to report that I think we have the maximum possible return to Australia in an extremely difficult Tokyo property market. The contract includes the provision of a new four-storey chancery building with basement car parking, 43 new staff apartments, a new residence for the ambassador, and associated recreation facilities for the staff to be built on the remaining 12,000 square metres of land. In addition, the successful tenderer has agreed to provide a new building as a temporary chancery for the estimated two-year construction period, together with temporary residential accommodation for the ambassador and his deputy. A matter of importance for our relationship with Japan is that the consortium has agreed also to preserve and enhance the traditional Japanese gardens, including the historic well and other environmental features. Further benefits include the undertaking by Itoh, a major member of the MITA consortium, that it will import an additional 1.5 million tonnes of coal from New South Wales during the next two years. This additional tonnage is over and above its normal purchase of 1.6 million to 1.8 million tonnes of coal from New South Wales each year. I am also pleased to note the involvement in the MITA consortium of the Australian firm of Lustig and Moar, which, I understand, has an equity holding in the development and is also in a position to ensure maximum use of Australian materials in the total project. In summary, I feel very strongly that the rationalisation of our property holdings in Tokyo has resulted in a most satisfactory outcome, and that when the embassy is built, Australia will have an embassy building in Japan that properly reflects the importance of the relationships between our two nations. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the guidelines issued by the Government after the Combe-Ivanov affair. I quote those guidelines: Ministers should seek to avoid granting special privileges, advantage, or access to any lobbyist by virtue of that lobbyist's particular background, for example, as a former parliamentary representative or senior office holder or employee of a political party. Given that Mr Young appears to satisfy all three criteria, does the Prime Minister now agree that his job-seeking efforts on Mr Young's behalf constitute a breach of his own Government's guidelines? Mr HAWKE —No, I do not agree. First of all, I do not accept the description that the Leader of the Opposition has given to my actions in this matter. But putting that aside, my answer is that I do not accept they are in breach. Let me make it quite clear that I do not accept the proposition that my action in contacting the two businessmen on behalf of Mr Young amounted to a breach of the Government's guidelines for Ministers regarding their dealings with lobbyists. In no way is that the case. Certainly those who have written to that effect in the Press are manifestly wrong. In approaching the two businessmen concerned to facilitate possible employment for Mr Young, it was by way of general testimonial of Mr Young's undoubted abilities. I doubt whether there is anyone in this House who would question his abilities. What work would be available for him would be entirely up to the companies concerned. The obvious point that I hope would not escape even the Opposition is that, to the extent that Mr Young may subsequently engage in lobbying activities, the guidelines will be scrupulously followed and he will not be given any specific privilege, advantage or access by virtue of his background as a former Minister. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to my colleague and friend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Now that the Minister has completed his round of consultations with Aboriginal groups, will he indicate whether and when he proposes to proceed with the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission? Mr HAND —I thank the Caucus committee chairman for his question. I shall be discussing this proposal with him in more detail later today and in the future. On 10 December I announced to the House a proposal to establish a new commission. I announced also that I would be visiting communities throughout Australia. Some comments have been made by a number of people concerning the success of those consultations. Therefore, I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the detail of those consultations. A thousand separate Aboriginal communities and organisations were contacted in terms of delivering videos, explanatory notes and material to them. During the lead-up to my visits, 453 preliminary meetings were conducted in 415 locations, which enabled Aboriginal people to consult among themselves on the proposals before my arrival. Between 23 January and 10 March, in the company of Mr Charles Perkins, I attended some 46 meetings throughout Australia involving an estimated 6,000 Aboriginal people representing more than 1,200 community groups and organisations. During that time we travelled about 50,000 kilometres. I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House these details because there has been a number of Press releases issued by certain people-and unfortunately by Opposition members-who have suggested that these consultations were not serious and were in fact not aimed at achieving an agreed position between myself and the Government, and the Aboriginal community. I put that suggestion to rest. I think the shadow Minister would do well to look back over his Press releases of the past couple of weeks. He will be proven, like a lot of other people, to be inaccurate in the assertions he has made. Other people who have been responsible for very misleading and distorting Press releases, I will deal with at a more appropriate time. During the debate there will be ample opportunity to put to rest a lot of the lies and misrepresentations that have been made. During my visits to these various communities, we received overwhelming support for the concept in principle. In terms of the word `principle', communities have asked many questions and sought clarification on a number of issues. They have made suggestions also about the way in which we could modify the proposal. It is our intention now to enter into a second stage of consultation, which will be concluded over the next three or four weeks. That will allow the community to come to grips with proposals being put forward by other organisations around Australia. The questions that seek information will be answered. I am confident that at the end of these consultations we will have overwhelming support for and total commitment to this proposal, which seeks to advance the lot of Aboriginal people. Mr REITH —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Government is considering a casino licence in Canberra and that strict control laws would be required, is it a fact that the Casino Control Committee has held an investigation and issued a violation report following a game of blackjack played in the early hours of the morning at the Perth casino? Was the inquiry about a gambler who requested that the casino change the rules of the game, and was the Prime Minister that gambler? Mr HAWKE —The answer is: I do not know. Mr Reith —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: will the Prime Minister provide the House with an answer today? Madam SPEAKER —That is a supplementary question. The honourable member was not called for a supplementary question. I suggest to the honourable member that, if he wants to take a point of order, he should do so and not ask a supplementary question. Ms McHUGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. As it has been claimed recently that age pensioners have seen little improvement in their rates, could the Minister outline government initiatives in relation to older people in the community? Mr HOWE —A number of assertions have been made that during this Government's term in office there has not been a real maintenance of the living standards of aged people. I say quite to the contrary that this Government has given very high priority indeed to ensuring that not only are the living standards of aged people maintained, but that as far as possible within the severe constraints that exist there is some improvement in those living standards. Despite a number of tight Budgets and significant cuts in social security, pensions have been maintained and indexed twice yearly and are now close to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That has been the case notwithstanding a cost of $1 billion each year in maintaining the indexation of pensions according to the consumer price index (CPI). Pension payments have increased by 8.3 per cent in real terms during the life of this Government. Maximum rent assistance has increased by 50 per cent from $10 to $15 a week, and the separate income test for rent assistance has been abolished, allowing thousands more pensioners to qualify for this form of assistance. The income limit for the pensioner health benefit card is also raised according to CPI rises. From January this year pensioners whose income rises above the limits by no more than 25 per cent can keep their pensioner health benefit card for three months. The carer's pension introduced by this Government means that older people who need constant attention can remain in the comfort of their own homes and familiar surroundings amidst the security of supportive friends and relatives. The Government, aware of the danger of poverty traps which reduce incentives to self-sufficiency-and a degree of self-sufficiency is important for many aged people in the community as it is for others-has increased the amount that pensioners may earn before their pension is affected. From July last year single pensioners have been able to earn $40 a week up from $30 a week and married pensioners $70 a week while still receiving their full pension entitlement. It is relevant to that reform in terms of the eased income tests in relation to the age pension that the Government also introduced a very innovative earnings credit scheme to allow pensioners to earn extra income without losing any of their entitlement. The scheme works by allowing pensioners on the maximum rate to accumulate credit for the difference between the allowable extra income and the amount actually received. For example, if a single age pensioner receives income from interest payments of $15 a week, he or she has an earnings credit of $25 a week. This can be accumulated to a maximum of $1,000. So if the pensioner has built up a credit of, say, $700 he or she can take a casual job for three weeks at $200 a week and still receive the full pension and fringe benefit entitlements. If one takes the social security record of this Government in regard to aged people and puts it together with programs such as the home and community care program, with the co-operation between this Government in easing fringe benefit limits and States such as New South Wales, which have provided the full range of fringe benefits to aged people, one sees that this has been a period in which, despite all the difficulties, substantial attention indeed has been given to the care of the aged. While the Government has that record, a record of which it can be proud, in respect of the aged, we do not simply remain there. We have had in train a social security review, arguably the most important review of social security in the postwar period. As part of that review we are looking at the income security arrangements for aged people, and towards the middle part of this year Professor Cass will release her report which will be relevant to the development of a comprehensive retirement income policy. We have had this lot on the other side of the House now for more than five years. Whereas this Government during its period of office has systematically sought to review areas of policy with a view to making immediate changes that touch on living standards, introducing reforms such as the family allowance supplement, we have also been looking towards the development of future policy. Professor Cass's work on social security review will go down as one of the most important contributions to social policy in the history of this country. It is extremely important and very relevant. Unlike the report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Government is not shelving, as the Fraser Government did, a report, putting it away and doing nothing about it. This Government in its terms of office while receiving the reports has been systematically seeking to ensure that they are implemented to achieve improvements in living standards for low income people in the short term, but to build the basis of a much better social security system in the long term. Mr REITH(Flinders) —I seek leave to table the documents which formed the basis of the question that I put to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Beazley —No. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. 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- Australian Capital Territory-Annual Reports-Consumer Affairs Council-Consumer Affairs Bureau-section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973 and the Seat of Government Administration Act-Administration of the Credit Ordinance-section 241 of the Credit Ordinance 1985-Administration of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance-section 90 of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1977. Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 5j (b) of the Careless Use of Fire Ordinance 1936. Australian Capital Territory Bookmakers Licensing Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-section 54 of the Bookmakers Ordinance 1985. Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Co-operative Societies-Annual Report 1986-87-section 12 of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939. Agents Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1986-87-section 17a of the Agents Ordinance 1968. Australian Capital Territory Racecourse Development Fund Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-section 35z of the Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986. National Exhibition Centre Trust-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63h of the Audit Act 1901. Department of Education-Annual Report 1986-87-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. Remuneration Tribunal-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 12aa (2) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Yesterday during Question Time, in response to a question about the publication of doctors' data records, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) called on the Opposition to: . . . join with us in calling on the AMA to have the police investigate what appears to be a serious breach of patient confidentiality. He then referred to me when he said: 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. I am advised that the medical practice concerned had no arrangements to provide paper of any sort to schools or to any other provider to schools and that it too feels that its business-- Mr Cleeland —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The point of order is obvious: the honourable gentleman is not giving an explanation of his own situation, he is explaining what medical practitioners are saying to him. Madam SPEAKER —I am listening quite carefully to the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —I am conscious of that point and I am sure my explanation is about to arrive. The doctors, too, feel their business has been harmed by the publication of their confidential business information, even if it is two years old. I would therefore welcome a police inquiry into this matter, and have consequently prepared a letter to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to be signed by myself and by the Prime Minister. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is now out of order. He is not giving a personal explanation; he is making a statement of his intentions. He is going into what actions he intends to take following statements made in the House. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on the point of order: the Prime Minister impugned my reputation yesterday. I am giving positive evidence of where he was wrong. Madam SPEAKER —From my memory, the Prime Minister asked a question of the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for O'Connor is now seeking to answer that question rather than make a personal explanation. I have heard him with a certain degree of patience. I now ask him to resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I have prepared the letter and I wish it to go to the Prime Minister and have him sign it. Maybe the Leader of the House-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LLOYD —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr LLOYD —I was misrepresented at Question Time today by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). The Minister in reply to a question from the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) referred to a conversation he had with me last night and to the question of who supports a Senate inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemicals. There are two notices before the Senate on this general subject, one from the coalition Opposition parties and one from the Australian Democrats. The National Farmers Federation has expressed its concern over the Democrats notice. I have had two conversations, not one, with the Minister on this subject and I have indicated to him on both occasions that the coalition has a strong desire to have no inquiry whatsoever into this subject, and that it believes both notices should be withdrawn. The National Farmers Federation is also aware of the position of the coalition. Therefore, any responsibility for any Senate inquiry into agricultural and veterinary chemicals rests fairly and squarely with the Minister and the Australian Labor Party. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business) —by leave-Madam Speaker, the primary objective of the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration entitled Australian Iron and Steel Industry was to examine whether Commonwealth expenditure on the steel industry plan has been spent effectively and efficiently, as measured in terms of overall plan performance, adherence to commitments, the role of the Steel Industry Authority (SIA), industry improvement and the future of the industry beyond 1988. The report concludes that the steel industry plan has made a positive contribution to the recovery of the steel industry, in particular by underpinning the industry's decision to embark on a major capital investment program. The report also makes a number of recommendations which focus on improving specific problem areas relating to plan administration and development of the steel industry more generally. Honourable members may be aware that the Steel Industry Authority is presently conducting a review of the steel industry plan, to be completed by 30 June this year, which will examine the extent to which the plan has achieved its objectives and what, if any, special arrangements are required for the steel industry after the plan's scheduled expiry on 31 December this year. As part of the review the SIA will be addressing those issues identified by the parliamentary Committee as impacting on the steel industry plan. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to respond at this stage to the specific findings and recommendations of the parliamentary Committee's report. The report will provide a valuable and timely contribution to this review process. At the completion of the review I will respond to the specific findings and recommendations of the parliamentary Committee's report. I commend the Committee on the preparation of an excellent report. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The response given by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) to what might be loosely described as the Martin benefit report is wholly inadequate, and therefore the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) ought to be taking a special interest in it. The Minister's statement effectively ignores the urgency of the recommendations within the report. Instead, the Government is choosing to sit on its hands until after a report is received some time after 30 June from another government instrumentality, the Steel Industry Authority. The report we are discussing today was finalised in November last year, so one can imagine the time lag that will follow from the 30 June report. The report recommends the immediate implementation of an effective anti-dumping mechanism and suggests ways of attracting greater union commitment to the steel plan. It points out that while the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the Government have adhered to their commitments the unions are no longer meeting theirs. The unions have failed to adhere to agreed dispute settling procedures. As a matter of fact, industrial disputation has reached pre-plan levels at Port Kembla. The report-this is a monument to the Government-concludes: Much progress must also still be made by unions regarding productivity, further increases being imperative if Australia is to attain long-term industrial competitiveness. That is in the Government's report, and the Government is doing nothing about it. The Minister's response has also failed to address the pressing need for an effective fast track anti-dumping mechanism, particularly if the Australian dollar rises in value against the Japanese and American currencies. These issues need to be addressed now and not after the June report-in other words, in another six months time. It matters little whether or not the Government likes the recommendations; they must be put in place in order to assist recovery in the steel industry. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services) —I present for the information of honourable members the report Local Employment Initiatives: A Strategic Approach. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. Leave granted. Mr DUNCAN —I wish to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the report prepared by the National Advisory Group on Local Employment Initiatives (NAGLEI) on a new locally based approach to unemployment. NAGLEI was set up in June 1985 by the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The group was asked to provide advice on the potential and relevance of local employment initiatives (LEIs) to create permanent employment opportunities in Australia, having regard to the Government's other social and economic objectives, including the need for continued expenditure restraint. NAGLEI was established in direct response to the widespread concern over the effects of unemployment, together with the experience of other countries in tackling this problem at a local community level. Impetus for the task also came through Australia's involvement in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development cooperative action program on local initiatives for employment creation. The group was chaired by a senior officer from the Department of Employment, Education and Training and comprised: State and local government representatives, peak union and employer representation, and a number of individuals with specialist expertise in the field. The report was released in December 1987, accompanied by a comprehensive series of research papers. The advisory group found that during the past four years local and regional groups had been active in creating local employment opportunities and in attempting to `clawback' jobs in the wake of major industrial rationalisations and downturns in the rural sector. These groups act as intermediaries, facilitating the development of new local enterprises. Some of these groups have arisen directly as a result of external assistance such as in the steel industries assistance scheme. Others have been motivated by a concern to do something positive about the unemployment affecting their communities and have drawn financial support from a range of sources. Some State governments have also established programs to develop this type of activity. Nationally, more than 60 of these intermediary type organisations, having the potential to develop further in the employment area, have been identified in the report. This figure has undoubtedly grown since the survey was undertaken. The experience of these organisations is that there is a severe lack of appropriate finance, technical expertise and organisational support available to assist new enterprises to establish themselves in the marketplace. The national advisory group believes that there are potential benefits which could accrue if a strategic approach is taken to resourcing and facilitating this activity. Additionally, the Group concluded that the greatest potential lay in directing support towards those enterprises which operated under both the economic objective of competing in the open marketplace and making a profit, and the social objective of maintaining long term, viable jobs. The thrust of the report is to put in place a national strategy of support to LEIs which builds on existing activities and promote the involvement of communities in generating employment initiatives which relate best to their local situations, while at the same time overcoming the major impediments to small enterprise development, namely, inadequate training and support, and restricted access to establishment capital. The strategy is two pronged. Firstly, it recommends establishing a network of up to 20 intermediary organisations in selected regions to stimulate and facilitate local employment initiatives in those areas. The report recommends that these organisations should include representatives of government, business groups, unions and education institutions and operate with the support of a National Local Employment Initiative Corporation to provide training, policy and expert advice. Secondly, it recommends the establishment of a specific financing body-the Local Initiatives Finance Trust-which would provide far greater access to finance for fledgling enterprises. It is proposed that the finance body attract private investment from the marketplace by issuing government-backed, indexed bonds which would provide funds for tailored loan packages requiring repayment in a manner consistent with the cash flow demands of the particular new enterprises. It would also provide training and technical assistance in the financial area. The report emphasises that the financing body should not offer grants or subsidised loans and the loans it provides would not be handouts or cheap money. The report is currently the subject of a comprehensive Australia-wide consultation process involving Commonwealth departments, State governments, local governments, employer and employee organisations, community organisations and other peak groups. The national program of seminars will provide valuable feedback to enable the Government to formulate its response to the report later in 1988 when the consultation process is completed. I strongly commend the report to the House. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —by leave-This is the first opportunity that I have had in this place since the report of the National Advisory Group on Local Employment Initiatives was released in December last year, firstly, to welcome it and to congratulate the national advisory group on its work. In my view and in the view of the Opposition it is an excellent report which is deserving of very serious consideration. Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) has made a statement. The fact that the House has given me leave to speak gives me an opportunity, albeit brief, to say something about this important matter. This report entitled Local Employment Initiatives: A Strategic Approach is presented against the changing trends and the changing background of job creation not only in Australia but in the Western world. It is recognised by the Minister that the greatest amount of job creation in our country is coming now and will certainly come in the future from small business and at the local level. That is certainly true in the private sector. We should not be surprised to find the same trend lines in the public or what I might call the community sector. Members of this House will have anecdotal examples, perhaps drawn from their own electorates, of people who are taking their destiny into their own hands; people who are voluntarily coming together to make work, to create jobs and to find jobs. Many of these local initiatives are supported by State governments, local governments, service clubs, the community youth support scheme or other organisations of a more formal nature that are already established in the community. We can see a parallel success in job placement. In the community sector there are schemes such as Bridging the Gap, Co-scope or DOME, organisations which are very successful at a local community level involving volunteer commitment in filling some of the gaps left by the Commonwealth Employment Service-some would argue that they are doing a better job than the CES, although I recognise that in this short contribution that subject should be spoken about on another day-and finding jobs and placing people in the work force in cases where the Government schemes have been unsuccessful. This report recognises the importance of local employment initiatives. It recognises that they will have an even bigger role to play in the future in creating jobs and finding work for our unemployed fellow Australians. It importantly identifies the problems being experienced by local employment initiatives. There are problems relating to the fact that they do not have much money or expertise, even though there is a lot of enthusiasm and will, and they often battle for support to buttress their activities. There are 52 recommendations contained in this report as to how local employment initiatives might be assisted in the context of an overall national strategic approach. I recognise that the Government has not made any decisions and that there is to be widespread national consultation. But I want to bring to bear the old adage, `Beware the person who says, ``I am from the Government and I am here to help'' '. The message I want to convey to the Minister from the Opposition ranks is that the success of local employment initiatives now and in the future relates to their individuality, uniqueness and grassroots local nature. The Government, in its consideration of this report, must actively guard against the dead hand of centralised bureaucratic control and rigidity as it may impact upon the activities of these local employment initiatives. I am optimistic that the Government is well placed to make the right decisions in the next few months. The Minister has cited the fact that the advisory group concluded that the greatest potential lay in directing support towards those enterprises which operated under the economic objective of competing in the open marketplace and making a profit and the social objective of maintaining long term, viable jobs. The report emphasised-again this was recognised by the Minister-that the financing body, the Local Initiatives Finance Trust, should not offer grants or subsidise loans. The loans it provides should not be handouts or cheap money. In recognition of the convention that operates in this place, I do not have time to go through each of the 52 recommendations. I hope that there will be a more fulsome debate when the Minister brings down his final consideration of this report. I underscore the fact that the advisory group seems to be aware of the nature of the current success of these employment initiative programs and of the dangers inherent in any possible move by government or bureaucracy to control, centralise or bring to bear a rigidity which currently does not exist in terms of these grassroots local organisations. There will be widespread consultation in respect of this report. We await the Government's further decisions with interest. The Minister and the Government can look forward to a constructive Opposition response from us for as long as the Party opposite remains in government. I foreshadow that when we are in government after the next election we will look very positively at this report with a view to acting upon it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Prime Minister to maintain the integrity of his own guidelines regarding public duty and conflict of interest. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time today gave a classic demonstration, not of the working out of the Westminster principles relating to prime ministerial duty, but of how he is failing the very guidelines and principles he so resolutely propounded only four or five years ago. I start my remarks by reminding the House of something the Prime Minister said in this very place on 11 May 1983 when he was speaking to the Hope Commission report. I hope that every member of the Parliament ponders these words because within them is writ very large the dilemma in which the Prime Minister now so clearly finds himself as the knives within his own Party, in the person of his Treasurer (Mr Keating), are already being sharpened. He said: Ministers' doors should be and be seen to be open without the need for leverage by a party insider and it was not appropriate that a former party official, by virtue of that status, have special advantages or access to government denied to others. If ever there were words that utterly condemned everything that the Prime Minister has done in relation to the grubby Young affair, those words perfectly demolish and indict the behaviour of the Prime Minister. If ever there was a person who was a party insider, it is the former member for Port Adelaide. If ever a person was given privileged access, it was the former member for Port Adelaide. Yet, let alone the Prime Minister having any kind of concern or remorse about what he has done, he defiantly, arrogantly, contemptuously and improperly said in the Parliament today that if he had his opportunity he would do it all again. In other words, he would again and again use the coercive power of his great office. It is a coercive power. Let nobody be in any doubt that the Prime Minister of this country holds enormous power. He knows that, but what he does not know is that it carries enormous duties and responsibilities. One of the great duties and responsibilities that it carries is that at all times, without exception, the Prime Minister of this country must put duty above mateship. He must, on all occasions, do that and he must wield and exercise this great coercive power in a beneficial fashion. If the Prime Minister said in the Parliament in a beneficial fashion that he would again be on the phone to people in the business community trying to organise jobs for unemployed young people in the western suburbs of Sydney he would have the applause of the people on this side of the House. But instead, what he threatens is to get on the phone. Is he going to get on the phone to get a job for Barrie Unsworth next Monday? Is he going to get on the phone to get a job for any other Minister? What is he going to line up for the Deputy Prime Minister, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), if the Prime Minister still holds his own position when the Deputy Prime Minister retires at the end of this year? This Prime Minister appears to be monumentally incapable of understanding that what lies at the heart of the criticism that he now receives from the Opposition and from the media almost universally around Australia is that he has abused the privileges and the powers of the great office that he holds. That is what he should be condemned for. He simply cannot understand that there is any remote possibility of a conflict of interest. Does he seriously imagine that any business executive in Australia receiving a phone call from a Prime Minister would ignore it? He would have us believe that it was in the nature of a testimonial. What a lot of absolute rot! Mick Young has been one of the most public figures in Australia over the last five years. Are we seriously to accept from the Prime Minister that the only reason he rang a couple of people was to tell them a bit about Mick because they might not have known what Mick was really like? What absolute nonsense! The Prime Minister rang those people to heavy them to give Mick a job. It was as simple of that. He did not care about the consequences to his position. He did not care that at some time in the future one or other of those companies may want the Government to make a decision of particular benefit to it. Let me make it clear that I make no attack upon the chief executives of those companies. They are not in the dock. It is the Prime Minister who is in the dock on this issue. They have done nothing wrong. They have reacted, I imagine, in the normal way. People do not get a telephone call from a Prime Minister every day. They normally sit up and take notice of that. They normally say, `Maybe I should do something to oblige him'. Does the Prime Minister not understand that that can create a potential conflict of interest? Was that not what he had in mind when he wrote those post-Combe-Ivanov guidelines, when he said that there should be the avoidance of any conferment of privilege? Did the Government not have that sort of thing in mind? Of course it did. When the Prime Minister shouted from the rooftops to the former Federal Secretary of his own Party, at a time when he was applying higher standards, that not only should right be done but that also it should appear to be done, he was stating a very sound principle. But why is it that now, in 1988, he will not abide by it? Why is he defending the conferring of a special advantage or access to government denied to others? Does he seriously believe that everybody who wants a job with the companies that he approached has the same privilege and access Mick Young received on this occasion? Does he really imagine that his Government may not be potentially compromised and that, if at some time in the future one of these companies wants the Government to do something to help it, quite legitimately, it will not compromise his Government and it will not compromise him? Or is he so insensitive to the principles that govern prime ministerial conduct? Apparently he is. Today, at the end of Question Time, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), the shadow Attorney-General, sought to have tabled in the Parliament a document that had come into the hands of the Opposition from the Casino Control Committee of Western Australia. The document is dated 12 December 1986 and sends a copy of a violation report issued to the chief executive officer on 17 November 1986. It reads as follows: The decision to allow the Prime Minister to play one box at a blackjack table is a clear contravention of the approved rules of the game. The Treasurer breaches the tax rules and the Prime Minister, apparently, breaches the gaming rules. Of course he did not want that put into Hansard. The document goes on to say: Rule 4.8 of the Rules of Blackjack states: `If there is only one player at the table, that player shall wager in at least two boxes'. A casino licensee shall ensure that any authorised game conducted in the licensed casino is conducted in accordance with the approved rules of that game. A casino licensee or a casino key employee or casino employee who contravenes or fails to comply with, a provision of this Act or any direction or notice commits an offence. It is of particular concern to the Committee that [there was a refusal] to rectify an acknowledged breach of the rules when it was brought to his attention by an on-duty Government Casino Inspector. The Committee has determined not to institute proceedings for a breach of the Casino Control Act on this occasion. However, it wishes to advise that any future breaches may not be viewed as leniently. Whilst I do not claim any great proficiency in these matters, I understand that wanting to play only one box means that one wants to increase the odds. It is perhaps not surprising that the Prime Minister, this great sportsman, should want to increase his odds, particularly at present. So we await with some interest the response of the Prime Minister to that particular exercise which related to events on 16 November 1986. Apparently it is all right-of no great account-that the Treasurer does not put his tax return in on time. Perhaps the answer to this will be that it is of no great account that the rules of the game have been bent at the Prime Minister's request. We shall await with very great interest the response of the Prime Minister to that particular exercise. Let me return to the whole question of the Mick Young imbroglio in which the Prime Minister has found himself. What the Prime Minister has done in relation to Mick Young is to debase the power and the influence of his office in a manner in which it has not been debased before during the five years that he has been in power. On three clear occasions he has breached the duty that he owes to this Parliament and to the Australian people in relation to the Mick Young episode. He did not worry that, when he found out that Mick Young was going to be appointed a consultant to Qantas Airways Ltd, at the same time he wanted him to continue as Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. He simply refused or was unable to recognise that a conflict of interest could exist. He was so careless with the truth that as recently as Sunday he was saying that he knew absolutely nothing about Mick Young's appointment as a Qantas consultant. Yet yesterday when he was finally forced to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the matter, what was he doing? He was finally having to admit that he was told about it at the end of February. He gave some dissembling reply in the Parliament today to the effect that it was obvious that there was no conflict in the account. There was a conflict. He was prepared to say anything to the journalists of Australia as recently as the weekend and it was only when he was forced to face the reality of what the situation really was that he had to own up. He knew that his mate, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) up there in the Senate, would give an accurate answer on the subject, a meticulously boringly accurate answer, and he had to be absolutely certain that his reply completely tallied. Here we have a situation in which not only was he careless about the truth and indifferent as to what he said, but he does not see any problem in ringing anybody to heavy him to give a job to an ex-political mate of his. He does not care that it may establish a potential conflict of interest; he does not care that it breaches the doctrine that he laid down in such a sanctimonious fashion. Members of his own Party more than I will remember how sanctimonious the Prime Minister was about David Combe and on that occasion with very good reason because Combe and Young behaved disgracefully in relation to those episodes. It will never be forgotten by this side of the Parliament that the Prime Minister was prepared to maintain in his Cabinet for four years the former member for Port Adelaide who leaked information that could have damaged Australia's national security. That will never be forgotten on our side of the House and it will always be to the condemnation and the shame of the Prime Minister that he was prepared on that occasion to pathetically, wimpishly and hopelessly forsake the prosecution of his duty because of a sense of mateship and a mistaken sense of loyalty towards the former member for Port Adelaide. One of our columnists in the Age, Michelle Grattan, reminded us this morning that Mick Young once wrote a book called, I Want to Work. Perhaps after all of this there will be a sequel, I Want to Perk. The real sequel perhaps to this grubby little episode will be how, in the full light of day and in front of the bar of Australian public opinion, this Prime Minister can really ask the traditional Labor voters of Australia, the swinging voters of Australia and the rest of the Australian community to accept the proposition that it is perfectly all right for the Prime Minister to use and abuse the coercive power of his great office, not for the benefit of the general public of Australia-that is the duty he has sworn to pursue-but rather to pursue the selfish interests of a Labor Party mate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.25) —I think we have found out why members of the Opposition decided that they would run this little episode today. It links directly in to their efforts in the New South Wales election to distract attention from the debate over policies that is taking place there. That sleazy little document was read by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is here, at this table, doing a backbencher's job. The great document that Greiner has been wandering around briefing the Press is going to be dumped this week. How long has that document sat in the hands of members of the Liberal Party of Australia? How long has the knowledge of it been hanging about for them to be able to release it in this place? Of course, they are waiting for the opportunity to table it on what they consider to be the most politically damaging occasion for them to do so. The document is a rap over the knuckles to a casino operator for not upholding the rules. That is the great document which members of the Opposition have tabled here and on which they wish to build a case. That is adjournment debate stuff for the Leader of the Opposition. That is not even for his frontbencher, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), or even for his new frontbencher, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). It is to get the new member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) to test his teething problems in the House at adjournment time; but it is not for the Leader of the Opposition. Normally leaders of the opposition reserve that type of activity for their underlings, but this Leader of the Opposition has no political commonsense when it comes to dealing with those sorts of cases. He wishes us to judge him on his remarks about his capacity to convey to this Parliament and to this country issues of great principle and concern with the Prime Minister's conduct of his office. He wishes us to come in here and listen to him debate these matters. He wishes the Parliament to heed him on these matters. What does he do? He walks in and devotes half his speech to this tawdry little document, this tawdry little rap over the knuckles for a casino operator in Western Australia. Does he not do it with such wonderful unction? He says, `Of course, I know little about these matters. I and the little puritanical and wonderful honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) know nothing about these matters'. The Leader of the Opposition says pompously, `I am given to understand that this is regarded terribly seriously by those who play the game'. What an asinine performance. What a pathetic little job to be produced in this Parliament on behalf of Greiner. We all heard Greiner at the end of last week say, `Oh, we have got one or two things for the Liberal Party to raise in Parliament to make sure that nobody looks at my unjustified $1.4 billion worth of promises that I do not want anyone to hear about. Don't you worry about Barrie Unsworth's campaign next week, it is all going to be obliterated by what we are going to run in the Federal Parliament. We are going to get in there and we have got some really nasty stuff on the Prime Minister'. Now we hear it. Now we have heard the really nasty little stuff from members of the Opposition which was introduced at the end of Question Time with a smutty little smirk on the face of the honourable member for Flinders, acting his proper backbencher's role in introducing this sort of topic to get somebody a bit embarrassed, somebody a bit on the hook. They then build a gigantic case of abuse of office on the basis of a rap over the knuckles for a casino-what do you call him?-- Mr Pratt —Croupier. Mr BEAZLEY —A casino croupier. The honourable member for Adelaide does know about it. He knows that the correct term is `croupier' and he advises me correctly on that matter. He obviously is precisely the right sort of person to drop this document in an adjournment speech. How pathetic. It must be said that the only reason why it is possible-- Mr N.A. Brown —You are a Minister; get on with it. Mr BEAZLEY —I do not particularly want to deal with it. The honourable member is heckling me. I quite agree that it is totally inappropriate for the Leader of the House to be dealing with this particular issue. I am obliged to deal with it because the Leader of the Opposition decided to introduce it. Yes, I agree that it is beneath the dignity of people on the front bench of either side of the House to have to deal with this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, we are obliged to deal with it because it was introduced into this debate. The Leader of the Opposition comes in here with unction on other grounds. It must be said that the only reason we would be discussing here the sorts of rules and principles laid down for the approaching of Ministers by former members of parliament, party officials, or whoever, is that we established guidelines. That was the principal difference between this Government and the Opposition. No guidelines were established when we came into office. We were confronted as a government, not unreasonably, with a plethora of ex-Liberal Party staffers, ex-Liberal Party members of parliament-we have all been approached by them as Ministers-subsequently having set up lobbying or similar types of organisations and requesting us to make decisions on behalf of their clients. I am not attacking lobbyists. Lobbyists perform an important function in facilitating communications between groups and Parliament. The point about lobbyists is that there ought to be an appropriate course of action to determine how they should be dealt with as they approach Ministers. What was the response of the Opposition when we introduced those particular propositions against which now the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to judge us? The Opposition spokesman of the day said, `This is unnecessary. They ought to be permitted self-regulation. You should not have introduced this in the form of a statement', which was the way it was introduced. `You should have prepared a Bill for us so we could amend it to make absolutely certain that this was not imposed upon Ministers but was an act of self-regulation by the lobbyists themselves'. The Opposition did not want introduced into this Parliament standards by which Ministers could be judged in determining whether or on what basis people should approach them. It thought that was a very bad idea. But now the Opposition has had a latter day conversion so it can excoriate the Prime Minister on these grounds. Let me make a couple of points quite clear, because it is not only the Opposition but members of the Press who have sought to introduce the letter and spirit of the lobbying guideline rules for Ministers to observe when being approached by former members of parliament or whoever. Those rules are breached in neither letter nor spirit by anything that has happened to this point. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has not approached, as he said, anybody on the basis that what he wishes to do is to facilitate an opportunity for somebody to set up a lobbying exercise. He has simply provided a recommendation. This whole issue has become overstated. Of course, if Mick Young were subsequently to set up a lobbying operation he would be obliged to register himself, and Ministers would be obliged to deal with that matter. What the Prime Minister has provided is more in the nature of a reference. Does the Opposition seriously expect us to believe that its Ministers never provided anybody with a reference, that the Prime Minister of the day never provided a reference for someone who was seeking employment with a company, a government, a government agency, or whatever? The Leader of the Opposition now seeks to imply-and he did on the steps of Parliament-that in the seven years he was Treasurer, when he was approached, as he would have been, by constituents, friends, former party members, or whoever, seeking employment, he never provided them with a reference. If the Opposition expects us to believe that it never did that when it was in government, or even now while in Opposition, it expects us to stretch credulity too far. Of course that is exactly what the Opposition has done in times when it has been in government. To suggest otherwise is absurd. If the Leader of the Opposition did it as Treasurer, are we then to come in here when Mr Murgatroyd, former Liberal Party branch member in whatever constituency it is he holds, has applied for a job with a accountancy firm, and say that because the Treasurer has provided him with a reference the Treasurer has perverted that grand high office he holds; that he is indicating to that accountancy firm that if it were not to employ Mr Murgatroyd it might expect hostile treatment from the Commissioner of Taxation when it comes to dealing with submissions it puts to him on behalf of its clients? Are we expected to believe that somehow or other, operating in the mind of the average accountant, is the thought that coercion will be applied and that the former Treasurer would have intended that to have been the effect on whoever it was who was receiving the reference? What a load of nonsense. What a load of overstated garbage has been spoken about this matter since the Prime Minister yesterday said that he had effectively provided the reference for Mick Young to a couple of companies. What overstated nonsense. If we are going to go on the criteria of the Leader of the Opposition, all of us as members of parliament had better start having very strict hands-off relationships with absolutely everybody we have ever known who might reasonably want us, as members of the community placed in some position of trust, to speak on their behalf. We had better make it known to them that we will never do that. So overdrawn unction is basically the argument of the Leader of the Opposition, arguing principles which it must be said we set and which those opposite opposed when they were in government. The Leader of the Opposition went through it again. He introduced his broader jobs-for-the-boys framework, and indeed it is that framework in which he has sought to have this whole thing argued. He was doorstopped today and he said: `No, the Prime Minister occupies a unique position of power in this country, a special position. He has to wield that power carefully and sensibly. It has to be wielded in the public and not in the private interest'. He was asked whether a Liberal Prime Minister had done that. The Leader replied, `I don't know but I'm not answerable for them. If they did, they were wrong too. I am dealing with the present. The past is irrelevant'. He was asked whether he did anything like this-it was taken out more broadly-when he was Treasurer. He replied, `Oh, no'. As Treasurer he would have recommended the appointment to the Reserve Bank Board of the former Liberal Party Senator, Bob Cotton, and his subsequent replacement by Phil Lynch. We do not suggest that appointments of former Ministers to boards and to embassies are inappropriate or improper, but the way in which the Opposition has conducted itself over the last two weeks in this place is that it certainly believes that those sorts of appointments are in some way improper and inappropriate. It believes that it is a case of jobs for the boys. It has been arguing that about Hurford. Members of the Opposition have been wandering around the place saying, `Hurford's appointment constitutes jobs for the boys. That is what the Labor Party has engaged in here-jobs for the boys'. They have suggested that a totally independent decision by Qantas Airways Ltd to employ the former member for Port Adelaide is jobs for the boys, but the appointment by the then Treasurer of two Liberal Party ex-Ministers to the Reserve Bank Board was not jobs for the boys. Members of the Opposition say, `That is something different because we do it'. That is the essential moral criterion that is established. `If we do it it is okay: if the other side does it it is jobs for the boys and the other side will do it only because it must, by dint of that, be out of touch in some way with the Australian public'. We have heard not only cant in this place from the Leader of the Opposition when he came in here doing his backbenchers' jobs, but we also heard galloping hypocrisy from the Leader of the Opposition when he presented his argument. I return to the point that has been made about where Mick Young stands in relation to the appointments he has received and the approaches that have been made on his behalf, and whether they bear any relation to either the spirit or the letter of the rules and guidelines for lobbyists. He has not established a lobbying position. It was not on the basis that he sought a lobbying position that the Prime Minister held discussions with the relevant private businessmen; it was on that basis that he was available generally for work. There is no requirement in that regard to register in any way. The issues that are raised for Ministers when lobbyists approach them are simply not raised by them. The Leader of the Opposition has come in here and soiled his hands with a grubby little effort on behalf of his mate in New South Wales. That piece of rubbish will be properly rejected by the people of Australia, and they will be ashamed for him, ashamed that he has had to stoop to the rank of muck-throwing backbencher in the presentation of his case here today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.40) —How sad it is that the man who succeeded as Leader of the House the man about whom much of this debate this afternoon is concentrated has presented to this House such a paltry defence of what is a fundamental principle of Australian democracy. There have been three instances this week in which I think all members of this place have felt disappointed in the morality not just of the Government but of the man who is Prime Minister. I remind the House of them. The first is that, there having been presented to this House and to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a legal opinion from a former Solicitor-General and a former Attorney-General regarding the culpability of the man who is today the Labor Minister for Health and Community Services (Dr Blewett), as far as we are aware this matter has not yet been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Minister was in this House today. Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —Honourable members opposite might laugh-it does not matter to them. There being from a senior law officer of the Commonwealth an opinion which so many in the profession have belittled, and a contrary opinion having been tendered, at the very least the matter should be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Chynoweth —Rubbish! Mr SINCLAIR —It is not a matter of the honourable member just laughing and saying `Rubbish', for that is the problem. As I tear this paper, so the Government regards the whole concept of private interest and public responsibility. The second instance, and I think equally to be condemned, is the fact that from the whole of the unwinding of the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd affair, a matter which is still before the Australian Federal Police, a matter which is still before the Director of Public Prosecutions, there has emerged a second and really quite deplorable chapter. This chapter relates to the intervention of the Prime Minister. This is quite aside from anything that might have happened in the manipulation of financial donations to the Australian Labor Party, in an apparent contravention of laws introduced by the man who was the Leader of the House, a man who has now retired as the member for Port Adelaide and the man who only this week resigned as President of the Labor Party. What has happened is that the Prime Minister has intervened on his behalf and intervened, we are told, in the matter of a testimonial. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, `Where the devil have these leading businessmen been in Australia for the past 10 years?'. None of us thought that the former Leader of the House, Mr Mick Young, was exactly a blushing violet. He certainly did not hide his virtues when on three successive occasions on this side of the House we felt he should have resigned, and resigned permanently. The first case, we all recall, was the Combe-Ivanov affair. And how correctly the Leader of the Opposition described it; an affair for which nobody in the Government can really hold his head high. Do members of the Government laugh at the concept of a senior judge of the Federal Court damning this man as committing a potential breach of national security? Yet the Prime Minister brought him back and allowed him to remain a member of his Cabinet for four years. Then we had the Paddington Bear affair, where this former Minister conveniently avoided the obligations of a Customs declaration form. This man still returned to the Hawke Ministry, still remained to perpetrate breaches of what he said were laws necessary for the people of Australia. One of those laws happened to be that which set down the Register of Pecuniary Interests, and I will come back to that in a moment. The third contravention of the Prime Minister's responsibility and the Government's responsibility to put public duty and principle above private interest has occurred in the document which, for the benefit of the present Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), I should say, we learned about for the first time today. Because the Leader of the House has made so little of the findings, I refer him to the Violation Report, for I regard it, quite apart from guilt or innocence, as reflecting better the nature, manner and form of the way in which the man who temporarily is Prime Minister carries out his private life and, one would suspect, his public duty. In the Casino Control Committee Violation Report, reference No. 017/86 of 16 November 1986, the time of the violation is put down at 0030 hours, 12.30 at night. The nature of the violation incident states: The sole player on BJ87 (Prime Minister Hawke) was observed on a number of occasions to wager on one box only. At 0025 hours . . . name deleted- rang the pit and spoke to . . . on the matter . . . indicated that he would call back. At 0030 hours, the . . . rang the Division's Surveillance Room. He stated Mr Hawke had requested to be allowed to play one box occasionally throughout the night. Mr X- . . . indicated that he had agreed to this. When . . . informed him that this was contrary to rule 4.8 of Blackjack . . . replied that it was a private game behind closed doors. He further indicated that he would not rectify the situation. Honourable members opposite might well guffaw, but the point of all this is that the Prime Minister, quite in contravention of the laws that are laid down for members of the public in the casino, was quite prepared to play in violation of those laws. Like so many of the laws that this Government has introduced, we do not like them either, but members of the public, the ordinary public, the people with whom the Prime Minister and these Ministers are totally out of touch, are required to comply with those laws. Can those opposite tell me if any other players in the casino had breached the casino's laws in this way whether they would have been allowed to continue to play? Of course not. But this man is the Prime Minister. This man, as Prime Minister, requested that he play one box occasionally through the night. Because he used his influence, the casino management allowed him to do that and, as I quote, `indicated that he had agreed to this'. What is more, the casino management indicated that `he would not rectify the situation'. Now, Mr Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), that is our concern about the Prime Minister's telephone calls this week. What happened this week was that the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister of Australia, as the head of this Government, as a man who has some muscle as head of the Government, if for no other reason, rang a couple of this mates and said, `I have got another mate, Mick Young. I want you to find a job for him'. We were told yesterday that he had reason to believe that his telephone calls would lead to that application being successful. I put to honourable members: if the casino was prepared to vary the rules for players of blackjack simply because it was Prime Minister Hawke, who was the sole player playing blackjack, how can they expect leaders of business to be able to say to the man who is Prime Minister, `No, we are not going to find a job for Mick Young. We do not believe that in the present circumstances we should employ him.'? Let us recall that this whole affair arose because the Australian Labor Party, on the occasion of its last biennial conference, set down in its Platform Resolutions and Rules, in the economic section, rule 10 relating to the concept of privatisation. We all know that Mick Young has been employed, at what is reputed to be a salary of $3,000 a week-he then being President of the Labor Party-to subvert the laws of the Labor Party with respect to privatisation. Rule 10 of the Labor Party's rules, which he, as President, presumably was committed to uphold, states: Labor rejects the concept of privatisation and will preserve and develop public enterprise and public investment so as to integrate the policies of public enterprises with broad social and economic objectives. We all know why Mick Young went to Qantas Airways Ltd. He went to get that law overturned. He went to Qantas so that, as President of the Labor Party, he would be able to get the numbers in the New South Wales Right, in Barrie Unsworth's group, along with the Centre Left and a few independents, and they would be able to roll those idiots on the Left for they do not matter. It was their resolution that introduced privatisation, and it was their resolution which their President was employed to ensure was reversed. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put to you that this whole week has shown a succession of occasions when the Prime Minister has put his private interests above his public duty; when the Prime Minister has totally contravened the circumstances which any man exercising that high office should use in ensuring that he is above any suggestion of undue interference. He did it with blackjack. He did it, as we have seen, with Mick Young. He did it in his telephone calls. He has done it in refusing to require the resignation, or at least the standing down, of the Minister for Community Services and Health. On no account does the Prime Minister deserve to get away with his abuse of his office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(3.51) —One has learned to expect everything in this House. I never thought I would see the day in this House when the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) would talk about public interest, probity and conflict of interest. That is a joke, and it shows how tenuous this matter of public importance is. The Leader of the National Party speaking about conflict of interest, of public duty, of probity, is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. It is a joke to hear him speaking on those matters. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it very clear in Question Time today that he totally rejects the proposition that in contacting two leading businessmen on behalf of Mr Young that in any way amounted to a breach of the Government's guidelines on dealings with lobbyists. The Prime Minister went on to explain that approaching the two businessmen concerned to facilitate possible employment for Mr Young was simply by way of general testimonial to his abilities. The Prime Minister further in his answer made clear that to the extent that Mr Young may subsequently engage in lobbying activities, the guidelines will be scrupulously followed. I find it ironic, I find it contradictory to say the least, that members of the Opposition should base their premise for this matter of public importance on public duty and conflict with guidelines for the registration of lobbyists that this Government introduced. It is this Government that introduced those guidelines because it wanted to ensure there were guidelines to govern properly and effectively issues of public duty and possible conflict. They were not guidelines that the Opposition supported; they were guidelines the Opposition opposed. Yet now members of the Opposition seek to stand proud on those guidelines and base a case against the Prime Minister on conflict of interest. That is a tenuous case to say the least. In all these areas of public duty and conflict of interest this Government has taken the lead, taken the responsibility for setting appropriate guidelines to measure and ensure that proper concern is paid to questions of public duty and conflict of interest. It was this Government also that introduced into this House legislation requiring the registration of pecuniary interests by all government backbenchers. It was this Government that proposed that legislation; it was this Government that introduced it. We did it with no support from the Opposition, which totally opposed that procedure for registration. We now have in this House-we are one of the few countries of the world to have this-a registration of pecuniary interests for members of Parliament so that members of the public can make their own assessment about whether any member of this Parliament acts in breach of the public interest and public duty. It is interesting to note, is it not, that such registration of pecuniary interests does not exist in the Senate? It does not exist in the Senate because the Opposition parties voted against the establishment of such a pecuniary interests register. So, in all these important issues that safeguard and protect democracy and the public interest, this Government has been a forerunner in reform. It is this Government that introduced guidelines for the registration of lobbyists, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) knows full well. It is this Government that introduced the pecuniary interests guidelines for every member of this Parliament. I find it absolutely remarkable that members opposite are mounting a case today of breach of public duty on the basis of guidelines that this Government introduced. The Government is prepared to stand before the bar of public opinion on all matters of propriety. We are prepared to do that. I contrast that with so many of the policies of the previous discredited Fraser-Howard Government which was not prepared to stand before the public, was not prepared to stand at the bar of public opinion as we have done. I refer to the question of tax avoidance. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) can speak in this place about apparent conflicts of public duty and private interest when for years and years he was the Treasurer who received memo after memo about the unfettered floodgates that were haemorrhaging away the tax system in Australia through tax avoidance. For him to speak about probity and public interest makes a total mockery of the procedures of this place. He has no respect or credibility at all in this place. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition held a Press conference at which he was asked about this matter. He suggested: When we are talking about the Prime Minister of Australia heavying people and potentially creating an obligation, that is dangerous stuff. The Leader of the Opposition is also the master of exaggeration. How absurd to beat up the story of a Prime Minister talking to two businesses on the phone and say that the Prime Minister of Australia was heavying people. I have never heard anything so preposterous. It has been said by members of the Opposition that we did not need guidelines for the registration of lobbyists before this Government came to office. We did not need them because outside Ministers' offices there were long queues of all the old Liberal apparatchiks waiting to see their mates in government. That was the way the system used to work. It was a system of courtship and friendship that members opposite promulgated in government. It was this Government that had the decency to introduce guidelines to protect the public interest. Let me conclude with the key piece of evidence that was brought into the House today by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the House, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), made the point that the Leader of the Opposition had made a bad mistake by bringing into this House a smutty little document designed to help his friends in the New South Wales election, in particular Mr Greiner. The Leader of the House is quite right because the Opposition in this matter is right down in the gutter and he will pay the price in the future. Let me get to the question of the smutty little document the Leader of the Opposition brought into the House today. He has crawled into the gutter. Every member of the Opposition knows that in relation to this question of blackjack on some occasion during the blackjack game the Prime Minister asked to play one box. Every member of the Opposition knows that was permitted. No-one suggested to the Prime Minister that this was against the rules. The Opposition knows that the rules vary from State to State. On a subsequent visit to the casino the rule on playing one box was for the first time drawn to the Prime Minister's attention and he quite readily and happily accepted that. The matter in question, this secret missile, this smutty little document that the Leader of the Opposition has brought into the House today, originated some 15 months ago but he brings it into the House now, three days before the New South Wales election. No official reports on the matter have been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister since then. So far as I am concerned, and so far as every member on this side of the House is concerned, the matter was finished then and there. Every member of the Opposition knew that no flagrant breach of any regulations applied and that the matter was minor. What I have explained in this House shows that that is so. The Opposition is desperate. Its leader is under further pressure and its members are forced to come into this House producing smutty little documents that put the Leader of the Opposition down in the gutter where he rightfully belongs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The debate is concluded. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(4.01) —I 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. The National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Fire Brigade, proposes to install 12 high capacity fire hydrants at various locations within the parliamentary zone. The installation of these hydrants will enable the fire brigade to extract from existing underground mains sufficient water to fight major building fires within the zone. The design of the hydrants has been developed jointly by the NCDC, the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade, and the ACT Administration for use in Canberra. The fire brigade requires the hydrants to be located within six metres of hardstanding to enable connection to the fire tender. The hydrants are also sited in visually prominent positions and coloured for quick and easy identification in emergencies. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.03) —I am pleased to have heard the explanation of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), which he would normally provide two hours before he spoke in this place, of this particular resolution. The explanation throws some light on the motion. As I understand it, the motion seeks the Parliament's approval for the construction of fire hydrants for the protection of the new Parliament House. Of course, the Opposition supports the need for such protection for the new Parliament House. The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House has apparently discussed this need with the fire brigade and with fire brigade experts. According to a report tabled in this House on 10 December 1987, the experts are satisified with the arrangements that have been made. The outstanding issue is why on earth appropriate fire fighting equipment was not incorporated earlier in the overall design of the new Parliament House. If there were some disagreement about the exact nature of the hydrants, that matter should have been resolved, in my view, in the building stages so that the hydrants could have been included as an integral part of the construction rather than, as is now being requested of the Parliament, to have these fire hydrants put in place as a late addition only a month or so before the opening of the new Parliament. I repeat that I should have thought such protective equipment was an essential and integral part of the building of the new Parliament House and should have been included in the original construction proposal. Nevertheless, the coalition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus measure proposing amendments to various bounty and subsidy Acts. The major proposals contained in the Bill are; first, the implementation of the Government's decision announced in the 1987-88 Budget to terminate the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act 1985 as from 15 September 1987; and, second, the amendments to the Bounty (Books) Act 1986, to effect changes to the book bounty scheme as a result of the Government's consideration of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries. In addition, the Bill makes a number of technical amendments to clarify certain eligibility criteria and administrative features in other bounty and subsidy schemes, as well as repealing certain expired bounty schemes. These amendments are set out in detail in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, which has been circulated. I shall now briefly outline the two major proposals that are contained in the Bill. First, I refer to the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Act of 1985. There is something in this Bill for everyone: readers and non-readers. This is for the National Party. When the agricultural tractors and equipment bounty scheme was introduced in mid-1985, the Government believed that it would assist the local agricultural tractor industry to strengthen its position in the domestic market and become economically viable in the longer term. However, since that time, production by the major manufacturer in Australia has virtually ceased, and it has become clear that the scheme has not been effective in maintaining an internationally competitive tractor manufacturing industry in Australia. In the circumstances, and balanced against other budgeting constraints, the Government decided in the context of the 1987 Budget to terminate the scheme as from Budget night last September. I should like to emphasise that tractors and parts in stock at the time the decision was made are eligible for bounty payments in the usual way, provided applicants can demonstrate that the goods satisfy the normal end use preconditions of the legislation. Finally, I should like to point out that agricultural tractors and equipment are incorporated in the reference on mining, construction and agricultural equipment currently with the Industries Assistance Commission. It is therefore open to people to put forward their views to the Commission on what they consider to be the appropriate level of assistance for this industry sector. I shall now refer to the Bounty (Books) Act 1986. This Bill also proposes amendments to the Bounty (Books) Act 1986 which will extend bounty assistance to the book producing industry to 31 December 1993, and implement various related administrative arrangements as a result of the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's report No. 401, dated 25 February 1987, on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries. Bounty has been paid on certain Australian book production since 1969 in order to assist the Australian printing industry compete with overseas book printers. This particular industry is assisted by means of a bounty because, although not a signatory, the Government adheres to the spirit of the Florence agreement, which precludes the imposition of tariffs on books containing educational, scientific and cultural material. In its 1987 report, the IAC concluded that the book producing sector should continue to be assisted by bounty until at least 31 December 1991. It recommended that the bounty of 20 per cent of net selling price be phased to 18 per cent after one year and to 13.5 per cent after two years. Further, it was recommended that no changes be made to the bounty criteria which applied from 1 January 1987. The Government accepted the IAC recommended reduction in book bounty rate to 13.5 per cent, which is equivalent to a 15 per cent tariff. However, as the industry has already suffered rapid bounty reductions over recent years, it was decided to phase in the reductions over four years rather than two years with an extension of the scheme to 31 December 1993, thus producing a more stable assistance environment allowing the industry to confidently make long-term plans. Accordingly, the book bounty will remain at 20 per cent until 31 December 1988. Bounty will then be reduced to: 18 per cent from 1 January 1989; 16 per cent from 1 January 1990; 14 per cent from 1 January 1991; and 13.5 per cent from 1 January 1992. The Government will again review assistance to the book industry prior to the 31 December 1993 expiry of the existing scheme. The Government has also decided that although existing administrative procedures should generally continue, certain changes should be made to facilitate more efficient administration of the scheme. In brief, the Government has decided that a minimum claim of $500 per title per production run will be introduced for all claims for book bounty, replacing the current $200 minimum claim limit. Bounty will be paid on a production run of 1,000 copies or more which includes more than one type of eligible binding of the same book, so that hardback and paperback editions of the one book produced together will be treated as having been printed in the one production run. Packaging used for promotional purposes and sold with a book eligible for bounty will now be bountiable. All children's books over 16 pages when the text is not less than 3 mm, irrespective of whether or not the book contains pictures, will be bountiable. Self-financing government publishing enterprises producing and marketing books in substantial competition with the private sector will now be eligible to receive bounty. With regard to these proposed administrative changes it is considered that raising the minimum claim from the existing $200 per title per production run to $500 will assist administrative efficiency by reducing the number of book bounty claims while not disadvantaging small bounty printer claimants. The National Book Industry Review Committee has maintained that claims between $200 and $500 account for less than 5 per cent of these claimants' output, and usually involves specialist work not subject to overseas competition. The proposed change relating to the binding of books will remove the present provision in the Act which prohibits variations to book binding material when the production run of a particular book is assessed for eligibility. This means that the same book printed in both casebound and paperback form cannot be combined in the same production run. Representations from the industry argued that this discriminates against casebound books. Production runs of casebound books are often less than 1,000 copies, and therefore ineligible for bounty. The exclusion of these books because of binding variation represents too fine a distinction and defeats the intention of the book bounty. The Government has therefore decided that a production run be defined as including more than one type of eligible binding of the same book. This change is proposed to be made retrospective to 1 January 1987, the date of commencement of the current Act. Similarly, the proposed amendment relating to packaging will remove an impediment under the existing Act which allows packaging for the purpose of transport to be eligible for bounty, but not if the packaging is used for promotional purposes. Packaging for an imported book is not dutiable as it forms part of the imported product. The use of packaging for promotional purposes is common in the book industry, and when used in this way for an imported book does not attract duty. To draw a dichotomy between this packaging and packaging used in advertising a book which is locally produced is therefore inconsistent and discriminates against the local book production industry. For these reasons the Government considers it appropriate that bounty be now paid for packaging used for promotional purposes. The proposed amendments relating to children's books are intended to remove both an anomaly in the present legislation, and an administrative problem which has arisen. The Act provides for children's picture books over 16 pages to be eligible for bounty while other children's books are required to have a minimum of 49 pages to become eligible. Children's picture books containing a continuous narrative are also excluded unless the minimum size of the text is not less than 3mm, and the pictures form the principle interest in the book. It is anomalous that children's picture books are eligible for bounty while other children's books are not. It is considered that administration problems relating to children's story books and adult story books can be resolved by establishing a standard minimum text size for children's books. It is generally accepted within the industry that 3mm is an appropriate minimum size. By allowing all children's books over 16 pages when the text is no less than 3 mm, and children's books over 16 pages with pictures only to be eligible for bounty, it is considered both the anomaly and administration problems will be resolved. Finally, the proposal to make bountiable certain work produced by a government instrumentality is intended to address two problems being encountered in the present legislation. Currently, when an eligible process is subcontracted to a government printer this renders the book ineligible for bounty. The Tasmanian Government Printer has requested that as bindery facilities are only available in Tasmania through the Government Printing Office, private sector printers be permitted to subcontract bindery work to the Tasmania Government Printer without forfeiting their eligibility to claim book bounty. In order to solve this difficulty, the Government has decided that when an eligible process is subcontracted to a government printer or other authority of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, this will not render other eligible processes undertaken by the private sector for that book ineligible for bounty. Bounty will continue to not be payable to the Commonwealth, a State or Territory or an authority of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for book production. However it has been decided that self-financing government publishing enterprises-for example, the Australian Broadcasting Commission-when they are producing and marketing in substantial competition with the private sector, should not be unduly disadvantaged relative to the private sector. Accordingly, it is proposed by this Bill to give the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce the power to determine exemptions from bounty exclusion for such self-financing government enterprises. The detail and mechanics of this exemption process, together with the previously mentioned administrative changes, are further discussed in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Financial Impact Statement Bounty payments to the book industry under the Bounty (Books) Act 1986 will be $18.4m during the 1987-88 financial year, and are expected to be $21.4m during financial year 1988-89 and $19.3m in financial year 1989-90. The termination of the agricultural tractors scheme is expected to save $900,000 in the 1987-88 financial year. The other proposed amendments in the Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, to incorporate into that Act various excise tariff proposals tabled in this Parliament during the last sittings and early in this sittings. These proposals concern the excise duty on liquefied petroleum gas; adjustments to the excise duties on refined petroleum products following movements in the import parity price; an increase in the excise duty on aviation gasoline; and an adjustment to restrict the total excise duty increases as a result of consumer price index indexations for the 1987-88 financial year to 6 per cent. Liquefied Petroleum Gas The excise duty for naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas is adjusted six-monthly on 1 April and 1 October each year in accordance with the Government's LPG excise policy announced in April 1980. The excise rate is calculated as 60 per cent of the amount by which the realised price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 a tonne. The realised price is based on the weighted average of the prices received from exports and local sales of LPG during the immediately preceding six months. Before 30 June 1987 the excise applied to LPG from all fields in production in August 1977. However, under the new petroleum excise arrangements introduced from 1 July 1987, LPG produced from onshore fields is exempt from excise, so the excise now only applies to offshore fields-that is, Bass Strait. No excise is payable on refinery-produced LPG. Clause 3 of the Bill will amend the excise rate, with effect from 1 October 1987, from $5.02 to $13.21 a kilolitre, an increase of $8.19 from the previous rate set on 1 April 1987. The increase reflects an increase in export prices of LPG in March 1987 and the stability of prices at the higher level for the 6 month period since then. Import Parity Price Adjustments The import parity price adjustments for 1 October 1987 and 1 December 1987, at clauses 4 and 5, reflect movements in world oil prices during the respective preceding month. The reduction in the import parity price for 1 October directly results in a decrease in excise and royalty receipts for crude oil, while the increase in the oil price for December will increase excise and royalty receipts. Since March 1986 the Government's policy has been to fully offset changes in its revenue from crude oil excise and royalty by across the board changes in excises payable on petroleum products. The net result of this decision has been that, as crude oil prices change, Government revenues remain the same overall. Consistent with this Government's policy, excise rates on refined petroleum products were increased on 17 October 1987 and decreased on 15 December 1987. These changes are expected to be the final adjustments of this kind as the Government has decided, with the deregulation of crude oil marketing from 1 January 1988, to discontinue the practice of offsetting changes in crude oil revenue by changes in product excise rates. In the absence of the import parity pricing mechanism from 1 January, a continuation of the practice would have been difficult and inappropriate in a free market environment. However, the Government will continue to monitor oil prices closely and will consider variations in petroleum product excise rates to counter inflationary or revenue effects in the case of a substantial change in world oil prices. Aviation Gasoline Clause 6 of the Bill will increase the amount of excise duty on aviation gasoline, with effect from 1 January 1988, to cover the cost of terminal navigation-that is, air traffic control-and rescue and firefighting services at Essendon, Coolangatta and Launceston airports. Aircraft using avgas ceased to be charged for those services with effect from the 1 January commencement date, and the additional charge of 0.5c per litre will offset the cost of those services. These revised arrangements were introduced after consultation with the aviation industry had revealed that, under the previous charging arrangements which came into effect last July, general aviation avgas operators who used the three airports, and incurred landing charges as a result, were disadvantaged compared with their competitors operating at the general aviation secondary airports, who were not faced with any landing charges in respect of their use of those facilities. The extent of the disparity was not foreseen by either the industry or the Government at the time the changes were made last July. The Government reconsidered the position of avgas excise charging arrangements in respect of these three airports following its consultations with the major industry associations, and the proposal to replace the Commonwealth's landing charges-that is, the terminal navigation and rescue and firefighting service charges-at these airports with an additional 0.5c per litre surcharge on avgas excise has been introduced to remove the disparity occasioned by the charges which users of these three airports were encountering. Limitation of Excise Indexation to around 6 per cent Clause 7 of the Bill will effectively limit the total excise indexation increases for the 1987-88 financial year to 6 per cent. These amendments fulfil the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the inaugural Ruby Hutchison Memorial Address at the National Press Club on 13 March 1987. The amendments decrease the rates of excise duty applying immediately prior to indexation on the February 1988 adjustment date, so that when the legislative provisions for indexation are applied, which requires the use of the published consumer price index, the resulting indexation is 2.5 per cent. This increase, when combined with the August 1987 indexation adjustment of 3.5 per cent, yields a total indexation of 6 per cent for the 1987-88 financial year. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT Liquefied Petroleum Gas The 1 October 1987 increase in the excise rate for naturally occurring LPG is estimated to result in an increase of $9.5m in excise receipts in 1987-88. Import Parity Price The alterations in refined petroleum product excise rates due to the changes in the import parity prices effective from 17 October 1987 and 14 December 1987 are expected to have the following impact on revenue in 1987-88: The increase in refined petroleum product excise rates effective 17 October 1987 is expected to increase revenue by about $121m; The decrease in refined petroleum product excise rates effective 14 December 1987 is expected to decrease revenue by about $66m. These changes in the excise rates following the above changes to import parity prices are intended to exactly offset the forecast changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalties. Aviation Gasoline Surcharge The measure has no direct financial implications, as it has been designed to recover only the revenue which will be forgone by the Commonwealth as a result of the removal of the terminal navigation and rescue and firefighting components of the landing charges levied at Essendon, Coolangatta and Launceston airports; aircraft using aviation gasoline ceased to be charged for these services from 1 January 1988, the date of effect of the surcharge. Limitation of Total Excise Indexation to 6 per cent The financial impact of imposing a 6 per cent ceiling on excise duty rate increases for 1987-88 is estimated to result in revenue forgone of $25m for that financial year. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Sharp) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(4.28) —We are debating today the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill. The coalition does not oppose this Bill. The purpose of the legislation is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which of course is the main arm of the World Bank. This is expected to cost $US1.88m spread over four financial years from 1988 to 1989. In 1984 the World Bank governors agreed to implement a $US7 billion special capital increase to allow the Bank to expand its borrowing on world financial markets so as to fund its activities. A country contributes to a special capital increase by subscribing for more shares in the Bank. Australia commenced providing for this increased subscription in 1986. During 1986 the governors also approved a resolution authorising a further phase of the supplementary share allocation. This Bill provides for Australia's contribution. I will not go into the technical details involved in the share raisings as they are non-controversial and were adequately explained in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) and the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Previously, when in government, the coalition has supported funding to the World Bank. We recognise the Bank as a fairly effective institution in delivering multilateral aid to developing countries. The capital increase is required because of the ongoing need to aid the development of the poorer and less advantaged countries on this earth. The World Bank, compared with commercial banks, has always been a conservative institution, maintaining a one to one ratio between lending and capital. This is one of the reasons that the bank has been able to operate with few hints of financial problems over its four decades of operation. Indeed, the bank is seen by many as the premier multilateral aid institution. However, like any large organisation, it has suffered in recent years from becoming overly bureaucratic. There have been concerns that programs have wasted scarce development assistance. I understand that the President of the bank, an American, Mr Barber Conable, is putting into effect an internal restructuring plan for the bank. There have been some disruptions and troubles in this spring-cleaning. In recent times it has meant a certain loss of attention from the key issues before the World Bank. Of course, the key issue standing before the bank like a gargantuan is the so-called Third World debt crisis. Although the calculation of the exact outstanding debt of developing countries is hard to measure, due to so-called definitional problems between countries, the World Bank projects that in 1987 debt for the Third World stood at $US1,080 billion. That represents a 66 per cent increase since 1980. I assume that to most of us it is fairly hard to comprehend the real impact of the size of this figure on the world scene. What is worse is that by far the largest share-over 40 per cent-falls in the South American region. Many plans have been put forward to help solve these problems through international co-operation. There is the Baker plan, from the United States Secretary for the Treasury, James Baker, to boost commercial bank lending. There is the Lawson plan from the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, to improve the rescheduling of debt. There is the Bradley plan, the Kaufman plan and a myriad of other debt solutions. Most, I regret to say, appear to have rested more on rhetoric than on action. Indeed, what is often said but usually is conveniently overlooked in practice in the numerous conferences on debt is the principal need for restructuring by the developing countries. I was for many years the Foreign Minister of this country. Dr Harry Edwards —And a good one too. Mr PEACOCK —I would agree with the honourable member, but modesty prevents me from developing that at any further length. The World Bank, of course, came under the aegis of the Treasurer. Therefore, I was concerned only in passing with the World Bank, but I was keen to see the manner in which it addressed many of its problems. During my period as Minister Mr Bob McNamara retired from his post at the World Bank. I was an admirer of Mr McNamara before I became Foreign Minister. The bank, as I said, has undergone many changes. I referred to the myriad of plans that were put before the international community to try to solve the problem of debt. To use the colloquialism, it used to drive me to distraction at international conferences to hear the discussions on debt because very few discussions emanated from those who had placed themselves in great debt. Honourable members should examine my record in seeking to increase aid funds while I was Foreign Minister. Certainly, the proportion of aid under us, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was infinitely larger than under this Government. It is now at one of the lowest levels in the history of this country. But the salient point of countries turning to restructure themselves was a point that was rarely delivered to the Third World. Frankly, if money is to be delivered, some messages ought to be given as well, but rarely were the messages accepted in any vein at all. I think of the tragedy of Ethiopia. In late 1984 I flew to Ethiopia. It was a stark scene that we had witnessed on our television screens. The responsibility for assisting the Ethiopians rested with the developed world. The Soviets were continuing to assist them with military equipment but in the midst of their need-a need to be fed-we had to get food into the country. The single thing that could have assisted the long term regeneration of growth in Ethiopia would have been a restructuring and an opening up of that Marxist controlled economy. International expert after international expert would pen these thoughts, but no one would seek to coerce the Government, which still continues in power in Ethiopia, to make the fundamental change to its own economy. I see a need for the World Bank to use some of the muscle that the International Monetary Fund can use, when it is called in on occasions to coerce some countries into changing their systems. The tragedy is that we are being warned daily that Ethiopia is facing yet another problem. The civil war goes on but the restructuring has not gone on. It is obvious to even the most casual observer what has to be done, from reafforestation to freeing up markets. It is a stark and sorry tragedy. It was easy, in a way, to meet the ready emergency last time. One had only to bring in food. But we cannot do that year in and year out. We have to get people to attend to their own affairs in an effective manner, and that is not being done. I regret that even with an institution such as the World Bank the capacity to cajole people into the not only sensible but required changes does not appear to be there. I started on that little distraction when I touched on the massive amount of debt in the international community and the need for restructuring by the developing countries. This obviously brings me, regrettably, to our own country's plight. After all, Australia is a commodity dependent country with much in common with Third World nations. Our mineral and agricultural products account for around 80 per cent of exported goods. This is typical for a developing country. But the more chilling comparison with the Third World countries is the level of our foreign debt. Unfortunately, we must go back a couple of years to find suitable data to compare Australia with South American countries. At the end of 1986 a study carried out by the Morgan Guaranty trust company revealed that Australia's gross foreign debt stood at around $101 billion. I go back to 1986, as I said, to get an accurate comparison with other countries, whose figures are not available as our figures are today. That figure represented 42 per cent of GDP, and debt service-that is, interest on debt and repayment of principle-represented over 60 per cent of exports. Some people will say that that is quite acceptable when compared with a country such as Argentina which, at that time, had a foreign debt of 68 per cent of GDP and debt servicing representing around 200 per cent of exports. But there is no comfort in the fact that Australia's debt, at 42 per cent of GDP, was not far distant from the 46 per cent for Colombia and was larger than the 41 per cent figure for Brazil. Both of those countries are well known economic basket cases. Clearly, the Government should wake up. The reality is-we on this side of the House know it-that debt in this country has quadrupled under Labor. I have talked on and on about what needs to be done, but I will simply say today that we do not oppose the Bill. There is an absolute need, however, for the Government to make up and to shake off its complacency. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is well remembered for his banana republic threat about the Australian economy. Why does he not warn us about such things nowadays? No, the climate is changing. See you later, mate-there is no more frank speaking like that. The Treasurer says, `I've got a Prime Minister who's got his feet in the gluepot. I've got my eyes on the job. You're not going to hear me talking about the state of the economy. I am going to tell you how good it is and claim that I have brought it about'. He forgets that the underlying structural elements in this economy can be accurately compared with those of banana republics and Third World, debt-ridden basket cases throughout the international community. `No.', he said, `we are going to put a gloss on it now'. At the time he said that we might be headed for a banana republic, it suited him. To hell with it suiting Australia. To hell with the shock it gave some people. To hell with his own credibility. He was a macho man then. But now it does not suit. He wants to assume the mantle of the prime ministership in the dying months of this Government. He is not prepared to rock the boat or even give a hint of the gloomy clouds on the horizon. I have heard some fanciful stuff in my time, but to have this creature sitting at a Press conference yesterday, saying, `We are leading the world with our economy-- Mr Rocher —Down the drain. Mr PEACOCK —Yes. I suppose that if one used some form of inverse calculation one might, by some sort of tortured logic, be able to reach the conclusion that we are in front. But my God, one would have to be using reverse principles to achieve that. The same thing appears to be happening regrettably, for different reasons perhaps, which Senator Walsh, the man who, along with Senator Button, has periodically raised the bogy of International Monetary Fund intervention and warned the country appropriately that we could be in very serious trouble beyond that with which we are confronted at the moment. After all, it was Senator Walsh who last year, a week after the Budget, told us that we were on the road to Argentina. We are not there yet, but he was on the right track. Even Senator Walsh seems to be going to water. Last week at the Australian Statistics Advisory Council economic forecasting conference in Sydney he was reported as saying that he could see the need to ease up on the expenditure reduction task. Had he been got at by his opinion poll watching mates in the Cabinet? I cannot believe that slasher Walsh, as he became known when he cried for more attacks on government expenditure, could really be advocating such a course. When Mr Greiner becomes Premier of New South Wales, as unquestionably he will next Saturday, I trust that the Government will be prepared to knuckle down to the needed adjustment task. The Australian economy is extremely vulnerable to exogenous shocks from the world market place. We not only have a net foreign debt that has nearly quadrupled to almost $87 billion net since this Government came to office; we are plagued by persistently high unemployment. The unemployment rate now sits at around 8 per cent, with youth unemployment at a saddening 20 per cent. Inflation is running at around 7 per cent, more than double that of our major trading competitors. A weak economy such as this puts us right in the middle of the debt crisis. The Government is content to sit around until May, when we will have yet another May statement, to give us in a mini-Budget what it should have provided in the Budget in September last year. It will be a very interesting May statement. At the moment this Government is raking in enormous amounts of additional revenue. This Treasurer is awash with funds. There is no question that without any policy changes the surplus will be over $1 billion for the current financial year. One can project a surplus, without any change at all, of $3 billion or more in the 1988-89 Budget because of the amount the Government is taking and sucking out from pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayers, in particular. This morning on a similar subject there was an interjection that the fringe benefits tax (FBT) had brought in considerable sums. It has, but they are small beer in the total take compared to what ordinary Australian average weekly earners, paying enormous rates and moving up into ever higher tax brackets, are bringing in. This morning I was talking about the effect of tax creep. One of my colleagues thought I meant the Treasurer. I actually meant the way in which the system works. I must, more accurately, use the phrase `bracket creep' instead of `tax creep' in future. Honourable members should not assume that all this revenue-indeed, quite the reverse-makes for a sound economy. What it really means is a government continually bludgeoning the ordinary Australian with increased tax. This revenue is not from so-called broad-based measures, such as the fringe benefits tax, as I mentioned and as the Treasurer himself so glibly informs us. Even if the FBT increases somewhat beyond the Budget time estimates, it will represent only around $800m. As I was indicating, it compares with PAYE collections of around $30,000m. It is there that we find the revenue increase, the bracket creep. The Government should use the mini-Budget to provide tax relief. It can do this and, at the same time, provide expenditure cuts which will provide for a Budget surplus. That Budget surplus is undoubtedly needed. It is the best way to start paying off the large accumulated public sector debt in this country. We should also see in the mini-Budget what was to be the great mark of the third term of the Hawke Government-so-called micro-economic reform. Micro-economic reform is not a phrase, however, we have heard much from the Government in recent months, even though it was supposed to be the main policy focus of the Hawke-Keating Government's third term. Mr Rocher —It is not micro, it is microscopic. Mr PEACOCK —It is certainly microscopic now. It was to be the substantial task of this third Hawke Government. We have had rhetoric but little action. On privatisation Government members are all over the place. Do honourable members really think that they will deregulate the labour market? Forget it. We will wait and see what they do in terms of protection. In terms of the protective level for the textile, clothing and footwear industries I note that by 1996 there will still be a level of 60 per cent protection. Great micro-economic reform! Words are fine, but where is the action? All the aspects I have just mentioned are crucial to strengthening the economy. The reason we are having a mini-Budget is the Government's belated recognition of the effects of the share market crash on the world economy. With the world economy ridden with debt, the stock market crash could have enormous consequences. Two major catalysts that exacerbated the already serious Third World debt crisis during the early 1980s were high interest rates and low commodity prices, both factors that also affect Australia. Uncertainty abounds. The balance of payments figure came out yesterday. The Treasurer goes to a Press conference and says, `I have done it all. Here it is. Australia is leading the way. I am in charge'. Honourable members will note the heavy use of the first personal pronoun throughout the Press conference, with the Treasurer taking credit for it all. The reality is that the only reason there is an alleged improvement in the balance of payments-I say `alleged' because there was still a deficit of $737m added to our debt once again for the month-- Dr Harry Edwards —It is $25m every day. Mr PEACOCK —I am indebted to Professor Edwards, a noted economic analyst and commentator. If one is able to go to a Press conference and claim that one is bringing around a significant recovery when one is adding $737m to the country's debt per month one is putting oneself into the basket case of analysts around the world, let alone the basket case economies around the world. The Treasurer claims that he has brought about a recovery when all that has happened is that commodity prices have gone up worldwide and, as a result, a country such as ours is the recipient of much greater funds. But what has happened domestically? Where are the attacks on the structural weaknesses within the economy? There are none at all. Where are the incentives for people to invest and work more, such as reductions in taxation? Quite the reverse is the case. The Treasurer claims that we are in an allegedly favourable position because international markets are paying more for our commodities and because the Government is earning more by way of the revenue it is soaking from Australian taxpayers. If the Treasurer alleges that that is good economic management, I will give a garden party. Last year we heard that the responsibility for the poor state of the economy was the poor terms of trade. Now the terms of trade are turning around and we are getting better prices for our products, but we are still judged to be one of the most vulnerable economies in the world. Why? Because the Government did not force the pace of adjustment in the face of these external imbalances last year we have wasted nearly a year. In the May statement allegedly we are going to get what should have been done last September. In fact, I will lay tens on that after the New South Wales election the pressure from members of the Left will be exerted on the Government not to cut expenditure. That is why slasher, Senator Walsh, is going quiet on expenditure cuts now because he knows the Left will not let him get away with it. The pressure will come on the Government not to privatise, not to move with further micro-economic reform and not to get government expenditure down. Members of the Left found out that this Treasurer has a vast reservoir of revenue and they will put it on him to use that revenue to prop up all sorts of institutions such as the one we were debating this morning-Australian Airlines-and the like. I mention that because the debt problem facing Australia is massive. If we do not face up to our huge and growing foreign debt and to the current accounts deficits that we have, we will move inexorably further into the line of basket cases that I was referring to earlier on. We are still a contributor to the World Bank. I would be the last to forecast that we might have to ask it for assistance down the line, but the reality is that we are aligned economically on so many comparisons with so many of the debt ridden Third World countries which exist on capital improvement programs and the like and capital works within their countries as a consequence of moneys paid by the Reserve Bank of Australia. If honourable members think it is going to get better because the man masquerading as an effective Treasurer tells them that he is doing a good job, let me throw in one other scenario. Before the end of this year, the United States of America will elect a new President. He will come in early next year with a great deal of goodwill throughout the country. If he does not want to be a one term President he will need to address the structural problems within the United States as well-similar problems, but not of as great a magnitude as the problems that we have in Australia. He will have to move fast. Unquestionably that will have a somewhat recessionary effect within the United States. Honourable members know the effect it will have on countries such as ours: as we get more depression in commodity prices-all we have had is trumped up rhetoric from the would-be replacement of casino Bob-we will be in a more exacerbated situation than we are today. The duty is profound. I have introduced this element not only because the indices take us into a comparison but because if we are talking about what this nation can do for the World Bank, what we ought to do, and what I fought for in my years in the Parliament, we will not be in the same position to be able to do it down the line if we allow negligence and mere fear of factions to prevent our taking the measures that have to be implemented to address the structural imbalances in this country. I do not want my country to get into a worse situation than it is in now. I do not want my country to be in a situation where it cannot fund projects and make share allotments to the World Bank. I want to be able to do that. I want us to return to a situation where we hardly have to turn a hair to increase our contributions to the World Bank. But the scenario I paint is one that has plausibility and reality to it. I think we are staring it in the face. The measures the United States will have to adopt will have these sorts of implications for the world economy in 1989. A further possible scenario could be that following the stock market crash in the shorter term United States interest rates could increase in order to support the United States dollar and fund that country's trade deficit; that is to say because the now weaker United States stock market will attract less foreign investment at a given exchange rate, higher interest rates will be necessary to attract money into the United States bond markets to fund its deficit. This would then translate through various transmission mechanisms to contribute to a dampening effect on world economic growth. Australia's economic future is undoubtedly in the balance. We need to strengthen the economy now. The Government should be aiming at real structural change through deregulation and reducing the burden on taxpayers. The Government talks about so-called revenue neutral tax changes in the mini-Budget. All that really means is burden neutral. There must be a quickening in the pace of economic adjustment so that we can avoid going further down the Third World path and avoid ever needing to rely on World Bank development assistance. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.55) —In the somewhat rambling remarks of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) he made a number of comments that I, in turn, would like very briefly to comment on. It was very good to see his concern about the Third World debt crisis, but he tended to lay the blame for that on the developing countries. While it is true that they did borrow the funds, part of the blame therefore rests with them, but part of the blame must also rest with the banks that lent them the money and also with the change in the whole global economic scene since those loans were made. As the honourable member suggested, it is simply not possible for those developing countries to adjust when there has been a massive decline in commodity prices and when their terms of trade turned against them so much. No matter how hard they try to increase their export earnings they are not able to. Numbers of those countries have gone through a process of major structural adjustment. They have increased the volume of their exports only to have the value of their exports stagnate as a result of the decline in the prices that they receive for their exports. The change in the economic climate is at least as much to blame for the problems that they now have as those countries must carry themselves. It is also extremely difficult for them to adjust when they have got massive interest payment and repayment problems. Some of those countries are having to pay up to 50 per cent of their export earnings simply on the interest on their debts. When there is such a drain on their export earnings through such debt servicing, it makes it impossible for them to import even the machinery, other kinds of equipment, fuel and so on that is needed for the sort of restructuring that they have to go through. They are in a terrible bind. I will return to this matter in a minute because there are numbers of policies that Western countries could adopt which would assist in the structural adjustment that they have to go through. The honourable member for Kooyong also made some comments on Australian debt which were not strictly relevant to the subject of the debate at all, but there are some similarities and so it was not worth calling a point of order. The similarities are that Australia is suffering from the same kinds of problems as developing countries because of the collapse in commodity prices. We have had the experience of a sharp deterioration of our terms of trade which has caused us a severe current account deficit. But our situation is very strikingly different because we still have a high credit rating. The surplus countries and the banks in those countries are still willing to lend us all the money we need to cover that current account deficit and, most important of all, we have in place an active, effective adjustment program. We have devalued substantially and that is the most important part of the short term adjustment; we have reduced real unit labour costs; we have reduced our interest rates, which is a great encouragement to new investment; we are going through a process of industrial diversification; and imports are being restrained by a relatively restrained fiscal and monetary policy. We have a very effective adjustment process under way. That will not work miracles overnight. We are going through a process that will take many years. It would be foolish to pretend, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kooyong, did, that that adjustment could take place overnight. It will be a difficult and prolonged task to which all Australians will have to contribute. The honourable member suggested that the Government should be restraining fiscal policy even more. If we did that there would be a real danger of cutting off our nose to spite our face, of cutting off the outlays that are needed to make the structural adjustment possible. If we reduced outlays even further we would have to cut public investment, for example, which is absolutely essential to building up the productivity of the economy and increasing our export competitiveness. It simply does not make sense to cut back outlays when the consequence would be a reduction in our long term growth rates. Spending on public investment is not the only form of public outlay that does that. Outlays on education, research and a host of other activities are also very important. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that Government debt was a high priority. Perhaps he does not know the facts. The fact is that Government debt in Australia is the second lowest of any Western country. We have the second lowest level of government debt of any industrialised capitalist country in the world. Reduction in government debt, while it would be nice if it were possible, is not a high priority here in the same way as it is in other countries such as New Zealand. Much higher priorities are the reduction of our current account deficit and the reduction of unemployment, both of which are being achieved, and the evidence of the last few months is very encouraging. I should like to get back to the real subject of this debate, which is the share increase for the World Bank. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill authorises a small increase in Australia's share in the World Bank. In June 1986 Australia had 12,700 shares in the World Bank. This Bill authorises the purchase of an additional 178 shares of the capital stock of the bank. It is part of a small increase which was proposed in 1984 and adopted in May 1986. Many countries are making small increases in their shares. The importance of this proposal is that it allows the bank to increase its shareholders' equity and that increases the amount it can borrow and so the amount it can lend to developing countries. It would be impossible to argue convincingly against this proposal. The purpose of the World Bank has been to contribute to longer term development in the Third World; in other words, to promote growth in poor countries. The World Bank, unfortunately, is not quite a world bank in fact because the Soviet Union and several other eastern European countries are not members. It was good to see recently that the United States Administration is thinking of supporting the communist countries in becoming members of the international financial institutions-not only the World Bank but also the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions. This is important for more effective coordination of the global economy. I hope that Australia will also support that proposal when it gets to the councils of the bank. The World Bank now has about 150 member countries. It principally lends to the poor among those countries, disbursing the cash either to governments or to private sector groups undertaking projects guaranteed by governments. The World Bank is the largest single source of lending for developing countries, and last year lent $14 billion to about 130 projects in its 1987 financial year. It has a subscribed capital of $85 billion and the Bill we are discussing today will make a small contribution to increasing that. The most recent development in the bank is the discussion that took place in February about a proposal to increase massively the shareholders' capital in the bank by about $75 billion, which would nearly double the bank's capital base. This would enable the bank to undertake a major increase in lending in the 1990s. It is important to note that an increase in capital does not have to be paid in entirely by the shareholders. They would be required in this case to pay only 3 per cent of their subscriptions in comparison with the 7 1/2 per cent normally required at present, while guaranteeing availability of the rest. The next step in the process of increasing the capital will be the debate about the increase in the parliaments and governments of member countries. Australia will no doubt be debating a Bill of this kind in due course. It would be useful if the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would comment on this proposed increase in his reply at the end of this debate. The most recent proposed increase in the World Bank's capital should be strongly supported by anyone concerned about development within Third World countries. During the 1980s there has been a terrible depression in much of the developing world. Whilst industrialised countries went through a recession in the early years of the 1980s, most developing countries have experienced a depression as severe as that in industrialised countries in the 1930s. Living standards throughout Africa and Latin America and in several already severely impoverished Asian countries have been decimated by the combined effects of plummeting commodity prices, grinding debt burdens, natural calamities such as drought through much of Africa and earthquakes in Mexico, and the failure of aid or lending from the richer countries to increase. The consequences have been growing malnutrition, rising infant mortality rates, growing unemployment, deterioration in the extent and quality of health and education services, and so the reversal of trends towards gradual improvement that had been evident during the previous three decades from the 1950s to the end of the 1970s. Few people in Australia know of the severity of the human problems this has caused. Most of us are familiar with the television pictures of starving mothers and children in Ethiopia, and there has been much generous support for non-government attempts to raise funds to deal with the catastrophe of drought in Ethiopia; but there has not been an adequate response by Western governments generally to the enormity of this human tragedy. The World Bank does make a useful contribution to the process of development within the Third World. The International Development Association (IDA) in particular which is the low concessional lending arm of the World Bank makes an important contribution. Low income countries receive assistance on terms they can afford, mainly from the IDA and to some extent also from United Nations agencies and bilateral donors, but there are special reasons for wishing to ensure the continued strength of the IDA. Because of its size the World Bank group has become the main focus for development policy discussions between aid giver and recipient. It also helps to co-ordinate a policy among all donors for a number of countries through aid consortia and consultative groups. Because it is relatively free from the foreign policy and commercial pressures which surround national bilateral aid programs, the IDA can give primacy to development criteria in aid allocation in terms of both the nature of its projects and the countries to which it lends. Eighty-one per cent of its lending goes to low income countries and a further 17 per cent to countries with per capita incomes just above the low income boundary. So it is vital that the funds of the IDA be increased. I do not think there can be any doubts about the value of the contribution to economic development made by lending from the World Bank. It is absolutely essential for developing countries to obtain funds for major infrastructure projects, for agriculture, for health and education, for transport and communications, and for water and power. The World Bank has a fine record of contributing to well planned and prepared projects in these areas. However, it is certainly not above criticism in a number of ways. For example, it is certainly also true that there is quite legitimate cause for criticism about the environmental impact of some World Bank projects. There can be no doubt that some projects have involved environmental destruction which is unnecessary and better planning could have resulted in more effective conservation. There is absolutely no doubt that the bank has been far too strongly under the influence of the United States Administration. It is true that, during the McNamara years, the concentration on the alleviation of poverty and on basic human needs was a refreshing development of the bank's orientation and this was criticised by the Nixon Administration. However, under the presidencies of Claussen and Conable, Reagan Administration appointees, the bank has become far more acquiescent in the extremely reactionary and in many ways economically irresponsible policies of that Administration. There is certainly far too much acquiescence in the United States Government's policies within the bank. For example, the history of World Bank loans, far from indicating a single minded commitment to economic considerations, reveals a pattern of lending that casts serious doubt on the institution's supposed non-political character. A look at the major recipients of World Bank funds, as well as at those repeatedly denied access to its resources over recent years, makes it clear that politics are at least as important as economics in shaping decisions. A number of the most mismanaged and corrupt economies in the Third World, such as the Philippines under the Marcos regime, Zaire, El Salvador, Turkey and Chile, have been amongst the largest recipients of bank loans. These loans show that it has been the bank's own biases which have contributed to supportive loans. Those countries which have been prepared to pursue the bank's own development model have received large loans. That model has been based on low wage labour, a reducing place for public intervention, a central role for foreign investment, and a quite naive and simplistic approach to so-called free markets which neglects the fact that most markets are severely distorted and experience market failure. Amongst the reforms of bank policies for which concerned people in the rest of the world should be working is reconsideration of those doctrinaire policies. It is important that the World Bank adopt policies which are both better informed and more sympathetic to the existing economic, social and political structures of developing countries, as well as policies which show greater imagination about ways of improving both the efficiency and equity of those economies. Many other reforms of the bank are also required. One of the most obvious would be to change the capital borrowing ratio. The previous speaker mentioned that the gearing ratio of the bank is 1 : 1. There cannot be any other major bank in the world which has such a conservative gearing ratio. Many responsible financial experts have been critical of this extremely conservative policy, and it is suggested that at the very least the gearing ratio should be changed to 1 : 2. Even that would be very conservative in comparison with many commercial banks which have a gearing ratio, in some cases, of 1 : 20 or more. That proposal has been criticised by some. The bank was advised by some financial experts in 1982 that, given the shakiness of financial markets, the solidity of the bank's financing should not be disturbed by changing the gearing ratio. Another objection has been that existing World Bank bonds have been issued on the basis of 1 : 1 capital backing and would be affected by change in the gearing ratio. Neither of those objections is insuperable. Many bankers would not agree with the first and would welcome a larger role for the bank created by changing the gearing ratio to 1 : 2, and the second objection is simply a legal technicality which can be overcome. It is therefore important that the bank's gearing ratio be changed to 1 : 2, and I hope that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who will be responding to this debate, will comment on the Australian Government's attitude to the proposal that the bank's gearing ratio be doubled. A number of other Western countries have supported this proposal, and it is important that the Australian Government do so also, for this would release substantially increased funds for on-lending to developing countries where they are desperately needed. There is one major problem that is retarding development and to the resolution of which the World Bank could make a major contribution, and that is Third World debt, as the previous speaker commented. Given the shortness of time, I would like to draw attention not to the seriousness of that problem, because that is quite clear, but to one or two proposals for reform which should be seriously considered. The Australian Council for Overseas Aid has recently published a book on Australia and the global debt crisis entitled Life after Debt. The book discusses both Third World and Australian debt and the policies Australia might advocate to resolve the crisis. The hesitant efforts at reforms since the crisis began in 1982 have not even stopped further deterioration. Policies so far have concentrated on new lending, rescheduling debt servicing by delaying repayments or lowering interest payments, and debt conversion involving exchanging foreign debts for domestic assets such as equities, securities or even conservation measures. A number of proposals have been made more recently which could also be important, but the one that I would like to concentrate on, because it seems to offer the best possibility for change, is the idea of establishing a debt management authority. Senator Sarbanes, Chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, has proposed such an authority, and the idea was approved by the United States of America House Banking Committee, and has been included in the omnibus Trade Bill, which is currently being negotiated. The multilateral debt management authority could borrow funds from surplus countries to buy debt at a discount. Already billions of dollars of Third World debt are being traded in Wall Street at a discount on its nominal value. Such a debt management authority could be established under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank. Substantial funding would be required. A paid in capital subscription of, say, $US3 billion, plus guarantees totalling $US27 billion, would provide total capital of $US30 billion. Subscriptions could be expected to be in proportion to normal IMF or World Bank contributions. A gearing ratio of 10 : 1 would allow the authority to raise $US300 billion from the international financial markets by selling bonds, mainly no doubt to current account surplus countries. If debts were purchased at an average discount on their nominal value of about 30 per cent, about $450 billion of Third World debt could be restructured over a number of years. Debtor countries would benefit through reduced debts and interest rates. Creditor banks would lose part of their assets, but they no longer expect them to be fully repaid. However, they would benefit through renewed liquidity. The United States-Mexican agreement announced on 30 December accepts the principle of sale of debt at substantial discount on its nominal value. Australia could have an important role in resolving the debt crisis. We have the financial expertise to produce and evaluate practical proposals such as this, through the representation of our executive directors at the IMF and the World Bank. Australia's leadership of the Cairns Group and our strengthened role in international disarmament negotiations are clear indications of our capacity to use our limited influence in international forums effectively. I hope we will do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.16) —As the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) said in his very thoughtful and concerned speech, we are debating the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill which seeks to obtain the approval of the Parliament for Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I take this opportunity to comment on Australia's development assistance program generally to the poor or developing countries of the world. Unfortunately, this program has taken something of a beating under the Hawke Government. Thus the projected total of development assistance for 1987-88 amounts to $1,007.6m. Whilst this represents a small increase in money terms compared to last year, it is actually less than it was for 1985-86, two years back, when the figure was $1,031m. So the cumulative reduction in real terms, that is, corrected for inflation, since 1985 amounts to more than 20 per cent. There have been few, if any, other expenditure cuts of that order. I believe that is an indication of the Government's commitment-or lack of commitment-to this important issue of economic development of the developing countries. Mind, I do not suggest that the Government has not got to get on with the job of cutting back expenditure generally, given Australia's vast balance of payments deficit and our frightening overseas debt of about $110 billion. It is not, as the honourable member for Fraser has suggested, of any consequence how much of that is government or private debt. It is the total that is important. In these circumstances it is imperative that, along with other key policy thrusts, such as freeing up our labour market and getting inflation and costs down to levels comparable with those of our major trading partners, these matters are considered very urgently indeed. We are in a very dependent, very vulnerable situation-and we will have to look out when the United States of America (USA) begins really taking on the task of getting its budget and trade deficit down, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), stated. The present level of Australia's development assistance represents 0.36 per cent of gross domestic product. It is the lowest for 20 years, if not ever, for this country. It was 0.5 per cent in 1983 and 1984 and it all but touched 0.6 per cent in the late 1960s. Looked at in this way, there has been a serious deterioration in the Australian development assistance effort. As is well known, the target figure of the United Nations is 0.7 per cent, and Australia is committed to achieving that figure, but we have a long way to go. However, the average figure for the developing countries in 1986 was about the same as our figure, 0.36 per cent. There has been a worldwide declining trend in capital flows and development assistance to the poor and developing countries over the past five years. I doubt whether Western governments will ever really recapture the generosity of past decades. This decline in development assistance is associated with the horrendous Third World debt issue which previous speakers have referred to and it is a very significant factor contributing to the imbalance and difficulties in the world economy. It goes along with the United States budget and trade deficits we hear so much about, the falling US dollar, the German and Japanese trade surpluses, the greatly appreciated Deutsche mark and yen, the adverse effect of European and Japanese farm protection and so on. Of even more concern are the figures for the final net annual financial resource transfers from the developed, the rich, countries to the developing and poor countries. These are not easy to come by, but one estimate is that whereas in the three years prior to the Mexican debt crisis in 1982 the 18 major developing countries received an annual net transfer in the order of $US40 billion, in the years since then there has been a net reverse flow from the poor countries to the developed and advanced countries at an average of $25 billion to $30 billion. Does the House understand that? In the event there has been a flow from the poor to the rich. That means that the developing world is about $70 billion a year worse off, measured in terms of control over resources, than it was four years ago. Apart from the direct impact of that on developing countries, it has to be a major constraint on world growth. Without going further into the complexities of these matters, the plight of the developing countries, which contain nearly four-fifths of the world's population, is a matter of urgent and important concern to everyone. To assist them is a matter of humanitarian concern-the starting point is the injunction of Christ that `of those to whom much is given much will be expected.' It is also, however, important to the preservation of world peace. And recognising the great mutual interdependence of the developed and developing world, it is further in our straight-out long term economic self-interest to undertake a significant development assistance program. That involves, on a world scale and in our own case, addressing the $1,000 billion debt overhang of the developing countries, as well as increasing aid and development assistance, increasing trade opportunities including freeing up farm trade, and, very importantly, encouraging the right policies in the developing countries. When I refer to the right policies I mean much reduced regulation and controls in those economies-in short, freer markets; I refer to a sound overall economic policy including an appropriate exchange rate, not an overvalued exchange rate; I refer to an outward-oriented trade policy; and finally a favourable commercial environment for foreign companies and investors. It is very important, as my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, to encourage restructuring and an effective economic policy in the recipient countries; that is good for both local economic growth and for maximising the benefits of such development assistance as a country receives. Turning to the World Bank itself, which was established in 1947, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) said in his speech: The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and it plays an important role in the South East Asian region. He went on: Projects financed covered all the major sectors of economic development with an emphasis on infrastructure facilities in the transport and communications, industry and energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. The World Bank and its soft loan arm, the International Development Association (IDA), have a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system which shows that most bank and IDA projects-85 per cent of those evaluated in 1986, for instance-achieve all or most of their objectives. The estimated average return on projects evaluated in calendar years 1985 and 1986, measured by the flow of net economic benefits over time, was 14.8 per cent. That is a fairly encouraging account of the activities of the World Bank-but I am not sure it is as clear cut as that. The bank, in what one commentator has referred to as `an extraordinary act of self-indictment' early last year, has itself said, in a largely internal report on how the bank might be re-organised, that it had failed to `chart a clear institutional strategy through difficult times'; that it had failed to provide `intellectual leadership in the debt crisis'; that it had become `soft' in its internal management and had generally `not measured up to its mission'. In the light of those findings by that committee of investigation the then newly appointed President, Mr Barber Conable, set about a process of radical reshaping and re-organising of the bank. How far that self-criticism is justified and just how far the institution has been, or will be, changed is difficult to say. What is clear is that the hitherto major and traditional emphasis on project lending-building roads, dams, steel mills, and so on-will increasingly give way to so-called policy-based lending. That means, in a word, telling developing countries how to organise their economies in return for loans. That is tied in with the increasing emphasis on so-called SALs-structural adjustment loans-which can finance anything from specific physical investment, rationalisation and adjustment programs, to a general budget deficit. It is the reform of economic policy in the direction I referred to a moment ago-less regulation and freer markets, sound overall macro-economic policy, outer-oriented trade policy, including an appropriate exchange rate, and a welcoming commercial environment for foreign investors-which in that context is to be the price of receiving loans. That is the price of the money. I would say that if that can be done effectively then it is a highly desirable thrust of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development policy. Of course, there would still be plenty of scope for the traditional project type lending. After all, a country could have the best economic policies in the world, but, as Mr Conable pointed out in an interview, if it does not have a functioning road system, an adequate education system or a communications process, it will not achieve much economic growth. It is suggested also that tied in with the role of policy-based lending would be a role as co-ordinator of private lending. Certainly the bank, other development institutions and governments should be much more active in the role of catalyst in promoting private lending and private initiative in development assistance activity than they have been. I have already touched on one major aspect of that when I referred to the right policies to encourage direct investment from rich countries' multinationals, fund managers and so on. Another aspect is the work of the non-government organisations (NGOs) in the development assistance field. We are all familiar with organisations such as World Vision, Freedom from Hunger, and so on. These are based in Western developed countries. Of course, there are also NGOs in the developing countries which may increasingly become the channels for effective development work supported by Western funding and also, in time, their own. I have knowledge of one such non-government organisation in the Philippines. It has been sponsored and nurtured by the Maranatha Trust of Sydney, which is recognised worldwide as among the most effective and professional of NGOs. The founder and executive director is Mr David Bussau. I have the privilege of serving as Chairman of its Overseas Aid Committee. The non-government organisation that I refer to, based in Manila, the Philippines, is Tulay Sa Pag-Unlad Inc. (TSPI), a Filipino Christian development organisation which is now in its fifth year of the highly successful fostering of small enterprise development for job and income generation. It does this through the provision of credit and training in small business management skills. In this connection I remark in passing that one criticism of World Bank activities made by James Bovard, in his interesting paper entitled The World Bank Vs. The World's Poor, published by the Cato Institute in Washington, was: The majority of small-enterprise borrowers from IBRD-financed development finance companies (DFCs) are in arrears in their debt repayments. In contrast, TSPI, with its indigenous roots and stress on responsibility and accountability, regularly reports repayment collection rates of the order of 90 per cent. I suggest to the House that this Philippines development organisation, TSPI, is something of a model for grass roots development assistance. I have referred to this organisation at some length because I am aware that TSPI made an application, put forward a proposal to the Australian Government, to participate in the so-called Philippines Australia community assistance program (PACAP) announced last year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), responding to a request for assistance from the new President of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino, said: A new program of Community Assistance for the Philippines will aim to create employment opportunities and generate incomes in rural areas in the Philippines. Funds will be provided to the Church and Non-Government groups in the Philippines to assist small scale development and welfare projects and small and micro-enterprise development. The TSPI request was for a grant of 118.3 million pesos, about $US6m, over six years for a program designed to generate 60,390 jobs in 20,200 businesses with the number of beneficiaries totalling 483,600. Those figures work out at about $US100 a job. I notice that some of the jobs promoted by the World Bank come out at a cost of about $US500,000! I am stressing the efficiency and effectiveness of this type of on the ground work. With the professionalism, integrity, and proven track record of TSPI, one would have few doubts that these outcomes will be achieved. Yet to my knowledge the proposal has not won support within PACAP. If that is correct, I should very much like to know what local NGOs and programs have in fact attracted support, bearing in mind the objective enunciated by the Prime Minister to which I have just referred. In conclusion, I wish to refer briefly to reports that the Hawke Government is considering the abolition of tax deductibility for donations to charitable and other community organisations, which would include the various Australian non-government organisations I have referred to. This concern arises in part from the decision of the New Zealand Government to abolish such deductibility, which in that country takes the form of a charitable donation rebate, from 1 April 1988. Last week the National Trust issued a Press release drawing attention to these reports, strongly stating that it expressed alarm at suggestions that among taxation measures being considered by the Treasury and the Government was the abolition of tax deductibility for donations to all charitable and other community organisations. The National Trust pointed out, as I would point out, that this surely would be a backward step when, as I have been contending, it is desirable that, increasingly, private effort in the development area should replace public effort. At the grass roots in particular, as the TSPI case amply illustrates, the private sector can do a better job with more efficiency and less bureaucracy, as well as with more compassion, I believe, and is able to foster more meaningful involvement and interest on the part of individuals and private corporations. I urge the Government to think long and carefully before it seeks to follow the New Zealand example in this matter. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.36) —It is not often that I follow the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) in economic debates. Usually he follows me and has me at the disadvantage that he can attempt, at least, to pull some of the threads of my arguments to pieces. However, I make this observation of the honourable member: I find him one of the more reasonable debaters in this House on matters economic; certainly he is one of the less angry members. Because of that, I believe, he warrants more listening to than other members on that side of the House. However, the honourable member for Berowra has debased some of his arguments somewhat today by falling for the trap of accepting the invitation of his leaders to join in spreading the gloom and doom feeling about Australia's economic standing in the world. There are two matters for which the Opposition so much likes to castigate the Government, without any analysis. At least, Opposition members feel there is a soft underbelly there, in that they believe that the public, without little knowledge of this rather complex subject matter of economics, will swallow some of their lines. The first matter is our foreign debt; the second is the problem we have with our current account deficit. I remind the honourable member for Berowra that, although Australia's foreign debt might well stand at in excess of $100 billion, we should also recognise-as the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) pointed out-that the Government component of the foreign debt is the second lowest of the government component of the foreign debt of any comparable country. We should realise also that, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, our foreign debt is actually falling and is nowhere near the catastrophic levels of 30 per cent and 40 per cent during the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. Yet the Opposition would have the public believe that we are on the very precipice, the verge, of yet another world depression, or certainly an Australian economic depression. The honourable member for Berowra did admit, however, that the foreign debt was made up of both public and private components, but not once did he suggest ways of curbing or winding back our foreign debt. This Government has put its mind and its energy towards winding back at least that part of the foreign debt for which it is primarily responsible; that is, the public debt. The Government has done this by having the public accept that we do have to lower our standard of living in this nation. We cannot continue to spend at the rate we have been spending. We have analysed the reasons for the mounting debts. For instance, we recognise that the terms of trade have been disadvantageous to Australia. If Australia had purely free trade, particularly in commodity prices-which it does not-we would see that the particular commodities that we produce have been enjoying-or not enjoying-very bad terms of trade. However, they are on the reverse. We now find far better prices for our wool and wheat, and people in the Wimmera where I was born are feeling a little more comfortable about farm incomes at the moment because of the wheat and sheep that predominate production in that area. Correspondingly, the devaluation of the Australian dollar has largely increased the size of our foreign debt. Although there might be an argument as to the correct level of devaluation, we no longer have a managed float and we no longer manage the currency in this country, but probably we have one of the cleanest floats in the world. If we were to manage it and to listen to the National Farmers Federation, the Australian dollar would be wound back even further to about 40c American. That would more than double our foreign debt. But we do not hear the two sides of the argument. It brings out the complexity of managing international trade and foreign debt. Whatever one does to manage foreign debt by curbing imports, by expanding exports and by currency controls, it is a two-edged sword. One is in a bind. Because of that one has to move carefully, slowly and have a ratchet effect of improvement. For instance, if we were to have a lower dollar, our imports would vastly increase in price. We need those imports, in the same way that the developing countries need them, to increase our technological base. We need the machinery, which we do not produce here, and we need the technology so that we can increase our manufacturing and our value-added components of production and, in turn, rely less on our commodity export income. On the other hand, a devalued dollar would increase the attractiveness of our exports. One can see from that example that whatever one does, one is in a double bind. If one improves one side of the equation, one necessarily disadvantages the other side of the equation. Heaven help us, the developing countries are in a far worse situation, with fewer opportunities for dramatic improvement than Australia. However we must ensure that the balance in the equation is favourable to our own country. We heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) some very comforting news in two successive months, possibly three months, of the movement in our current account. The deficit is going down. Yet despite that good news, despite the concern expressed by the Opposition, the gloom and doom, there have been no questions without notice to the Treasurer recently on those figures. Indeed, there has been no real economic contribution from the Opposition at all. The gloom and doom thesis is an attempt to try to delude or hoodwink the public, particularly with a New South Wales State election due at the weekend and a by-election coming up in South Australia, into thinking that, despite the Government's excellent record in relation to inflation, employment, interest rates and so on, somehow the enormous task of our international economic relationships overshadows all that and warrants a rejection of this Government. What we can be sure of is that in economic management this Treasurer, this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), this front bench and the present Government, stand head and shoulders over not only the record of the Fraser Government but over any contribution by Opposition members. To return to the Bill, it relates to the World Bank and to Australia taking up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The main task has been dealt with by other contributors to the debate. The main activity of the bank for the last 41 years has been in raising capital and lending it to developing countries. It is just like a domestic bank, but it is a bank on the international stage. The capital increases allow the bank to expand its borrowings on world capital markets and these borrowings largely finance the bank's activities. To be a partner or a shareholder in that bank, as the Treasurer has pointed out, it behoves us to take up the offer that is available to us in respect of extra shares. The World Bank has been an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, and plays a particularly important role in the area of our immediate neighbours to the north, that is South-East Asia. I shall turn shortly to one prime example which is often overlooked by honourable members, let alone by most Australians, and that is a country that is on the edge of South East Asia and yet part of it-Burma. To the end of June last year, the bank had lent about $US120 billion to its member countries. This money was largely borrowed from international financial markets. The cost to taxpayers in the member countries was only $US7.2 billion. That should be borne in mind when considering the cost, given the turnover of funds and the multiplier effect of borrowing on the world stage. The projects themselves are most important. They emphasise infrastructure facilities in the transport and communication industry and energy sectors as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. In this context I wish to refer to my visit to Burma last year. I went for the reason of visiting war cemeteries, but inevitably I took the opportunity to meet many government leaders on other matters, such as education and agriculture. I must put on record my thanks to our Ambassador, Mr Chris Lamb-no relation-who gave fantastic support in our meetings with the Burmese at decision-making levels. It was clear from our trip that education in that country is most important. I am not talking of education at the same level as that in this country, but at a level that we would take for granted-namely in the secondary level where the greatest effort must be put. It is of no use giving just a few Burmese the opportunity to study at universities throughout the world. Of course that is important, but one must not stop there. We must ensure that the ordinary men and women of Burma have the basic skills and knowledge in areas necessary at their level of development. A visit to the Moulmein Technical School, not far from the Australian War Cemetery at Thanbyuzayat, indicated to us the poor level of equipment which those students have. The small amount of money necessary for Australia to contribute to upgrade teaching aids in that country in welding, carpentry, automotive engineering and metalwork was evident. Assistance is coming from Australia and from New Zealand. For instance, the Burmese are running out of industrial gases for welding. The tips of welding rods are missing. Some varying size spanners are missing-very small tools such as those that we have in our own backyards at home in the shed, yet because they are poor schools in Burma they are deprived of such items because they are unable to purchase or replace elementary equipment. I was approached by one of the service groups in Wagga which read a report of my visit to the technical school in Burma and which offered to take up that project. That was one of the non-government organisations mentioned by the honourable member for Berowra, which is very important in overseas aid. The group was going to take up the project involving $3,000 to re-equip some of the necessary but elementary equipment at that school. I visited the hospital in the area and I thought I was in an army field hospital without all the modern drugs. Unless we understand that the aid we give them has to be utilised by people with an education at the subsistence level and with equipment at the subsistence level so they can build up the area of their agriculture in the first instance, our giving them equipment which should be of assistance does not even get us to first base. This is where the honourable member for Berowra is quite correct. He was critical of those lenders who put conditions on their lending to the developing countries. He pointed out that often loans are not made and equipment is not given unless these conditions are met. Not only is a useful level of aid important to developing countries but also we must remind ourselves that the gifts and the aid are for the development of the recipient country, not ours. Yet if we examine the aid and the loans from donor countries we see that there are great multiplier effects at home in their economies, particularly if the material or the equipment is made and manufactured there and then exported in its finished state. There is then as much benefit to the donor country as to the country receiving the aid. The way to overcome these conditions is to make sure we have less reliance on bilateral aid and more on multilateral aid, with more assistance through non-government organisations such as the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. It is more likely that here such aid will not be conditional. With aid through the World Bank, United Nations organisations and these non-government organisations such as the International Red Cross and others, we are more likely to have unconditional and more appropriate aid given to these countries. In Burma the Australian Government is contributing over a number of years $20m for a main northern trunk road to increase infrastructure, including ground communications and transport. The reciprocal benefits to this country are immense because Burma recognises that Australia is a particular friend in the world scene. Burma, wrongly in my view, has closed itself off from the rest of the world. It has attempted to insulate itself from exploitation by the rest of the world by being totally self-reliant, and it has not worked. It is ready now to find a window into the rest of the world, without losing face and compromising its statute. The people of Burma see Australia as a special window into the rest of the world. They are fiercely non-aligned. They recognise that Australia is very independent and, although aligned in many ways with the United States and the rest of the Western world, they see us as ready to stand up to these big brothers, these big nations, and have our say. The links between Burma and Australia go back to the 1940s, when many Australians lost their lives on the Burma Railway. Those links have been developed by people such as our Ambassador, Chris Lamb. While I was there I was asked to mention to this Parliament that Burma would like Australia to ask that it be invited to more world forums, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and world trade forums. They do not want to do it themselves because they believe they might lose face. That attitude is understandable once one gets a glimmer of understanding of the culture of Asian countries. So it is up to Australia not only to give more aid and to continue the aid we now give-$12m a year in the case of Burma-but also to develop more openness between the rest of the world and Burma. I point out to honourable members that Burma is a member of the World Bank and has been offered some 10 shares, and 6 shares in the second parcel, compared with Australia's 117 and 61 on the table, as set out in the explanatory memorandum provided by the Treasurer. One other disappointing feature of our overseas aid, as the honourable member for Berowra pointed out, is that it is declining. He said it was 0.36 per cent of gross domestic product; I thought it was 0.39 per cent. Whatever it is, it is miserable. It should be well above that level. Our target in the first instance, as a member of the United Nations, is 0.7 per cent. Personally, I would like to see a target of one per cent. But people still contact me in my electorate office saying that charity begins at home. They ask why they, as pensioners, for example, should tighten their belts at home when we are still sending over $1 billion overseas in aid. They would like to cut back on that. So I find there is an uneasy feeling in the community about overseas aid. Charity beginning at home really means that we must learn the value of charity. It does not mean we stop there; it means we must practise what we preach at home and abroad. I hope that that is what it really means. Unless we tackle the global problems of poverty, environment, defence and security, let alone the global problem of the nuclear power of the Western countries, which is now having its effects-since Chernobyl we are more educated about it-on developing countries, we will not get a global solution. Global solutions are necessary for global problems. I compliment the Australian Government for being more involved through the Development Bank. I compliment it, in particular, on its aid to Burma. I encourage it to increase it, and to revise upwards the total amount of our gross domestic product given in overseas aid. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.56) —The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill is the most recent in a series of Bills which inject millions of dollars collected from Australian taxpayers into the coffers of the World Bank and its affiliates. Our largess and support in this case take the form of direct funding of specific and limited projects, so-called capital and contingent on-call commitments which can be, but not necessarily will be, called up at the discretion of the bank. The various affiliates are listed in a table I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIA'S CAPITAL AND RELATED COMMITMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Previously paid Committed but not yet paid Total ($A millions) ($A millions) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)... 194.2 2,057* 2,251.2 International Development Agency(IDA)... 1,012 335 1,347 International Finance Corporation (IFC)... 24.8 - 24.8 International Monetary Fund (IMF)... 2,651 - 2,651 Asian Development Bank (Fund) (ADB)... 335.73 410 745.73 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)... 8.96 8.48 17.44 Total... 4,226.69 2,810.48 7,037.17 Notes: (a) Figures for existing commitments as at 30 June 1987. (b) $A:$US Exchange rates as at 8 March 1988. (c) IBRD figures do not include contributions proposed in this Bill. * Contingent on-call liability. Mr ROCHER —While today we are dealing with a Bill which proposes to purchase for some $2.6m a further 178 shares in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the relevance of the measure to the failings of its parent, the World Bank, is indisputable. The table helps to reveal that simple truth. The table also gives some idea of our total commitment to the IBRD as well as to kindred organisations in the World Bank stable. First, let it be known that Australia's contributions to the IBRD and other international financial institutions-IFIs-when described as share capital are no such thing in any accepted sense of the term `share capital'. To so describe them is absolute nonsense. The so-called capital contributions or subscriptions yield no return, earn no interest, do not appreciate in value, or for that matter depreciate in value, and cannot be redeemed or cashed in or traded. These taxpayers' funds are nothing less than a donation to the new breed of international bureaucrats employed by the World Bank to play banker in a way not dissimilar to the way a gigantic game of monopoly might be played. Furthermore, the roles of the IBRD and World Bank can be likened to a vast money laundering operation of a kind so much out of favour in private industry and of so much concern in matters criminal. The IBRD and kindred bodies launder money provided by contributing countries out of the revenues gathered from taxpayers in a way I hope to demonstrate. In our case, it is foreign aid being laundered and misrepresented as capital contributions to a high-sounding, misnamed group which pretends to be a banker but which behaves and conducts its affairs in ways not compatible with the conduct of a respectable bank. On top of that, as a debtor nation, sinking under the Hawke-Keating regime deeper into debt with every day that passes, Australia is in reality borrowing money so that we can give it away to others. That recipient countries cannot or do not choose to borrow from private banks and rely on the IBRD and other IFIs only adds to the insanity of that circumstance. Because we are substantially in debt the Government, of course, must borrow some of its needs on world markets, in competition with the IBRD, so that we can give money back to the IBRD. What are we doing? We are heaping stupidity on insanity because our borrowed funding and guarantees given to the IBRD give the self-same IBRD a competitive edge and distort the markets in which we raise loans-to our considerable cost. Talk about a dog chasing its tail! That is not the only example of canine capers. Australia, by way of this Bill, is about to chip in another $2.6m for the IBRD. I emphasise that that amount is in addition to the amount shown in the table that I have had incorporated in Hansard. The total amount paid will, therefore, be at least $196.8m over the years to 30 June 1991. I say that it will be at least $196.8m because of widely circulated reports that much more is likely to be required before that date. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) failed even to hint that this will not be the last payment in the foreseeable future. That is to be deplored in the strongest possible terms. It is common knowledge that the World Bank in general, and the IBRD in particular, have announced that further major replenishments, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars, will be required. Given that that is so, surely it was incumbent on the Government not just to inform the Parliament, but to give us some idea of its intentions. Without the benefit of full and complete information from the Government we are left to question its motives for not giving the complete story about further funding for the IBRD in the near future. The truth is that the IBRD is one of several sister organisations and, in itself, is an integral part of a relatively new bureaucratic empire. The impetus to expand its role has come from within the IBRD, with much more than moral support from the World Bank. Neither could be said to be objective, while each has more than a modicum of self-interest. This has been helped along by the ambitions of many national-including Australian-public servants who regard an international posting to the IBRD or World Bank as the pinnacle of their careers. More important is the realisation that lending policies of the entire World Bank group have helped to sustain bad governments. Support for foreign government projects which have more to do with the stability of a regime than sound economic or business sense has made some recipient countries less efficient and has helped to prop up governments which have little or no regard for the rights of their citizens. By funding governments rather than businesses the IBRD and its World Bank cohort push out the more efficient private sector and private capital, thereby undermining any legitimate long term development goals. When granting loans to the governments of developing countries it is only because of the concessional nature of such loans that the money is gleefully accepted in preference to funding available from non-government sources. In fact, the World Bank is the first place to be approached for funding, even for attractive investment projects. As well as the crowding out effects that I have mentioned, the sale of IBRD loans is declining. It is finding it harder to sell its loans on the private market despite a sometimes hard sell approach and very attractive terms. The level of loans sold by IBRD has declined from a peak of 30 per cent in the mid-1960s to about 10 per cent in the 1980s. When it comes to having a say that is commensurate with contributions, member nations have little control over lending policies which might clearly be contrary to the national interest of those countries which, although they provide most of the funds, do not have most of the votes. The United States Government has increasingly questioned and opposed some World Bank loans. There should be a lesson to be drawn from that. Previously-the last occasion is recorded in the House of Representatives Hansard of 26 November 1987-I have objected strongly to Australia indirectly funding the military might of India in the way which was made possible by this Bill and previous Bills. It is one of those strange quirks born of self-interest that many private sector bankers actually support the efforts of the IBRD to alleviate Third World debt or bail out some countries to protect themselves from their own past folly. In effect, taxpayers of some countries with a large commitment support shareholders and banks which have simply made mistakes in their lending policies. We should also note the changed emphasis of loans. The move from funding mines and factories-those generators of wealth-to lending money to build infrastructure, housing and even for education and the like, however desirable those projects might be, has wasted available resources. It has put the cart before the horse, because infrastructure does not in itself produce growth or lasting wealth. If mines or factories are producing, private sources will cater for the higher returns that are available to them in providing infrastructure. It is interesting to record in passing that the World Bank has moved into International Monetary Fund territory by providing general purpose loans to fund, of all things, current account deficits in many recipient countries. That is not a very smart banking practice but it is one which Australia might be able to take advantage of if the Hawke-Keating regime continues to take us down this well-known Argentinean road. Changes in the policies of the IBRD and the World Bank over recent years have been a hindrance rather than a help in the form of constructive aid. By offering subsidies and removing or minimising the risks of failure, the emergence of strong private entrepreneurial sectors has been effectively undermined. This represents a betrayal of the original purposes of the group as spelt out in the respective charters of each. Initially, the World Bank group was of modest dimensions and had gradual growth. Loans concentrated on specific productive investment and the facilitation of capital flows through guarantees. However, since about 1969 there has been an explosion of loans. As a matter of historical interest, the IBRD was created in 1945, along with the International Monetary Fund. Australia became a member of both of those bodies under the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947. The role of the IBRD then included assisting in postwar reconstruction, promoting private investment and, when finance was not available on reasonable terms, to be involved in finance and promoting growth, development, investment and trade. The noble origins of all of the IFIs have been overtaken. There is a great deal of evidence that the World Bank has become a sponge, soaking up funds and disbursing them at the bidding of imprudent private American banks and self-serving Third World politicians. Although the bank often pleads its cause by saying that it acts to save the international economic system from collapse, the Third World debt problem worsens rather than improves. As far as being a force for the benefit and advancement of Third World economies and, more importantly, populations, the World Bank group is a failure-certainly, it has been in recent times. It surely does not create wealth and at best it aims only to transfer it around the globe these days. The end result is that it is less effective than bilateral aid programs arranged on a government to government basis. It seems that the only good reason for the continued existence of the IBRD and kindred organisations is as a launderer of aid money that we provide. The Australian Government, by laundering aid which is sometimes paid out of money appropriated for the Treasury or sometimes for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, escapes the need to explain how the hundreds of millions of dollars dished out are used and which countries benefit. The World Bank volunteers as little public information as it can get away with. The governments of generous donor nations, including Australia, remain unaccountable. It is revealing that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading speech-he delivered the speech, I might add, on behalf of the Treasurer-trotted out a standard list of the fallacies about the World Bank. It is very instructive to reflect on the difference between the attitudes of the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) towards funding World Bank agencies. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is on the record as recently as November of last year as signalling an intention to discontinue funding for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) when the current funding period expires. That is to be applauded. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade demonstrated how his own careful assessment of the IFAD left him quite unimpressed with its performance. He acted accordingly, to his great credit. I pose the question: Has a careful assessment been made by the Treasurer of the IBRD? I think not. Moreover, a careful assessment of other affiliates of the World Bank is long overdue. If the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, seriously seek to cut government expenditure, fertile ground exists in this area. An objective, careful consideration of the sums we throw into the begging bowl presented to us year after year by the World Bank offers a very fine opportunity to prune expenditure. If it is the wish of the government of the day to allocate all the money that might be saved to direct aid or to bilateral aid, so be it. It would at least get the credit for itself and for this country in the recipient countries. To those who defend the aid which IBRD and kindred institutions give because of the assistance it provides the Third World countries I can do no better than to quote James Bovard, who wrote in an analytical paper for the Cato Institute in the United States recently: Providing these governments with another dollar for food aid allows them to spend the dollar they would have used to prevent starvation on hiring more bureaucrats or buying more weapons. In this sense, each additional dollar of aid is only as productive as the least useful recipient government's spending of its own money. An examination of some of the policies and practices of World Bank recipient governments makes one doubt whether any amount of aid would allow these countries to become economically self sufficient. It is not a question of accepting that and then saying, `We do nothing'. We have our own Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, which administers aid in this country. It could perhaps be developed at some small additional cost to deliver aid which we now subcontract out to the World Bank and its group. It surely can develop the expertise that is needed to deliver aid bilaterally, on a government-to-government basis, if necessary, although that does not necessarily have the desired long term effects to which we all aspire. To continue to engage others in the form of a bloated bureaucracy, which is the World Bank, is wasteful and, worse than that, is totally ineffective. The careful consideration which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade gave to future funding for the IFAD should be applied to the other World Bank agencies which I have listed. I thoroughly recommend that such careful consideration start now and that the Government might deign to inform this Parliament of its outcome. We lack results. We rely on foreign information and material to debate these issues year after year in this House. It is simply not good enough. In the meantime it might not be a bad idea to think about freezing the bank's capital as far as our contribution is concerned. It also might not be a bad idea to insist upon the bank returning to its lending policies of the past, emphasising the private sector and productive activity. The bank might also look to ensuring a greater role for contributing nations in the scrutiny of where their funds go. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(6.17) —It is rather interesting in a debate like this to hear yet another point of view about the World Bank. There seems to be an extraordinary range of perceptions about the nature and orientation of this institution. The early impressions of the Nixon Administration perceived the World Bank as an arm of socialism in some way, shape or form, a viewpoint which, within relatively short order, was put to bed by a United States Treasury report on the World Bank, the conclusions of which were based on `the administration's basic policy preferences and priorities'. On the basis of those policy preferences and priorities, the report arrived at a very favourable evaluation of the World Bank's role. I quote from the report: While bilateral aid better serves US short term political interests, multilateral assistance can provide a useful complement. For example, in Egypt, where political interests inhibit US ability to promote economic policy changes economic policy reforms have been fostered in part through the IBRD because of the recipient's perception of the impartiality of the multilateral development banks . . . are better placed to advise LDCs of the benefits of an international system based on trade and capital flows and to elicit market-directed changes in recipients' economic policies. In other words, the perception in the United States Treasury report is that the IBRD is potentially an instrument to help bring about changes in economic policies in less developed countries which are more attuned to what the United States Reagan Administration regards as appropriate. It is an odd sort of criticism. There is that sort of view, on the one hand. On the other hand, highly critical attitudes are taken towards the World Bank by some members of the Left who see too much similarity between the types of restructuring policies they seek to impose and those that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) seeks to impose, with all the consequences that flow from them in terms of reduced living standards and increased political instability in the countries concerned and so on. So there seems to be a curious range of views on this subject which I will comment on in more detail later in my speech. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill is quite uncontroversial. It is not being opposed by the Opposition. It aims to authorise an additional subscription of capital by the Australian Government to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is the main arm of the World Bank, the other arm being the International Development Agency, the soft loan arm. The World Bank obviously is perceived to have a different role from that of the IMF, the IMF being primarily concerned with short term stabilisation. It is oriented mainly towards relatively short term macro-economic measures involving attempts to improve the balance of payments by suppressing or lowering the level of internally generated demand, and so forth. The IMF also seeks to promote more market-oriented policies in a range of respects. Theoretically the World Bank has a more long term perspective based upon long term development goals. There is some controversy about whether there is a conflict between the short term concerns of the IMF oriented to short term stabilisation on the one hand and the longer term goals which are being pursued by the World Bank on the other. One criticism of the World Bank is that it has been too closely attuned to the IMF's shorter term perspectives but, again, it is something I might talk about a little bit further along the track. There are some other significant differences between the World Bank and the IMF too. The World Bank is actually engaged in raising significant funds on private capital markets, whereas that is not something that the IMF or a number of the other agencies are engaged in. That has certain implications which I will not elaborate on now. I will make a few comments on the sorts of adjustment programs that the IMF and the World Bank have been engaged in seeking to impose on a number of countries. There has been considerable criticism of IMF adjustment programs. I have just returned from Africa where I attended the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference in Arusha. There was quite a bit of discussion about the role of the IMF at that conference. One example of where the IMF has apparently sought to impose a quite unrealistic adjustment program on a country is in Zambia where the IMF was seeking to require effectively the quadrupling of the prices of basic foodstuffs. That meant that the Zambian Government was placed very quickly in a politically untenable situation. There seems to be something of an obliviousness on the part of the IMF to the consequences of trying to impose that very severe restructuring program on a country such as Zambia. There seems to have been somewhat more flexibility adopted recently. I understand that in the IMF's discussions with Mozambique it has been prepared to adopt a rather more sympathetic approach to the problems faced by countries in that region. That is obviously to be welcomed. I do not think there is any doubt that some of the attempts by the IMF to impose its own conception of structural change on a number of Third World countries have been misguided both in terms of their unalloyed belief in the efficacy of market forces, the desirability of trade liberalisation, the desirability of increasing mobility of capital flows and allowing market mechanisms to operate in an unimpeded way. I accept that a number of the countries in the southern African region have pursued policies which clearly were misguided initially. The Mozambiquans, the Angolans and the Ethiopians have agricultural policies based, to a substantial extent, on collectivisation and artificially low administrative setting of agricultural prices and a number of other facets, particularly their agricultural sector. There is no doubt that those policies produced some seriously adverse results and there needed to be some changes made. But the question is whether the IMF and to a lesser extent the World Bank are right in pushing them too far in the direction of market-oriented policies. I believe that they are pushing them too far in the direction of market-oriented policies and I think that ultimately there will be a price to be paid for that. If we look at countries in Africa that have pursued market-oriented policies it is interesting to see that it is not necessarily the case that the adoption of those policies will be a complete panacea for those countries. I refer to Kenya which has traditionally pursued more market-oriented policies. Despite that, that country has had very severe economic problems. Let us look at the position there. Kenya's gross national product per capita has declined from something of the order of $US360 per capita as annual GNP in the early 1970s. It has declined steadily since then until most recently where there was a GNP per capita of $US290 in 1986. So it is not necessarily the case that the adoption of more market-oriented policies will be the cure all for all those problems. Although I do accept that some of the countries in that region adopted Soviet style agricultural policies and that those policies did have disastrous results initially which meant that there needed to be some change, I believe that the IMF has been misguided in over-emphasising the benefits that can be expected to flow from more market-oriented policies. The World Bank has a similar, if you like, broad ideological position to the IMF although, as I understand it, it has been somewhat less stringent in its application of those policies. However, the basic orientation is similar. There have been a variety of criticisms of the World Bank throughout its recent history, partly on the ground, as I said, of its belief in neoclassical economic approaches. There have also been other criticisms. Some related a few years ago to its inadequate attention to the environmental consequences of some of the policies that it has pursued. There seems to have been some redress in that area in recent times, but there seems to be far more. From a reading of the most recent World Bank annual report there seems to be a far greater emphasis on the need to examine the environmental consequences of various development programs and to look at ways in which the environment in less developed countries can be improved. I might observe that coming back from Africa, having driven a fair distance from Nairobi in Kenya to Arusha in Tanzania, the environmental problems that are besetting that continent are very visible. As one drives through the countryside there is evidence of massive soil erosion and massive overgrazing, with consequent serious problems down the track. There is very little vegetation in evidence even from a cursory glance. That is clearly a major problem for less developed countries. It is pleasing to see that the World Bank is starting to pay rather more attention to those sorts of things. I also believe that there has been something of a change in the World Bank's orientation to the need to alleviate poverty in recent times. I will mention two contrasting quotations. The first is from Eugene Rotberg who is a long time Vice-President of the Bank. He is quoted in the book by Hayter and Watson from a couple of years ago. He stated: We are not a social welfare agency committed to making transfer payments to solve the problems of misery or poverty. We are a development bank using the most sophisticated techniques available to facilitate development, while providing unmatched protection and strength for creditors and shareholders. Incidentally this provides an interesting contrast with the view expressed by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), about the financial practices of the bank. More recently the new President since 1986, Barber Conable, said the following: Our greatest goal is to reduce the poverty, misery and destitution which blights our world . . . rapid economic growth or the advances of modern technology seem of little consequence if nearly a billion people do not have enough food, clean water or shelter . . . there is little reason to expect that future growth alone will attain the progress against poverty that it has failed to secure in the past. So there seems to have been significant change of emphasis between those two quotations. I think that change of emphasis is one that can only be welcomed. I certainly welcome that change of emphasis. Notwithstanding criticisms that one might have of the World Bank and its operations-as I said, there are a variety of them-there is no doubt that, on balance, it does provide an essential service. I do not believe that the existing financial institutions would fill that gap in the absence of the World Bank, as the previous speaker seemed to imply. He made a variety of criticisms of the operation of the World Bank. I do not believe the criticisms he made are well founded. The other criticisms I referred to earlier I believe have considerably greater substance and deserve to be taken more seriously. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.00) —By way of preface, let me say that when the debate was interrupted for the dinner break we were addressing the Bill relating to the organisation known as the World Bank. The Bill is given a formal name, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill. I want first to say a little about the purpose of this Bill because many of those who perhaps will pick up the issue later may not be familiar with what the Bill is about. This Bill empowers the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to make necessary agreements on behalf of Australia to purchase 178 additional shares of the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). It empowers him to make these agreements on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and where appropriate to issue securities in payment. The Bill also appropriates the funds necessary to make payments under these agreements. It has a financial impact of some dimension. The cost to Australia of taking up these shares-Australia's subscription-will be $US1.8m spread over four financial years. The second reading speech refers to the World Bank, and I think it is timely in this debate to remind the House about this organisation. It was established officially as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development when it opened its doors in 1946 as one of two international institutions agreed to at the Bretton Woods Conference of July 1944 for the purposes of postwar reconstruction. It was designed particularly in the first instance to assist with the external financing of the reconstruction of Europe at the conclusion of World War II, but it quickly became apparent that the resources of the bank were few and that the organisation was too new for that task, and the functions were assumed extensively thereafter by the United States of America. During the bank's formative years bank lending remained fairly limited for the purposes of development and, of course, more recently we have seen that low level of lending increase and the bank itself has grown. It has been criticised at times for being too cautious and insufficiently concerned with the development needs of the poorer members. That is a matter I intend to address today. I ought to mention also that as part of its operation not only has the World Bank loans that it makes on much more commercial terms, but also through one of its subsidiary organisations, the International Development Association (IDA), using the same offices as the World Bank but with a separate charter it offers loans to low income member countries, repayable at 7.5 per cent interest over 50 years, including 10 years grace. These soft or discretionary loans are made possible by the contributions to the IDA by governments of high income and industrial countries. I guess in those terms Australia is often seen as one of the contributors. So one can see that this organisation has wide implications, particularly where social issues are concerned and in terms of the distribution of income to the Third World nations or developing countries. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who introduced the Bill, was quite generous in his comments in relation to the organisation. He said: . . . it plays an important role in the South East Asian region. This has been recognised by Australian governments over the years since the bank's establishment. He added: The IBRD is an effective and efficient institution in the provision of development assistance to developing countries . . . He also said, and this is a fact of record: Up to the end of June 1987, the bank had lent about $US120 billion to its member countries. This money was largely borrowed from international financial markets. The cost to taxpayers in those member countries in terms of paid in capital subscriptions was only $US7.2 billion. He noted that the organisation covered the financing of major sectors of development with an emphasis on infrastructure facilities, transport, communications, industry, energy sectors, as well as projects for agriculture, education and water supply. About the IDA, which I mentioned earlier, he said that it has a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system which shows that most bank and IDA projects-85 per cent of those evaluated in 1986, for instance-achieve all or almost all of their objectives. He spoke about the average return on those being 14.8 per cent. He added one other matter to which I draw the attention of the House and that was Australia's membership of the IBRD bringing substantial commercial benefits. On a cumulative basis Australia has received more from procurement by the IBRD, including the IDA, than it has given in contributions to the bank and the IDA. That is a particularly important fact. What he is really saying is that if we look at the way in which consultancies are offered to Australians and the way products are procured in Australia, we will see that there are economic benefits the bank brings to us in relation to a lot of its lending to developed countries. Those comments are particularly pertinent when one looks at the speech made earlier today by one of my colleagues the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who questioned, as I recall, our role in continuing to finance the World Bank as it is structured at the moment and the levels of Australia's contribution in terms of the debt we Australians are incurring. I guess he was picking up terms that I heard used by, I think, the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), who commented on the way in which people in his own electorate look at the World Bank and aid programs generally. He was saying that people argue that charity begins at home and that we should get our own house in order and then we might be able to look further abroad. I must say, and I have said this before, that that has not been my approach. I think the more appropriate statement is that charity begins at home, but it does not end there. We in Australia have some responsibilities in relation to those who are less well off than ourselves. It is a matter of ordering priorities. We ought not escape some of the responsibilities we share with our other colleagues in developed nations in assisting those worse off than ourselves. I make those statements because a number of members of parliament have over time offered some comments about the bank and its operations. I had the privilege last October, along with my colleagues the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), Senator Nick Bolkus and Senator Robert Hill, of being one of a number of lead signers of a letter addressed on behalf of members of parliament not only in Australia but also from the United Kingdom and the United States as well as Canada, to the President of the World Bank, Mr Conable. I do not intend to read the letter at length, but it offered comment to Mr Conable in the form of six recommendations on the way in which the World Bank might operate. The comments about the way in which the organisation should function were, firstly, in relation to women in development. This was a matter about which I had to make some personal inquiries to satisfy myself because I saw this matter very often in terms of the feminist debate that we see all too often in our own community. But the issues are not those that we normally hear discussed in feminist terms. Women in so many of these developing countries are at the very bottom of the social ladder, with much heavier demands made upon them, particularly when they are working in agriculture, and some attention in terms of development programs needs to be given to assist them. In the context of women in development it was noted that women actually produce most of the food that is eaten in poor countries-as much as 80 per cent in Africa-yet they receive the least assistance of any kind, particularly in agriculture. As late as March 1987 only one of the bank's 3,800 professional staff were assigned to women in development, even though Mr Conable himself said in a speech that the bank had not been effective in channelling assistance to women, with the consequence that, along with women, development itself has suffered. In the area of health and education we noted that according to the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Health Organisation the biggest child killers in poor countries are preventable diseases complicated by malnutrition. They include measles, two million a year; tetanus, 800,000; diarrhoeal dehydration, four million; and common respiratory infections. These diseases will render disabled as many as they kill. We noted that the bank plans to double its lending for health and population nutrition by the 1990s, but it would still then be giving only 2 to 3 per cent of its total lending to those purposes, and that was a matter of concern to us. On the matter of adjustment lending we noted in our letter that the bank ought to design structural economic policies which not only cushion the poor but actually help improve the services they need most. The poor are usually the first and hardest hit by the present economic adjustment policies. We saw the need for cooperation with indigenous non-government organisations, and many of my colleagues spoke earlier about the importance of that. We noted the bank's own studies and the studies of other development institutions which have shown that carefully targeted small scale projects yield the greatest benefit to the poor, and the success of such projects depends on the involvement of indigenous groups on project planning, implementation and monitoring. We noted further that the bank's studies show that higher than average economic returns often result from poverty orientated projects. I wish in this context also to draw attention to the matter which I have raised on other occasions in debates in this House, and that is that one of the organisations that has been working particularly in the small scale projects, which greatly benefit the poor, has been the international organisation, the International Food for Agricultural Development (IFAD), which we also support. But we have indicated that we will no longer support that organisation after the second replenishment. After the third replenishment Australia will be one of the first developed countries to withdraw its support for that organisation. I think it is important to look at the World Bank in that context because so often it is argued that it can pick up the role that IFAD has been pursuing. I simply make the point that if we look at the way in which the bank's own studies have commented on this area of activity, it is one in which it could be more usefully involved and there is enormous scope for it to be involved in targeting small scale projects, with the indigenous groups being involved in the planning of them in the same way that IFAD has done so successfully. In the area of environmental protection we noticed that development projects which have had dire ecological consequences have had their most severe impact upon indigenous people whose livelihoods depend directly on marginal and fragile ecosystems. I mentioned just today that some of us had the opportunity of meeting with Harold Henderson of World Vision of Australia to hear a report on his recent visit to Ethiopia where the degradation of the environment is very significant, leading to greatly increased hardship for the indigenous people, incurring greater difficulty in ameliorating their hardship, particularly when drought affects them, as is the case at the moment. In the area of poverty lending we noted that a recent World Bank report claimed that 29 per cent of the bank's lending directly helped the poor, but we put the suggestion to Mr Conable that the bank should commit at least 60 per cent of its lending to assist directly the poorest 40 per cent of people. I must say that, while I have not counted all the signatories to that letter, the numbers were very significant. Probably half, if not more, of the members of the Parliament signed that letter to the President of the World Bank. Mr Conable wrote to me in response, as he no doubt did to the other signatories of the letter, on 16 October, thanking me for my comments but making the point that the World Bank has adopted a new, more operational approach to women in development. He noted that I had referred to increasing investments in future productivity and the well being of people in the developing world. He made the point that the bank was also aware that increased bank lending was not enough and that an insufficient use of existing resources often hampers efforts to reach the poor. He commented further in relation to the note that members generally sent, that our approach to adjustment programs is being modified as we learn more about how to protect the interests of the poor. It was a pleasing response, but I think there is a need for members, while picking up those points, to offer some further comments. I hope we will have the opportunity of doing so further in a new approach to Mr Conable about a number of other matters. The areas in which I hope we will be able to offer positive comments are, firstly, on the use of social indicators to measure development progress. That is an issue which the World Bank ought to be addressing. It ought not to be using, as it appears to be at the moment, simply traditional economic indicators, but social indicators such as the mortality rate for children under the age of 5; life expectancy; access to safe water; adult literacy rates, particularly amongst women; and the proportion of children suffering malnutrition. These seem to me to be important matters that ought to be considered in the context of measuring increased performance as a result of World Bank lending. I believe social indicators of those types, which could measure development progress, could be and would be a useful advance to the bank itself and a matter upon which we members could positively comment. The second matter I hope we will address is the future of the International Development Association's terms. I mentioned earlier in this address the special terms upon which the fund, using the IDA, makes available special loans on a concessional rate. One of the major factors presently hindering progress in development is the burden of debt. Unlike middle income countries such as Australia and those in Latin American countries whose debt is primarily owed to the commercial banks, the poorest countries, those in the sub-Saharan area of Africa, are mainly indebted to governments and international financial institutions like the World Bank. They increasingly are going to be faced with problems in committing themselves even to the very much lower terms of payment that are presently accorded to them. In regard to further replenishments, particularly the IDA funds, it seems to me, and I hope it will seem to my colleagues, that the proposal to donor countries ought to be that the funds they supply should go to the poorest countries and largely on grant terms. The final matter I wish to mention is structural adjustment lending, which we addressed on the last occasion. It seems to me that the concerns that we expressed about the effects of structural adjustment programs on some of the poorest sections of populations of developing countries need to be further emphasised, with policies that are tailored to meeting the needs of the poor. Therefore, I think it is important that the bank continue to pay special attention to the needs of these people as it develops guidelines for major aid donor countries to deal with structural adjustment. I certainly would encourage the bank to review these matters further, particularly as it enters into discussions at this time. There is a demand to prepare poverty impact statements on each adjustment loan as part of the loan document which goes to the executive so people can be aware how the poorest people in these developing nations will benefit from the programs the World Bank adopts. I hope these comments and the comments of my colleagues will be helpful to the bank. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(8.21) —I support the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill. I find myself in considerable agreement, as we seem to be on both sides of the House, with most aspects of this Bill. By way of preface I remind honourable members that it is a Bill to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. As was pointed out in the second reading speech-a point to which I wish to allude in my contribution, brief though it will be-the major emphasis of projects undertaken by the bank is on infrastructure facilities in developing countries with particular reference to transport and communications, industry, energy, water supply, agriculture and education. From time to time comments are made that Australia is not playing a sufficient role in international aid, particularly to developing countries. As the world political situation changes, clearly we have to evaluate the countries and places in which we place our aid and the way in which it is used. I am a great supporter of our assistance via the development bank. To pick up a couple of comments made by my predecessor in this debate, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), I think it is important that the injections to developing countries are made with an eye to economic benefit. I well understand the other parameters the honourable member pointed to which ought to be taken into account, and I agree with him. In the last decade, the late 1970s and early 1980s, we have seen almost the exploitation of international financial entrepreneurs who have put loan funds into developing countries based on poor lending principles. In many of these countries the debt burden of repayment to lenders from the traditional Western countries cannot be met. Those debt repayments have placed the whole world financial structure under some strain in that these countries have to forget about the loans that have been made, they have to renegotiate new terms of lending or in one form or other rework the loans that have been made because proper account has not been taken of the principles of lending. I suppose what I am pointing to is that loans that go into countries through the development bank are in the form of aid and assist development of the kinds outlined. Some loans made through the finance sector encourage development of industry or support a particular regime which might or might not return dividends. In the long term, institutions that have been making those loans without proper regard to the security of the loan, the capacity of the country to repay or even the long term political stability of the country to which the loans are made, suddenly find down the track that those loans cannot be honoured. An example is the United States of America where, in the late 1970s, there was a spree of international lending. It virtually gave money away. Many of those loans now cannot be repaid and some of the institutions making them, in particular some of the private banks, have found themselves on the verge of collapse or, most importantly, governments have had to intervene and pick them up. What I say about these activities is that the proper course by which the lending should be made is through the development bank. It is directed at the kinds of development projects which mean, hopefully, that in the long term these countries will be self-sustaining and we will feel that our money has been put to the best use. It is important also to reflect for a moment on Australia's involvement in a new part of the world, not only in the south-east Pacific basin but also in our alliance with the 14 countries that we call the Cairns group. That is a group of trading nations that have come together with us in a consortium arrangement to try to bring some sort of balance to the inconsistencies that are occurring in world trade at the moment. Some of these countries are looking to Australia as a financial base in the south-east Pacific to give them a lead as they become wealthier and, as they become involved more in profitable trade, they are looking to Australia to gain a lead as to how they should play their role in assisting countries less fortunate. In my contribution tonight I encourage decision makers in those countries who participate with us in the Cairns group to take up subscriptions through this development fund as they become more profitable and as they have more funds available. We can show a lead in that sort of coordinated group activity and it is what those who are joining with us in world trade are looking for. I happen to have the very good fortune in my own electorate-in fact in my own home town-to have two people to talk to about some of these matters who are very close to these sorts of activities in countries such as Ethiopia as was mentioned by the honourable member for Dundas. Professor Michael Rand is Professor of Pharmacology at Melbourne University and at the moment is the chairman of the pharmacologists group in Australia, as is well known to my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). That group has just played host to the international conference of pharmacologists in Sydney. One of the key issues they were looking to, as scientists, was the way they can assist developing countries in disease moderation, increasing productivity, life expectancy and food production and in all those issues associated with that. Professor Rand has also been the chairman of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's world committee on some of these matters. I know from speaking with him that he is very supportive of this kind of approach to world development. Another person I have talked to about these things is a chap by the name of Allan Carpenter who also lives in my home town of Heathcote. I must be very fortunate to have all these people so close to me because I can wander down to the shops on a Saturday morning and get the answers-it works very well. Mr Carpenter is a world consultant to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. He has recently returned from spending six months in Ethiopia assisting that country with dry land agriculture products and helping to overcome the long term problems of cultivation and food production. In summary, in this brief contribution, I suppose what I am saying is that it is important for people to note that Australia is playing a significant role in overseas aid and in measures such as this, by taking up our increased allocation with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We are making a direct form of lending available to countries such as those I have mentioned. We are, through the development bank, insisting that the lending is done under sound financial principles, and that does not mean screwing these countries for the best possible rate of interest or return. In fact, as was pointed out in the second reading speech, these loans are soft loans, which the means a low interest rate repayable over a long period. The point is that the loans are accompanied with the best of advice and criteria that we can develop to ensure that the money will be spent in a manner that will benefit these developing countries most in the long term. As I said earlier, given the experience of the international financial community in its almost irresponsible lending process with developing and other countries over the past decade, I welcome the sound economic and lending principles that are encompassed in the activities of the development bank. In supporting the Bill, I reiterate the comments in the second reading speech. I too believe that it is in Australia's interest to continue its policy of support for the development bank by, in this case, taking up in full the increase in our capital subscription to which we have become entitled. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.32) —In rising to support the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill 1988 I want to take the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of the work of the bank that is causing alarm and concern among conservationists worldwide. I wish to put my comments in context. It should be noted that the international bank is part of the World Bank group, together with the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation. The initial purpose of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was to promote the international flow of capital for productive purposes and to assist in financing the rebuilding of nations devastated by the Second World War. Lending for productive projects, leading to economic growth in its less developed member countries which will directly assist the poorest people, is now the main objective of the bank. Unfortunately, in pursuing these aims the bank has neglected to consider the environmental consequences of the developments it has been supporting. The purpose of the Bill presently before the House is to enable Australia to take up an increase in its capital subscription to the international bank. As at 31 March 1987 the subscribed capital of the bank was $US83,541m. As part of the present share increase, Australia will purchase 178 shares at a cost of $US1.88m, spread over the four financial years from 1988-89 to 1991-92. Last year Mr Jim Barnes, a lawyer from the United States based conservation organisation, Threshhold, which is known also as the International Centre for Environmental Renewal, visited Australia to seek support for a proposed review of the activities of the World Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the associated multilateral development banks, such as the Asian Development Bank. It is a matter of particular concern that the financial organisations involved in development in the developing nations of the Third World have not provided resources for adequate assessments of the environmental impacts of new development project. Mr Barnes had discussions with me, as Chairman, and several other members of the then Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. He made a number of points that I should like to draw to the attention of honourable members. Examples of developments supported by the multilateral development banks which are in environmentally sensitive areas are: first, transmigration in Indonesia, costing $US1 billion over the past decade with grievous long term environmental consequences; second, a proposed irrigation scheme in India-resulting in the flooding of 200,000 homes- which, because of siltation, will totally fail in seven to eight years; third, a major access road in Brazil which so far has cost $US240m-and I presume these money figures are in American dollars-but which is described as a complete environmental and social disaster and is associated with a major outbreak of malaria. Finally, an example of one of the serious long-term consequences of World Bank programs is the green revolution in India. Forty per cent of the world's DDT production is used to sustain the program, yet many of the donor countries have banned or restricted the use of DDT. It is quite reprehensible that advice is not sought from a recipient country's environmental or health Ministers, and also that advice is not sought from those communities affected by the development. I wish that honourable members could see the picture I have before me of Amazon Basin indians watching logging operations stripping their hunting grounds bare. Mr Kent —It is horrible. Mr MILTON —As my colleague the honourable member for Hotham says, it is horrible. Of course, he is able to see the picture, whereas unfortunately other members cannot. Rainforests are disappearing at the rate of 11 million hectares a year. Since at least half of the world's estimated plant and animal species, of the order of 30 million, live in tropical forests, the loss of the forests is particularly serious. Unfortunately, the rate of clearing is increasing. If current trends continue, an additional 225 million hectares of tropical forests will be cleared by the year 2000, representing about 25 per cent of the remaining tropical forests on Earth. However, the loss of tropical forests is only one of the adverse effects of developments supported by the World Bank and its associated multidevelopment banks. Finance has been provided for capital-intensive projects that replace traditional work-intensive economic activities, thus forcing the displaced local peasants onto marginal land in ecologically sensitive areas. Finance is also being provided for projects involving the creation of massive cattle ranches on poor soils previously forested areas. As was mentioned in previously, projects are being financed in places other than in India which involve the spraying of vast areas with huge amounts of hard pesticides that are banned in most Western countries. Other projects involve the construction of huge hydro-power and irrigation schemes, which results in the removal of the local population on to infertile land with inadequate compensation for those displaced people and which will inevitably lead to widespread waterlogging and soil salinisation. In Australia we have had plenty of experience with environmental problems resulting from such development schemes. It seems to me that it is even more important for us to take into account the possible consequences of developments funded by the International Bank, of which we are an important shareholder. I quote a passage by a visitor to two World Bank funded developments in Indonesia and Brazil which describes the scenes of massive ecological devastation in the Indonesia transmigration project, and the Polonoroeste project. There is a picture taken of the Polonoroeste program in the Amazon, and I have another picture of a typical scene of destruction which my colleague the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) is able to look at. Mr Kent —It looks like a Queensland rainforest. Mr MILTON —Indeed, it does look like a Queensland rainforest, after the developers have been in. This Government will ensure that we stop such destruction by making sure that the areas are protected by world heritage legislation. I quote from the article which reads as follows: Visiting such areas it is hard to view without emotion the miles of devastated trees, of felled, broken and burned trunks, of branches, mud, and bark crisscrossed with tractor trails-especially when one realises that in most cases nothing of comparable value will grow again on the area. Such sights are reminiscent of photographs of Hiroshima, and Brazil and Indonesia might be regarded as waging the equivalent of thermo-nuclear war upon their territories. Another classic example is in the Sudan where the World Bank has poured in thousands of millions of dollars over the past decade to promote increased agricultural production. I quote again: Agricultural experts are not optimistic about the future of Gezira cotton. Many believe that the cotton industry is at the brink of disaster and will collapse unless drastic measures are taken . . . A chief obstacle is failure of the existing pest control scheme that is based exclusively on chemical insecticides. The farmers are spending large amounts of money-25-30 per cent of the total production expenses-for chemical control of the insect pests but are getting very poor results . . . The profit margin (for sale of cotton) in 1979-80 was . . . considerably less than the foreign currency required for purchase of the imported insecticides. Costs of cotton insect control in the Gezira increased at the alarming rate of six-fold between the seasons of 1972-73 and 1980-81 yet, cotton yields declined (from 1970-1975 to 1975-81) by . . . 38 per cent . . . Unacceptable residues of DDT and other persistent, organochlorine insecticides now occur in water, mother's milk, livestock, fish and wildlife. Those quotations are all taken from a 1985 edition of the Ecologist magazine, volume 15, No. 1/2 but, far from being out of date, the comments are even more relevant today. No doubt it will be argued by some people that the World Bank has recognised its obligations and responsibilities and has taken action. It is true that the World Bank has suspended loan disbursements for the Brazilian project, but it continues to finance the Indonesian transmigration from Java and Bali to Irian Jaya and Kalimantan. This single project, I submit, poses the gravest threats to the environment and the people who live in and depend on tropical forests. It is also true that the World Bank has recently substantially increased the number of its staff engaged on environmental assessment. However, it is now vital that pressure is placed on the World Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Development Association to implement the environmental guidelines which they adopted in 1984, but which have not been implemented by recipient nations such as Indonesia, Brazil and India. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) indicated in his second reading speech that the World Bank and the International Development Association have a comprehensive and systematic project evaluation system, which indicated that 85 per cent of all projects in 1986 achieved all or most of their objectives. The average return measured by a net flow of economic benefits was 14.8 per cent. However, I doubt that the net flow of economic benefits took into account any environmental desecration which may have occurred. The problem has been that the World Bank uses consultants in the fields of economics, science and engineering but does not seek advice from environmental scientists. I understand that the United States Government has been discussing with the various member countries of the multi-development banks the development of policies to ensure that future projects will result in truly sustainable developments over a long period of time and to avoid the calamitous environmental consequences such as I have previously described in this speech. I hope that the Treasurer can give the House an assurance that the Government will actively pursue with the World Bank the concerns that I have expressed. I wish to make it clear that I fully support the present Bill, but I believe that development can only be truly worthwhile, in a world of rapidly declining natural resources, if environmental values are taken fully into account when international development projects are approved. I hope that I receive an assurance from the Minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), that the Government is taking these matters into account and will be asking the World Bank when it makes its share allocation to ensure that environmental values are used and taken up by the recipient nations. Mr KENT(Hotham)(8.48) —I am especially pleased to take part in the second reading debate on the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill. The Bill will give parliamentary approval to increase Australia's subscription of shares in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). In 1986 the bank authorised a further allocation of shares which gives Australia the right to take up an additional 178 shares. At the outset I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that allocation of shares, therefore the equity and voting rights in the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as the World Bank is heavily in favour of the developed industrial countries. Only a glance at the table setting out the members' entitlements to take up additional shares, which is published on page 7 of the explanatory memorandum, shows how disproportionate the allocations are. It is not a coincidence but a deliberate design that 64 per cent of shares and therefore the major say, the decision making, is in the hands of the rich developed countries. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, better known as the World Bank, was established as a complementary institution to the IMF and its membership is conditional on membership of the IMF. Both the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-the World Bank-were established at Bretton Woods, after the Second World War, to internationally co-ordinate attempts to deal with world monetary and financial problems. It was envisaged that the IMF should finance short term balance of payments deficits while the World Bank was to finance long term development projects. The idea was that these two institutions should maintain the equilibrium between the surplus and deficit countries by recirculating surpluses and promoting world wide economic growth. However, a number of events, culminating in the oil crisis in the early 1970s changed the intended financial agenda. While the result of the oil crisis imposed heavily on many developing countries, it also poured 80 billion petro-dollars into European and United States banks to recycle. The money was duly lent to developing countries at low interest rates. High commodity prices at the time made many countries that are now in trouble look good and credit-worthy. It is history now that the situation changed dramatically in the late 1970s and 1980s. As the rich Western countries increased interest rates to fight inflation and slowed down their economies to reduce demand, they imposed a double burden on the indebted Third World-firstly through increased interest rates on their debts, and secondly through reducing the commodity prices by which Third World countries were hitherto servicing their loans. As the world economy shrank, as the crisis deepened, a horrible scramble ensued. The rich, industrially developed First World countries unloaded their problems and troubles onto the Third World, firstly by maintaining high prices for industrial products which they exported, and secondly by reducing commodity prices for the produce of the Third World. Parallel to this, there ensued a scramble inside each country whereby the rich undertook every way possible to unload the burden of hard economic times onto the poorer sections of the population. Nothing illustrates this better than the growing wealth of the 31,000 millionaires in Australia over the last few years, as opposed to the reduced living standards of the ordinary wage and salary earners in this country. However, the international situation is even worse. In the last decade, the Third World countries have experienced growing poverty manifesting itself in increasing malnutrition and hunger, growing child mortality, increasing food prices and the growing deprivation of masses of the population. On top of all this, IMF and World Bank-imposed conditions of monetarist and New Right-Thatcherite solutions plunged the underdeveloped countries into a further morass of poverty. Not since the slave trade has the North so cruelly exploited the South. Every drop of blood is squeezed out of the poor Third World countries to service their debt. For the first time in history, the flow of capital is reversed and there is a net flow from the developing countries to the industrial countries. This flow was estimated at approximately $US30 billion in 1986. Annually, $US30 billion is flowing from the poor in the poor countries to the rich in the rich countries. Only the inability of the Third World to pay is putting the limit on this scandalous, cruel exploitation of the world poor. Mr Milton —Bleeding them dry. Mr KENT —As the honourable member for La Trobe says, they are bleeding them dry. It is often argued that the future of this planet depends on the balance of power between East and West. Most people believe that the clash between communist and capitalist ideologies is the biggest danger to our existence. While I do not wish to disregard the dangers of the East-West clash, I am of the opinion that if we do not resolve the world debt crisis, if we do not stop driving the Third World into further poverty, there will be a bigger danger to mankind from a South-North clash, which will manifest itself in the collapse of the world financial system. I do not contend that there have been no attempts to resolve the debt problems. Of course there was rescheduling, under strict conditionality, as well as structural adjustment for loans. However, the conditions imposed by the IMF, and to a lesser extent by the World Bank, deteriorated during the last couple of decades into the imposition of strict monetarist measures and severe austerity programs which on occasions provoked riots and political unrest. The condition demanded by the IMF are public expenditure cuts, wage cuts, trade and exchange liberalisation measures, devaluation and so on-a list only too familiar. It seems to me that our Treasurer (Mr Keating) pre-empted any IMF demand; and what goes for the IMF goes for the World Bank. According to Teresa Hayter: The World Bank and the IMF have been called the police of development. Other official and private lenders tend to lend or not to lend according to whether the government has the seal of approval of the IMF or the World Bank. Especially now that private banks have become over- extended and fearful of defaults, these two institutions are being called upon to make sure that banks get their money back, and that they can lend in future without fear of losing it. The World Bank and the IMF are said to work together in complete . . . No conflicts are admitted between them; and they frequently go on joint missions to countries. Although the IMF has been criticised, even in the Brandt report, for example, for excessive `harshness' in the conditions it puts on its lending, and may possibly have responded a little to these criticisms, it certainly has not changed a great deal. The implication is that the World Bank has not done so either, and that the governments of underdeveloped countries are still subject to pressures from these institutions to carry out orthodox monetarist policies. Of course, to satisfy the World Bank or the IMF, the countries that are exposed to the bank's conditionality are forced to cut public, not private, expenditure. The pattern of advice received from the World Bank and the IMF is inevitably based on right wing monetarist ideology. This is not surprising as both the IMF and the IBRD are dominated by the major industrial powers, promoting the New Right ideology of the sanctity of private investment and private profits and the reliance on market forces. The World Bank the IMF and the United States Agency for International Development in many cases work out detailed programs which the government concerned has to adopt as a condition of getting their money. All three agencies work closely together, even to the extent that they use United States embassies as meeting places, where they co-ordinate their activities in the countries concerned. The International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development became instruments in the hands of the developed nations to oppress and impoverish further the Third World countries. In most countries, increasing debt is paralleled by rising social and political instability. Too often the price of IMF imposed austerity has been the contraction of debtor countries' economies. The consequent soaring unemployment and inflation rates mean that the burden of debt servicing falls on those sections of the community who can least afford to pay. For example, in 1985 prices rose by 56 per cent in Mexico and a staggering 219 per cent in Brazil. In September 1985 President Jose Sarney told the United Nations General Assembly, `Brazil won't pay its debt with unemployment or hunger'. The IMF package places the burden of recovery on the poor, who are severely affected by reductions in social programs and consumer subsidies. With its emphasis on balance of payments, economic indicators and mathematical models, the conditionality package lacks social sensitivity. It ignores the plight of already impoverished people who are driven further below the poverty line. The political consequences of austerity measures, namely, the combination of economic stagnation and social mobilisation, often lead to the destabilisation of democratic governments and the promotion of authoritarian and repressive regimes. The Minister of Finance of the Dominican Republic has said: It is not that we do not want to put our house in order, but we do not want to burn it down. By placing most of their faith in the mystical workings of the free market, the IMF and the World Bank tend to forget that many of the economies of the less developed countries, or LDCs, are dominated by multinational and transnational companies. As Wheelright has pointed out, the traditional concept of a free market is no longer tenable. He says: . . . private conglomerate transnational enterprise has replaced the private national enterprise and the free market envisaged by Adam Smith and his successors. A few transnationals are the market. For all practical purposes, market forces means what suits them. This absence of free market forces is exactly the reason why monetarist solutions and prescriptions by the New Right inevitably fail, whether they are imposed by IMF and World Bank packages or by Treasurers of various countries in both the developed and underdeveloped world. The Baker plan introduced towards the end of 1985 was heralded by the Western Press as a solution to the debt problem. The plan included changes to the traditional method of providing funds for specific projects towards a more sectoral approach. It provides for greater control of the World Bank by the United States with an increase of $US9 billion in available funds from 1986 to 1988. It promotes decreased reliance on the IMF for short term finance and facilitates increased lending by private banks. But it also imposes stringent austerity measures on debtor countries seeking new loans. Baker stated: The fund should give higher priority to tax reform, market oriented pricing, the reduction of labour market rigidities, and to opening economies to foreign trade investment. In this light, the Baker plan can most appropriately be seen as a solution for private banks, multinational and transnational companies and the US but clearly not for the already impoverished population of the debtor countries. A report by the Development Issues Study Group of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, entitled Life After Debt, states: In summary the Baker proposal has turned out to be an exercise in rhetoric, but is significant in that it has signalled a more positive attitude on the part of the US Administration. Unfortunately, no concrete actions or even a realistic plan for action have been forthcoming. As time goes on it becomes more and more evident that the monetarist approach and the New Right free market principles applied by the IMF and the World Bank have failed to resolve the debt crisis and the problems of international finance and trade. So we have to look for another answer. The global economic and monetary crisis affects everybody, North and South alike. Yet until now restructuring and adjustment was always expected only from the less developed countries. It is about time that the rich North also took on the burden. The large economies of the United States, Japan and Germany should adopt measures to stimulate demand by relaxing monetary and fiscal policy by stimulating global demand and moderate growth. Commodity prices will then improve and thus enable the debtor nations to discharge their loan service obligations while still continuing to develop. The rich nations ought to lower their protective tariff barriers and abandon their non-tariff protection measures to free up their markets for entry of product from less developed countries. In other words, the rich will have to moderate their greed and allow a bit of a place under the sun to the have-nots, or else we are all heading towards total disaster. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(9.05) —On behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions this evening to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Share Increase) Bill 1988. I will be very happy to pass on to the Treasurer the remarks of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) in relation to the environmental issues he mentioned. The Parliament and all of Australia know of his keen interest in environmental issues and I will be very happy to do that on behalf of the honourable member. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys) read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, after subclause 2 (1), insert the following new subclause: ``(1a) Paragraphs 8a (a) and (d) commence on 1 January 1990.''. No. 2-Page 2, after clause 6, insert the following new clause: Interpretation ``(a). Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting `a Senior Judge' from the definition of `Chief Judge' and substituting `the Deputy Chief Judge or a Judge Administrator if the Deputy Chief Judge or Judge Administrator is'; (b) by inserting `, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator' after `Chief Judge' in the definition of `Judge'; and (c) by inserting the following definitions: ` ``Deputy Chief Judge'' means the Deputy Chief Judge of the Court; ``Judge Administrator'' means a Judge Administrator of the Court;'.''. No. 3-Page 2, after clause 7, insert the following new clauses: Creation of Court ``7a. Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection: `(3) The Court consists of: (a) a Chief Judge, who shall be called the Chief Justice of the Court; (b) a Deputy Chief Judge, who shall be called the Deputy Chief Justice of the Court; and (c) Judge Administrators, Senior Judges and other Judges, not exceeding, in total, such number as is prescribed.'. Arrangement of business of Court ``7b. Section 21b is amended by adding at the end the following subsections: `(2) The Deputy Chief Judge shall assist the Chief Judge in the exercise of the functions conferred on the Chief Judge by subsection (1). `(3) A Judge Administrator shall, in relation to such part of Australia as is from time to time assigned by the Chief Judge, assist the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge in the exercise of such of the functions conferred on the Chief Judge by subsection (1) as are from time to time so assigned.'.'' No. 4-Page 2, after clause 8, insert the following new clauses: Appointment, removal and resignation of Judges ``8a. Section 22 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (2aa) `Subject to subsection (2ae), the ' and substituting `The'; (b) by inserting in subsection (2aa) `, the Deputy Chief Judge' after `Chief Judge'; (c) by omitting from subsection (2ac) `5' and substituting `6'; (d) by omitting subsections (2ad) and (2ae); (e) by inserting in subsection (2af) `or the Deputy Chief Judge' after `Chief Judge'; and (f) by inserting after subsection (2af) the following subsection: `(2afa) Where a person holding office as a Senior Judge or Judge of the Court is appointed Deputy Chief Judge or a Judge Administrator, the person retains that office as Senior Judge or Judge, as the case may be, and may resign the office of Deputy Chief Judge or Judge Administrator without resigning that first-mentioned office.'. Seniority ``8b. Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following subsections: `(2) The Deputy Chief Judge is senior to all other Judges of the Court other than the Chief Judge. `(3) The Judge Administrators and the Judges assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Deputy Chief Judge according to the days on which their appointments as Judge Administrators and their assignments to the Appeal Division (whichever first occurred) took effect. `(4) Where, because 2 or more appointments as Judge Administrator and assignments to the Appeal Division took effect on the same day, subsection (3) does not determine priority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. `(5) The Senior Judges not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (3) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Senior Judges took effect. `(6) Where, because 2 or more commissions of appointment as Senior Judge took effect on the same day, subsection (5) does not determine seniority between the Senior Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. `(7) The Judges who are not Judge Administrators or Senior Judges and are not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Senior Judges to whom subsection (5) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Judges took effect. `(8) Where, because 2 or more commissions of appointment as Judge took effect on the same day on or after the commencement of this subsection, subsection (7) does not determine seniority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General.''. Absence or illness of Chief Judge ``8c. Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting `the next Senior Judge' and substituting `the Deputy Chief Judge or, if the Deputy Chief Judge is unavailable, the senior Judge Administrator'; and (b) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(2) A Judge who is, under subsection (1), performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Chief Judge shall be called the Acting Chief Justice of the Court.'. Salary and Allowances ``8d. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in subsection (1) `Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrators, Judges assigned to the Appeal Division,' after `Chief Judge,'. Oath or affirmation of allegiance and office ``8e. Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting `Deputy Chief Judge, Judge Administrator,' after `Chief Judge,'.''. No. 5-Page 3, clause 9, proposed subsection 26b (1), line 2, at end of proposed subsection, add ``except the power to make an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings''. No. 6-Page 3, clause 9, after proposed subsection 26c (2), add the following new subsection: `` `(3) The Court may, on the application of a party or of its own motion, refer an application under subsection (1) to a Full Court of the Court.'.''. No. 7-Page 6, paragraphs 12 (a) and (b), lines 20 and 21, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: `(2) The powers of the Court that may be delegated under subsection (1) do not include the power to make: (a) a decree of dissolution of marriage in proceedings that are defended; (b) a decree of nullity of marriage; (c) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or the dissolution or annulment of a marriage; or (d) an order in relation to the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child, other than an order made in undefended proceedings or with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings.'.''. No. 8-Page 7, clause 16, proposed section 44a, lines 5 to 11, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: `` `44a. The regulations may provide that proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage may not be instituted in, or transferred to, a court of summary jurisdiction other than a prescribed court.'.''. No. 9-Page 7, paragraph 18 (a), proposed paragraph 46 (1) (b), lines 20 to 22, leave out ``the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt'', insert ``$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000''. No. 10-Page 7, after paragraph 18 (a), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(aa) by inserting after subsection (1a) the following subsection: `(1ab) In determining the value of any property for the purposes of subsection (1), any mortgage, lien, charge or other security over the property is to be disregarded.'; (ab) by omitting from subsection (1b) `, as mentioned in paragraph (1) (d),';''. No. 11-Page 7, paragraph 18 (b), proposed paragraph 46 (2a) (a), line 26, after ``been'', insert ``instituted in or''. No. 12-Page 7, paragraph 18 (d), proposed subsection 46 (3a), line 34, after ``Family Court'', insert ``or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory''. No. 13-Page 7, paragraph 18 (d), proposed subsection 46 (3a), line 36, after ``Court'', insert ``or the Supreme Court, as the case may be''. No. 14-Page 8, paragraph 21 (b), proposed subsection 96 (5), line 18, after ``may'', insert ``, on the application of a party or of its own motion,''. No. 15-Page 8, after paragraph 22 (b), add the following new paragraph: ``; and (c) by omitting subsection (4).''. No. 16-Page 9, clause 24, line 11, after ``Chief Judge'', insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator''. No. 17-Page 10, clause 27, line 40, after ``Chief Judge'', insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator''. No. 18-Page 12, clause 30, proposed section 184, line 29, after ``Chief Judge'', insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator''. No. 19-Page 14, paragraph 33 (b), line 19, after ``Chief Judge'', insert ``, the Deputy Chief Judge, a Judge Administrator''. No. 20-Page 15, after Part VII, add the following new Part: ``PART VIII-AMENDMENTS OF THE FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1987 Principal Act ``35. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Family Law Amendment Act 19877 Transfer of proceedings from court of summary jurisdiction in certain cases ``36. Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the proposed subsection (1) in paragraph (a) `the amount in relation to which the court has jurisdiction in an action for the recovery of a debt' and substituting ``$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000'. Transitional provision in relation to section 46 of Family Law Act ``37. Section 65 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting `section 18 of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1987' and substituting `the amendment of subsection 46 (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 made by the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988'; and (b) by omitting `the first-mentioned section' and substituting `that amendment'.''. ADDITION TO NOTES 7. No. 181, 1987. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.07) —I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 6 to 20 be agreed to and that amendments Nos 4 and 5 be amended. I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Committee to consider amendments Nos 1 to 3 together, amendments Nos 4 and 5 separately and amendments Nos 6 to 20 together. The CHAIRMAN —Does that suit the Committee? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I move: That amendments Nos 1 to 3 be agreed to. These amendments were moved by the Government in the Senate. Honourable members will be aware that there has been an opportunity to restructure the Family Court of Australia because of the resignation of the Chief Judge, who took up a position with the Australian Law Reform Commission. With the appointment of a new Chief Judge, it was advised that it would be wise-in fact, very meritorious-to have a Deputy Chief Judge and also to create the position of judge administrator. I think that the court will be much better off because of these arrangements which have already been accepted by the Senate. I do not want to delay the Committee by trying to explain the amendments because they are self-explanatory and they relate to the matters to which I have just referred. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.09) —I move: That Senate amendment No. 4 be agreed to with the following amendment: Clause 8b, page 3, omit proposed subsections (3), (4) and (5) insert the following subsections: ``(3) Judges appointed as Judge Administrators or assigned to the Appeal Division before, or not later than 3 months after, the commencement of section 8b of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Act 1988 have seniority next to the Deputy Chief Judge, and have such seniority in relation to each other as they had immediately before that commencement. ``(4) The remaining Judge Administrators and Judges assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (3) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Judge Administrators and their assignments to the Appeal Division (whichever first occurred) took effect. ``(4a) Where, because 2 or more appointments as Judge Administrator and assignments to the Appeal Division took effect on the same day, subsection (4) does not determine priority between the Judges concerned, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. ``(5) The Senior Judges not assigned to the Appeal Division have seniority next to the Judges to whom subsection (4) applies according to the days on which their appointments as Senior Judges took effect.''. This amendment relates to the seniority provision for judges. It was drafted with the intention that judges appointed as judge administrators and judges appointed to the appeal division would have equal seniority according to the dates upon which those judges were appointed. Some members of the appeal division have already been appointed. Depending on which judges are appointed as judge administrators, there may be a significant consequential disruption of existing seniority. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the judges. Some of them were concerned as to who would be affected unless this matter was made clear. I understand also that the matter was raised by Senator Durack in the Senate yesterday. He would also have been aware of the judges' concern. The judges regard seniority as an important issue related to their independence. It is important that the new administrative arrangements work well. I have brought forward this amendment to ensure that, in relation to the initial appointments, the existing seniority prevails. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve any existing seniority that a judge subsequently appointed as a judge administrator may have as against members of the appeal division who retain their existing appointments. There will also be one additional appointment to the appeal division. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.12) —I move: That Senate amendment No. 5 be agreed to with the following amendment: After `other than an order' insert `until further order or an order'. The Senate's amendment relates to the creation of the position of judicial registrar. It provided that the judges could delegate to judicial registrars all of the powers of the court. No limitation was placed on the power of the judges to delegate authority to judicial registrars in the same way as no limitation has been placed on the power of delegation to registrars in 1983 other than in relation to divorce and approval of maintenance agreements. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that judicial registrars will be able to provide valuable relief to the judiciary in relation to interim or urgent matters which arise from day to day in each registry and require a prompt but effective response. The provision will allow the judges to delegate to a judicial registrar the power to make an order until further order. That order is commonly known as an interim order and may operate for a fixed and limited period or until such time as the parties seek to have the matter finalised by a judge. The Government considers that the power to make an interim order of this nature will be a valuable part of the judicial registrar's total jurisdiction. If judicial registrars do not have that jurisdiction the purpose of the creation of the judicial registrar might be substantially negatived. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.13) —To put the matter in perspective, this Bill seeks to make some fairly major changes to the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia. One aspect of the Bill is to devolve some of the existing powers of judges to registrars and to the newly-created positions of judicial registrars. Amendment No. 5 relates to the powers of judicial registrars. The Senate's amendment is to the effect that, whilst judicial registrars have a pretty free and wide ambit in terms of jurisdiction, in the Senate's view they should not handle the final contested proceedings in respect of the custody, guardianship or welfare of, or access to, a child. The amendment before the chamber tonight slightly widens the jurisdiction of judicial registrars to say that, whilst there is this one limit on their power, it is not so limited as to exclude them from dealing with matters prior to the final hearing, in other words, an urgent order or some sort of interlocutory proceedings. This seems to us to be a reasonable proposition, so reasonable that we promoted it in the Senate. It was as a result of the very constructive contributions of Senators Durack and Walters that the Government finally adopted the position and the points of view that were put. I was rather entertained to see the Press release of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) yesterday which talked about this proposal as if it had been a government initiative when, of course, it was initiated by the coalition in the Senate. We have supported the broad thrust of the Government's moves, sometimes referred to as `renovation' of the Family Court. After the Bill was initially introduced the Senate dealt with this issue of the relationship between judicial registrars and registrars. Without going into the details of amendment No. 7, which will be considered by us in a moment, I note that it is, of course, related to amendment No. 5 because, in a sense, when read together the two amendments give us a graded, as it were, hierarchy of jurisdiction for the various officers within the Family Court. The coalition took the view that it was reasonable for registrars and judicial registrars-I might say that judicial registrars are people with very considerable qualifications-to be the subject of some devolution of jurisdiction. This was on the basis that their exercise of jurisdiction came within the immediate supervision and confines of the Family Court. We thought that on that basis the Government's proposals for devolution of jurisdiction to registrars and judicial registrars was sensible. We support the Senate's amendment. We accept the refinement of that coalition initiative in the Senate-that refinement being introduced by the Attorney-General tonight. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(9.16) —I am pleased to rise again to support the thrust of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. I am pleased that the Senate has sent the Bill back with what I consider to be only minor amendments. I am only a little concerned that it has taken this long to get the Bill through; that the Senate took so long to debate it. The Bill represents an attempt, at least by the Government, to provide a speedy resolution of Family Court of Australia proceedings in regard to the more routine and formal matters presently clogging the Family Court system. Whilst I understand that the delays are continually being reduced, I believe that it is imperative that those delays be kept to an absolute minimum for the reasons I will explain later. Of course, the main impact of the Bill is to confer on the Family Court judges jurisdiction in certain areas which at present can be exercised only by the Federal Court of Australia. The jurisdiction can be conferred only by direct reference from the Federal Court. Originating proceedings must be filed in the Federal Court Registry. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I hope that the honourable member for Bowman is not going to rehearse the second reading speech. What we are dealing with at present is amendment No. 5 circulated by the Attorney-General. This is an amendment to the Senate's amendments. The matter before the Committee at present is consideration of amendment No. 5, which proposes to change certain parts of clause 9 on page 3 of the Bill. We are not debating the ramifications of all the amendments to the Family Law Act which are proposed by this legislation. Mr SCIACCA —I understand that. The question of the judicial registrars which the amendments refer to is something which I wanted to talk about, particularly in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has suggested an amendment which will give the judicial registrars the power to handle interim orders in emergency situations. At the moment of course, as a result of the Senate's proposed amendment, the judicial registrars would not be allowed to handle contested custody matters. I support the general thrust of the Attorney-General's amendment because in practical terms obviously such situations will come up from time to time. I think it is fairly obvious that judicial registrars can handle them. As I said, I believe that in many respects it is a pity that these amendments have come from the Senate after a debate which took into account mainly the question of wigs and gowns. I think I mentioned this matter on the occasion of the last debate on this Bill. I make particular reference to it because it seems to me that an inordinate amount of time was taken up in the Senate debating the question of wigs and gowns. The CHAIRMAN —I do not think that we are going to have too many references to wigs and gowns; we might have references to access to children and other matters related to clause 9. Mr SCIACCA —I generally support the thrust of the amendment moved by the Attorney-General. I am quite happy to support it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That Senate amendments Nos 6 to 20 be agreed to. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.21) —I just want to say a couple of things about clauses 8, 9, 10 and 15. Clause 8 as it has come from the Senate relates to the power of courts of summary jurisdiction-most often referred to as magistrates courts-to grant the dissolution of marriage. Basically courts of summary jurisdiction under this new clause, this amendment to the law, will be able to handle those situations after being prescribed by regulation of the Parliament. We have taken the view in the coalition right from the word go that it is inappropriate to transfer divorces into the magistrates court. We believe that there is a role for a specialist family court. Whilst we share the Government's view that it is sensible to expand the matters that might come before judges and before the Family Court of Australia and thereby, to use an often used term, `bring them back closer into the judicial mainstream', and whilst we have a view which is in general to support a closer relationship between the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court, it is our view that the quickie divorce in the magistrates court is not the way to go and we therefore register our opposition to clause 8-magistrates court divorces. Clauses 9 and 10 relate to the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts in respect of defended property matters. To put the matter in some perspective, originally the Government had the concept that the jurisdiction would be whatever the jurisdiction was for the magistrates court in regard to a debt. If a person owed somebody $40,000 and he could get it back in the magistrates court, then that would be the limit. That did not seem to us to be a sensible idea because there could be all sorts of jurisdictional problems across State borders and different figures around Australia. So we suggested the sum of $10,000. It seems that what has happened is that the Australian Democrats have come in and tried to find some compromise because after we suggested $10,000, the Government realised the folly of its ways and suggested $20,000. The Democrats said, `Oh, we have got a wonderful compromise to bring the two parties together and the jurisdiction will be $10,000, but $20,000 if you own a car'. I think the whole thing is meaningless because really this jurisdiction is up to $20,000. How many Australians do not own a car? When does a person have to own a car, according to this, to create jurisdiction? If I am an applicant and I want to get into the magistrates court and my property is worth up to $20,000, do I get jurisdiction by going down to the local wreckers, buying a car for $50 and putting it in the front yard of the matrimonial home? The whole thing is just a device. It will be seen as a device and it will be used as a device. If the Government wanted $20,000, I do not know why it just did not go for $20,000. It would be a lot easier instead of all these words about net value and gross value for cars. Quite frankly, I do not think that-- Mr McGauran —It is not going to work. Mr REITH —It will not work. Solicitors will say, `If you want to go to the magistrates court buy a $50 car from the wreckage yard'. That is what they will say. Then they will probably charge $200 for giving the advice to create the jurisdiction. This is just an example where the Government has not got any control as to what is going on. It does not seem to have any firm idea. We have now got amendments on top of the amendments coming from the Senate. When this Bill went to the Senate the Government introduced a lot more amendments. Quite frankly, this Bill is a good example of how not to introduce legislation into Australian law. This is not the way it should be done; it is not being done well. Quite frankly, it reflects very poorly indeed on the Government. I am glad that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is getting some advice on whether what I have said is right or wrong. It is a matter that I have raised before, and I will be interested to hear what he has to say. Lastly, I wish to say something about robing. The history of robing is very entertaining. As I understand it, the Attorney-General told Caucus that he had a proposal which would mean that in future Family Court judges would be able to wear robes. The lefties in the Caucus said that they would not agree to it. So the Bill was presented to the House without containing the robing provision. When the Bill went to the Senate the coalition parties said that judges should not be prohibited from robing. In other words, we said that if they want to wear robes they ought to be entitled to do so. The Senate took up the view that we initiated. The Bill has now come back to the House of Representatives. It is very convenient for the Attorney-General that the Senate has amended the Bill in this respect because he will be able to say to Caucus, `It is not me; it is the Senate'. So, in the end, we will be allowing Family Court judges the benefit of robing. It is a sensible measure. One judge said to me, `If you want a layman's description of why judges should wear robes, let me tell you this very short story. One day when the people came into court to appear before me and we were all set to go, the applicant husband stood up and said, ``I am not starting until the real judge arrives''.' That is the expectation that people have as to how judges should look. Why should they not have that expectation? It is a long tradition of ours that judges be robed. It is just part and parcel of maintaining the authority of the court. I think it would not be a bad idea, either, if at some stage the carpenters were sent in to the Family Court to build a bit of a pedestal on which the judges could sit, because I think when people go into the Family Court they want to look up at a real judge, a person that they recognise to be a judge, and they want to see that judge sitting in a position of authority. It is not just a matter of symbols and signs; it is a matter of providing the proper trappings that go with the authority of that office. It is a very important office. Many judges in the Family Court-it is a very big jurisdiction-do a very good job and work hard to implement the laws of this land and to look after the interests of those who, for one reason or another, sadly appear before them in a case involving the dissolution of a marriage. So a judge of the Family Court is a person of very considerable influence and authority. I think this robing provision is symbolic and it is important in terms of the authority of the court and the respect that we as a community ought to pay to the Family Court judges. Of course, at the same time those judges are moving into some Federal jurisdiction, and judges of the Federal Court of Australia wear robes. This amendment is part of the matching process. I understand that when these matters were raised originally the Attorney hoped that he might be able to take his proposals further. However, there were certain blockages to that occurring. At the same time, he did not want to retain the status quo. The coalition agrees with the broad thrust of his proposals. One cannot achieve everything overnight, but one can certainly take some steps in the right direction. I think in broad terms this Bill deals with some of the very difficult issues that face the Family Court. With the recent appointment of Mr Justice Nicholson, which appointment we very strongly support-we give him our greatest possible support and encouragement-I think we will see the Family Court go forward with some very real support from the Parliament for the important work that it does. I conclude by saying that the Senate, contrary to what was said by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), has picked up many of the very significant issues that relate to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The measures contained in clause 5, which I mentioned briefly today, are the result of a coalition initiative, with the Government coming in with an amendment at the last moment. Be that as it may, I think those measures effect a reasonable compromise in what I regard as a difficult matter but one of great significance. I put on record again my thanks and those of the coalition to those senators who made contributions to the passage of this legislation, but in particular Senator Durack and Senator Walters for the work that they have done on this Bill. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(9.30) —We are debating clauses 6 to 20 of the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill. These clauses raise a whole series of questions which are important, despite the fact that emphasis was given last night in the Senate to lesser changes in the Bill-matters such as robing, the limits set on jurisdiction in the magistrates court, and even the use of titles such as `judicial registrar' and `master'. The question of gowns is pretty much in the eye of the client, the person who steps into the court. It has become recognised over time that if a sufficient number of people are impressed by gowning then it is a psychological crutch that ought to be taken into account. For some time the debate has been about bringing the Family Court of Australia closer to the people by having officers of the court not robed. Nevertheless, there is a fuller recognition now that some robing has an impact on those people who enter the court and that is being taken into account. The changes that will be brought in by this Bill are critical to the more efficient running of the Family Court. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), raised the question of whether we will retain a specialist Family Court. I submit that the critical changes, which are that we hand over some matters to the magistrates court, that the Family Court picks up some matters from the Federal Court, and that judicial registrars and registrars are allowed to have certain powers delegated to them are totally in line with all of those things we seek to achieve through the Family Law Act and are entirely consistent with the workings of the Family Court. The problem is-and this has been well acknowledged-that Family Court judges work in an extremely narrow area, an area fraught with a great deal of emotional stress. The intention of the Bill and of the amendments is to attempt to have those judges work slightly more widely by picking up references from the Federal Court-perhaps taxation or consumer affairs matters. That is an excellent move. There was some debate previously and in the Senate last night that there may be confusion as to how a matter is picked up from the Federal Court and given to the Family Court. The sensible changes proposed by these amendments are that the chief judges of the Federal Court and the Family Court will decide between themselves which matters shall be heard. The critical element that has been raised here is that the Family Court simply cannot pick up new matters from the Federal Court; they must be referred to the Family Court. There is no sense in which the Family Court is encroaching on matters that were formerly dealt with by the Federal Court. I now move to the jurisdiction of the magistrates court. In my State of Queensland the Family Court has only two operating courts, one in Brisbane and one in Townsville, so it is not easy for people in country areas in a very decentralised State to have easy access to the court. If more matters are able to be picked up in the magistrates court by dint of these changes, I think it would be a marvellous thing for such a decentralised State. I admit that the debate about the monetary value or level which can be heard in the magistrates court almost got to the point of the last dollar and cent and the last hubcap. Nevertheless, an agreement has been made. That agreement certainly satisfies me that sufficient business will now be going to the magistrates court. The essential notion of a hierarchy of decision makers has been preserved here. There has always been the judge and the registrar, and the court counsellors-although we are not specifically debating the counsellors tonight. That hierarchy has been preserved. We have judges who will now be able to range more widely in their interests, and I predict that that will mean that we will have more applicants for the position, because I suggest that it is not easy to sit as a judge in the Family Court for a decade or two in a very narrow area of jurisdiction. We have solved that problem. However, we now have judicial registrars, who will be delegated a great number of powers. I know that there was concern as to how great or otherwise their powers would be, but I believe that those problems have also been solved. Of course, for some years now the registrars themselves have been delegated a great number of powers and they have been delegated further powers in these changes. So the hierarchy, as predicted, has been preserved and the magistrates courts are now part of this Family Court system. The Family Court system itself has been preserved but it has been broadened to satisfy the needs of the key operators, that is, the judges; it has been broadened to satisfy greater access by allowing certain matters to be heard in the magistrates court; and it has been speeded up in the sense that so many minor matters can now be picked up by judicial registrars. So I am in complete agreement with the matters raised by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), and I sincerely and firmly believe that the Bill itself, which will soon be passed, will make the Family Court far more efficient and effective. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.38) —I want to add two or three comments to the debate that has already taken place this evening. I was inspired by one or two matters-firstly, with the preoccupation and the glee that were directed towards the choice of again wearing wigs in the courts. I noticed that my friend the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), who is by profession a lawyer, placed great importance on the fact that the Senate had restored the right of Family Court judges to wear wigs. He also cited the story of a couple who were in the court where allegedly the husband was not prepared to allow proceedings to start-I remind the honourable member for Flinders that the husband would not have had any say in it anyhow-because there was not somebody in the court wearing a wig. I am quite sure that the person who was appearing before the court was only having a go and was by no means serious. When I look at the hairline of the honourable member for Flinders, I can well understand his excitement about the possibility of the restoration of wigs. I would like to make one or two other points on this occasion. We get excited with legislation such as this, which will expand the role of Family Court judges. The thing which continues to disturb, perturb and concern me greatly is the lack of will of this Parliament to come to grips with rewriting the Family Law Act. It is not a matter of whether judges should wear wigs or not that is of concern to the vast majority of Australian people who have to face the Family Court. There is a complete lack of trust in the system, a belief that justice will go one way or the other, but for those who appear before it, half the parties- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Committee is not going to have a wide-ranging debate on the Family Law Act. The Committee has before it a number of amendments relating to specific parts of a piece of legislation, and I think it might be better if we kept to those rather than had a wide-ranging discussion on the Family Law Act. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I agree with you completely, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —I am glad you do, and I will now make sure you continue to do that. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you, sir. One of the amendments concerns what goes on in front of Family Court judges. That is very relevant to proceedings in the court. I plead, as a layman, that my logic is impeccable. The Minister at the table, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), has given me a sign. I am not sure whether he was indicating that I should speak for only a couple of minutes or whether he was indicating something else. I will keep my comments brief. But I do make this plea: the Parliament has to come to grips with a rewriting of the Family Law Act. Dissatisfaction has not been caused over whether judges should wear wigs or even because of the most regrettable acts of violence, it has been caused by the system itself. I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) say today that the Attorney-General is considering a new career in 1989 or 1990. He made those comments in the Minister's absence foreshadowing his departure before the next election. It is also impeccable logic for a Labor man to be getting out at that time. One of the things that could be emblazoned in the Attorney-General's name-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Moreton might stick to the clauses before the Committee. I do not see anything about the future of the Attorney-General in any of these clauses. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I only wish to mention that he is a reformer and he would cap a remarkable career by coming to grips with the changes to the Family Law Act which I advocate on behalf of many people. Mr Chairman, you are also a lawyer by occupation, are you not? No wonder you are being so protective of your own. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will not reflect upon the Chair in such a fashion. The Chair may have been responsible for many sins in his life, but never the sin of being a lawyer. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is very reassuring. But the point I would like to make whilst on my feet, and perhaps as chairman of the jury at this point, is that justice for the average person is out of reach financially. It is only the poor who get legal aid, or the rich who can truly afford it, who get justice in this country. The second thing by which the Attorney-General could cap his career with glory, would be to ensure that justice is within reach of people and that when the changes to the Family Law Act come in, the judges are given a framework within which to work so that they can dispatch decisions that will bring more satisfaction to the aggrieved parties. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.44) —I thank the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) for their contributions. There is no question of any farewells as I intend to stay. But the point at issue-the honourable member for Moreton is right in saying this-is that this is a difficult jurisdiction. This is a problem for this nation. We have to try to have more conciliation and mediation so that the parties to not have litigation. The honourable member for Moreton raised a valid point. Most of our legal aid now goes into the Family Court area despite the fact that only about 5 per cent of matters are litigated. Fortunately, after some help by way of conciliation and counsellors, some 95 per cent of parties are able to come to some arrangement about the problems that they have had in their domestic lives. They are parties who have married or who have lived together and naturally have a feeling about each other which is not the same feeling that they had when they were married or first lived together. In other words, there is an irretrievable breakdown. The honourable member should understand the problems of lawyers. They should not be criticised because they are the one group of people who are trying to help solve the problems of families who are in disarray. Further, no blame should be attached to the fact that there has been a breakdown. Those problems to which I refer relate to access, maintenance, custody and property division. The Institute of Family Studies has clearly shown that where divorce takes place both parties are in a poorer economic circumstance. In other words, the income will not be sufficient to maintain two separate households. Unfortunately, the children pay the penalty for that. I accept what the honourable member is saying. Honourable members will recall the considerable problems the Parliament experienced in trying to agree on the legislation. It almost took years to get it through. All honourable members believed they knew all about divorce and about families. The issues vary, of course. The real issue is that, if the children were asked, they would be happy if the parents could stay together. Unfortunately, as honourable members know, the children do not always get a chance to have their way, and there is that problem and difficulty. More than $40m is spent on legal aid in the family law area. That is a substantial sum of money. However, I appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Moreton. I am sure we are all trying to work on the basis of how we can improve the Family Court. These amendments will help considerably because we have an idea of how we can coordinate and enhance the court's ability to deal with matters more speedily, at the same time avoiding, if we can, unnecessary litigation. Perhaps more resources will have to be made available in the form of conciliation and mediation centres where parties can be encouraged to talk about settlement procedures and not resort to litigation. I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his remarks. The honourable member for Flinders was concerned that what are called uncontested matters could be dealt with by magistrates. I do not want to criticise the honourable member's approach. However, I want to make it clear that 85 per cent of maintenance matters, involving contested issues as to what financial arrangements will be made, are now dealt with by magistrates. They are not trivial matters. On the contrary, they can be difficult. Pursuant to State legislation, magistrates must also deal with neglected children, domestic violence and juvenile delinquency. Magistrates are not incompetent people. Many of them have a very clear understanding of family concerns because they are located in the areas in which the families live. One problem in the family law jurisdiction is to provide people in outlying districts, particularly in remote areas of Queensland and other areas, with the opportunity to have their matter's dealt with expeditiously if there are no contentious issues involved. That is not to say they are quickie divorces. That is a damaging description which suggests that it will not be regarded as a proper hearing of the matter. Magistrates are very experienced and well qualified. They realise what is evidence, and if the evidence is that there has been an irretrievable breakdown, and that satisfactory arrangements have been made about maintenance, custody and property division-that is, where the parties are in agreement-I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be deemed to be a trivial matter or a quickie divorce simply because the parties, after some intelligent discussion, have come to some arrangement that they each agreed to. If the agreement turned out to be not satisfactory from the point of view, despite having consented to it, an appeal mechanism to the Family Court is available. Family Court judges, on circuit, do not often visit remote areas of Queensland and Western Australia. Parties in such places have an opportunity to have their matters dealt with by magistrates on what I believe is a reasonable basis. Finally, I turn to the subject of robing. The honourable member for Flinders was right in suggesting that we might be able to accept robing. I am anxious that this court not be deemed to be inferior, although I was not thinking of robing in that sense. I am anxious to move the court toward a Federal jurisdiction where it is deemed to be the equivalent of, and not inferior to, any other Federal court. We do not want this court to have the ability to deal with divorce and to have no legal capacity to deal with any other matter. We want to say that they are fully qualified practitioners who have earned their spurs by being trained as good lawyers and appearing in courts, only in the divorce jurisdiction. Those who have practised know that that is not a jurisdiction one readily gallops into on the basis that there is a big career in it. It is just part of the normal work one has to do. A lot of challenging work is done in equity, in common law, in taxation and in trade practices. Judges of this court are fully qualified to handle those matters, as they have appeared in those courts as counsel. They have the capacity to be involved in the decision-making process because they understand the law. There probably has been a misunderstanding that, by the use of the title `family law', we have created an apparatus where the family can be put back together. That has been a false expectation. This is the divorce court. We gave it the title `Family Court'. By the time people get to this court there has been irretrievable breakdown. The parties have been apart. It is almost impossible to talk about reconciliation. Because we use the words `compassion' and `particular skills' the profession has a reluctance to accept appointments to the Family Court. I am anxious to see the court moved up in grade to show that judges of the Family Court are well qualified to deal with a number of matters. If they are able to deal with matters of taxation, bankruptcy or trade practices, that would be a good thing; and of course then they would be robed. That is the other factor. That did not go down too well in some sections of my Party. Some honourable members legitimately feel that it is detracting from the ability, in this family dispute area, to have the parties come to some arrangement unless the judge appears the same as the parties-in other words, is not wearing a wig and gown. The judges do not object to that. The real issue that has not been mentioned is that the judges feel more secure and more anonymous if they are robed. That is their reasoning, and I accept it. I have not challenged the amendment moved in the Senate. I think it will probably work. There has been a real problem with security of this court. At least one judge and the wife of another judge have been murdered. A number of bomb threats have been made. In Sydney there were 26 bomb threats to the court last year. This meant complete evacuation of the premises and closure of the whole building. I do not know why this issue has been bedevilling Sydney, but it has been a problem for us. I think we will avoid that by getting new premises in Sydney. We now propose acquiring a site, but it will take a little time. If the problem can be alleviated by the judges having some anonymity by wearing robes-which they feel is their right-I agree with the proposition. That is why we are doing it. In the long run it will save us a lot of heartache because enormous amounts of money are spent on security of judges. When the original Bill was debated in Parliament a long while ago no-one dealt with this matter because no-one thought it would be an issue. It has not worried any other court except this one. I can understand that the parties in dispute feel that they are the best judges of who should have the property or custody and who ought to pay maintenance. One will not convince the losing parties with decisions that they feel are not correct. So one gets feelings of anger and revenge and they act against the judicial position. That is why we have to give more support to this court. We need to understand the worry caused to the judges from the evidence given by the parties. We need to understand that this is a court, basically, of hatred and revenge if cases are fought out to the finish. Judges get no marks at all for having to make decisions, yet they have to do it. We have to support their position. We have to do that by encouraging more conciliation, consultation and mediation to try to get the parties to understand that, if a marriage has broken down, some arrangements must be made that require judicial decisions. Having said that, I turn to the other matter that the honourable member for Flinders raised-I am glad he raised it-concerning an amendment moved in the Senate to make the jurisdictional limit $10,000 and, if a motor car is involved, $20,000. I cannot for the life of me understand why a motor car has to be dragged into the middle of a family law dispute when the question is one of property entitlement. The Government always wanted magistrates-I must emphasise that this matter is related to the jurisdiction of magistrates courts-to have the same jurisdiction in this area as they have in the States for debt resolution. They have a jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to debt, in some cases up to $40,000. We are anxious for the magistrates to have the same jurisdiction over property as they do under their State jurisdictions, which would vary. We suggested $40,000. Some States said, `No, that is too high; we would rather the limit be $20,000'. I can tell the Committee that the State Attorneys-General would agree that $20,000 is a reasonable figure from their point of view because it would not affect the jurisdiction they now give to their magistrates across Australia. I understand that the honourable member for Petrie would be happy to pick up the real thrust of what has been said here. Why are we bedevilled by an amendment which brings a motor car into consideration and escalates the jurisdictional limit by $10,000? I think it is better to leave out the motor car and provide for the $10,000 escalation. The honourable member for Petrie has been very keen to help us in this regard and proposes to move an amendment, to Senate amendment No. 9-and, as a natural corollary, to amendment No. 20-which would have the effect of omitting the reference to a motor car and deleting the words `$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000' and inserting `$20,000'. That would get us back to the figure everybody thinks we could go to if a motor car is involved. I think we ought to forget the motor car and talk about the ability to solve these matters, which are relatively minor in value, in magistrates courts. If we can come to some satisfactory arrangement about that, we will make even more progress as a result of having the matter debated here this evening. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.58) —Prior to the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) coming to that very specific matter, referred to by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), I wish just to say in respect of the magistrates courts jurisdiction that basically the whole country is against the Government on this matter-except for the Australian Democrats. That is why it has been able to get the quickie divorces through the Senate. We have a different starting point on this issue. We can talk about the congestion in the magistrates courts. The honourable member for Petrie said, `We will be right in the magistrates courts'. He ought to go to some of the magistrates courts and see the congestion. There are other means by which that issue can be addressed. I just go back to the fundamental issue. The fact is that, we have always followed the principle that, if a person wanted to bring the solemn contract of marriage to an end, it should be dealt with only by a superior court of record. That has been fundamental in the attitude that we as a coalition have adopted to marriage as a fundamental institution in our society. We believe that to take the matter into the magistrates courts is to adopt the wrong stance. Our position is not based on some attack on the capacities of magistrates-of course it is not. Our concern is the way in which we as a society look to marriage as a fundamental institution. It is a fundamental institution; it is a building block upon which this society is based. We say that the Government's practical reasons for the transfer are, quite frankly, transparent and that the basic principle before us is such that the dissolution of marriage should be undertaken by a superior court of record. We have such a court in the Family Court of Australia, and that task ought to be undertaken by it. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(10.00) —by leave-In relation to Senate amendment No. 9 I move: Omit `$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000', substitute `$20,000'. In relation to Senate amendment No. 20 I move: Omit `$10,000 and, where a motor vehicle is involved, $20,000', substitute `$20,000'. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.01) —I have one query. Does the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) include in his amendments No. 10 of the schedule of amendments from the Senate? That relates to the subsection that defines gross and net values-the equity in the alleged motor vehicle. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.02) —I do not think it applies. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.03) —I shall state the coalition's position, so that it is absolutely clear. Our view is that the jurisdictional limit in magistrates courts in respect of property matters ought to be $10,000. The position we are in at the moment with this proposal is that by a device of owning a vehicle or when there is some involvement of a motor vehicle, one can have the jurisdiction raised to $20,000. We attack that provision on the basis that just as a matter of how something is drafted, it is plainly ridiculous, which I think has been the motive behind the sensible further amendment of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns). We understand the amendment and welcome it to the extent that it finally brings some clarity to the issue as to what the jurisdictional limit should be. May I say that the $1,000 figure was introduced in 1975 in the Family Law Bill. That figure has been increased to $3,000 or $4,000 after inflation. From the coalition's point of view we have been prepared to say that the doubling of the figure, and taking inflation into account, to bring the amount to $10,000 is a reasonable compromise to the proposal that was originally brought forward by the Government. In our view the Family Court is a place where matters of substantial dispute, relating to assets that are substantial to the parties, ought to be dealt with by the Family Court. As someone once said, the issue then is not a matter of division of property but the division of poverty. We see no reason why people who have assets of between $10,000 and $20,000 ought to be treated differently from members of other sectors in the community-treated differently simply because of their level of assets. Once the figure approaches $20,000, quite frankly one is talking about the family home. I think that is where the meat of this matter lies. The Opposition says that once one gets to that level, it becomes too high for magistrates courts. The matter should be taken to the Family Court to be dealt with. In our view, $10,000 is a sensible compromise to the proposal that the Government originally took. I am disappointed that the Government did not take it up, but the amendment now provides, at least, for a clear division of positions for when the matter returns to the Senate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.04) —I thank the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) for his assistance in moving the amendments. They will tidy up the issue. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) is still anxious that magistrates be confined to the $10,000 jurisdiction because when one approaches the $20,000 jurisdiction one is dealing with the matrimonial home. I very much doubt that in practice. I would be very surprised that anyone could buy a block of land for $20,000, let alone a matrimonial home. The point at issue is not that we are creating an additional jurisdiction in terms of limit. The States at the present time give magistrates jurisdiction up to that amount. Mr Reith —It varies. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It varies and it goes as high as $40,000 in some other cases. Mr Reith —It is down to $5,000 in some States. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point that magistrates are also dealing with maintenance cases in these matters. Indeed, 85 per cent of all maintenance cases, which are of some significance, are delegated to magistrates because they have the capacity and ability to understand financial arrangements, particularly from the point of view of dividing income. Nobody objects to their capacity to do that. In the circumstances, I think it is reasonable. The honourable member for Flinders acknowledges that the amendment certainly tidies up the provision. But I think it is drawing a long bow to suggest that it is all right for the amount to be $10,000 but that it is not correct for it to be $20,000. I cannot see merit in what the honourable member says. Amendments agreed to. Amendments Nos 6 to 20, as amended, agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.07) —As the title indicates, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988 seeks minor changes to the procedure for conducting referendums at the Federal level. The legislation is based on a continuing series of changes to the electoral system arising from the Government's efforts to implement the recommendations of reports of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. This gives us an opportunity to consider how related recommendations of the Committee have worked in practice. Since referenda are used only in the Federal sphere for constitutional amendment, this Bill should be considered in the light of the possibility that the Government will this year present the Australian public with a series of questions at an unwarranted referendum. The stated aim of this Bill is to ensure consistency between the existing Act and the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Over the past five years, the Electoral Act has undergone significant changes which involve a new system of Senate balloting, an extension of the size of both Houses and the introduction of public funding for political parties. Mr Tim Fischer —Which is a disgrace. Mr ROCHER —That is a disgrace, as my honourable friend reminds me. An integral part of those changes was public disclosure of campaign donations. This is a matter of such embarrassment to members on the other side that I will try right now to refrain from further mention of that topic. However, I do not promise to do so. The Liberal Party of Australia, as a matter of record, opposed many of those changes. A larger Federal parliament was, and is, an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. It is also pertinent to ask why we, as members of political parties in this place, should vote taxpayers' money to fund the campaigns of our party organisations. The Liberal Party was, and is, opposed to disclosure of campaign donations. However, we have at least the virtue of adhering to the law as it now stands, which is more than can be said for the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. Few of the major changes to the Electoral Act offered any real benefits to our electoral system. They were changes for the benefit of politicians and not for the taxpaying public. Nevertheless, this Bill represents less significant but probably more useful amendments to the procedures to be applied to referenda. Despite the suggestions of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) that this Bill is part of a coherent package of electoral legislation, it is clear that we are still plugging gaps and omissions from previous legislation. The reports of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform have dealt with long lists of suggested changes from the Electoral Commission and other interested parties. Some of these might have value but, when it comes to the electoral system, stability and certainty are of definite value. It should not be necessary to introduce constant changes to the electoral system. This Bill deals with the procedure for referenda, as I have already indicated. Referenda play a very important role in our Federal political system. They represent the only means of achieving alteration of our Constitution. The overriding guidance for the conduct of referenda is found in section 128 of the Constitution. That section places the responsibility for proposing constitutional changes firmly in the hands of this Parliament. It is a responsibility which, I regret to say, has been abrogated by this Government from time to time. Proposals for constitutional change should be carefully and extensively considered in this place. The Constitution places on such proposals the more stringent requirement of an absolute majority in each House of Parliament before an amendment can be put to the people. The machinery provisions amended in this Bill could well be tested before this year is out. The Government and some of the dependent zealots with whom it surrounds itself have sought to make the bicentenary year of 1988 the year of constitutional change. We have been assaulted by a barrage of short-sighted, often just wrong, assertions about the supposed failings and shortcomings of the Constitution. What seems to unify these calls for an all-encompassing referendum is that they all suggest that the Commonwealth Government needs more and greater powers, and also that ambiguities in the division of powers with the States should be resolved in favour of the Commonwealth. The only cause for extensive constitutional change rather than sensible alteration come from people who are centralists in the true sense of the word. They seek either powers for Federal Governments which now reside with the States, or powers which no Australian governments have never exercised. Given the extent and importance of the constitutional amendments suggested by people who are acting with a brief from the Government, it would have been hoped that concrete proposals would by now be before this Parliament. Certainly proper scrutiny of proposed amendments will be extremely difficult in the Budget session of this Parliament. The detailed machinery of the procedure for referenda becomes irrelevant if the Parliament cannot properly consider proposals that are to be put to the people. The reason this has occurred is the use by the Government of an unelected, unrepresentative statutory authority, in the form of the Constitutional Commission, as the vehicle for the Government's plans for so-called reforms. Again, the Government places the Parliament in a marginal role where the constitutional provisions for referenda stipulate that the Parliament is the central body in facilitating alteration of the Constitution. If referenda are to have an important place in Federal politics, then so must the role of Parliament, and debate in this place must become much more the basis of the authority and actions of government. Clause 6 of the Bill seeks a wider distribution of the Yes and No cases in a referendum. This is a laudable objective. The reason for presenting a Yes and No case has always been to ensure that the people of Australia are as well informed as possible about the decisions they will have to make. People are always cautious when considering things with long term effects, such as changes to the Constitution. The evidence suggests that Australians have always acted prudently when presented with all the available arguments in a referendum case. Sensible change has often been adopted, whilst the extension of the power of the Commonwealth Government has usually been rejected. Even during the heat of war in 1944, the electors refused to grant extensive constitutional powers to the then Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government. Given the opportunity for open debate, electors have discriminated in their judgments of the merits of different proposals presented at that time. With this Bill the Government slightly extends the availability of information for public debate, yet in its other actions it has attempted to stifle debate about its intentions at referenda. That applies to past referenda and to propositions which were floated but never put to the electorate. This Government has used the most recent report of the Constitutional Commission as an excuse for not laying proposals before the public for debate. Ministers have made it clear that only very few of the dozens of amendments proposed by the advisory committees to the Constitutional Commission will be put to a referendum this year. That begs the question: which amendments? If the Government is, as it claims, genuinely interested in democracy and openness, it will tell us as soon as possible which constitutional amendments it plans to put to a referendum or referenda. It should allow full debate on the subjects of those referenda in this House and that should be given priority over the rest of the Government's legislative program. Such concrete measures would secure the integrity of our electoral system a good deal more than the limited but constructive measures contained in this Bill. The Federal Government and the Australian Labor Party throughout Australia like to talk about the virtues of electoral reform. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill reflects some of that interest in changing the electoral system for referenda. But the ALP has often paid only lip service to the integrity of the electoral system. Change is not necessarily reform, and Australian electoral systems have had many changes for the worse. The gerrymander and malapportionment are as much features of Labor Party State governments tampering with the electoral system as they are of any other government. Examples abound of electoral distributions which do not yield proportionality between the number of votes and the number of seats held. On some occasions this is a consequence of the diversity of the country and on others the advantageous design of the system by political parties. It is because of this that any changes to the electoral and referendum legislation which are not absolutely necessary or clearly reinforce existing provisions can be seen as offering some advantage to one party, group or individual. Small parties saw the changes to the Senate ballot paper as putting them at a disadvantage. It is now clear that public disclosure of campaign donations has disadvantaged the New South Wales division of the Australian Labor Party, which seems to have difficulty adhering to its own laws. No wonder-it was always bad law! It is a textbook example of unnecessary tampering with an electoral system which had served the people of Australia very well. Changes to the electoral system should be adopted cautiously. They require careful consideration such as that given by the Senate Select Committee on Electoral Reform, but it should not be exclusively the careful consideration of the Select Committee. Changes should not pass through this House without comment, extensive consideration and debate. Similarly, the Australian Electoral Commission, which oversees the operation of the legislation which is amended by this Bill, should be subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the Parliament. Recent suggestions-acknowledged, as I understand it, by the Electoral Commissioner-of inefficiency in the conduct of the last Federal election are very disturbing. At all stages electoral and referendum legislation should strictly reinforce the serious nature of the responsibility which officers and employees of the Commission bear. It is the task of the legislation to provide a fair system for elections and referenda to represent accurately the decisions of individual Australians. We should be careful to avoid legislation simply to make the life of the Electoral Commission, Electoral Commissioners or politicians any easier. Law designed to make the life of parliamentarians easy without benefit to the population generally must never colour our judgment. In summary, this Bill will be accepted by the Opposition as it completes the work of earlier amendments to the Electoral Act. However, as I have already said, it should be treated with caution. The Government should have, and demonstrate, more respect for the referendum procedure. Above all, it should not subject the voters of Australia to perpetual change of the electoral system. If the electoral system really needs radical changes, the legitimacy of past elections must in some small way be questionable. I hope that this Bill will represent the last of a long series of changes which produce unnecessary turmoil at the foundations of our Australian democracy. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.22) —In the course of my remarks I will try to answer some of the points made by the learned and honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) and by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who has also contributed to this debate. Naturally enough I support the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 1988. This Bill has come before the House to remove inconsistencies which exist between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Back in December 1986 the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform published its second report entitled The Operation During the 1984 General Election of the 1983-84 Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation. This was a well researched and well written report, and the Joint Select Committee certainly deserves praise from both sides of the House for it. The report contained 156 recommendations. It is to the credit of this Government and to the credit of the Opposition that they in turn accepted many of those recommendations. It was the Government's intention, having agreed that there should be legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations, that those recommendations be introduced in stages. As honourable members are aware, the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918 was amended prior to the July 1987 federal election to give effect to those recommendations it was considered essential to implement before the election. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987, which contained those amendments, did however, as I have said earlier, create inconsistencies between the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Thus it is to remove those inconsistencies that the Bill before us has been drafted. I turn to the clauses of the Bill, because it is important to look at least at some of the clauses to find out why these changes are necessary. Clause 4 inserts two new sections after section 3 of the principal Act. The first, 3a, relates to ensuring that overseas polling officials are subject to the same penalties for neglect of duty as officials in Australia. The Opposition agrees with that amendment. The Committee discovered that there was a major problem in the operation of overseas postal voting. There appeared to be a reluctance by assistant returning officers at Australia's overseas posts to heed instructions for the speedy dispatch of votes to Australia after polling day. This led to many votes delivered to assistant returning officers at overseas posts being delayed in reaching Australia. I believe that one of the problems here is not the incompetence of those assistant returning officers but the other work pressures on them. In an overseas post many duties are placed on the officials working there. There is also a lack of adequate training in the duties required. I certainly hope that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) will take note of the need to train those in overseas posts who are required to perform these duties. Of course, I recognise that some overseas posts will have only a smattering of votes whilst others will have to deal with many more. However, the point of the exercise is to get recorded votes as expeditiously as possible to Australia after polling day. The proposed new section 3b has the effect of requiring the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to comply with the Act to the same extent as other participants in the electoral process. The Australian Electoral Commission rightly drew two incidents in the 1984 election which showed the necessity for legislative action to the attention of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The first concerns an election advertisement by the Queensland Government. Although authorised by the Premier of that State, and to that extent it complied with section 328 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, no return of election expenditure under section 309 was provided. The Director of Public Prosecutions at that time advised against a prosecution, being of the opinion that the section probably did not bind the Crown in the right of Queensland. However, it begged the question of whether the legislation should be made binding on the Crown. The second incident concerned the then Commonwealth Department of Education's pamphlet entitled Improving Government Schools-1985 and Beyond. The pamphlet was distributed during the 1984 election campaign, although the Department stated that this was not intended. The pamphlet was not authorised in accordance with subsection 328 (1), and no return under subsection 309 (4) was furnished. The Director of Public Prosecutions advised that the pamphlet was an electoral pamphlet and that, if an ordinary citizen had published it, it would have required authorisation under the Act and an obligation to furnish a return. However, it was a Commonwealth Government advertisement and, as the Act did not bind the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth, there was no breach of either section by its publication. I welcome also the repeal of the requirement that enrolled voters must live within the division at some time during the three months prior to the poll in order to vote. The honourable member for Gilmore in his remarks raised what I feel was a spurious argument when he suggested that a political party might transfer 200 of its supporters into a marginal electoral in order to affect the result. But we are talking about a referendum; we are not talking about a general election. This is a referendum Bill; so 200 votes would not have the impact that he was suggesting. Unfortunately, it was found that the three-month rule worked only to disenfranchise those voters who had not correctly maintained their enrolments and were honest enough to admit it. I consider that the greater use of habitation reviews should allow for improved accuracy and reliability of the rolls-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.30) —During the last fortnight of sittings-specifically on 22 February-I spoke about the twenty-ninth Skill Olympics. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) was present in the chamber on that occasion, and you were also in the chamber at that time, Madam Speaker. The Skill Olympics were held at the Darling Harbour Exhibition Centre between 18 and 21 February. Honourable members will recall, hopefully, that the Skill Olympics involved a competition in the trades-vocational skills-with 400 competitors aged 18 to 23 years from 19 nations. Regrettably-and I made the point at the time-the Skill Olympics received very little publicity. I have ventured back into the Parliament to give them another kick along because I think it is a very worthwhile event, not only in itself but in what it represents in terms of Australia's future. Madam Speaker, you will be pleased to learn that we had some considerable success. I would like to bring to the attention of the House tonight the names of the successful athletes-if we can call them athletes-in the Skill Olympics. In the turning trade section Australia was successful in winning a silver medal. Our competitor in that event was Colin Twigg. In the gas welding section we were successful in winning a bronze medal. Our competitor was Roy Lim, who ran third behind competitors from Ireland and Korea. In the electric welding section we also came third. Our representative was Andrew Barnes, again being placed behind a Korean. This time the Taiwanese entrant came second. In the plumbing section we were awarded a silver medallion. Ken Channon was our entrant. He was placed behind a Korean competitor and in front of a Taiwanese and a United Kingdom entrant. In the industrial electronics section we ran second. Our entrant was Maurice De Jersey, who finished behind a Japanese competitor. In the industrial wiring event we were gold medal winners. Our competitor was Russell Cooper and he was awarded the gold medallion in front of competitors from Germany, Ireland and Taiwan. We were also successful in the bricklaying section. Our gold medal winner was Stephen Perryman, who finished in front of entrants from France and Germany. In stonemasonry we picked up the silver medal. Congratulations must go to Sean Dibben, running behind a United Kingdom entrant and in front of a Japanese competitor. In the jewellery category a female competitor representing our country won the silver medallion. Congratulations go to Celeste Careedy. She came in behind an Austrian competitor and in front of a Korean. In automotive mechanics we finished in equal first place with the United Kingdom entrant. Our contestant in that section was Devin Flor. In the cookery section we ran third. Our entrant was Muoi Trinh, who finished behind entrants from Switzerland and Liechtenstein. We won our third gold medal in the plant mechanics-heavy machinery-event. It was won by Mark Eddison from Swiss and French competitors respectively. The point of reading the names of these successful skills athletes into the parliamentary record is to try to gain more prominence, not only now but in the future, for the Skill Olympics. There is a general bipartisan attitude towards raising skill levels in Australia and towards raising educational attainment. We must recognise that not all young Australians will go on to universities and colleges. There will still be an enormous employment demand for skilled trades men and women. For my money-and I am sure I speak with universal acclamation on this point-those young Australians are international heroes, international athletes, of whom we should be proud, along with the Pat Cashs, Allan Borders, our Mean Machine and the like. I congratulate those Australian competitors. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.35) —Tonight I wish to pick up the third of a series of speeches I have made during the adjournment debate on the forthcoming New South Wales State election. Tonight I wish to make a few comments, again, about Independents and the role they play. I focus particularly on the Independent State member for Wollongong, Frank Arkell, who is also the Lord Mayor of Wollongong. It is quite interesting to look at the record of that gentleman, who has represented the seat of Wollongong for the last four years. For example, do honourable members know that during his four years as a member of parliament he has made seven speeches that have lasted a grand total of 1 1/4 hours? Do they know that he missed 208 out of 847 votes during those four years? Do they realise that he has attended Parliament for 75 per cent of his time against an average of all members of 92 per cent? It is quite interesting to look at some of the issues in relation to which he has missed the vote. He has missed votes on legislation to create the Brandon Park sportsground in my electorate, which he said he totally supported, on the 1986-87 and on coalmining regulation laws. Yet he says that he stands for the working class and had the hide to go on television last week and say that he was more Labor than Liberal. He missed voting on legislation to limit local government rate increases; measures to protect children from sexual assault; tough new action against drug pedlars, plus 202 other votes. When he did get to the Parliament on a couple of occasions-I have to give him some credit-he opposed and voted against gun control laws; consumer protection laws for home purchasers and tenants; cheaper rent dispute settlement procedures; industrial protection for outworkers and casual labourers; soil conservation and tax evasion measures; equal treatment for men and women in marriage; and child protection laws. Those facts-they have been checked from the Hansard of the New South Wales Parliament-stand in stark contrast to the record of his opponent, the Hon. Laurie Kelly, who is the Speaker of the New South Wales Parliament and who, in that capacity, has represented the State seat of Corrimal for the last 20 years in a most astute and practical manner. I suggest that criticisms that Alderman Arkell has levelled at Mr Kelly during the election campaign that he has achieved nothing in the last 20 years are absolute nonsense. I would say also that the rubbish that Alderman Arkell has come out with in suggesting that he and he alone was responsible for creating 10,000 jobs in Illawarra in the last four years, that he and he alone got the grain handling facility, for which, incidentally the Federal and State governments are paying, that he and he alone was responsible for the restructuring of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. steelworks and a number of other such outrageous claims, simply belie the fact that he is a man about whom his own Press person Martin O'Shannessy said, `Alderman Arkell attended Parliament only when he had to'. Honourable members opposite may well laugh and sing out, but this is in their interests also. I am certain that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) would take interest in this. Independents prove absolutely nothing in parliaments. They provide nothing, give nothing, owe allegiances to no-one and, as a result, contribute nothing to the electorates in which they locate. Despite Alderman Arkell, the Federal Government and the State Labor Government of Barrie Unsworth have done everything that is right for the people of Wollongong, particularly in the seat of Wollongong. They have done so despite Alderman Arkell. They have done it because the people of Wollongong recognise that the only ones who will look after their interests are people such as Laurie Kelly and the other Labor members that are standing for election on Saturday. I ask honourable members and the people of Wollongong to have a look at those facts once again, at the appropriate time, and to get behind Laurie Kelly, if they want someone who will be part of a government that can deliver and not someone who mouths off and takes credit for things produced in an electorate that obviously he had nothing to do with. I hope that the people of Wollongong get behind Laurie Kelly on Saturday. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.40) —I want to refer to comments that were made in the House of Representatives at Question Time on 17 February this year when the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) brought to the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) some of the problems that had occurred in his electorate following floods in the township of Cooyar. The honourable member for Fisher pointed out that, tragically, those floods had resulted in the loss of two lives. The Minister generously offered to respond. He indicated that the Commonwealth would reimburse the Queensland Government at the level of at least 50 per cent for grants made to relieve personal hardship. I have no issue at all with either the honourable member for Fisher or the Minister regarding the matters raised. I commend them both for what they have done. But, in the spirit of that question I bring to the attention of the House a similar tragedy that occurred in the electorate of Wakefield. Although no lives were lost, the trauma faced by the people in the Melrose-Mount Remarkable area of the electorate of Wakefield was no less real than the trauma faced by the residents of Fisher in the Cooyar area. On 17 January this year in the heart of summer there was a thunderstorm, which is not uncharacteristic of Mount Remarkable. That thunderstorm and the consequent lightning strikes resulted in an enormous fire that swept through the mid north of South Australia. It needs to be appreciated just how unique Mount Remarkable is. Mrs Kelly —It is remarkable. Mr ANDREW —I quite agree. Mount Remarkable is the southern tip of the Flinders Ranges. It rises to 960 metres and is part of an ironstone ridge that is the backdrop to the township of Melrose. As honourable members may well guess, given some of the geography known in this House, it is about 300 kilometres north of the city of Adelaide. I notice the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) nodding wisely. No doubt he spent some time there when he was a South Australian resident. But enough of this frivolity. Because Mount Remarkable is part of an ironstone ridge it is by no means unusual for lighting strikes to occur there. Mount Remarkable has been a conservation park for some time. On 7 January lightning strikes occurred in the part currently supervised by the Department of Woods and Forests in South Australia. The fire broke out and spread briefly into the national park. It was thought to have been brought under control by the Department of Woods and Forests and the National Parks and Wildlife Service and was not as closely monitored, one might suppose, as it ought to have been. But I was not there at the time so it would be unfair merely to presume to make the judgment. Nonetheless, a wind blew up, the fire got out of control once again and very rapidly took hold of the Mount Remarkable national park. As a result, all of the country between Murray Town and Wilmington, which runs from well south of Melrose into the Flinders Ranges, is burnt black. If one now drives into the township of Melrose one sees that skyline at the top of Mount Remarkable, once wooded, is now clearly evident because no trees now exist on Mount Remarkable. For the farmers in the surrounding area there were enormous stock losses, although no homes were lost. As a result of those stock losses, the farmers currently face the reality of having to agist the few remaining stock they have, which is difficult enough in a season like this, and the even more pressing demand of having to sell burnt stock, bury dead stock and ask themselves what they will use as income for the next 12 months, having suffered these stock losses. As for those who are selling stock because they no longer have any grass to feed them, and who will be taxed on that income, what will they then have left to restock with when once again the grass grows? The final point I want to make is that the need for park management in the coming year will be acute. As a result of the fire having swept through the national park one might expect that this winter the grass will grow to almost the height of an average man or woman and thus will pose an even more frightful fire threat in the coming summer. Therefore, the whole question of national park management ought to be carefully pursued because while everyone would want to retain some conservation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.46) —In the last two days, Australian Parliamentarians Against Apartheid has organised two quite separate meetings in this House-the first with Mrs Sheila Suttner, an expatriate white South African now living in Perth, and the second with Mr Joe Kapanda, information officer for the South West African People's Organisation in Australia. Both persons referred to the growing polarisation between the black majority and the white minority in South Africa. They spoke of the steady shift of the white minority towards an increasingly conservative stance. The South African Government, they said, is more intent on currying favour with the extreme Afrikaner Right than with removing the evils of apartheid. They likewise suggested that the South African Government is completely impervious to world opinion and will carry on with its reign of terror quite regardless of all diplomatic representations and international protest. This is clearly shown by the South African Government's determination to proceed with the execution this Friday of six young black people known as the Sharpeville six. Despite the complete lack of any evidence to directly connect them with the crime, these six people-a woman and five men-were found guilty of the murder of the black deputy mayor of the township of Sharpeville. They were found guilty purely and simply on the grounds that they were part of a crowd of a thousand angry blacks, some few of whom stoned the deputy mayor into unconsciousness and then set him on fire. A key witness for the prosecution has admitted that he was told by the police whom he should blame when he appeared in court to testify. The trial judge actually accepted the fact that there was absolutely no evidence that established that the six accused had `contributed causally' to the deputy mayor's death. He ruled that, simply by being members of the crowd, they shared a `common purpose' and should therefore be executed. This case has aroused a storm of protest from many parts of the world-but all in vain. Our Australian Government has appealed to Mr Botha to exercise clemency by commuting the death sentence, as have many other governments throughout the world, but he has ignored all appeals in his total disregard for world opinion. It is ironic that the Sharpeville six will be hanged just three days short of the twenty-eighth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre when, on 21 March 1960, South African police opened fire on a peaceful, unarmed and non-violent crowd of blacks who were protesting against the pass laws. Sixty-nine innocent blacks were shot dead and hundreds of others sustained gunshot wounds. They were shot in the back as they ran away. The police, of course, were declared innocent and no inquiry was held. Some people saw the Sharpeville massacre as the watershed in black-white relations that marked the end of any chance for a peaceful settlement. But others said, `No, we must give the South African Government another chance for reform'. Others say the watershed was 1976 when the South African Government ruthlessly suppressed the demonstrations of the young black students of Soweto and other townships. Approximately 1,000 young blacks were murdered by the regime in those few months. Still others say the watershed came the following year with the murder in custody of Steve Biko. Since then, others have pointed to the Government's declaration of a state of emergency and the detention of thousands of people, including Mrs Suttner's son, Ronald Suttner. I am convinced that, whenever it may have been, the South African Government has long since passed that watershed which marked the end of any possibility of a peaceful solution. In saying this, I would hasten to add that I have nothing but admiration for the courage and heroism of so many South African blacks and whites who, over many painful years, have sought in vain to find such a solution. But I can no longer see any point in Australia having anything to do with a regime as evil as the South African Government. Should the Sharpeville six be hanged on Friday, as now seems certain, I believe we are morally bound to isolate completely that horrendous regime and leave it to its inevitable and bloody fate. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.49) —The contribution by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) tonight reminded me of this coming Saturday and its importance in New South Wales, particularly in the electorate of Gilmore. The electorate of Gilmore contains several State electorates. We have a number of National Party of Australia candidates running in those electorates. I am sure that the candidates in each of those electorates will be very successful in the election. I will start by mentioning the State electorate of Goulburn which is currently held by Robert Webster who is the shadow Minister for Local Government and Planning in the New South Wales coalition Opposition. Over the past four years Robert has proved himself to be an immensely capable, hard working and energetic member for the seat of Goulburn. I believe that Robert has carried the issues for the people of Goulburn as effectively as anyone could in the State Parliament. I note that the honourable member for Canberra, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), was at the launching of the Labor candidate's campaign less than two weeks ago. Mrs Kelly —It was very successful too. Mr SHARP —It was very successful. It lasted about 15 minutes and the Labor candidate asked seven questions. He asked, `Why haven't we got a bypass? Why are the railways in Goulburn starting to run down and people losing jobs?' He asked a whole series of questions. He then said, `We are going to lose Kenmore, the railways are running down, and we have not got a bypass because of the State member for Goulburn, Mr Robert Webster'. Let me just inform the House, and I am sure the people of New South Wales, that, as they would be aware, the administrative decisions in New South Wales are made by the Labor Government. We have seen a massive loss of jobs on the railway at Goulburn because of the Unsworth Labor Government. We have not got a bypass around the city because the Federal and State Labor governments are both denying the funds for that purpose. Kenmore is being closed down by the State Labor Government because of its inability to understand properly the needs of the mentally ill in this State. The decision to close the Kenmore hospital will knock out 5 per cent of the total work force of Goulburn. When the Premier, Mr Unsworth, last came to Goulburn some few months ago, in response to questioning about the issues of Kenmore he called all the local journalists a pack of troglodytes. He called local businessmen who are concerned about the economic effect the closure of Kenmore will have on the economy of Goulburn a pack of mealy mouthed fools, and so on. So he has endeared himself tremendously to the people of Goulburn. We have not got the bypass, the Goulburn railway workers have been cut back and Kenmore is being closed down because of the Unsworth Government. The only way that that situation will be turned around is if we have a change this coming Saturday and a Greiner-Murray government, a Liberal-National Party coalition government is elected. Moving from there to the seat of Burrinjuck, we have an excellent candidate, Mr Richard Wood, who has proved himself over the last six months. He has been working hard in that electorate and has shown himself to be the most capable of all the candidates and certainly the most intelligent. This is reflected in the fact that in Tumut recently, which is a Labor stronghold-I think the National Party got 37 per cent of the vote in the last State election-in front of more than 400 timber workers, who would be traditional Labor voters, Mr Richard Wood was endorsed as the preferred candidate of the timber workers in Tumut. I note that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) is in the chamber. He would understand well the reasons why those timber workers will be voting for the National Party candidate. He would understand well why they are sick and tired of Labor and why Mr Richard Wood will be elected as the next member for Burrinjuck. I will move very quickly to the seat of Monaro, where we have an excellent candidate in Mr Peter Cochran. He is a very active family man, a former military person-the honourable member for Canberra will be interested-and he will make a most effective member for the area. He is certainly interested in the issue of law and order and in reinstating some decent standards into our schools. He is interested in installing decent, commonsense views relating to guns and their ownership in this State. In the seat of Monaro we are going to have a change. Mr Peter Cochran will be the member for Monaro after this Saturday. We all look forward to seeing Robert Webster, Peter Cochran and Richard Wood installed in the government of New South Wales under the premiership of Nick Greiner, assisted by Wal Murray. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.54) —The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) lives in his own little dream world and we have to accept that fact. Tonight I am here to talk about an event last Sunday which I attended in the electorate of the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). I am sorry he is not in the chamber to listen. Mr Smith —I will tell him. Mr BLANCHARD —I am glad. The event was the national championships for the blind and it was held at Bateman in the honourable member's electorate. I was there at the opening to present the national flag and to welcome the delegates to Western Australia, which was a fine venue, and it was a beautiful day for that ceremony. Some 150 competitors are taking part in the championships. Although they have been billed as national championships, in fact they have had very much an international flavour, for representatives from Papua New Guinea and Thailand are in attendance. Those 150 competitors marched past to the music of the Nazarene College band. It was certainly a very stirring sight and one that pleased the several hundred people who turned up to see the opening ceremony. I pay tribute to the organisers of the championships because they did an extremely good job in preparing the venue for the championships. In particular, I pay a tribute to Margaret and Ian Wedd, who just happen to come from my electorate and who over the last two years planned for these national championships. The national president of the association assured me that it was the best planned function of its kind ever held in Australia. I pay tribute also to all the participants in these games, which are being held all this week. They have shown a willingness to overcome the handicap of being blind in this modern world. At the same time, I think we all realise that being a sports person merely involves participating in sport. One does not have to be a champion; the mere fact of participation makes one a sports person. On behalf of the Parliament, I wish all the participants in the championships every success in the course of this week. They cannot all be winners but they can hold their heads up high because they have participated. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.57) —I need not repeat the concerns that the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has raised about those who are about to die in South Africa on Friday. Honourable members on both sides of this House have expressed their concern about that matter, and the leaders of the House have done so. So tonight it is with some concern that I raise the fact that on the eve of these hangings a number of members of this Parliament have attended a dinner hosted by the South African Embassy. They have done so in circumstances which I believe reflect no- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member to the fact that he may not impugn improper motives to any members of this House. Mr KERR —I am not; I am drawing attention to the fact that there was an attendance at that dinner. I simply say that it is a circumstance in which I suggest that wrong inferences about the attitudes of this House and the Australian Government could be drawn. It is a matter about which the Australian Government and the Opposition have expressed very grave concern. A number of members of this House, including senior members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! As I have already explained to the honourable member, he should not name honourable members. He has already criticised the gathering and he is now impugning improper motives to or casting aspersions on members of this House. The Standing Orders strictly forbid that. I assure the honourable member that he will not be permitted to go further. I shall require him to resume his seat if he continues in that manner. Mr KERR —Surely it cannot be against the Standing Orders of this House to indicate that members of this Parliament have attended a function and to indicate the names of those members. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, it is, because in the honourable member's introductory remarks he was critical of the fact that those members had attended the function. The honourable member must be very careful. Had he not mentioned the names he might have got away with it. It is necessary that he be very careful not to infringe standing order 76, I think it is. Mr KERR —In my submission, Madam Speaker, I am not bringing any discredit on those members other than to say that I disagree with their actions. That is done frequently in this House. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is perfectly at liberty to disagree. Mr KERR —I do that, and I simply draw the attention-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 in relation to maintenance, and for related purposes. Mr Shipton to present a Bill for an Act to confer honorary Australian citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg. Mr Scholes to move- That the Procedure Committee be asked to examine and prepare recommendations to provide that rules for the election of a Speaker at the first sitting of the Parliament, or at any time when the position becomes vacant, be changed to provide that the member with the longest continuous service not being a member of the Executive or Opposition office holder shall take the chair until such time as a Speaker is elected and shall exercise whilst in the chair all of the powers vested in the Speaker for the conduct of actual sittings of the House of Representatives. Mr Scholes to move- That this House- (1) expresses its disappointment at the selection of recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia on Australia Day 1988; (2) is of the opinion that the bulk of awards are issued to machinery positions, that is to persons because they hold the positions rather than because they earned the award; and (3) notes that on the day of the 200th anniversary of white settlement, the Council has demeaned the Order and failed to give appropriate consideration to the main purpose of the Order of Australia to recognise achievements by Australians as distinct from the position, patronage basis of the imperial honours. Mr Hawke to move- That this House, on St. Patrick's Day 1988: (1) Recognises with thanks the profound contribution made by the Irish over two hundred years to Australian culture, religion, law, politics and the labour movement; (2) Notes that the Irish community in Australia dates from the First Fleet, that one third of Australians are of Irish descent, and that Australia is the most Irish of nations outside Ireland; (3) Affirms that the emergence of an Australian national character was due in large part to the creative presence of the Irish, whose passionate love of freedom prepared the way for a society in which people from many ethnic backgrounds live and flourish as equals; (4) Acknowledges the special, deep and enduring bonds between Australia and Ireland; (5) In the Bicentenary year of European settlement in Australia, salutes the City of Dublin as she celebrates her millennium; and (6) Resolves to send a delegation from this Parliament, led by the Deputy Speaker to Ireland to convey the sentiments of this motion to the Irish Parliament and people. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 398) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What was the total sum spent by the Minister's entire portfolio on public opinion polls in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. (2) What was the objective of each of the opinion polls and what did each cost. (3) Who was commissioned to undertake each opinion poll. (4) Are the results of each opinion poll publicly available. Mr West —The amended answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) $219,443 I am advised that eight opinion polls were commissioned-six in respect of the Australian Made Campaign and two in respect of the electoral system. The objective, cost and firms which undertook each were: Australian Made Campaign Assessment of advertising proposals; $20,090; Creative Dialogue. Measurement of attitudes to buying Australian made goods; $8,100; Pratt Research. Assessment of consumer attitudes to the Campaign; $19,900; Reark Research. Six-month qualitative assessment of the Campaign; $21,950; Creative Dialogue. Six-month quantitative assessment of the Campaign; $24,983; Reark Research. Twelve-month qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Campaign; $65,750; Creative Dialogue. Electoral System Test community knowledge of and attitude to the Australian electoral system; $56,700; Roy Morgan Research Centre. Test understanding of ``apathy'' as used in election enrolment advertising; $1,970; Roy Morgan Research Centre. (4) In respect of the Australian Made Campaign: No. In respect of the electoral system: Highlights have been released in summary form; full details will be published in 1988 in a paper by the Australian Electoral Commission. (Question No. 76) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 September 1987: (1) What has been the response to the Government's Green Paper on industrial democracy and employee participation. (2) Is the Government in a position to announce its policy on industrial democracy in the private sector; if not, when can an announcement be expected. (3) Have all Departments completed industrial democracy plans as required under the Public Service Act, if not, which Departments are still to complete plans and what is the cause of the delay. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A substantial number of written responses have been received from the Australian industrial community to the Government's Policy Discussion Paper. Major submissions have been received from a range of interested bodies, including the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia, the Metal Trades Industry Association, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, a number of Australia's largest enterprises, and some State Governments. These submissions, and the results of the process of public consultation, show widespread agreement on the pressing need for changed workplace practices in Australia and recognition that employee participation will be an essential ingredient in achieving that change. A participative approach is seen by all the parties as an important element in a broader strategy which has, as its main objectives, improved efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness, which are vital to economic prosperity in Australia. Submission on the Policy Discussion Paper indicated some disagreement about how industrial democracy and employee participation should be promoted but discussions between employers represented by the CAI and the unions through the ACTU seeking to resolve their differences are continuing. (2) The Government's policy is being developed and that process is taking account of the views expressed in response to the Policy Discussion Paper. It is intended that the policy development process will be completed and the implementation of policy commenced in 1988. (3) All departments and all but one small prescribed statutory agency have submitted industrial democracy plans as required by the legislation contained in Section 22c of the Public Service Act. The plan from the Automotive Industry Authority remains outstanding due to a lack of staff resources. In this case both my Department, and the former Public Service Board, have reminded the Authority of its statutory obligation. I understand that the Authority is currently pursuing the process of seeking union and staff comment on its draft plan. The Authority has confirmed its intention to submit a finalised plan to my Department in early 1988. (Question No. 127) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Does the Minister's Department define the Very Low Frequency (VLF) band as that between 3.0 kHz and 30.0 kHz; if not, what is the defined frequency range. (2) How many VLF stations operate on a permanent basis in Australia. (3) How many VLF stations are operated by, (a) the Commonwealth, (b) State authorities, (c) local authorities and (d) the private sector in each (i) State and (ii) Territory. (4) With respect to stations operated by the Commonwealth, (a) where is each transmitter located, (b) what is the (i) frequency capability and (ii) normal transmitting frequency of each station, (c) what is the effective radiating power of each station, (d) who is the user (i) Department and (ii) Division or other part of the Department and (e) what is the effective range of each station. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question, directed to the former Minister, is as follows: (1) The VLF band is that band of frequencies between 3 kHz and 30 kHz. (2) There are 28 stations licensed to operate on a permanent basis in Australia. (3) (a) The Commonwealth operates 7 transmitters: (i) Victoria-5; Western Australia-2. (b) The State authorities operate 1 transmitter: (i) South Australia-1. (c) There are no transmitters operated by local authorities. (d) The private sector operates 20 transmitters: (i) New South Wales-18; Victoria-2. (4) (a) Of the Commonwealth operated transmitters, five are at Darriman, Victoria and two are at North West Cape, Western Australia. (b) (i) The Department does not record the frequency capability of the equipment installed at the stations. (b) (ii) The attached list shows the normal transmitting frequency of each station. (c) The Department does not record the effective radiated power of these stations, however, the attached list shows the transmitter power. (d) (i) The Department of Transport and Communications and the Department of Defence are the Commonwealth users. (ii) The Maritime Safety Division and the Royal Australian Navy respectively. (e) The effective range of the stations is not known by the Department. The range is affected by many factors, which include the efficiency of the transmitting and receiving systems, the path between the transmitting and receiving stations, the type of emission of the transmitted signal and the vagaries of electromagnetic propagation. ATTACHED LIST OF COMMONWEALTH USERS OF VLF STATIONS IN AUSTRALIA DECEMBER 1987 Freq kHz Location Territory/State User Transmitter/Power (Watts) 10.2 Darriman Vic Dept of Transport &Communications 10,000 11.05 Darriman Vic Dept of Transport &Communications 10,000 11.333 Darriman Vic Dept of Transport &Communications 10,000 13.0 Darriman Vic Dept of Transport &Communications 10,000 13.6 Darriman Vic Dept of Transport &Communications 10,000 15.5 N.W. Cape WA Dept of Defence 1,000,000 22.3 N.W. Cape WA Dept of Defence 1,000,000 (Question No. 189) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice on 6 October 1987: (1) How many ABC personnel are employed in news (a) collection and (b) presentation. (2) Where are permanent news personnel located. (3) Where are (a) full-time contract and (b) part-time contract news personnel located. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On the journalistic side, there is no clearcut and realistic staffing division between the collection and presentation of news-journalists frequently swap such roles. Overall figures for news personnel are:- Radio News Personnel 246 journalist positions 108 personnel involved in management, administrative or keyboard support areas 14 overseas staff correspondents 9 news readers 377 Television News Personnel 127 journalist positions (includes 10 compere/interviewers) 28 personnel involved in management, administrative or keyboard support areas 5 overseas journalist positions 160 (2)-Radio Television NSW... 113 (inc. 9 news readers) Head Office... 27 Victoria... 58 Victoria... 23 Queensland... 54 Queensland... 13 SA... 36 SA... 14 WA... 40 WA... 18 Tasmania... 32 Tasmania... 14 NT... 12 NT... 5 ACT... 18 ACT... 4 Overseas... 14 Overseas... 2 (3) (a)-Radio Television Nil Head Office... 15 Victoria... 9 Queensland... 3 SA... 4 WA... 1 Tasmania... 1 NT... 0 ACT... 3 Overseas... 3 (b) Television News has one person employed in the Northern Territory on part-time contract. Radio News has no part-time contract personnel. The figures provided above are for News personnel only and do not include staff working on ABC Current Affairs programs. (Question No. 204) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What sum was provided by the Government for the purchase of the `Penryn' Aboriginal property near Peak Hill, NSW. (2) For what purposes and when have grants been provided to the property since its purchase. (3) What persons (a) employed on the property and (b) not employed on the property, including advisers, have received payments in respect of the property. (4) What sums have each of the persons referred to in part (3) received. (5) Is he able to say what sum the property has made or lost each year since its purchase. (6) Who has responsibility to run, and make decisions relating to, the property. Mr Duncan —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No funding has been provided by the Department of Employment, Education and Training for the purchase of the property. (2) No grants have been provided by the Department to the property since its purchase. (3), (4), (5), and (6) A response to these questions was provided by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 24 November 1987. Thirteen Aboriginal people have been given work experience or on-the-job training under labour force programs administered by the Department at the property since 1980 for periods from 3 months in most cases to up to 12 months in other cases. In addition, two Training for Aboriginals Program (TAP) Special Projects have been conducted at the property. The first of these involved the training of 10 local Aboriginal job seekers in fencing, concreting and welding skills for six months in 1983 at a total cost of $94,935. The second project involved the training of 16 local Aboriginal job seekers in general rural employment skills for 20 weeks in 1986 at a total cost of $95,030. Departmental funds were used solely for the purpose of supporting the trainees involved. The courses were developed to meet an identified local need and the property was considered the best location given the advantages of training in a sympathetic environment, the course content and the facilities available at the property. (Question No. 307) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) Has ABC TV shown the lawn bowls program ``Jack High'' each year from 1978 to 1987. (2) Did the ABC give the Australian Bowls Council an assurance at a ``Jack High'' Dinner in Adelaide in March 1987 that the 1988 ``Jack High'' series would be covered. (3) Has the Minister had drawn to his attention that the Australian Bowls Council, the West Epping Bowling Club and the local government body have made large financial and administrative commitments for the 1988 ``Jack High'' competition at the West Epping Bowling Club, based on the assurance given at the March 1987 dinner. (4) Did the ABC's Acting Head of Television Services state in a letter, dated 27 August 1987, to the Australian Bowls Council that ``Jack High'' has been a successful program but a decision had been made not to proceed with the telecast of the 1988 series. (5) In view of the assurances already given and commitments made for television coverage of the 1988 series, (a) will the Minister give the reasons which have caused the ABC not to proceed with this successful sports program, (b) is it unreasonable to give such short notice of its cancellation and (c) would the Minister support a request by the Australian Bowls Council for the 1988 series to be covered by ABC TV, and for the cancellation to take effect from 1989. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The ABC first televised `Jack High' in 1980 and has televised the series each year since, although the 1987 series has yet to be shown in Victoria. (2) The ABC has advised that the Head of Television Sport at the time, Kevin Berry, indicated at the `Jack High' dinner in March 1987 that the ABC planned to proceed with coverage of the 1988 `Jack High' series. However, there was no formal commitment by the ABC and the final decisions on the 1987/88 sport production plans were not made until August 1987. (3) I am aware that the Australian Bowls Council and the Royal NSW Bowling Association (on behalf of the West Epping Bowling Club) have made representations on this matter. (4) Yes. (5) The ABC has advised that no formal commitment to the television of `Jack High' was provided. The ABC decided to exclude the program in its 1987/88 sports priorities after consideration of the cost involved, the layout strategies, the audience response to the program, other sporting commitments, and in view of concerns about intrusive advertising. The honourable member will be aware that the ABC is an independent statutory authority with responsibility for its own operations and programming. It would be inappropriate for me to intervene in programming decisions taken by the ABC. (Question No. 413) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) Has the Government issued a licence to enable a personalised radio service aimed specifically at Japanese tourists to operate in Australia; if so, to whom has the licence been issued. (2) Was the licence offered for tender; if so, (a) when and (b) how was it tendered and (c) what were the advertising and other costs of the tender. (3) If the licence was not offered for tender why not. (4) What were the tender procedures followed and did they conform with the usual practice used in the issue of a radio licence by tender. (5) If the tender procedures did not follow the usual practice, why not. (6) From which location and how will the radio service operate. (7) Is the licence holder a former officer of the Minister's Department or associated with a former officer of the Department; if so (a) did the person have any part in the development of the video and audio entertainment and information services system developed by the Department to be used by the radio service, (b) what part did the person play in the development of the system, (c) what position did the person hold in the Minister's Department, (d) when did the person leave the Department and (e) for how long was the person a member of the Department. (8) If the licence holder is a former officer of the Minister's Department or is associated with a former officer of the Department, was the Minister's attention drawn to this before the licence was issued; if so, did this influence the decision. (9) If the matter was not drawn to the Minister's attention, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question, directed to the former Minister, is as follows: (1) Yes; Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited (2) No. (3) There are no provisions for licences issued under the Radiocommunications Act 1983 to be offered for tender. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (6) Radiocommunications licences have been issued to Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Alice Springs, Canberra, Brisbane, Adelaide and Springbrook (for Gold Coast). Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited has also submitted applications for Hobart and Townsville as well as for two additional channels in all the above locations. The radiocommunications transmissions will be directed to fixed receivers located in hotels and motels and to portable receivers which will be available for hire in hotels, motels, airports and other tourist destinations. (7) Licences have been issued to Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited. A search of Company records reveals that a former officer of the Department of Communications, Mr Hendrick Prins, is a Director and Shareholder of Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited. (a) No. (b) Not applicable. (c) Assistant Secretary, Level 1, Planning Branch, Broadcasting Policy and Planning Division. (d) 28 February 1987. (e) Two years and ten months prior to 28 February 1987. (8) No. (9) Departmental officers were aware that a former member of the Department of Communications was acting as a consultant and adviser to Fidelity Communications Corporation Limited. They were not aware of the former officer's interest in the company. (Question No. 416) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science and Small Business, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: (1) How many (a) laboratory craftsmen, (b) technical assistants and (c) technical officers are employed by the CSIRO. (2) What qualifications or certificates are required for each designation. (3) What recognised institutions issue these certificates. (4) Have the certification procedures for each designation ever been reviewed. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at the end of January 1988 CSIRO employed (a) 376 laboratory craftsmen (b) 832 technical assistants and (c) 1228 technical officers. (2) (a) A qualification of the standard of an appropriate trade certificate. (b) The successful completion of 5 years' secondary schooling or a qualification of the same standard. Higher qualifications or, in certain cases, evidence of specialised experience in a relevant technical area would be assessed by CSIRO as equivalent. (c) (i) At least 6 years' relevant technical experience, and (ii) A qualification of the standard of a certificate from a Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institution (or other institution) recognised by CSIRO, or a pass in a test of knowledge (at the standard of a certificate in the particular speciality) and competence conducted by or for CSIRO. (3) (a) Trade certificates are issued by the relevant State or Territory apprenticeship authorities. Australian Recognised Tradesman's Certificates are issued by State Local Trades Committees pursuant to the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946. (b) Certificates and higher qualifications assessed by CSIRO as satisfying the educational prerequisite are issued by State/Territory secondary and tertiary educational bodies. (Certificates are not always issued at the end of 5 years secondary schooling). (c) TAFE institutions. Academic records and higher level degrees and diplomas are issued by higher tertiary education bodies. Overseas qualifications are assessed by the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications. (4) (a) The entry qualification to the laboratory craftsmen designation has remained the same since the designation was introduced into CSIRO in 1949. (b) An education qualification for technical assistant was set for the first time in 1971-72 when the present educational standard was introduced. (c) The qualification requirements for the technical officer designation were prescribed in Determination No. 267 of 1968 of the Public Service Arbitrator and have remained unchanged since that time. (Question No. 493) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) What is the extent and nature of training which members of the Australian Defence Force receive in the international humanitarian laws of warfare. (2) Is this training adequate and will he undertake a review of the adequacy of that training. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Navy. Law of Armed Conflict training is carried out either by Permanent Naval Force or Reserve Legal Officers at the RAN Staff College in Sydney, the Australian Joint Maritime Warfare School in Nowra, and at Commanding Officer/Executive Officer (Designate) courses. Lectures are based on material from the International Humanitarian Law section of the Manual of Naval Law. Army. Law of Armed Conflict training is carried out at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, at Army Reserve Schools in all capital cities, at the Command and Staff College, Queenscliff, at One Recruit Training Battalion, Kapooka, at the Apprentices School, Bonegilla, at the School of Military Intelligence, Canungra, at the Military Police School, Ingleburn, at the School of Military Engineering, Casula, and at the Infantry Centre, Singleton. At these locations, lectures are given on the Geneva and Hague Conventions, specifically the conduct of war and the treatment of Prisoners of War. Air Force. RAAF Staff College (ACT) conducts Law of Armed Conflict training in a series of three lectures, and during course discussions. Combat Survival Training School (Townsville) includes instruction on the application of the Geneva Conventions to Prisoners of War. RAAF Security and Fire School (Amberley) conducts training in the Law of Armed Conflict as it relates to the tasks of an Airfield Defence Guard. Joint Services Staff College. Lectures are given on broad issues involving International Law, including Law of Armed Conflict. Following this, syndicate discussions of two/three 50 minute periods occur. Australian Defence Force Academy. First year officer cadets study, for one period, the Law of Armed Conflict. Specifically, they are required to recognise: the importance of the Laws of War to military commanders, the legal dilemmas with which the military commander may be confronted in time of war, and that strict adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict is the most effective means of accomplishing a military mission. Third year cadets are given (relatively) more rigorous training. Three periods are spent in considering the restrictions on conduct in combat, and in applying the Law of Armed Conflict to a variety of military operations. (2) A syllabus designed to cover basic Law of Armed Conflict training for all members of the ADF has recently been completed. This syllabus will be introduced to all initial entry training units. The Services are also developing syllabuses that will be used to train both personnel attached to operational units and to higher planning/staff positions. In addition to these three levels, selected ADF personnel regularly attend International Law of Armed Conflict Courses which are conducted in Italy by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. Attendance at these courses exposes those involved with policy making to foreign views on the Law of Armed Conflict. In addition the ADF is kept abreast of current international developments in the law of Armed Conflict. Finally, it is CDF's intention to have a joint Service Publication (JSP) on Law of Armed Conflict as a reference for training. This publication will complete a comprehensive ADF training system which will provide for the instruction of personnel at all rank levels in the international humanitarian laws of warfare. (Question No. 564) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether police and RSPCA officials in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have investigated the importation and breeding of pit bull terriers for illegal dog fighting; if so, what are the results of these investigations. (2) Is there a ban on the importation of pit bull terriers; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As far as can be ascertained, police and RSPCA officials in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have not specifically investigated either the importation or the breeding of pit bull terriers for illegal dog fighting purposes. Dog-fighting is an illegal activity under the individual State's/Territory's welfare Acts and it is a matter for State authorities to investigate illegal dog fighting activities. Although many rumours are causing concern that dog fights are taking place, these rumours still remain unconfirmed reports. However, I am advised that the Western Australian police did carry out investigations into allegations of illegal dog-fighting following media reports eight months ago but could find no evidence to substantiate those reports and their investigations did not lead to any prosecutions. I also understand that the Victorian Government is currently preparing a Companion Animals Act to replace the Dog Act. It will deal, in part, with controls for vicious and dangerous dogs. (2) The importation of pit bull terriers into Australia is not banned because it is not possible to distinguish between dogs that are imported for legal purposes such as for pets, guard dogs or for showing, or for illegal purposes such as dog-fighting. (Question No. 570) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Further to his predecessor's answer to question No. 4647, (Hansard, 13 November 1986, page 2953), concerning the adoption of the Hague Visby Rules in relation to the sea carriage of goods, was the review of the options for the adoption of the Hamburg Rules completed by 30 June 1987; if not, why not. (2) What area the conclusions of that review. (3) Have those conclusions been discussed with the shipping industry; if not, why not. (4) What future action does he propose to take concerning the adoption of the Hague Visby Rules and any associated protocols, including any amendments to the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924. (5) Will he make available a copy of the report referred to in his predecessor's answer. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Completion of the extended review foreshadowed in my predecessor's answer to question No. 4647 was delayed in order that the outcome of an international meeting, held in Geneva in June 1987, on the Hamburg Rules could be included in the review. This meeting, jointly convened by the International Chamber of Commerce and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), canvassed current international industry views on the possible introduction of the Hamburg Rules to replace existing marine cargo liability regimes. A representative of Australian shippers attended the meeting. (2) The Department of Transport and Communications distributed a report ``Australian Marine Cargo Liability, a Discussion Paper'' in October 1987 which outlined the issues for Australia and included a range of options available to update marine cargo liability regulation in Australia. The relative merits of Australia adopting the Hamburg Rules was further discussed at the International Trade Law Seminar convened by the Attorney General's Department, 16 October 1987. There is no consensus within the Australian industry on which international convention Australia should adopt for marine cargo liability. There is, however, general agreement that the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 requires amendment. (3) Yes. (4) The Department is currently analysing the detailed comments that have been received from various shipping industry interests on the issues and the options identified in the Discussion Paper. I will, subsequently, be putting before Cabinet, a recommendation concerning the Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924. (5) Yes; a copy of the report has been forwarded to the honourable member's office. (Question No. 756) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) How many official visits did he make to the Northern Territory in (a) 1986 and (b) 1987. (2) What was the nature of those visits. (3) Did he visit a property called ``Tipperary'' during any of those visits; if so, (a) when did he visit the property and (b) what was the purpose of the visit. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) N/A. (3) N/A. (Question No. 571) Mr Hollis asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) What has been the outcome of the consultations between his Department and relevant interests concerning the minor amendments which the Copyright Law Review Committee recommended to the Copyright Act in order to enable Australia to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations done at Rome on 26 October 1961. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In order to enable Australia to accede to the Rome Convention, further protection is required for both performers and foreign broadcasters. Only the former matter, that of protection for performers, was considered by the Copyright Law Review Committee. I have examined the Committee's recommendations in this regard and I intend shortly to put before the Government proposals to amend the Copyright Act which would provide this protection. Having regard to the extensive consultations with interests the Committee undertook on performers' protection, subsequent consultations undertaken by my Department have focused primarily on the broadcasting aspects of the Convention. The broadcasting interests consulted have indicated that they would have no difficulty with the implementation of those provisions of the Convention. (Question No. 578) Mr Macphee asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Has the National Crime Authority (NCA) seized a tape recording and written material from the Mike Willesee Show relating to the meeting between Senator Richardson and Mr F. Dugan. (2) What is the status of the tape and has the NCA returned the tape; if not, when will it return the tape. (3) Did the head of the NCA, Mr Justice Stewart, receive a number of tape recordings of foreign language conversations involving Sir Peter Abeles apparently speaking about the Prime Minister and did Mr Justice Stewart not bother to have them translated. (4) Has the NCA refused to hand the tapes back to the private detective to whom they belong. (5) Will he take necessary action to ensure the NCA translates the foreign language conversations involving Sir Peter Abeles and release its findings on this matter. (6) Will he ensure that the private detective to whom the tape recordings belong receives the recordings back from the Authority. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The tape recording and written material came into the possession of the National Crime Authority in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act. There has been no request made for the return of the tape or material. Legal advisers to the National Crime Authority advised that the information did not disclose any wrongdoing. (3) and (5) A number of tape recordings of foreign language conversations were received by Mr Justice Stewart whilst acting as a Royal Commissioner. The circumstances were such that they were not required to be translated. The recordings are now in the custody of the National Crime Authority and the Authority has had them translated. The National Crime Authority has informed me that they do not disclose any criminal activity. (4) and (6) As set out in paragraphs 5.28 and 14.14 of his Report, the Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Stewart found that the recording of the conversations was in breach of section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. In those circumstances the Authority is of the view that the material should not be returned. (Question No. 625) Mr Macphee asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) Further to Question No. 578, can he assure the House that the National Crime Authority (NCA) will not destroy the tape recordings. (2) Will he ensure that the National Companies and Securities Commission and the Reserve Bank Board receive either authenticated copies of the tapes or transcripts of the tape recordings in order for those bodies to determine whether any codes of conduct relevant to those bodies have been breached. (3) Will he also ensure that transcripts of English conversations involving Sir Peter Abeles apparently instructing an employee to transfer a large amount of funds out of Australia at short notice are handed on to the National Companies and Securities Commission and the Reserve Bank Board in order for those bodies to determine whether any commercial or other codes of conduct have been breached. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In the light of the fact that the National Crime Authority has stated that the tape recordings do not disclose any criminal activity, I do not see any reason why the National Companies and Securities Commission or the Reserve Bank Board should receive copies of the tapes or transcripts. (3) I have been informed by the National Crime Authority that the tape recordings in the English language which were taped by the private detective mentioned in Question No. 578 and received by Mr Justice Stewart whilst acting as a Royal Commissioner do not record any conversation in which a person instructed another person to transfer a large amount of funds out of Australia. I have been informed by the National Crime Authority that those tape recordings record one conversation in which a person requests another person to purchase from American Express US$15000 for the purposes of an overseas trip. It is not clear from the conversation whether cash or travellers cheques were to be purchased. In those circumstances I do not see any reason why a transcript of that conversation should be handed to the National Companies and Securities Commission or the Reserve Bank Board.