Tuesday, 22 March 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker-- Mr Nehl —Bye-bye, Barrie! Bye-bye, Bob! Madam SPEAKER —It will be `Bye-bye' the honourable member for Cowper if he does not stop that. Mr HAWKE —I welcome a sign of life from the other side, for a change. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will be late for Question Time as his plane from Sydney has been delayed. Questions normally addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations should be saved until later in Question Time. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the view expressed this morning by his colleague the honourable member for Charlton, the chairman of the Caucus economic committee that `privatisation is dead'? Mr Robert Brown —I was sacked. Mr HOWARD —You were sacked? Bob, I'm sorry. Mr HAWKE —As I have had occasion to say before, we on this side of the House are not afraid of internal discussions on matters of principle. Those matters of principle will be discussed on this side of the House. I have distinguished in the past our position on this matter from the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who consistently relegates to the back bench the best talent he has if anyone on that side of the House has the temerity to disagree in any way with what he is currently able to foresee as his Leader's position for the week. That is very difficult for them, because the Leader of the Opposition changes his position so frequently. We need no assistance from the Leader of the Opposition or anyone on that side of the House. We will go about the business of formulating policies for this Party, this Government. Those policies will continue into the future, as they have over the past five years, to give Australians the sort of government and economic decisions which this country needs and deserves. Mr SNOW —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of statements by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and shadow Minister for Primary Industries to the effect that farmers have no access to the welfare system? Would the Minister explain to the House what social security payments and benefits are available to farmers? Mr HOWE —I am aware of comments made by the honourable member for Murray. In a speech to the Rural Media Association of South Australia on 2 March he said, `Farmers are the only Australians with no access to the welfare net assistance available to all other Australians'. He is wrong. To begin with, farmers and their spouses are eligible for unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, the age pension and all other social security payments if they satisfy the same criteria applicable to all Australians. However, I would like to point out to the House that farmers have been well represented in the take-up of the family allowance supplement. As of 15 March there were 31,115 family allowance supplement recipients in New South Wales alone. Of these, more than half listed their occupational status on the application form. Eleven per cent listed their occupation as self-employed on the land. A good deal of those who did not indicate an occupation would be farmers' spouses. Farmers are therefore well represented amongst family allowance supplement recipients. Comments such as those of the honourable member for Murray deter farmers from looking for assistance for themselves and their families. Whilst farm incomes have improved substantially, the variability of farm incomes means that many farming families are earning very low incomes. The latest survey of farm incomes on family farms by the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics suggests that up to 50 per cent of farming families could be eligible for family allowance supplement if they have children and are not pushed above the limit by non-farm incomes. It is important that not only those members of the Parliament that represent the more rural electorates but all members of the Parliament not seek to destroy the perception in the community that all families might be eligible subject only to their income; indeed, honourable members should assist the Government in its task of ensuring that people receive their rights, their entitlements. The Government has concerned itself a great deal with the rural sector. When the family supplement was introduced we were very much aware that there would be a significant take up in that sector, particularly amongst farming families. I hope that not only will the honourable member for Murray withdraw the statement he has made but also that all members of the Parliament will continue to ensure that the family allowance supplement is well known in their electorates. Mr Hawker —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wonder whether the Minister would table the notes he was reading from. Mr HOWE —No. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to-- Government members-Hooray! Mr PEACOCK —We have had a few other things on our mind. Government members saw how well they went. I refer the Treasurer to his self-congratulatory comments at a Press conference last week when he said, among other things: Nobody has refashioned a middle-ranking OECD economy with the pace, the verve and the efficiency that we are . . . I also refer the Treasurer to the recent analysis by Moody's Investors Service Inc. justifying its decision not to restore Australia's AAA credit rating, which said: The pace of adjustment since 1983 has been steady but slow relative to several other countries that have faced similar deficit problems. I ask the Treasurer: How can he reconcile these fundamentally different assessments of our economy? Mr KEATING —It is not a matter of argument but rather a matter of fact that wherever one looks at the Australian economic indices-be they employment growth, the state of fiscal policy, the change in fiscal policy, the change on the current account-no country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is within cooee of us. It is just a plain fact of life. If the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia wants to substantiate that he has only to thumb his way through the OECD's latest book of statistics. The fact is that this Government has overhauled the greatest fiscal imbalance in the nation's history and brought the Budget back to surplus in double jig time. It has produced employment growth running at about 16 per cent now over five years, which is about 2 1/2 times the OECD average. The other indicators of change show that we have already clocked up four percentage points of net exports, that is, four percentage points of change on the current account, and that is a $13 billion permanent structural improvement in the current account deficit. What other OECD country has had four percentage points of net exports in 2 1/2 years? The most important thing is that this change on the current account is not occurring in the classic tory way, that is, by flattening the economy, by lifting interest rates and by depressing economic activity to depress imports; we have done it the Labor way by adjusting the economy properly, sensibly and with restraint, but restraint with equity, which has produced all of this employment growth plus continuing improvements in the social wage while this has occurred. The fact of the matter is that it was not simply any baseless claim by me made at my Press conference but basically a statement of the position. I do not know who members of the Opposition talk to but, if they saw any of the travelling entourage of Europeans, Americans and Japanese who come through this building they would know that most people who examine this economy objectively believe that the changes here are greater in magnitude and higher in quality than in any other country with which we can be compared. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not think that, perhaps he ought to turn on the Reuters screen and look at some of the other parameters which are an indication of confidence in the Government's policies. I know that it is all very deadly stuff for those opposite, because in the end it will bury them. They spent 30 years sitting on their tails and saying, `The primary export sector will carry the lot, don't worry. Look, we do not need to do anything clever, we do not need to educate our kids, we do not need to have secondary industry, we do not need a tertiary sector, we do not need any of that. We will find another mound of minerals and grow another paddock full of wheat. If we can cheat a bit'-like the National Party always did-`and hand out a bit more tariff protection, no-one will notice'. It all came to a grinding halt in 1982-83 and we were left with the poisoned chalice and had to try to repair that position. When I make those claims I make them objectively and it is because I can make them objectively that the Opposition finds it very difficult to attack the Government. I welcome the return of the Deputy Leader, the shadow Treasurer, from the shadows back into the mainstream of the economic debate. I know that he does not have a policy and that the Opposition does not have a policy and that it is pretty tough going in that framework to be putting questions to anybody. All I can say to my dear friend is that I understand. Mr LAMB —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the implications for Australia of the latest Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI)-Westpac Banking Corporation business survey of industrial trends? Mr KEATING —On the weekend the CAI and the Westpac Bank released their latest business survey of industrial trends. They refer particularly to the manufacturing sector and to the essential task the Government is undertaking to boost exports and reduce imports, that is, to change the trade balance, to change the current account imbalance. They show that export deliveries produced a very impressive performance, with the net balance of respondents strongly positive, showing that in the March quarter expectations for improvement in export deliveries were even larger than in the June quarter, rising from 10 per cent of respondents to 19 per cent. At the same time, firms have been indicating that they plan to increase significantly their capital expenditure, particularly on plant and machinery. The net balance of respondents predicted stronger growth in plant and machinery investment over the next 12 months-almost double from the December quarter figure of 13 per cent to 24 per cent in the March quarter. The March quarter result was equal to the highest recorded for nearly a decade. In other words, we are seeing a greater level of export deliveries and a higher level of investment both in actual terms and in expectational terms. In terms of capacity utilisation, the survey shows that an increase in new investment is still needed to boost exports and replace imports. But the most important thing is that the survey results are consistent with the Australian Statistician's latest survey of capital equipment investment expenditures, which shows an actual real increase of 10 per cent in the December quarter and expectations of 10 per cent real growth in 1989-90. As well, the survey shows that, after almost a decade of decline, employment in manufacturing industry is now rising. This is a traditional source of employment which was lost during the years of the coalition government and which is now returning. So the main message is that the big shift to an export oriented industrial structure is taking place, the pace of investment is accelerating and this industrial restructuring is taking place with expanding employment because of the Government's strategy. As to that thing called the J-curve, or net exports, what we are really seeing is more capacity investment, more capacity utilisation and a higher level of exports and import replacement products. It is that which is going to stabilise our debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio; it is that which is going to remove from Australia the yoke of massive indebtedness which was built up as a result of the neglect of coalition governments in the past. It is no wonder that honourable members on the other side of the House are not interested in these figures; these figures are real coffin material for them. They basically mean that the current account task will be accomplished and that change is continuing to take place. The investment is there, the employment growth is there and the product export growth is there, and when that debt to the GDP ratio starts to shift, the whole climate of opinion will change once again in favour of the adjustment task and in favour of the Government. Honourable members on the other side well understand that. They may be chortling about last Saturday's election result in New South Wales and thinking they are lilies on a dustbin, but I will tell you this, Madam Speaker: this survey is really what it is all about. Every time a bit of plant and equipment goes into place it is like hammering another nail in the coffin. Every time another piece of equipment gets moved in and starts pumping out product, it is another nail in the coffin. By the next poll, we will just be ready to put the lid on the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Bradfield. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Mr Peacock —That is what they thought of you on Saturday, and that is what they think of you now. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interrupting the honourable member for Bradfield. The honourable member for Bradfield has the call. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. What we have just heard and seen is appropriate, I think, to what I hope will be his response. Does the Prime Minister recall that in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in this House on 22 September 1987 he acknowledged `concern' about the estimated 20,000 low income families who would face 110 per cent effective marginal tax rates after the introduction of the family allowance supplement? Now, some six months later, what steps have the Prime Minister and his Government taken to overcome this problem so that, for example, families with two children and a total income of between $374 and $394 per week do not effectively lose 110c for every additional dollar they earn? Mr HAWKE —Let me make these points in answer to the question from the honourable member for Bradfield: first of all, the Government in its last Budget took a considerable number of steps to deal with what is an admitted problem, the question of poverty traps. In the review that the Treasurer will be undertaking and bringing before the Cabinet for consideration in regard to fiscal policy for the rest of this year, these sorts of questions of the relationship between taxation and social welfare will be further considered. Let me make this point: it comes as remarkable hypocrisy from those on the other side of this House to express this concern about the real disposable income position of the less well to do in this community. Suffice it for me to give one concrete example. If we take the case of a married pensioner couple with two children, in the seven years of the previous coalition Government the real disposable income of that couple declined by 2 per cent. That was the contribution the now Opposition made to that sort of category of family in this country. A married pensioner couple with two children, after seven years of Liberal government, had a 2 per cent decline in their real disposable income. By comparison, under this Government those people have had a 12 per cent increase in real disposable income. Mr GEAR —My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of changes in the real wage and the social wage during the period of the Labor Government? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question, which follows logically on from the question that has just been asked from the other side of the House and, indeed, from the responses given earlier in Question Time by my colleague the Treasurer. It is a fact that under this Government there has been a fall in real wages, but that is not something to be surprised at, because we on this side of the House pay tribute to the magnificent wage restraint which has been practised by the trade union movement, by the organised workers of this country. It is that wage restraint, together with the general fiscal and industry policies of this Government, which has been responsible for putting the Australian economy into better shape. It should be remembered that that fall in real wages has not occurred by accident; it has occurred as a result of, and it flows from, the accord that has been reached between the Labor Government and the trade union movement of this country. There has in fact been a trade-off between unsustainable increases in money wages and improvements in the social wage. That has been the result, and the rationale, of the accord between this Government and the trade union movement. The outstanding example in economic, social and human terms of that restraint by those who were in employment has been that since March 1983 they have been joined by another million or so fellow Australians in employment. My colleague the Treasurer has indicated, yet again, that that rate of job creation has been far in excess of that of the rest of the world, and that was possible only because of the wage restraint and the fall in real wages that has taken place. What we have done in the period of this Government has been to reorder the priorities of government. I remind the House, and I particularly remind the honourable member for Canning, who asked this question, of precisely what it was we inherited, what the priorities were and what we have done as a government to reverse them. We inherited a taxation system which involved leaving the money in the pockets of the privileged, as I have put it, and, of course, at a cost of doing those things in the area of the social wage which should have been done by any self-respecting government. Because the money was left in the pockets of the privileged, we had a situation in this country where only 36 per cent of our kids stayed on in the education system beyond the compulsory age. We had a situation in this country where the real value of the pension had declined under those opposite. We had a position where the housing industry had been brought to its knees, with only 105,000 starts. What we did was to put that money to work. We took the money out of the pockets of the privileged and put it to work in the area of the social wage. Of course, as is known, what we have done in this area is simply too long to enumerate in this answer to the proper question of the honourable member for Canning, but I remind him and this House of some of the more pertinent areas of improvement in the social wage, which have been given by way of offset to unsustainable money wage increases. I remind the House-and this will be of particular interest, as we all know, to the honourable member for Canning-that in the area of Medicare-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Members of the Opposition can laugh but they will laugh at their peril about any abuse they want to make of Medicare, because the simple and indisputable fact about Medicare-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to co-sign a letter with me but he will not; yet he talks like that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor that, if he continues in that fashion, he will be absent from the House. Mr HAWKE —The Opposition rails against Medicare at its peril. The simple fact is that Medicare has provided two million of our fellow Australians with health cover who previously had none. We know that Medicare saves the average family in this country $21 a week as compared with what would be involved in a return to private cover. As I have said before-and this is relevant to the question of the social wage-we have doubled funding for the area of public housing. We have increased the amount of allowance for secondary students coming from poor families from $23 a week to $50 a week. We have brought about a significant 8.4 per cent real increase in pensions. We have brought in a half a billion dollar family assistance package. I give the example again: a family, a man and wife with three children, receives through the family assistance package $22 a week for each of those children, which is equivalent to a wage increase of $93 a week. Those are the comparisons between the real wage and the social wage. We may well ask ourselves in those circumstances what this Opposition has attempted to do in regard to the economic and social policy debate in this country. I remind the House that, since the resumption of this Parliament earlier this year, the Opposition has asked 69 questions without notice, of which just 10 have related in any way to the areas of economic and social policy. On the question of wages, the Opposition bleats as though it has some concern for the real wage position of the workers in this nation, but I remind the House that in 19 of the past 21 national wage cases the Opposition has opposed any increase in wages for the workers of this country. As I have said, we have put the money from the privileged to work on behalf of the poor and the less privileged in this country. I say also that in doing that, we have not been afflicted with what Mr Greiner in New South Wales calls `the John Howard problem'. Mr Greiner rightly identified the lack of credibility that attaches to the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. Mr Greiner said, and said rightly, as the Treasurer has reminded the House, that he did not have the John Howard problem. He meant by that that whatever success he may have had in New South Wales, he reminded the people of New South Wales and the people of Australia that though they may be able to trust Greiner they could not trust Howard. How right he was. They did not trust Howard and the Liberals federally in 1987 and they will not trust them in 1990. Mr BEALE —My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware that two people in the private sector have acknowledged publicly that he telephoned them to ask them to obtain or facilitate the obtaining of consultancy work for Mick Young. Will the Prime Minister confirm that either he, or his office under his instructions, late last week telephoned senior members of the Jewish community and asked them either to encourage, or to put pressure on, those two people to make such a public acknowledgment? Mr HAWKE —No, I will not. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of an article in yesterday's Age newspaper which claimed that a researcher from the Australian Institute of Family Studies was critical of the Government's child support scheme? What is the Minister's reaction to this article? Mr HOWE —I am aware of the article to which the honourable member refers. The article referred to a paper given by Margaret Harrison to the Bicentennial Family Law Conference in Melbourne on Saturday. The article represented another example of rather misleading journalism and unbalanced comments in the Melbourne Age on the child support scheme. Honourable members will be aware that we are introducing the child support scheme in two stages. Under stage 1 we are providing for the courts to continue to assess maintenance and for the child support agency in the Australian Taxation Office to collect the maintenance assessed in the court system. Under stage 2 we will move to a system of assessment of child support under a formula by the child support agency. What Ms Harrison said was that while stage 1 was a significant advance on the current system, it did not go far enough. She said that it did not go far enough because of the difficulties of court proceedings, the absence of adequate mechanisms for regular updating of child support orders and the general inadequacy of maintenance arrangements. The Government has no difficulty with these assertions. Stage 1 of the scheme is a major step forward in delivering timely, secure and adequate income to thousands of Australia's custodial parents. However, we do need to do more and we will in stage 2 of the scheme. The Government has asked the child support consultative group, chaired by Mr Justice Fogarty, to advise on the formula to apply under stage 2. I hope to get that report in the next few months. Stage 2 of the scheme will mean that it will be much easier for people to agree on the amount of child support that should be paid because that formula will lead to a definite, clear result in most cases. It will be far simpler for custodial parents to obtain child support because usually they will only have to fill out an application to the child support agency instead of having to go to the court; and in each case the amount of child support assessed will be much more in accordance with the capacity to pay for the support of children than under the current system. I do not think that there is any area of policy, particularly in terms of social policy, which more distinguishes the approach of the Government from that of the Opposition than this area of sole parents and child support. The Opposition, in contrast with the Government, with respect to child support has been able to offer only one basic suggestion, which is to put the non-custodial parents in gaol. The Opposition had seven years to deal with a problem in which there was a massive escalation in the number of sole parents in this country on ever diminishing incomes and the best it could come up with was a suggestion that the non-custodial parents be put in gaol. In his policy speech last year the Leader of the Opposition was going to give away $8 billion in tax relief but he could not find a cent in that $8 billion for a group that the welfare sector would acknowledge is the poorest group in the Australian community. The Leader of the Opposition, in one savings area which would help to provide the $8 billion in tax relief, suggested that we should reduce to 10 the qualifying age of the child of a sole parent pensioner. It this were done, we would be ignoring an important group of families within the Australian community, which everyone acknowledges is the poorest group in Australian society. Let us look at the record of this Government. We have eased income tests for a two-child family from $42 to $64. We have made that massive change in terms of income testing to provide an incentive to work. Honourable members should recall the $3 or $4 increase in additional pension and benefit granted during the seven years of the previous Government. In terms of the design of the child support scheme, we provide an income test which effectively allows people to keep any earned income within that free area. That is a massive incentive for sole parents to work. We have increased those payments from $10 to $22, and $28 for a teenage child. The Government has built a comprehensive policy with respect to sole parents which is already ensuring that tens of thousands of sole parents not only are brought out of poverty but also for the first time in a number of years are able to lead decent lives. Against that we have the approach of the Opposition which essentially thinks of sole parents only as a savings option so that it can use $8 billion to try to buy an election. Mr SINCLAIR —The Prime Minister will recall that, in answer to a question I put to him regarding the identity of two senior businessmen with whom he had had a telephone conversation regarding employment opportunities for Mr Young, he declined to identify the two gentlemen. On page 898 of the House of Representatives Hansard of last week he said: That is a matter for them. I respect their rights. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his respect for the rights to confidentiality of those senior business leaders with the answer he just gave to the honourable member for Deakin in which he admitted, by inference, applying pressure on those business leaders by disclosing their names to make public their discussions with Mr Young? Mr HAWKE —The question is a nonsense. There is no such implication. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. In view of Port Augusta's paramount role in railway communications between the east and west of Australia, can the Minister give an assurance that Australian National will continue a strong and viable presence in Port Augusta? Mr PETER MORRIS —I think the House well knows the very effective role the honourable member for Grey plays in representing the interests of employees of Australian National. The honourable member for Grey, very early in the piece after we came to government, realised that Australian National, in common with all other transport enterprises, had to raise its level of performance and its level of efficiency if it was to maintain its place in the transport market. In recent years Australian National has been able considerably to improve its performance both financially and operationally. I believe that the employees and management of Australian National can be justly proud of their achievements. They operate in a market that is intensely competitive. Interstate railway transport does not have any form of protection. It competes with other forms of transport, be it road or sea, and it has to make its way in a very competitive commercial market. The House should be reminded of the financial performance of Australian National. Australian National's revenue supplement figure of $106m in the 1982-83 Budget when we came to office has been reduced in cash terms to some $55m in this Budget. On the basis of current projections, Australian National should be able to break even on its commercial operations in the next financial year. There is no other railway enterprise in Australia that can match that performance, which is due to two things; firstly, to the management and the employees of Australian National and during the difficulties of the transition and, secondly, to the leadership and the freeing up of controls on Australian National by this Government. It is this Government that sees for public enterprise a role to raise its level of performance and its level of efficiency. That has been happening under this Government in almost every public enterprise. The changes that have been made in Australian National have been progressive. Australian National will continue to have to lift its performance-I know the management and staff understand that. But the honourable member asked specifically about Port Augusta. Port Augusta sits astride the north-south and east-west links of the national rail system. It will always be a major junction in the national rail system. The corporate plan of Australian National indicates clearly that Port Augusta and Stirling North will be maintained as major employment centres of Australian National. I do not think there is any need for serious concern on the part of the people of Port Augusta, particularly in view of the interest taken by the honourable member. In the development that occurs in the railway systems of Australia, the role of Australian National is at present being examined by the Bureau of Transport Economics to see whether sections of Westrail, or even all of Westrail, could be added to the Australian National complex. All these things have implications for the future growth of Australian National, but most of all they should underline in the minds of the people of Port Augusta, and that part of the Iron Triangle, the certainty of the future of Australian National as a major employer in that area. It is a major rail centre in the national rail system and it will continue, for all the foreseeable future, in that role. Mr HOWARD —Will the Prime Minister deny that late last week either he or his office, under his instructions, telephoned senior members of the Jewish community and asked them either to encourage or to put pressure upon either or both of the persons to whom he had spoken regarding consultancy work for Mick Young to make a public acknowledgment of that approach? Mr HAWKE —Yes. Ms McHUGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Education Services. What are the latest trends in enrolments in higher education-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I cannot hear the question. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Phillip has the call. Ms McHUGH —What are the latest trends in enrolments in higher education and how well do they match the Government's commitment to growth in the higher education sector? Mr DUNCAN —Early information on statistics applying to higher education enrolments for this year indicates that considerable growth has in fact occurred, with total enrolments rising by more than 21,000, which in percentage terms is 5.5 per cent. This enrolment growth reflects both increases in intakes and the pipeline effects of enrolment increases that have occurred over the past two or three years under this Government. It is pleasing to note that undergraduate commencements have increased by more than 6,500 compared with last year. The preliminary results seem to indicate that there has been a very healthy increase in the number of people enrolled to date in the higher education sector. There is also another trend which I think is very worth while and shows that the Government's policies are in fact working, and working very well in this area. Full time enrolments have grown especially strongly. They have increased by over 18,000, or 8 per cent. Again, that shows that the Government's policies to provide income support and additional resources to the higher education sector and generally to encourage students to stay at school longer, ensuring that they become better trained for the vocations they will take up in life by taking on higher education, are working very well. It is also pleasing to see that part time and external enrolments have risen. They are up by one per cent and 4 per cent respectively. This is a considerable improvement on last year, when part time and external enrolments fell. The growth is in line with the Government's policies of increasing higher education participation. It is interesting to note that the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor John Scott, has noted that the contribution made to growth by the decisions of the Federal and Victorian governments to fund extra places in higher education has been responsible for the growth. The results so far, on these preliminary figures, are very encouraging and show that the Government's policies in this area are working and are on target. Mr REITH —I refer the Attorney-General to the answer he gave in the House on 18 February in response to a question on the Tina Wong case when he said that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigations had completely exonerated Mr Peter Anderson, the former New South Wales Minister. I ask: Does he acknowledge that papers recently released by the Australian Federal Police under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that further investigations are under way? Was the Attorney-General aware at the time that he gave his answer that further Australian Federal Police investigations were under way? Does he still hold the view that the AFP investigations completely exonerated Mr Anderson? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I certainly hold the view that the investigations completely exonerated Mr Anderson, for the reason given in previous answers. This question has arisen because of a report in the Australian this morning that the honourable gentleman has received certain information under the Freedom of Information Act indicating that the Federal Police were carrying out some investigations as at 8 March. The honourable member will bear in mind that when he asked me the question on 16 February, I knew nothing about the matter and obtained information, which I tabled on 17 February. A further question was raised on the issue of who the police officer contacted to find out whether there was any substance in his first report, in which he said he had spoken to a police officer. The only other information I received on that was that the constable could not recall the name of the police officer he spoke to, nor did he make any diary entry about the matter. That satisfactorily answered any questions about Mr Anderson. There is no evidence, other than the fact that Mr Dowd, in the State Parliament of New South Wales, had raised the matter in 1984. The same issue was raised in the police constable's report. Mr Reith —So why are investigations continuing? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The reason why investigations are taking place is that I asked what other investigations ought to be made about the police officer's report. Interestingly, I am aware that the honourable member has those documents because the AFP wrote to him on 16 March indicating that all the allegations-there was another allegation-were unfounded. I am delighted to know that the police are still pursuing anything that appeared not to have been properly done when they first made a report in April 1985. The reason for the report in April 1985 was that in the Wong case, where the lady got into the box and gave evidence and as a result was discharged, costs were awarded against the Federal Police of some $24,000. The police officer was asked to explain his conduct. In the course of that, in April 1985, he made the allegations which Mr Dowd had made in the Parliament in 1984 on the basis of political interference, namely, whether Mr Anderson visited the cells. There is no evidence that he did. Detective Senior Constable Healy cannot identify anyone who knows that Mr Anderson did and the police officer there told him that nobody did. He cannot remember the police officer's name but in the course of another report there was a suggestion of perhaps some other political interference. It is for that reason I asked, `What other investigations have taken place?'. I am delighted to know the police are anxious to assure everybody that they have now effectively carried out their investigations. It appears very clear that the only reason there was any subsequent investigation by the Australian Federal Police was to satisfy my inquiry that every action had been taken to ensure that there was no impropriety by any Minister of the State Government. 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- Annual report by the Attorney-General on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986-Section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and KKFC Pty Ltd-dated 28 January 1988-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. National Health and Medical Research Council-report of the 102nd session-Canberra, November 1986-clause 19 of the Order-in-Council which constitutes the National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-sub-section 43 (8) of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. National Library of Australia-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-section 27 of the National Library of Australia Act 1960. Transport Containers-Industries Assistance Commission report. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SPENDER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr Ian Warden, whom I understand to be a member of the Press Gallery, in an article in the Canberra Times on Sunday, 20 March, said in respect of me on the subject of the Sharpeville six that in the speech I made in this House I spent 39 minutes speaking on this subject and that I read charges against three of the six. That is untrue. If one examines Hansard one sees that of the 12 columns that my speech covers I spent just over two columns on that subject. One will further see that I addressed the subject in the context of attacking misrepresentations made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). One will further see that I addressed subjects such as peace, the Ambassador for Disarmament and the Indian Ocean zone of peace. It is also quite wrong to say that I read anything from the charges. In fact what I read was extracts from the judgment of the court of appeal, as I identified it. What Mr Warden has said is untrue, unprofessional and malicious and good, typical Warden stuff. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Speaker, in response to a question at Question Time today, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) claimed that neither the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) nor, by extension I, as shadow Minister, had shown any interest whatsoever in the affairs of family support and so forth. I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that our policy is to support the family support legislation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. The honourable member must show where he personally has been misrepresented, not where his Party's policies have been misrepresented. Mr CONNOLLY —I have been misrepresented in numerous speeches in this House, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Did the Minister speak of the honourable member by name? Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister clearly stated that the Opposition had no policy on these matters, which is an absolute fabrication. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. He cannot proceed along that line. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-A little over 12 months ago I tabled in this House a White Paper which has set the course of development towards a self-reliant defence posture until the end of the century. Today I wish to report the progress we have made over the past year in making self-reliance a reality for Australia. The White Paper committed this Government to develop a defence force which is carefully designed to meet the unique demands of Australia's strategic circumstances. Australians of all shades of political opinion have welcomed the new clarity which the White Paper has brought to defence planning. In particular, they have welcomed the White Paper's affirmation that, with careful management, we can maintain a self-reliant defence posture at a reasonable and sustainable cost. It is fundamental to this Government's defence policy that our defence posture must be affordable. Australia's security will not be enhanced by making grand plans which cannot be fulfilled. This has happened before-for example, in 1976. Our defence policy encompasses the largest capital investment program in Australia's peacetime history; but we can fund that program without continuous growth in defence spending provided we manage the defence budget carefully. We have proved that over the past year. Financial circumstances have been tough. After years of strong growth under the Hawke Government defence spending has been cut this year, but through innovative management we have kept the White Paper on track. We had some confidence this could be achieved because the program-unlike the grandiose plans of our predecessors-is not based on unrealistically high funding expectations. Investment in new equipment is spread over 15 years and we have committed little more than half the funds likely to be available in that period. The White Paper also recognised that it would be possible to make better use of the funds already available to defence by concentrating spending in areas of high priority. Realistic planning and good management are fundamental to the White Paper program and realistic planning and good management have enabled it to survive the test of the last nine months virtually unscathed. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is undergoing unprecedented changes at a number of levels. Each of the three Services is progressively being re-equipped with the most appropriate weaponry available as many of the programs outlined in the White Paper have begun in earnest. However, the White Paper program is about more than equipment; it is about the people who make up the Defence Force, the command of our forces, and their deployment. I will be saying more about this shortly. It is our assessment that, in credible contingencies, operations in the sea-air gap to the north and north-west of Australia and the protection of the infrastructure in the north would be of prime importance. This would require the deployment of considerable forces in the area and in some cases could require operations further afield through our northern bases. Operations by the maritime, ground and air forces involved would require close coordination and extensive logistic support. In addition, there would be a requirement for very close cooperation with the civil authorities. The shift in emphasis in our defence effort northwards is a key element in the Government's defence policy. Two important decisions have been made which will give form and substance to this new direction. First, the Government has decided to establish a northern command based at Darwin. Northern Command, or Norcom as it will be called, will be the focal point for the coordination of peacetime activity and will provide the nucleus for the larger organisation which would need to be quickly put in place in the event of a defence emergency. Norcom will be a subordinate formation of land command. It will be predominantly oriented towards the planning and conduct of land operations but will be jointly staffed. It will be commanded by a brigadier supported by a staff drawn from the present 7th Military District Headquarters in Darwin, together with Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel. Norcom's area of responsibility will include the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia, together with adjacent waters. Army units in the Norcom area will come directly under Norcom and naval and air units will be available to support Norcom activities. Additional forces will be assigned from time to time if the need arises. The new command should be operational by July this year. These new arrangements demonstrate our commitment to the defence of our north as expressed in the White Paper. They put in place a joint operational headquarters capable of conducting low level operations and other peacetime tasks and capable of expansion in the event of escalation. They also will enhance the already close working relationship with the civil authorities and the civilian community. This relationship would be vital in the event of low level conflict or major natural disaster. The second important decision relating to the defence of the north is to conduct a major Defence Force exercise there next year based on the strategy outlined in the White Paper. This exercise, named Kangaroo 89, will be the biggest military activity in Australia since the Second World War, and will be the first major Defence Force exercise based on the White Paper strategy. It will exercise the ability of the Defence Force to respond to widely dispersed low level threats. Land force activities will extend right across the north of Australia and maritime and air activities will extend from Australia's north-western maritime approaches to Torres Strait and the new air bases at Tindal in the Northern Territory and Derby in the north-west. More than 17,000 ground troops, supported by naval and air units, will participate. United States forces will make a major contribution by allowing us to exercise capabilities which shortly will be introduced into the Defence Force. For example, United States Black Hawk helicopters will provide the degree of mobility for our ground forces which we will acquire when our own Black Hawks become operational. A significant aspect of the White Paper strategy which will be exercised in Kangaroo 89 will be the deployment of selected Army Reserve units of the 1st and 3rd Divisions in their new role of protecting vital northern installations. While it will be a major event, exercise Kangaroo 89 will enable us to exercise only some of the many capabilities called for in the White Paper. These capabilities, some of which substantially exist and some of which are in the process of development and refinement include intelligence and surveillance, strike and interdiction, enhanced maritime warfare and mine countermeasures capabilities, development of the Army's capability for dispersed operations, enhancing command, control and communication systems and streamlining administration and logistics. The strategy of defence in depth gives priority to being able to mount operations capable of defeating enemy forces in our area of direct military interest. This means we must have forces capable of tracking and targeting an adversary, which can mount maritime and air operations in the sea-air gap to our north, and which can carry out offensive strike and interdiction missions. Our forces must have a comprehensive range of defensive capabilities-including air defence, mine countermeasures and protection of coastal trade-and must embody mobile land forces able to defeat hostile incursions at remote locations. Defence in depth gives priority to meeting credible levels of threat in our area of direct military interest. The strategic assessments in the White Paper analysis are still pertinent and remain the basis of our capability programs. The strategy of defence in depth calls on the Defence Force to be deployable and effective in the most likely areas of operation. The challenge of operating in the north demands not only investment in appropriate equipment but also the establishment of a facilities infrastructure. Equipment and support facilities are an integral part of a defence capability throughout the three defensive layers we are building. The first important requirement for Australia's defence is to possess comprehensive intelligence about our region and a surveillance capacity to detect and track intruders in our maritime approaches. The Government has assigned a high priority to the development of a network of operational over the horizon radars to enhance our ability to monitor the vast sea and air gap to our north. The upgrade of the initial over-the-horizon radar installation at Alice Springs is well under way and due for completion in 1990 at a total cost of about $60m. The upgrade at Alice Springs will assist in project definition studies for a network of up to three radars, the first of which should become operational in the mid-1990s. Within the next few weeks an invitation to register interest in the development of the first operational radar will be issued to industry. The estimated cost of the entire project is $500m, and will involve Australian industry in design development and construction. The development of the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station at Geraldton is progressing to plan. The land for the station has been acquired and contracts are being let for the supply of services, the access road and other site related works. Construction work on the project itself is scheduled to start in September this year. Competing tenders are currently being evaluated for modern electronic support systems for the Defence Force's P3C Orion long range maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft. The successful tenderer is expected to be announced early next year. Our surveillance capability will be enhanced by the delivery of the Navy's new Seahawk helicopters, of which 16 have been ordered to equip our FFG-7 class guided missile frigates. The first of these aircraft has already flown in the United States and the first two Seahawks should be delivered to the RAN in November. This will enhance our flexibility for a range of maritime tasks apart from surveillance, as the Seahawks have significant anti-submarine warfare, and weapons targeting capabilities. Our surveillance capabilities are also being enhanced by the development of towed acoustic arrays for our new submarines and surface ships. This development will add significantly to our capability for sub-surface surveillance of our maritime approaches. A request for tender has been issued for the full-scale engineering development of the arrays based on indigenous technology developed jointly by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and Australian industry. The full scope of the project is to design, manufacture and trial arrays for our new submarines. The Government has also recognised the importance of mapping and charting for military operations and surveillance. Recently a contract valued at $18.7m was awarded for local construction of four inshore survey ships. We have also called for tenders for the manufacture of an Australian designed laser airborne depth sounder. Bathymetry services have been transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Navy. Action has been taken in a number of areas to expand the deployment of our maritime patrol capabilities through cooperation with regional nations, particularly New Zealand. It has been agreed to increase the number of RAAF long range maritime patrol aircraft deployments in the South Pacific. To complement these enhanced intelligence and surveillance capabilities there is a requirement for a naval/air capability to destroy enemy forces in our approaches and to protect focal points and shipping lanes. Our strike and inter- diction capabilities have been strengthened through a number of significant steps. The project with the highest profile has undoubtedly been the new submarine acquisition for which a contract was signed in June last year. The Australian Submarine Corporation will oversee the construction of six Kockums type 471 submarines at Port Adelaide. The establishment of construction facilities is already well under way and building of the first submarine should begin in 1989. The combat system should be fitted by 1992 and the vessel launched in 1994. The five other submarines will be launched in the years 1995 to 1999. A number of contracts worth approximately $390m have been placed for such items as combat systems, weapons discharge equipment, propulsion systems, computer software and the sonar installation. This provides substantial opportunities for Australian industry involvement as over 70 per cent of the platform work and 45 per cent of the combat system work will be performed here in Australia. Another important component of the second layer will be the new Anzac patrol frigates. This project has provided us with a valuable avenue for cooperation with New Zealand. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with New Zealand covering the purchase of a similar class of vessel for our navies. We will take eight of the vessels, while New Zealand may purchase four. Two Australian-based consortia with New Zealand partners have been formed, each in association with a ship designer, to tender for construction of the ships in Australia. The contract for construction will be let in about the middle of next year, with the first ship due for delivery in the mid-1990s. An effective mine counter measures force, able to keep our major ports open and nearby ocean area safe, is a high priority for the Government. Trials of the two Australian built minehunting catamarans are proceeding, and a decision on the purchase of further vessels will be made once trials are complete. A former Department of Transport vessel has been acquired to test the `craft of opportunity' minesweeping concept, using innovative Australian designed acoustic and magnetic sweeping equipment. Development work has also commenced for a mine warfare systems centre. The level of protection afforded to our surface ships is being enhanced through the collaborative development with the United States of America of a ship defence system. This undertaking, known as Project Nulka, is drawing upon innovative, indigenous technologies from within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Australian industry. A prime contract has been placed with a leading Australian electronics company with support from the Government's factories and DSTO. This is consistent with the Government's policy of expanding the role of Australian industry in such undertakings. Associated electronics work in the United States is providing an avenue for valuable technology transfers through joint project arrangements. In order to enhance our ability to deploy our maritime forces in northern and north-western strategic areas, the Government has taken steps towards the creation of a genuine two-ocean navy. Our planning is for half of our major surface combatants and submarine forces as well as mine countermeasures vessels and an afloat support ship to be based in Western Australia by the turn of the century. A number of developments have already taken place at HMAS Stirling, near Perth, including the home porting of the submarine HMAS Oxley in September last year. At present there are two destroyers, a hydrographic ship, and two Fremantle class patrol boats also based at Stirling. A third destroyer will be home ported in Western Australia next year. Late last year an agreement was reached with the Western Australian Government jointly to support a new marine facility at nearby Jervoise Bay, which will include a shiplift capability, to be enhanced as operations of naval vessels in the west increase. Broad planning has been completed for a two stage development of HMAS Stirling, which will progressively cater for half the fleet's basing requirements. Comprehensive studies are also under way into the viability of a relocation of the Eastern Fleet base from Sydney Harbour to Jervis Bay. The first stage of the studies is an environmental impact statement. The major airborne component of our air defence capability is the acquisition of the FA18s. At present activation of Hornet operational squadrons is proceeding smoothly, with 38 aircraft delivered so far. Two squadrons and an operational conversion unit have been established at RAAF Base Williamtown. However, there is a lag of five aircraft in the delivery timetable and remedial action is under way. Project definition work for the upgrade of the avionics of our F111s is not complete. Proposals to implement the major components of the update, the avionics and the avionics test equipment, will be considered next financial year. Sixty-seven PC9A pilot training aircraft are being acquired as an eventual replacement for the present CT4 Airtrainers. The first two aircraft from the Australian production line were accepted from Hawker De Havilland in December last year. I am delighted to inform the House that the RAAF thinks the aircraft are terrific. It is undergoing a massive review of its training schedules to ensure that the fullest possibility for cost savings, which will arise from the use of this excellent aircraft, is taken advantage of. As local production at Bankstown expands, so too will the level of Australian manufactured components used in the aircraft; the twenty-first and later aircraft will be almost entirely produced in Australia. The operations of our air defence aircraft, strike and interdiction aircraft and surveillance aircraft are to be enhanced through the development of our northern airfields' infrastructure. The major works at Tindal are progressing on schedule and within budget. Over 75 per cent of the works have already been completed and RAAF personnel have begun to man the base, with a planned date for the commencement of FA18 basing in October this year. The airfield and associated works near Derby were completed in December last year and planning is proceeding for other support works to further enhance the operational capabilities of this bare base airfield. The Government expects to be able to fund this in the 1989-90 Budget year. Investigations have also commenced into a Cape York Peninsula airfield site through joint consultative arrangements with the Queensland Government. Present planning is for work to begin in the 1990-91 financial year subject to the results of an environmental impact study. The final element of the Government's defence strategy calls for a flexible ground force, with air and naval support, able to react to an enemy incursion and to protect dispersed population centres and infrastructure. The restructuring of our ground forces to meet credible contingencies has progressed well. An Army force structure based on the 1st Division, two reserve divisions, and training and logistic commands has been retained. The shift in the focus of Army operations northwards has been particularly apparent over the past 12 months. Planning for the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to move from Holsworthy to Darwin is well advanced and the regiment should be installed in its new barracks by the end of 1992. Appropriate training areas are also being acquired. An examination of the implications of relocating a brigade to the north is also under way, with a study of the strategic, operational, logistic and personnel implications scheduled for completion later this year. The emphasis on ground based surveillance has continued with the development of the regional force surveillance units in the north. Norforce participated with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in exercises in the Northern Territory late in 1987. New regional force surveillance unit depots are planned and the raising of two new companies by 51 Far North Queensland Regiment next year will enable it to increase its presence in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Torres Strait regions. To ensure that we get the most appropriate mobility for our forces, a selected range of wheeled armoured vehicles for possible use by the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will commence evaluation trials under northern conditions next year. The introduction into service of 39 Black Hawk battlefield helicopters is progressing well, with the delivery of the first Australian assembled helicopter scheduled for April. The acquisition of the Black Hawks will contribute significantly to the combat power of the Army's operational deployment force. This capability should be fully operational within the target period of five years and full Army manning is likely to be achieved by 1993-94. The role of the reserves has been enhanced through the introduction of call out legislation last year. The Army Reserve is now being developed as an integral part of the Force rather than a component of its expansion base. This process, which has been achieved within the 26,000 manpower ceiling detailed in the White Paper, is almost complete. The reorganisation has provided the Army Reserve with a sense of purpose which is reflected in improved morale and reduced wastage. Other equipment projects, principally for the Army, include new small arms, 105mm guns, bridging, all-terrain cranes, medium trucks and radios. Other aspects of defence planning are being redirected in the light of our new policy orientation. A major review of Defence Force command and control arrangements was carried out last year. It concluded that the present system of joint force commanders should be further developed in several important directions. I will give details of these changes and make public a declassified version of this review in the near future. The new military manpower system referred to in the White Paper has been introduced to give the services a stable trained force and supplementation of the training force to match fluctuating separation rates. Defence property holdings have been reviewed, and those not required for efficient operations will be disposed of. I have already mentioned Australian Industry's involvement in several key defence equipment projects. Australian industry involvement in the supply, repair and maintenance of Defence Force stores and equipment has been increased dramatically under this Government. This comprehensive Australian industry involvement in defence procurement is a direct consequence of the Government's commitment to defence self-reliance. It is also a vindication of the Government's wider economic policies and initiatives. For example, our ability to source over two-thirds by value of the submarine and Anzac ship projects in Australia is due in large part to Australian industry's increasing ability to compete for work in the international marketplace. The Government also has moved to realise the potential of an increasingly competitive Australian defence industry to generate export income. In late 1986 I announced a series of practical measures to foster Australian Defence exports. These measures were based in part on preliminary recommendations by my ministerial consultant, Mr Bob Cooksey. I also took up Mr Cooksey's suggestion that current defence export guidelines could be revised to enable a better balance of Australian commercial, defence and international interests in the defence export area. The Government has recently agreed to a series of principles to guide detailed revision of existing defence export guidelines. The Government also agreed to streamline existing cumbersome administrative arrangements. Substantial work is required to finalise the new arrangements which are to be in place by May this year. The Government recognised in the White Paper that the highly skilled and dedicated members of the Australian Defence Force are our most valuable defence resource. The Opposition said a lot about our defence personnel policies, but it has offered no solutions to the undoubted difficulties the ADF faces in keeping highly-skilled people. This Government has given unprecedented attention to this issue. We have on this side of the House two Defence Ministers, one senior and one junior. There is one shadow spokesman, a junior spokesman, on the other side of the House. My colleague the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has been appointed to undertake a thorough overhaul of defence personnel issues, and her work in this area is both very important and very complex. Anyone who believes that the solutions are simple does not understand the problem. We have allocated substantial funds to rectify deficiencies in the personnel area which have been building up over many years. The most widespread and justified compliant by service personnel relates to the quality of the defence housing stock. The Government recognised this deficiency by establishing the Defence Housing Authority, which began operation on 1 January this year. The Government is committed to spending $750m on upgrading existing houses or acquiring new houses over a 10-year period. The Government also is committed to improving living conditions for single people in the Defence Force. A $57m project will begin this year to upgrade existing barracks accommodation by the provision of 4,500 single rooms. The question of appropriate salaries and allowances for members of the Defence Force has been addressed by the independent tribunal-the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-established by the Government. The Tribunal has now determined 17 Defence Force remuneration cases, four of which were national wage case flow-on increases. These proceedings have all led to Defence Force pay or allowance increases within the national wage case principles and include the second tier increase agreed with the Government, which the Defence Force achieved on its own merits. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is serving its purpose well. Sections of the Public Service have not received that full increase. We have not received the full increase. Defence personnel have received that increase well ahead of the rest of the public. I think that that is a significant achievement for them before the Tribunal. None of these achievements could have been realised without particularly adept resource management. More will be said on personnel matters by the appropriate Minister as this debate proceeds, but there is no question that this Government has innovatively considered those problems and done so more effectively than under the previous ad hoc arrangements which existed. It has done so in light of our support for continual wage rises for the community as a whole, which have been militantly opposed by the Opposition. When considering the terms of reference which should be given to Paul Dibb for his Review of Defence Force Capabilities, the Government recognised that financial realism would be the key to successful implementation of his recommendations, particularly in an environment in which both sides of the House have acknowledged a requirement to reduce substantially public expenditures. The evidence for this was clear for all to see. The Fraser Government's Afghanistan debacle had left the Defence Force confused and demoralised, and financial irresponsibility was the Achilles heel of the 1976 White Paper. The firm foundation for military strength is economic strength. No matter how high it is on the Government's list of priorities, defence-in peacetime-cannot be insulated from economic realities. When the full extent of the measures which would be required to revitalise the economy became apparent, the Government had no hesitation in deciding that defence, along with other important programs such as education, health and welfare, should contribute to economic recovery. In principle, there was nothing new or extraordinary about this; similar action had been taken twice under governments led by Malcolm Fraser. However, in the past, the absence of a coherent set of priorities within the defence program made the management of austerity next to impossible. The existence of the White Paper meant that, on this occasion, not only was austerity manageable but, in the final outcome, it has proved beneficial. It has driven us to find ways of meeting our total objectives at less cost than originally envisaged. The realisation of substantial economies within the defence portfolio was an integral part of the White Paper strategy. Even before the White Paper was prepared work had begun on the restructuring of the defence factories and dockyards. Williamstown Naval Dockyard in Melbourne, once a substantial burden on the defence appropriation, has now been sold to a private consortium for $100m without diminishing our vital shipbuilding capability. In October last year the Government Aircraft Factories in Melbourne were placed on a more commercial footing when they began operations as a Government owned company, known as Aerospace Technologies of Australia. Streamlining of other factories and facilities is continuing with an emphasis on making their operations more commercially orientated. Significant productivity programs are being put in place, particularly at Garden Island Dockyard. More recently, the Government has instituted a review of defence logistics-an area which accounts for more than 30 per cent of the defence budget and employs 30,000 people. I am confident that it will be possible to achieve substantial savings; efficiency improvements already identified amount to over $100m a year. Honourable members might be interested in some examples of improvements that are being introduced. We have approved changes to the defence contracting organisation and contracting procedures to simplify procurement. We are looking at streamlining our decision-making arrangements for purchasing stores and are planning to make substantial reductions in administrative processes. We have looked at the size of the defence inventory and found that many items have not been used for years. We are getting rid of those which we no longer need. We are introducing ways of making our procurement and stock distribution systems run faster, which will lead to substantial reductions in expenditure and infrastructure. Other means of improving the efficiency and productivity of defence logistics also are being pursued. We are now placing major emphasis on the use of local management and commercial infrastructure in support of the Defence Force. For example, we are examining prospects for a much closer relationship with the transport industry in the management and running of defence commercial vehicles. Apart from these specific reviews, the whole structure of the Department is being streamlined to cut out waste and duplication, to produce a less hierarchical and more efficient structure. This is the most radical restructuring of the defence organisation, and of attitudes within it, since the Barnard reorganisation in 1973-75. Government policy requires defence to shed 3.75 per cent of its civilian staff by the end of June 1990. Savings of 3 per cent-that is, 80 per cent of the target-have already been made. Last year civilian staffing was reduced by more than 1,300. I should stress that these were balanced cuts spread across the entire defence spectrum. For example, 16 Senior Executive Service positions have been abolished since July 1986. I expect to continue reducing civilian staff by at least one per cent a year over the next five years. Those who see the grey suited mandarins of Russell Hill as regiments of Sir Humphreys should realise that in fact they are some of the toughest and brightest managers in the country, and they are overseeing this process. I do not believe we have yet reached the bottom of the this barrel. It is the Government's aim not only to achieve the White Paper's objectives but to achieve them with as little cost to the taxpayer as possible. There is no merit in bringing down big defence budgets; the merit lies in what is achieved with the money. The Government will continue to seek savings through increased efficiency within the defence portfolio until it is satisfied that every dollar allocated is making an effective contribution to defence preparedness. At this stage it is difficult to quantify the overall savings which will flow from the large number of efficiency and restructuring programs which have been implemented or are being developed, but I am confident that, if all planned savings are realised, about $200m a year can be freed to fund the high priority programs identified in the White Paper. Two hundred million dollars a year over the life of the White Paper program adds up to $3 billion. When I remind honourable members that the target cost of the Anzac ship project is $3.5 billion, it is readily apparent how significant these savings are. The White Paper objectives can be achieved without continuous real growth in the defence appropriation, provided the savings which can be obtained through increased efficiency are realised and the program continues to be managed effectively. Finally I would like to acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of the ADF who are responding to the challenges of the White Paper to build the Defence Force we need to make self-reliance a reality, and to guarantee Australia's security into the next century. I present the following paper: Defence Policy-A progress report-Ministerial Statement, 22 March 1988. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Humphreys)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for McPherson speaking for a period not exceeding 34 minutes. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.30) —I thank the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for making the paper available in good time and for the opportunity to speak. We have just had some 35 minutes of another report from the Minister for Defence on the state of his equipment in the Defence Force. He comes in here periodically and gives us such reports. There is usually nothing new in them. One can only ask why he keeps on giving these reports and assume that in the event of a coup on the Government side of the House, which might happen very quickly, he is making his run, not for Prime Minister, I understand, but for Deputy. There is nothing new in the statement today. What the Minister has done again has been to ignore the most pressing problem the defence forces of this country face-that is, the enormous and record wastage of personnel. The Minister talked proudly today about the savings he is to make. Will he give a commitment that the $200m he will be saving from other areas will go towards improving the conditions of service in the Defence Force? I bet that he will not. He has just read through 27 pages. Two pages make passing reference to people. Once again he has ignored the most important problem. Mr Beazley —You are going to get a whole speech from Ros Kelly on that. Mr WHITE —You are the Minister for Defence. It is your responsibility, as we have said in this House before. The Minister should not pass the buck to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who has no authority, has no money and cannot do the job, although not through want of trying. She does not have the authority to do it. The Minister comes into this House time and again and puts down a defence equipment paper, saying nothing about the people who are supposed to matter. They are looking to the Minister-70,000 of them out there-for some sort of leadership, and the Minister ignores them time and again. Until he takes some interest in those 70,000 men and women he will be hounded, not only in this House but outside it, in the media and by defence personnel. He is known as the Minister for defence equipment because he has no interest in the people who are supposed to matter. He comes in here saying that he is the Minister for Defence. He is the Minister for defence equipment. Let us examine the size of the problem once again. These are not my figures. They were provided by the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the other day on wastage. We were forced to set out this joint parliamentary committee to take the matter out of the Minister's hands and put it in the hands of parliament so that it would get some attention. In 1983, 4,500 people left the Defence Force; by the end of last year, 1987, nearly 10,000 people had left the Defence Force-more than twice as many as five years ago. Mr Beazley —It was 6,800 in 1983-84. Where do you get your figures from? Mr WHITE —At the end of 1983 the figure was 4,500. On a 20-year average the number of pilots who have left the service is 47, on an annual basis. Last year, for the 12 months to the end of June, the Defence Force had lost 107 pilots. For the six months to the end of December 1987, 111 had submitted their resignations. It would appear that by the end of this financial year about 130 pilots, on the CDF's own figures, will have gone. Five ship's captains have departed. Two infantry battalion commanders have gone. Naval engineers and Royal Australian Army signallers have left in great numbers, according to the Minister's own Chief of the Defence Force. It is unheard of-maybe not by the Minister but amongst professional service men and women-for anyone in command to give up his command. Perhaps such a person would retire after it, but I have never heard of anyone giving up a command. The most prized possession in the Defence Force is the command of a ship or an infantry battalion. This year, according to the CDF, the Defence Force has lost five ship's captains and two infantry battalion commanders. It is an absolute disgrace. Let us not beat about the bush regarding the state of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Royal Australian Air Force, in its present form, is on the bones of its backside. There is one operational fighter squadron in Australia-75 Squadron in Darwin. It has 20 Mirages. On any one day 18 of them are probably on line, according to the figures-- Mr Beazley —They are all in Williamtown being trained to go on to the F18s. Mr WHITE —No. 75 Squadron at Darwin is the only operational fighter squadron in Australia. It has seven pilots and, on any one day, 18 aircraft. That is our front line operational fighter squadron. The Minister is taking an enormous risk in pulling them all out of our one operational fighter squadron to train them for the new squadrons. Let us consider the new F18 fighter squadrons being formed at Williamtown. Who reduced the establishment of pilots recently from 18 to 12? It was the Chief of the Air Staff. How many do they have out of that 12? They run at an average of eight or nine. So where are all these pilots who the Minister claims are being trained to go into 75 Squadron when it takes up the F18? It is a sleight of hand. The Minister is hoodwinking the people of Australia about the state of our defences. It is time that was exposed. The Minister is presiding over the dismemberment of the defence forces of this country-and still he will not recognise it. Still he comes in here and talks about equipment, which has become an obsession with him. He refuses to take any notice of what is happening to the people out there. Is he going to leave it all to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, trying as she might be? She calls regular Press conferences and says, `I will look into it. I know that there is a problem. We are going to have a study. We are going to send Mrs Mayer'-her defence adviser-`to Townsville. She is going to solve the problems'. She is going to select half a dozen kids and put them in a school to see whether the constant disturbances of service life have any effect on their schooling. Do we need Mrs Mayer to do that? What a ridiculous approach to a problem. We are going to have more meetings, more reviews and more studies to look into it. Let us deal with a couple of other excuses the Minister keeps trotting out. He says that the airlines are pinching all our pilots. We know that the pilots are going to the airlines. They have been going to the airlines for years. What is more, the airlines are not going to stop recruiting them. In fact, the problem will get worse. What is the Minister going to do about that? Is he going to look at some system of bonus payments, or is he going to stand around wringing his hands, watching the further dismemberment of the RAAF and blaming it on the airlines? Does he think they are going to change their recruiting policies? Does he think that if a good pilot fronts up to the airlines and says, `I am here in response to your advertisement', the airlines will say, `If you are from the RAAF we are not going to take you.'? Of course they are not. The Minister should wake up to himself. He blames the Vietnam hump, whatever that means, for the enormous resignation rates. I presume that he means all the people who were in the Services during our involvement in Vietnam. Ninety-nine per cent of them have long gone. What do they have to do with current wastage rates? He blames the number of women in the Services for the high resignation rates. What a ridiculous excuse. The Minister is all talk and no action. The problems with the engineers and pilots will not go away. The Government must face the problem of what is happening in the Services and meet the market in some way, perhaps not by providing the full salary equivalent, but by creating an atmosphere and an interest for defence personnel, giving them productive, sensible lives, raising their conditions of service so that they are not second class citizens, making them feel as though they are doing a good job for this country. Otherwise the Government will see continued record level wastage rates. Look to the conditions of service. The Minister talks about the Remuneration Tribunal. The Government opposed every single claim for a pay rise, except the last one, and then successfully delayed it for something like three months. The Government had deliberately delayed claims before the Tribunal for a flying allowance and other allowances. In desperation, people have said, quite rightly, that they are not interested. There is still a backlog of claims waiting to go to the Tribunal. Why does the Government not put some beef into it and get those claims heard and settled? The Minister talks about housing initiatives. It is not enough. I acknowledge what the Government has done. Both sides of this House look to the Defence Force Housing Authority to see some improvement but it is still not enough. The Government still ignores the problem of single people. It will not pay them full removal expenses. I do not believe enough is being done about their barracks. The Government will not address the question of education allowance. At the last count, 87 people out of 70,000 received an education allowance to allow their children to attend a school. That is a ridiculous number. It is simply too difficult to qualify. The Government will not address the question of disturbance allowance. It costs people a great deal when they move-more than the $500 or whatever it is they get at the moment. The Government still has not addressed the questions raised by the Hamilton report on the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses. Most of its recommendations have been ignored. The Minister referred to how successful he has been in managing his equipment program. Only about a year ago he told us in this House how magnificent the defence forces were going to be because he had secured a real increase of 3 per cent for the next five years. That soon eroded to two, then to one, then this year to minus one. And still he says the plans he formulated based on a 3 per cent real increase have had no effect on his program. That is largely true because the Government has maintained its equipment program at the expense of 70,000 men and women. Apart from anything else, what does the Government think it costs to train 10,000 people a year? It is so proud of its recruiting figures; it should be ashamed of its retention figures. It is taking enormous amounts of money from other areas. It costs $2m to train a pilot by the time he gets to his first squadron. How many pilots will we lose this year? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. All the best guesses are that the figure will certainly be over 130. What are the training capabilities through the RAAF training system? About 70 a year. When is the Government going to address that problem? I turn to some of the other matters that are canvassed in this paper. The Minister says how proud he is of the Government's efforts in northern surveillance. The northern surveillance of Australia is an absolute shambles. I quote from today's Australian an ex-Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Evans. The report reads: . . . Australia's coastal surveillance operation ``almost entirely useless'' . . . present surveillance was ineffective against anyone who did not want to be seen. Air Marshal Evans said that overall the operation was `cosmetic'. He said that the coastline between Perth and Cairns had one radar at Darwin with a range of 30 kilometres. When asked a question about whether the north was wide open, he replied, `Absolutely'. That is what an ex-Chief of the Air Staff thinks of the Government's efforts in northern surveillance. As if that is not enough, Major-General Grey, a distinguished soldier and now the retired Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, said that the task given to the police-God knows why to the police-was an impossible task. He said the north was wide open and the situation was a shambles. Why does the Government not bite the bullet? Why does it not give this vital task to the defence forces and give them the control and co-ordination of our northern surveillance? Defence personnel are the people best equipped to do the job. They have the experience and the communications. They would not have to use very expensive military equipment on all these tasks; they could certainly use people such as those in Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd to do some of the job. The truth of the matter is that while the Minister comes into the chamber and says how proud he is, the situation is an absolute shambles, evidenced in particular by the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd fiasco earlier this year. The Government has reduced the number of hours for long range maritime patrols from 1,200 to 700. It might like to explain how things have improved so much, when so many Indonesian boats are being taken almost daily, that it can afford to reduce the hours from 1,200 to 700. The reason is that the Government does not have the pilots to do the job. The Minister talks about the strike and interdiction capabilities. As far as I know, there is still no plan for refuelling of the F111 aircraft and as far as I know there is still no plan for airborne radar. If there are such plans, I would be very delighted to hear them. In the same breath as the Minister talked about interdiction he talked about our submarines. He and others keep going around South Australia saying we are going to cancel the program. Mr Beazley —No, Aldred says that. Mr WHITE —Aldred does not speak for the Opposition. The Opposition has no intention of cancelling the submarine program. It was not without interest that I saw that the South Australian Government promised that the Green Fields site would be given priority. It now seems to be locked in some bitter industrial dispute which threatens the program. There are problems or potential problems with that program. The history of management of those projects over the last few years does not give us any cause for confidence. The ability of the Navy to manage that program with the enormous loss of engineers and to manage the frigate program at the same time is a worry to the Navy and to the Opposition. It seems likely that even if none of these problems appeared, with a project of that complexity there would be a time overrun. I ask the Minister: What is the sense of selling off Cockatoo Island at this stage with all the accumulated knowledge and expertise at that place, where people have refitted the present Oberon submarines, when Cockatoo Island may well have to be used for a further refit of the Oberons if the new submarine program runs on? The Minister talked about the strength of the Navy. The fact is that the Navy has been reduced to a brown water Navy. The thing that is exercising naval minds at the moment more than anything else is, with the decline in the capacity of the RAAF, how on earth will the RAAF perform the task that has been given to it of protecting the Navy as well. It has an impossible task, let alone providing any ground support for our ground forces. The Minister mentioned the frigates. The selection procedure for the frigates is causing a great deal of concern as the Minister well knows. I hope that the system the Government has devised works but it has every chance of not working, and that is the concern. I would be interested to hear why the Government abandoned the more traditional methods of having people tendering for a particular project-in this case the frigate-and tried to force people into what might be some ill-sorted consortium. Another concern about the frigates is that in the end we will get shells of ships without proper armaments. The Minister also keeps claiming that we will have these eight new frigates. The fact is that they will barely replace ships in the Navy which are due for retirement at the moment. I want to deal briefly with the two ocean navy concept. There is a sleight of hand trick perpetuated by the Government about our capacity in the west. The fact is that we have no ship lift capacity in the west at this stage to lift the FFGs or the DDGs. So there is no plan to send those ships to the west, because they would have to come back to the east if they were to be properly maintained. Of the whole surface fleet of the Navy, seven of the 12 ships are FFGs and DDGs. It is nonsense to talk about sending half the Navy to the west when seven out of 12 ships cannot proceed there. The Minister should come clean and tell us exactly what the Government proposes for the west. In addition, there is no fleet oiler to service and replenish those ships in the west. What does the Minister intend to do about that? I turn to the matter of the PC9s. It is a surprise to me that the Minister in his statement today said that the PC9 `was acquired as an eventual replacement for the present CT4'. I have no doubt that that will surprise many people in the RAAF because they are working on the premise that what the Minister has done, against RAAF advice, is to introduce into a two-aircraft training system a third aircraft. Is it really proposed that this very powerful aircraft be used as an initial trainer? Is that really what the Minister is saying? By introducing a third aircraft into the system he is overloading an already overloaded system. The system will need more qualified flying instructors, and something like one-third of the qualified flying instructor positions around Australia are vacant at the moment. The Minister will complicate the eventual replacement of the CT4 and of the Aermacchi as a jet trainer. How is the introduction of the PC9 aircraft, so proudly decided upon by the Minister, going to fit into an already overloaded training system? The Minister in his statement talks about the development of Tindal. The Opposition has no problem with Tindal as a base but we object to sending people there before it is completed. It is a fact that many people who are posted to Tindal have to go to Darwin because many of the facilities at Tindal are not ready. The Minister also talks about the 1st Division-six understrength battalions. Let us get that straight for a start. General Jeffrey, the commander of the 1st Division, believes that the division could exist in the field for only a few weeks. That is the commander's assessment, and at that it depends heavily on reserve units. The other day General Jeffrey, in response to a committee question, said that he believed he was 4,000 men short and that it was time the Government took some of the unemployed off the streets and put them in the Army. That is not a proposition with which I agree, but that is the sort of desperate comment that the commander of the 1st Division makes. The division is 4,000 men short and could sustain itself for only a few weeks. The Minister says that we have a stable trained force. If nearly 10,000 losses a year from a trained force of some 62,000 is a stable force it certainly gives a new meaning to the word. On the question of defence property let me ask the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel: What is the Government's plan for the defence property around the Sydney foreshores that it is planning to sell to private developers? The local authorities and the last State government-the unlamented Unsworth Government, which now, thank God, is no more-wanted that land handed back to the Sydney Harbour National Park. What is the Government going to do about it? The Minister for Planning and Environment in the outgoing New South Wales Government, Mr Carr, was remarkably silent about this matter. He was the great environmentalist but he could not bring himself to defend that proposal. It will be an absolute tragedy if this Government goes ahead with its plan to flog off that land to some developer. It belongs to the Sydney Harbour National Park. I hope that now there has been a change of government the Federal Government will see some sense on the matter and renegotiate that with the new Government in New South Wales. The Minister for Defence seems very proud, in his paper, that he has reduced the rank structure amongst the civilians at Russell. What about having a good look at it and reducing the total number of people in Russell and effecting some proper economies in that overgrown bureaucracy? That includes service personnel and it includes having a very good look at the rank structure of service personnel. There are far too many senior officers in the Australian Defence Force. Some of them have been put there to equate with bloated civilian positions, civilian ranks. So at the moment there has to be a brigadier to match so and so and there has to be a colonel to match so and so. The Army is pulling experienced, responsible commanders in from the field for a term in Canberra, as they should, and these people find that instead of being able, responsible commanders they are office boys around Russell. That is part of the reason why so many people in so-called responsible positions in Russell resign from the Services. The statement refers to the defence contracting organisation. The decision to abandon the defence contracting organisation is wrong. The Department of Defence believes it is wrong, and it should be changed. By centralising it all the expertise is being taken out of the States and it is being given to the Services-not giving the services any more people-saying, `Get on with it'. It will be a disaster. Finally, I turn to two broader and very important issues. I want to address the question of why this Government's foreign affairs and defence policies are on such divergent paths. The problem of intelligence gathering was mentioned today. If the Fiji coup and our knowledge of it is any indication of the intelligence gathering capability of this Government it stands condemned. We have the absolute neglect of the Pacific area by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). The Foreign Minister has been wandering around Africa distributing money like a drunken sailor to the front line states, desperate as their plight is. Some $6m has been given to Mozambique without getting any guarantee of a fair trial for Mr Grey. At the same time aid is being cut to Papua New Guinea, which said today, `We will have to look towards Russia'. The Government has ignored to a large extent the Pacific island states that are clamouring for some kind of leadership from Australia. The Government spends $58m on the total defence cooperation program with South East Asia and the Pacific island states, and it spends $100m on the front line states of Africa. There is something wrong with those priorities, and the problem is that the Foreign Minister is going down that track and the Defence Minister is going down another track. On Papua New Guinea there have been very serious differences between the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. On the question of arms sales the Minister for Defence has the hide to say that the Government is going to make an all out effort to sell arms. Who has been stopping the sale of Australian arms for the last five years? It is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. As far as the Pacific is concerned Australia has to give a real lead, and the Pacific Forum should be used for this purpose. It should be used to discuss regional defence matters, which Sir Julius Chan and Dr Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to Mr Carter, have called for. It is also of some interest that, according to today's newspaper, Dr Brzezinski at the Pacific Forum, which was conducted in Melbourne over the last couple of days, appeared to be slightly bemused `by the statements by the Defence Minister that there is very little threat from the Russians'. No-one is claiming that the Russians will come thundering across the hill tomorrow and overrun Australia, but why does the Government day after day have to apologise for Russian influence in this area? It is not in our interests to have the Russians day by day increasing their influence in the Pacific and South East Asia. It is reported that Dr Brzezinski: . . . appeared to be slightly bemused by the statements by the Defence Minister, Mr Beazley, that the Soviets are not a military threat to Australia, but pose a political challenge. Dr Brzezinski said: It all depends what Mr Beazley means. After all, outside a war it is almost always a political challenge that has to be dealt with. He has it absolutely right. Because we are not at war with a country does not mean we can ignore it and apologise for it. The largest Russian base outside the Warsaw Pact countries is in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. It is not there by accident. The Minister for Defence says that it is there to defend the approaches to their homeland. Cam Ranh Bay defending the approaches to Russia? Why does the Government keep on with this apologist attitude towards Russian influence? The fact is that as long as we ignore the Pacific Island states the Russian influence will continue to grow. We have to use our influence in this area, perhaps through the South Pacific Forum. We on this side of the House suggest that that is the ideal way in which to do it. The $58m for the defence cooperation program is simply not enough. Sir Julius Chan, Dr Brzezinski and others are calling for leadership from Australia and we will be remiss not only in our duty but also in regard to our interests if we do not meet that challenge. Getting back to defence issues; we should be using the skills and experience of our Defence Force personnel, who should go to these countries, if those countries so request, and give them some useful aid-certainly more than we are giving now. Engineers could be providing infrastructure in some of the Pacific Island states. We should be sending our Navy and Air Force officers to advise them on surveillance techniques and to assist them to manage their patrol boat programs. We have enormous skill and capacity in Australia but we have too many service men and women not being productively used. We should use that capacity; we should exert our influence by making use of those people, particularly in the Pacific Island states. It is in our interests to do so. Firstly, we have people of experience in these areas and, secondly, they would feel very much that they were doing a useful task for Australia. The Government is failing its service men and women. It is not using its ADF skills to capacity; it is not giving defence personnel enough overseas experience. Our foreign affairs and defence policies are diverging. We lack the capacity to deploy quickly and we are not involved enough in the Pacific. On all these issues the Government has failed, but it has not failed on any of these issues as much as it has failed to look after the 70,000 men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Debate (on motion by Mrs Kelly) adjourned. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House to the Senate's amendments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —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 damage done by failed Labor policies to the living standards of Australian families. 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)(4.05) —Not surprisingly, a large number of post-mortems have been conducted throughout Australia as a consequence of the defeat of the Labor Government in New South Wales; the sweeping re-election of the Liberal Party Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson; the extraordinary, indeed unprecedented, swing against the Australian Labor Party in the two Western Australian by-elections; and the very impressive showing of the Liberal Party of Australia, despite all the Cain bluster about gun control, in the electorate of Kew in the centre of Melbourne. One of the themes that emerge from that analysis, of course, is living standards. There are many reasons why the Labor Party was devastated at the weekend and there will be many reasons why the Labor Party will be devastated at the time of the next Federal election. However, in raising my matter of public importance I want to focus my remarks upon the issue of living standards because living standards lie very much at the heart of the political and economic debate. Not only have they done so over the last five years, but they will continue to do so for the next couple of years. There is undeniable evidence that over the last five years living standards in the Australian community have declined sharply. Average families have been squeezed in relative terms in a way that they have never been squeezed before. There are more people living below the poverty line than there were in March 1983. An average family needs a further $42 a week to restore its disposable income to what it was in March 1983. There has been an increased tax take over the last five years. Family allowances and dependent spouse rebates have fallen about 30 per cent in real terms. Average youth unemployment has increased sharply since March 1983. Interest rates, home loan repayments and housing waiting lists have also risen dramatically since March 1983. The Government, in answering all of that, cannot deny that it has happened. It cannot deny the obvious. It has happened, and every family in Australia knows very well that there has been a dramatic fall in living standards over the last five years. To them the great myth of economic performance and achievement that we hear so frequently from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a very sad, very sorry and very bad joke indeed. The answer of the Government is not to say, `Oh no, it hasn't happened-it is all a wicked Liberal lie, it is all a piece of coalition propaganda'; the Prime Minister and the Treasurer handle it in the classic way of confessing but trying to avoid blame. They say, `Yes, living standards have come down but, no, it is not our fault. It is the fault of the foreigners; it is the fault of the former Government. It is the fault of somebody else. Under no circumstances should the Australian public ever sheet home to us in the Australian Labor Party any blame at all for the fall in living standards over the last five years'. It is as plain as a pikestaff to all but those who will not listen or learn that the Australian people no longer accept that Labor alibi. It is as plain as a pikestaff from Saturday's results, amongst the many messages that those results convey, that that alibi is no longer acceptable. It no longer has any currency at all, whether in the middle class swinging areas of Australia or in the traditional Labor Party heartland areas throughout this country. I put aside for one moment the reaction of those people to the extraordinary behaviour of the Prime Minister, particularly over the last few weeks. As a further illustration of his deteriorating behaviour, in Question Time today he sought on two occasions not to give a straight answer to two very straight questions. When finally asked another question that he could not avoid, he gave an answer that to many people on this side of the House was plainly less than convincing. The performance of the Prime Minister over the last few weeks, culminating as it did at Question Time today, is one of the reasons why hundreds of thousands of people have lost confidence, and will continue to lose confidence, in this Government. I return to the question of the slump in living standards. It is undeniable that one of the reasons why living standards have fallen over the last five years is the adverse effect on the Australian economy of the downturn in commodity prices during that time. The Opposition has never at any stage over the last five years denied that fact. Never at any stage have we sought to argue that that is not an element. But what we do say, and what the Government will never accept and what increasingly the Australian people believe to be the case, is that the policies followed by this Government, particularly during the first 2 1/2 years of its five years in office, made a direct and major contribution to the decline in living standards that the Australian people are now experiencing. If the Government had not followed in its first two Budgets such an irresponsibly expansionist fiscal policy; if the Government had not in its first two Budgets run the two highest deficits in Australia's postwar history; if the Government in its first four Budgets had not sent taxation and spending to the highest levels since Federation; and if the Government had not, in 1983 and 1984, deliberately followed a policy that aggravated our then accumulating overseas debt problem, our living standards would never have fallen as far as they have, and the Australian community would not now face the bleak prospect of no appreciable improvement in those living standards in the immediately foreseeable future. Nothing that the Treasurer, this man who this morning on the steps of Parliament House sought to evade any responsibility at all for the defeat of the Unsworth Government in New South Wales; this man who was once the President of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party; this man, whose basic constituency saw the most vicious and vitriolic anti-Labor swings anywhere in New South Wales, would still dissemble to the Australian public and say, `Look, chaps, we have got it right. It is just that you do not really understand how brilliant we have been'. A lot of people understand how brilliant he was as a political strategist! He might now seek to dump it all on Barrie Unsworth but almost two years ago he was anointing Barrie Unsworth. One of the most famous photographs in Australian political history is one of the Treasurer leading Stephen Loosley, Barrie Unsworth and Laurie Brereton out from under the stage. What can we say? Loosley's lost, Barrie's buried, but Brereton will be back. I do not think there is any doubt that all of the post-mortems that will go on about the New South Wales election will show that nobody did more to contribute to the installation of Unsworth as Premier of New South Wales than good old P. J. Keating. He was there. Mr Keating —Wrong! Wrong again! Mr HOWARD —Oh, he says it is wrong. We are now going to have another little re-writing of the books, are we? I see, that is not P. J. Keating! It does not look like Rod Cavalier. Rod Cavalier would not mix with those right wing thugs, would he? He has got too much self-respect to mix with right wing thugs such as Stephen Loosley, Barrie Unsworth and Laurie Brereton. All I can say is that every Liberal in New South Wales relishes the prospect of Brereton being brought back. We cannot wait until Botany Brereton comes right back into prominence in the ranks of the Labor Party in New South Wales. Let not the Treasurer imagine that my remarks are related merely to the political misfortune of the Labor Party in New South Wales. My remarks today go very much to the heart and to the honesty of the debate about the Australian economy over the last five years. In every sense of the word this Government has lived a lie about the Australian economy over the last five years. It has lived a lie that it inherited a deficit that never existed. It has lived a lie that for its first two years it followed policies that were appropriate to the state of the Australian economy. In the first two years that it was in government it did more to drive this country into debt than any government at any time over a two-year period since Federation. When I ceased to be the Treasurer of this country, 26.5c in every export dollar that we earned was required to repay our overseas debt. This economic genius has taken that figure to a staggering level of 64c, and he has the nerve to stand up here day after day and say that people in Europe would be lighting candles in cathedrals in honour of his economic achievements. The Keating legacy has been to hang around our necks, the necks of our children and the necks of our grandchildren the most debt-ridden Australian nation that we have every experienced. In the course of that he has defiled his own alleged commitment to economic rationalism. He claims to be the great economic rationalist of the Labor Party. Where is he in the privatisation debate? Why is he not out there in front, taking on the neanderthal thinkers in the Labor Party on the question of privatisation? Why is he letting the Prime Minister take all the flak on privatisation? Is he too embarrassed at some of the things he said a short while ago? Is he too embarrassed about what he said in May 1985? He said: 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. He also said: The Labor Party will fight tooth and nail to keep these public authorities in the hands of the Commonwealth. We are about refurbishing them and keeping them strong. We are not about wrecking them and selling them. The great public services they provide will continue to be provided while ever this Government had the breath to defend them. They were the words of the Treasurer a couple of years ago. No wonder he is embarrassed into silence. He does not have the gall to stand up and repudiate the words that he used a couple of years ago. It may well be that the Labor Party will turn yet another circle and that in a few months time we will have the Treasurer and the Prime Minister back in this Parliament saying that privatisation represents a vandalisation of the public assets of the Australian people. I say to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to anybody else in the Labor Party that, if they really believe they can credibly do another back flip on an issue such as privatisation, they quite plainly have learnt absolutely nothing from the electoral lessons that have been driven home to them over recent weeks. Because out there in the suburbs, towns, cities and the provincial areas of Australian the people have woken up to the Government's alibis. Australians will accept sacrifices provided the sacrifices are shared equally. They resent making sacrifices when those in privileged positions abuse their privileges to give favours to their mates. The Prime Minister's conduct, in abusing the coercive office that he holds to help one of his mates, is deeply etched in the resentment of hundreds of thousands of Australians who have been called upon to make monumental sacrifices by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The credibility of the Government's alibis has run out. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the area of living standards. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.20) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has raised, as a matter of public importance, the question of living standards. However, the greater part of his contribution was devoted not to that subject. Even he, in an outpouring of cant and humbug, could not proceed for a quarter of an hour on that subject. He spent the greater part of his contribution ranging over the state of the New South Wales Labor Party-who retained office; who lost office; and who put whom into office. He tried to make many tawdry and tatty points about the Government and living standards. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Western world would anyone who destroyed the economy such as existed in Australia when he was Treasurer be given another chance in public life. No-one but the Leader of the Opposition has had the singular distinction of presiding over the only year of negative growth in the postwar years. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the destruction of living standards, yet in his last year as Treasurer a quarter of a million people were added to the unemployment queues in this nation. Unemployment trebled during the period of his term of office. Finally, the unemployment statistic reached 11 per cent of the work force, the same level as inflation. Mr Rocher —You blamed the metalworkers for 100,000 of those. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The honourable member for Curtin should be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition presided over the biggest wage explosion, because he had no policies. He then flattened the economy with an indifferent monetary policy, which finally saw unemployment rocket, under a 90-day bill rate of 22 per cent, the highest in our history. This is the story. He left behind a $10 billion Budget deficit inheritance, yet he has the temerity to say, continually, that that figure was a fiction of the present Government. I wish to refer to page 5 of a draft minute written by the Treasury for an incoming coalition government in 1983-84. The minute has been tabled on a prior occasion and I shall not bother with the theatrics of tabling it again. The document reads: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposal announced in the policy speech is added the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. Such a deficit would be equivalent to 5.5 per cent of projected GDP, the highest in Australian post-war history. I shall read a further relevant remark in that same minute, which was to be presented to the incoming coalition Treasurer in 1983, should a coalition government be elected: First, the magnitude of fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peacetime, as is the level of Australian spending. Secondly, the speed of the deterioration is remarkable. The minute proceeds with this type of language. It refers to a public sector borrowing requirement of just on 9 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). So much for that tatty, tawdry point. The credentials of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) were referred to, but the Leader of the Opposition ran through a major election campaign prepared to mislead the public about the state of fiscal policy. I refer honourable members to an article that appeared in the Melbourne Age on 14 March 1983. I have examined this material and it is worth recalling. The article was written by Russell Barton. The first paragraph reads: The former Treasurer, Mr Howard, admitted yesterday that he knew the deficit for next financial year would start at around $8,000m long before he mentioned the figure of $6,000m during the election campaign. The article quotes the Leader of the Opposition as saying: I was given some indication of a very general kind in the early part of this year that the deficit might be double what it was looking at in the previous year. At no stage during the election campaign did he acknowledge that Treasury had told him of the $8,000m deficit. No-one in Australian public life but the Leader of the Opposition has run through an election campaign knowing that he was looking at a massive fiscal imbalance and attempted to hide or disguise it. I have also an answer the Leader of the Opposition gave to a question asked of him at the National Press Club. He said: On the present indications the Budget deficit for 1982-83 will be of the order of $4,000m. I believe that next year's Budget deficit will be higher than that. Some estimates have put it as high as $6,000m. The Leader of the Opposition said that at a time when he knew it was going to be at least $8,000m. A week before the election he was told the deficit was $9.6 billion and he was quiet until polling day. However, at the same time and in the same speech he attacked the Australian Labor Party for what he said would be a $10 billion Budget deficit. As to public decency, credentials and honesty, no-one in this Parliament-but no-one-has a record like that of the Leader of the Opposition. Yet he has the hide to bring up all this muck about who the Prime Minister telephoned and what answers he gave. Last week the Leader of the Opposition fell flat on his face muckraking about some obscure document in some casino. Today he talks about who the Prime Minister telephoned. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition presided over the biggest fall in Australian living standards ever, with rocketing unemployment during the period of his tenure as Treasurer. He has now abandoned all notion of economic sense and has taken this populist view that in some way the world could dramatically cut Australia's national income but that Australia should enjoy rising real living standards. I doubt whether anyone else in the Parliament would believe that if the world were to cut Australia's national income by $10 billion, Australia could experience rising real living standards. That is the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. That is what he has said today. He thinks that he will get back to office by parroting this stuff. The Leader of the Opposition is taking some heart from the results of the recent New South Wales election and believes that he will be re-elected. The only difference between the political climate last Saturday and the climate last July was that last Saturday the political climate was better than last July for the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party won the election last July because it has a program to restructure this nation that is believed. It is as simple as that. Last Saturday we witnessed the judgment of the electorate about, essentially, State issues, which it was able to distinguish quite well. At the same time we witnessed massive swings to the Australian Labor Party in north Queensland, in municipal votes at Rockhampton and Townsville. The swings were of the order of 60 per cent and 64 per cent. In Victoria a by-election was fought on State issues. The Opposition can take no solace or comfort from those results. The Opposition is without a policy. The Leader of the Opposition's contribution contained 15 minutes of waffle-seven minutes on living standards, so-called-without any policy framework. One must come to the conclusion that this little bloke does not have it. In the community no-one in business is fooled by this rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition. No-one cops him. No-one believes he has any basis. Today I read the Confederation of Australian Industry Westpac survey about increases in manufacturing investment and manufacturing output, and increases in exports and import replacements. I read also about the continuing turnaround in the current account. I made the point earlier that this information is a further nail in the Opposition's coffin. As the current account turns we will see the debt to GDP ratio stabilise. The paltry point was made by the Leader of the Opposition that debt build-up has been greater under this Labor Government, when the causes of the debt build-up were in the main his responsibility and the responsibility of previous coalition governments for failing to restructure this nation and relying only on its export base. That was sinking to depths of dishonesty to which I thought even the Leader of the Opposition could not continue to sink. The Leader of the Opposition left Australia in a state of chaos with the highest Budget imbalance ever, with wages out of control, and the inflation rate in double digits. Australia was massively uncompetitive with an overvalued exchange rate and a current account deficit of 6 per cent of GDP. He was aware that there would occur an enormous build-up of debt because Australia was grossly uncompetitive. It fell to the Australian Labor Party to get things back together. When we get it all back together the Leader of the Opposition says that the debt build-up under this Labor Government has been great. He does not mention, however, that it all started when he was Treasurer and when previous coalition governments were in office. That is where this all started. Does he think that people outside this place do not understand that? Does he think that people in business and manufacturing, who, for the first time, have seen the light of day, do not understand? Of course they do. In changing Australia this Labor Government did not ram it into a recession with increasing unemployment, so that the unemployed took the brunt of the losses. We did it sympathetically to that working class constituency out there. We said, `We are unable to provide massive increases in real wages, but we will ensure higher employment growth'. The indecency of the Leader of the Opposition's position is that he is out there saying of us that we have cut living standards, but he has opposed every single wage increase since 1983. The result is that someone on $400 a week in 1983 is $90 a week better off, but he would not be $90 a week better off had Mr Howard been the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. Put another way: someone who is now on $500 a week would have been on $400 a week or $410 a week had his view prevailed. He has the hide to stand up and talk about living standards while opposing every national wage increase. It does not matter where one looks. We have the million jobs growth which is twice the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and four times the average of the previous Government; we have unemployment at its lowest level in 5 1/2 years, including the teenage unemployment rate; we have the family assistance package which helps low income people; we have Medicare and we have increases in the standard rate of pension while everything else has been cut. The standard rate of pension was worth 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1983 when we took over from those opposite. It is now 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Under us it went up a real 8.4 per cent; under those opposite it went down by minus 2.5 per cent. And they have the hide to talk about living standards! Let us take a sole parent pensioner with two children, renting privately. Under the previous Government, in the years 1975 to 1983, it was minus 4 per cent; under us, it was plus 14 per cent. Take a married pensioner couple with two children, renting privately. Under those opposite it was minus 2 per cent over the seven years they were in office; under us it was plus 12 per cent over five years. The rate for the long time unemployed single adult, renting privately, was minus 19 per cent under the previous Government; under us it is plus 33 per cent. It was minus 19 per cent under the seven years of the previous Government, but it is plus 33 per cent under this Government. And those opposite have the gall to get up and talk about living standards! They could not care about ordinary people. They absolutely massacred them as unemployment ripped its way through the economy. Yet the Leader of the Opposition stands up here and talks about living standards as if he means it. We have heard all this stuff about the Liberal Party in New South Wales under Mr Greiner. A journalist in New South Wales, Mr Edwards, remarked in the Sydney Morning Herald: The first big Liberal victory since 1983 will have been won by a politician who is dripping wet. That is, with $1,400m of expenditure commitments. He does not share the views of those opposite and they do not have any structure for their views. The fact is that those opposite do not know what they are doing. They have not got a clue. They think that because we have been rolled in New South Wales they are just going to roll over us at the next poll with no views, no structure, no policy, no compassion and no decency. I tell them this: they have another think coming. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying last year, `We will fight you on tax. We will see who will win the next election'. But we fought him on tax and we belted him into the ground like a tent stake. The fact is that he was not believed. Why would he be believed, offering $8,000m of unfunded tax cuts? Mr Chynoweth —Bribes. Mr KEATING —Eight thousand million in bribes. He was doing the same thing as Greiner, but Greiner denies him. He says that he does not have a John Howard problem. The fact is that he had a bigger problem than John Howard. The fact of the matter is that Greiner has denied the Leader of the Opposition's philosophy. I am not going to bother going over the Leader of the Opposition's record in the past except to say simply this about our record: we introduced Medicare. Pensions are up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings while everything else has been cut. The family assistance package is the equivalent of a $90 a week wage increase for someone on $300 and with two kids. There have been a million new jobs-16 per cent employment growth; the lowest unemployment rate in 5 1/2 years-lower interest rates and a Budget surplus. Those opposite say, `Oh no, you do not know what you are doing. You have forgotten about ordinary people'. No-one is being fooled by those opposite, least of all organised labour which would not have a bar of them. The ordinary working person who understands them has never cared for them. They have spent all their years trying to look after the eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney. It is the same in Melbourne. They have always looked after the toffs. That is why they left the tax system open to massive criminal evasion for years-because they knew their crowd were all climbing through it. So they should not get up here and talk about living standards. They have no chance of winning an election on that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(4.35) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was probably responsible in the last few minutes for thousands of radios across Australia being switched off or stations being changed because people have heard that song before. The Treasurer has a total preoccupation with the year 1982-83, but the people of Australia are interested in 1988. They are interested in not just our bicentennial but also their living standards, and that is what this is all about. The Treasurer has the audacity to stand here and say that no-one could cop the Liberal Party of Australia. If he examines the polls that have been taken across Australia today, he will find that our standing in the community is higher than that of the Australian Labor Party. If nobody could cop us and our standing is defined as being higher than that of the Australian Labor Party, I wonder how the people of Australia feel about the Australian Labor Party! The Treasurer harps about the level of unemployment in Australia. The average level during the Fraser years was 400,000 Australians out of work. It is not a proud record by any stretch of the imagination, but that represented some 6 per cent of the Australian work force. What is the Hawke Government's boast about unemployment? We have rammed down our throats time after time the fact that new jobs have been created in Australia, but the Government never mentions the 600,000 to 700,000 people still out of work. The Government's average unemployment level is 50 per cent above that which existed in the Fraser years-50 per cent higher, with more than 600,000 people out of work, on average, throughout that period. I do not mind the Government saying, `We have created new jobs', but the Government completely, consistently dismisses those 600,000 Australians out of work as if they did not exist; those 600,000 people have gone out of the vocabulary of the Hawke Government. It is no wonder that the people out there are saying that the Government is out of touch, that it does not understand the realities and that it does not understand the way in which the average Australian is struggling just to hang in there. That is what is going on in the electorate of the Minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), and every other electorate across Australia-the great majority of people are struggling just to hang in there. When we went out of office in 1983 the average period out of work was 35 weeks. In 1988-a great effort-the Government has got it down to 45 weeks. During the Hawke Government's period of administration it has gone even higher, to 52 weeks a year! The Treasurer has the audacity to come in here and spit out that we, on this side of the House, do not understand the plight of Australians and that we are concerned only about the toffs on the north shore of Sydney. Let me tell the Treasurer that I represent a Brisbane electorate. There is no north shore of Sydney in Brisbane. I believe that I am representative of the members on this side of the House. Members on this side of the House, including yours truly, care and are concerned about the lifestyle of Mr and Mrs Australia. Let me turn to taxation. The Government has introduced the assets test, the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. It has spent five years talking about tax cheats. The Treasurer even did so today. He has a total preoccupation with tax cheats. My view is that the people of Australian regard the Hawke Government as the biggest tax cheat that this nation has ever seen. It has been into people's pockets to such an extent that that is one of the major reasons that the living standards of ordinary Australians have slipped. It has frozen the thresholds, it has pushed low income earners into the high income tax bracket, it has grabbed their money, it has set about engineering the living standards of all Australians and it has tried to change an entire community in terms of its philosophical, ideological bents. And what has been the result? There is more poverty in this country than at any time in the last half century. I ask honourable members opposite to reflect on the facts: in 1987, just four and a bit years after their Party came to power, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had to promise the people of Australia, as an election plank, that if he were re-elected he would work to remove poverty in Australia. Honourable members opposite should think about that, because in 1983 when they came to power it was not an issue to the extent that it has become one during their administration. The Australian Labor Party has been the creator of poverty in Australia. One could believe that we were living in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, instead of in 1987, when that policy speech was made. That has occurred as a result of the Labor Government's administration. The average family comprising one breadwinner and two children-a husband, a wife and two kids-has had $42 ripped out of its pockets every week as a result of the policies of this wonderfully competent Hawke Government, which parades itself, via its Treasurer, as a government that has done so much and has been so good for Australia. That is what the average Australian is now facing. The Government has had no compunction about shifting people into higher income tax brackets so that it could finance so many of the grandiose schemes that strike it from time to time. The proportion of households living in poverty has risen from 11 1/2 per cent in 1982 to nearly 13 per cent now. Is that an achievement? Yet the Treasurer tells us how marvellous the Government has been. Over 2.6 million Australians, of whom 20 per cent are children, now live below the poverty line. The Government's legacy for this country is that today half a million kids are growing up in an era in which life is one hell of a struggle. Government members boast about the retention rates in secondary schools-the number of children completing years 11 and 12. The only reason that they are working harder to keep them at school is that there are no jobs for them. Many of those young people who are staying at school would love nothing more than to be in the work force. They know that it is a dead end for them. For many of them, remaining at school is an exercise in prolonging the arrival of that dead end. They will be more highly educated, but there will still be no jobs for them. That is what is contributing to poverty in this country. Twenty-eight per cent of people living below the poverty line have mortgages. The number of homeless people in this country has risen dramatically in the last handful of years. During the long period of Liberal-National Party government, Australia reached a pinnacle in terms of home ownership and one of this nation's quiet and proud boasts was that we had the highest level of home ownership of any country in the world. Today, that is not the case. Today, repayments on home loans are so high that many Australians have been forced away from their homes. Today, we have seen a 50 per cent increase in the number of people in queues waiting for government accommodation. The reason is that the Labor Party set about rearranging the Australian community. It has destroyed incentive. It has set out to rip people who are climbing that ladder back into the middle of the field. It has torn out the rungs and said, `We will make everybody equal'. In doing so it has-accidentally, I would like to believe-destroyed so much that was part and parcel of our country. I cannot wait until the next election. The Treasurer says that Australians will not cop us. I say to him we cannot wait, because I believe that we will win the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(4.45) —It is hypocritical for the Opposition to put up a matter of public importance that relates to the dropping of living standards. Today we have heard weak, pathetic speeches from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). They were weak, pathetic speeches with absolutely no content at all. They raved on about how living standards have dropped. The Leader of the Opposition put the argument clearly in his opening statement by saying that members of the Opposition accepted that there has been a massive downturn in commodity prices around the world; they did not dispute that fact. In other words, he said that they recognised that there had been a drop in living standards in Australia which was absolutely unavoidable because it was something over which this Government had-and they, had they been in government, would have had-no control. He started, on the basis of trying to accuse us of something, by saying, `Well, there was absolutely nothing that could be done about it. There has been a drop in living standards. We accept that'. The Leader of the Opposition then went on to say how the voting trend in the New South Wales election and other elections represents a movement away from the Australian Labor Party because we have dropped people's living standard. He did not say what the Opposition would have done to ensure that living standards did not drop. He did not say anything about it because he knows that not only would living standards have dropped, but they would have dropped significantly for those people who are least able to defend themselves. If members of the Opposition say that that is not the case, they have no substance at all. I will come back to that in a minute. What hypocrisy it is for the honourable member for Moreton to talk about poverty. This is the bloke who copped $400,000 in superannuation and was re-elected to Parliament. And he talks about poverty in the community. He dismissed the fact that we want kids to stay at school to get an education-- Mr Tuckey —Tell us about Mick Young. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr SAUNDERSON —so that they have an opportunity to get decent jobs and obtain decent living standards-- Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For you to call me to order when that sort of caper is going on and Mick Young's superannuation is not mentioned is a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is out of order and will resume his seat. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member for O'Connor wants to stop me because he does not like what I am saying. The honourable member for Moreton says that the only reason we want to keep kids at school is that there are no jobs. He dismisses, as do all Opposition members, the fact that if our kids are to have a real chance to make something of their future, they need an education-something which the Opposition destroyed for them in its seven years in government. When we came to office only a third of our kids were staying on to receive a full secondary education. What a disgrace. In seven years in government the Opposition destroyed the education system and the opportunities for kids who had left school. It did not give them one chance in life. The honourable member for Moreton talked about unemployment and low living standards. What is the cause of low living standards for many families in the community? The cause is unemployment. Who caused the unemployment rate that we have today? It was caused by the Opposition in its seven years in government, when it destroyed the economy. In one year 250,000 people were put out of work. Year after year we are bearing the brunt of that. We stopped that decline. We have created a million jobs since we have been in office. We have had real growth, not the real decline that the Opposition had. What an apology it is for Opposition members to pretend to care about people on low incomes. We should look at what the Opposition was going to do last July. Today the Leader of the Opposition said that he and his Party are concerned about people on low incomes. What was he going to do about single parents with children-cut off their benefits when those children reach the age of 10? Another 170,000 people would have no income. Do not tell me that the coalition cares about people, or cares about children in poverty. It does not have a clue. During seven years in government all it did was help tax cheats and its wealthy mates. Opposition members take a certain amount of pleasure now as they realise that some major business people in Australia recognise that this Government has a number of virtues. Firstly, it cares about people on low incomes; secondly, it has the ideas to get industry growing instead of being destroyed. This Government has the ideas that will once more make Australia great and not destroy it financially. Because the Liberal-National Party coalition experienced some electoral success in New South Wales on Saturday, Opposition members think they can make cheap points and attempt to con the community into believing that the Opposition has real economic solutions to this country's problems. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in this House and said that privatisation was the issue. If he truly believes that the privatisation of a couple of public enterprises, or all of them, will cause a turnaround in Australia and bring back the days of milk and honey, he should reassess his position. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about minor changes in micro-economics and not about the overall economy. He spoke about the ideologues in the Labor Party, but his theories on privatisation and other matters are no more than the ideological ideas of the morons of the Right. Since the Labor Government came to office, 20,000 child care places have been created, more than doubling those already in existence. In the area of funds for public housing, this Government doubled the achievements of the former coalition Government. Last July the Opposition shadow spokesperson was talking about giving away everything. He was promoting the idea of no money for public housing, net even a cent. Of course we see people protesting about the lack of funds for public housing, as they were here today-and they have a case. There is a problem with public housing; there is not enough money. But Opposition members should not claim that they are concerned and that they will do something about it. They should not be hypocritical about it. They know that last July the Opposition solution to public housing was to allocate no funds, not even a cent-not one penny. Opposition members should not come into this House and pretend to be concerned about the poor. During seven years in office, the Opposition's achievements in areas such as unemployment benefits were a disgrace. Recipients of social security benefits and the long term unemployed single adults were 19 per cent worse off in real terms during the seven years of the former coalition Government. Since the Labor Government came to office, those people have been as much as 33 per cent better off. Mr Tuckey —We do not believe you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor for interjecting. Mr SAUNDERSON —When the Labor Party came to office, two million people in Australia had no health insurance cover. The coalition had changed the system again and again until the end result was that many people could not afford health insurance cover. They could not even afford to obtain the card that says, `I am poor. Give me some free treatment'. They could not afford to get sick; they could not afford to pay for any health insurance cover at all. Since the Labor Government introduced Medicare, every single person is covered for basic health care. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) laughs; his only concern is how much the doctors earn. He does not care whether people can afford health insurance cover. Last July during the Federal election campaign the Opposition promised to cut expenditure by a further $8 billion but refused to tell the electorate the areas where those cuts would be made. The voters did not vote for the Opposition because they knew that, though things were bad for them, though they were probably not enjoying the greatest life on earth, the Opposition had not one ounce of compassion for people in poverty. The Opposition does not even know that such people exist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.55) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Upgrade of Army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. The proposed work now before the House was referred to the Public Works Committee on 9 December 1987. It is for the upgrading of 118 accommodation buildings in various locations throughout Australia to provide living-in accommodation as close as possible to the current defence standards as the existing buildings will permit. The scope of the work varies from building to building. Typically the upgrading of the barrack building will involve the conversion of existing four-person bedroom units to two single-person bedroom units; provision of common rooms; provision of change room facilities for personnel living out; upgrading of ablution facilities and internal engineering services; general repairs and refurbishment to the building fabric; and fire protection measures. When I brought this proposal to the House for referral to the Public Works Committee, I advised that the project involved 124 buildings to provide 4,742 new bedrooms. The Committee's report is based on a revised Army requirement to upgrade 118 buildings to provide 4,568 bedrooms. The slight reductions reflect a reduced requirement for permament accommodation at Puckapunyal, partially offset by additional accommodation at Townsville. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $57.6m at November 1987 prices. When the House referred this proposal to the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) requested that I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to clarify where $50m will be spent this year on single living-in accommodation. The honourable member has misunderstood what the Minister said on 15 September in his Press release dealing with the 1987-88 defence budget. The reference to the $50m was for the project now before the House. But the amount concerns obligations and not cash allocations. There is unlikely to be any expenditure in 1987-88 on this project as, prior to inviting tenders, detailed documentation of the required work needs to be completed. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended that the initial tenders will be invited towards the end of this financial year, and the upgrading of the first buildings will be completed some five months later. Given the large number of buildings, it is necessary to stage the work, with the final building being upgraded in 1992-93. Design documentation and construction supervision will be carried out by my Department's construction group, with physical construction being contracted to private enterprise. I thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt report and for the support it has given to the proposal, and commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.59) —The motion before the House proposes the upgrading of a number of areas of living-in accommodation provided to Army personnel. It is clear that action needs to be taken to make the conditions for service personnel more attractive. Under this Government the attrition rate of Army personnel has been extraordinarily high. We on this side of the House are concerned about the reduction in the strength of the defence forces. The upgrading of Army living-in accommodation at various locations throughout Australia will assist in making service in the defence forces a little more attractive. As I understand it, a number of four-bedroom units will be refurbished as two-bedroom units. They will be upgraded and there will be common rooms and improved ablution facilities. Given that the final number of single bedrooms is to be 4,568, I presume that we are losing the same number of beds, as four-bedroom units are becoming two-bedroom units. So we are losing a substantial number of beds. We agree that there is a need for an upgrading of the facilities. We wholeheartedly support the objective of the Government. However, given the substantial reduction in the number of beds, I wonder whether the Government has considered the longer term needs of the defence forces in regard to the supply of sufficient and appropriate accommodation. I would be interested if the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), who is at the table, or the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), could provide me with an answer. I have heard around the traps that the Australian Army is to request some 220 new single soldier's accommodation at Enoggera, Queensland, which request will go to the Government for the financial year 1988-89. So, as I have said, we are seeing a substantial reduction in the total number of beds, with a decrease of around 4,500. The Government has a duty to the House to explain its goal in regard to the provision of appropriate accommodation for the defence forces. This proposal certainly will meet the needs of some existing personnel and provide improved accommodation, which is needed. But, I repeat: as part of the planning of government we ought to be looking further ahead than today. We need to know what are the longer term needs of the defence forces and to provide for them. I have no doubt that many of the problems the defence forces currently face under this Government are a result of the Government's lack of planning. The forces are losing servicemen. Service morale is obviously affected by the accommodation and services that are provided. So, whilst the Opposition supports this motion to improve the accommodation of our service personnel, we ask the Government to provide to the Parliament and to the people information on the longer term planning the Government should be undertaking for our very deserving Defence Force personnel. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.03) —I join the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) in congratulating the Joint Committee on Public Works on dealing with this matter expeditiously. More than $20m of the works just announced by the Minister will be spent in Townsville. The $20m program is designed to upgrade single men's accommodation at Lavarack Barracks, which is the home for the 3rd Brigade of the Australian Army. The statements made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) deserve some comment. I find his concern about the conditions of service personnel somewhat hollow. The principal reason the Defence Housing Authority was established, and the principal reason why the Government is spending millions of dollars upgrading single person's accommodation at defence establishments, is the neglect, over many years, of Liberal and National Party governments in ensuring that housing for service personnel was maintained at an adequate standard. The motion before the House is welcomed by the soldiers at Lavarack Barracks. The conditions under which they live are highly undesirable. There is no privacy. Having four to a room is clearly undesirable. Ablution blocks leak. Tiles peel. The place needs painting and cleaning. Since the mid-1960s, when the single men's accommodation was established at Lavarack Barracks, no major work has been carried out to ensure that the buildings are maintained in tiptop condition. Accordingly, the work announced by the Minister will be welcomed by the soldiers at Lavarack Barracks. I hope that tenders for this work will be called as soon as possible, and certainly no later than June of this year. The soldiers at Lavarack Barracks have waited long enough for accommodation which is of even a basic standard. I would also like to congratulate the Minister on the work being done at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Garbutt, Townsville, on the single airmen's accommodation. A lot of work has been carried out there: upgrading, sound proofing and generally ensuring that the single airmen's accommodation there is of a standard which service personnel are entitled to in the late 1980s. The commitment by this Government of $750m over 10 years will ensure that accommodation for single service personnel and housing for defence personnel generally will be of a standard which the defence forces deserve and of which this nation can be proud. In addition to the works announced by the Minister this afternoon, this Government will be spending nearly $40m on the provision of additional married accommodation at Townsville to ensure that there is adequate accommodation for personnel from 5 Aviation Regiment. There is also to be expansion of other units of 3 Brigade. Generally, the excellent work being done by Colonel Peter Desmond, the former commander of the District Support Group at Lavarack Barracks, and his successor, Colonel Peter McDougall, will ensure housing for both married and single personnel is of a high standard. I recently travelled to a number of defence establishments in Australia. I am familiar with many defence establishments on the eastern seaboard. The standard of defence accommodation in Townsville is high. The completion and upgrading of the single men's accommodation at Lavarack Barracks will ensure that the soldiers of the Operational Deployment Force of the Australian Army-that is, the Army's cutting edge-will have accommodation which they can be satisfied with and which they can really call home. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.09) —I join my colleagues in commenting on a very important report. It is an important report for a number of reasons, first and foremost because of the expeditious way which the Joint Committee on Public Works, led by its Chairman, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), has dealt with this very important matter of public expenditure. When I first became the member for Hughes I visited some of the defence quarters in my electorate, including Holsworthy, and adjacent electorates with the then Minister for Defence. I could not believe that in that year of 1984 soldiers could still be living in what were literally World War II temporary accommodation dwellings which were little more than slum huts. But indeed that was the condition under which many people were forced to live, crammed into inadequate accommodation with no privacy and with ablution and washing facilities more associated with prison than the armed forces. This report and the consequent Government action represent an important advance. Much more needs to be done but I join with other members in complimenting the Public Works Committee and its Chairman for this important report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(5.11) —It is most appropriate that I respond after the presentation by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) of that report on defence accommodation. I too would like to place on record my thanks to the Public Works Committee and to its Chairman, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), for dealing with this issue of singles accommodation so quickly. A commitment of almost $57m on singles accommodation will help improve singles accommodation by the provision of 4,568 bedrooms for our single people in the Services. This year I think we need to give a lot more attention to the singles. Obviously we must do that to make up for the years of neglect of these areas of personnel by members of the Opposition when they were in government. I should like to explain once again for members of the Opposition the break-up of the Defence portfolio between the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and me. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) seems basically unable to understand that in the break-up of responsibility it is I who have the paramount responsibility for personnel issues and it is therefore I who will be addressing them in my comments today. The Government's position is a combination of the position of the Minister for Defence and mine. The honourable member for McPherson is totally inconsistent on the personnel issue. From his 30-minute address today we have learned that his solution is only one: to pay more money. He revealed today that his solution to any problem in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) we might have is to meet the market; that is, whatever a Defence Force person could earn in the private sector, it is up to the Government, to quote the honourable member, `to meet the market'. I will deal later with the analysis of the people we are losing from the Defence Force. They are those people who are very attractive to the private sector-the pilots, the engineers, the computer experts and those involved in project management. The honourable member does not tell us how much his solution of meeting the market would cost. He does not tell us where the money would come from. I wonder whether he has consulted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about his new proposal. The Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, says that public sector spending must be cut back even further than this Government is doing it. If he would `meet the market', as he says, what equipment program would the Opposition drop? I challenge the honourable member and the Opposition to tell us about that. Does he believe we should drop the over-the- horizon radar, the Geraldton project, the electronic support system for the P3C Orion or the 16 Sea Hawks? Does he believe we should drop the increased capability of the submarines or the new submarine project? Does he believe we should drop the mapping and charting program or the Anzac patrol frigate, the mine hunters, Nulka, the move to the north, the two-ocean navy strategy, the FA18 purchasing program, the upgrading of the F111 avionics or the 67 PC9 pilot training aircraft, the northern airfield structure at Tindal or the 39 Black Hawk helicopters? Where does he say the money is coming from to pay what the market demands for these personnel? Does he want it to come out of our housing program for marrieds and singles? Besides wanting to pay all this money to meet the market, he does not want any money from asset sales: we should not get our hands dirty with any asset sales. He found a new role for the Defence Force. He suggested defence personnel be taken away from proper military training and used for northern surveillance. What equipment does he want to use? Does he want to use the F111s or FA18s for northern surveillance? The reality is that if we use the equipment we have now it would have to be taken away from proper military training. If, on the other hand, we took on that role and we bought new equipment, where would the money come from? What would we not purchase? Would we then decide to scrap our FA18 program? The policy does not make sense. It is easy to see why the honourable member for McPherson stays in the shadow Ministry rather than the shadow Cabinet. Maybe if he got into the shadow Cabinet he would get some idea of the overall economic direction that the Opposition is supposed to be taking. His proposal just does not add up. As we listened to his rhetoric I thought of the Opposition's history of handling of defence. The gap between its rhetoric, what it has promised and what it has delivered is enormous. Its emphasis in this debate has swung back and forward between equipment and personnel. The Opposition's defence policy in government is chaotic and is in incredible contrast to the sensible, stable, well balanced policy that we have presented in the defence White Paper. It harks back to the October 1976 White Paper when Defence Minister Killen said that the then Government would restrict expenditure on manpower and operation and concentrate on capital equipment. But at no stage were his financial commitments ever honoured. In the first Budget following that defence White Paper cuts were announced and after five years-the period the Killen White Paper was supposed to cover-the equipment program was behind what it was at the time of the announcement. Then suddenly the then Government saw the light. There was another change of direction because in 1980 there was the Afghanistan conflict. Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser said that World War III was going to occur so defence spending had to go up-seven per cent. But by this time Defence personnel were almost mutinous, and it takes a lot to get people in the Australian Defence Force to that stage. So Prime Minister Fraser was forced to bring down an increase in salaries for defence personnel. But the problem was that the salary increase had to be absorbed in the defence budget. On 29 April 1982 the then Defence Minister, Jim Killen, came into this House with the greatest backdown in political history. He stated that his Government could not meet the capital procurement programs: it just did not have the money. The Government had to pay the defence forces more because it had frozen their salaries for so long but many capital equipment programs had to be cut down. There were no additional Fremantle class patrol boats, the Canberra aircraft was paid off and defence personnel were told to use commercial charters. That is the sort of chaos that this Government was confronted with. There was a big stress on capital procurement and then the Government realised it had to deal with the personnel and found that there was no money left for further capital procurement. When the Opposition was in government it never thought about the financial priorities. As a result, its policies were totally inconsistent. It could not deliver on any front. None of its White Paper promises at all could be met. In contrast, the defence White Paper brought down a year ago by the Minister for Defence is on track. It is a balance between personnel and equipment and it is based on strategic defence requirements plus realistic economic conditions. The first issue I would like to deal with in some detail is that of the numbers of people leaving, and I want to put that in perspective. It is a fact that a total of 8,919 people, or 12.8 per cent, left the Defence Force last year-not 10,000, as the honourable member for McPherson said. It is also a fact that at present separations are given as a single percentage figure, which is not specific enough to pinpoint where our problems lie in retaining experienced personnel in the Defence Force. In fact, it works to mask the areas where we are experiencing problems. It is important for honourable members to be aware that the overall separation statistics include personnel who temporarily separate from the ADF, such as those who go on maternity leave and personnel leaving for more than three weeks without pay. The statistics also include cadet trainee category. Some cadets and trainees find during their training that service life is not for them and they go. They leave the Defence Force at about twice the average rate, yet they are included in the statistics. The enhanced role of the reserves has also caused an apparent increase in the separation rates. After a period on full time duty reservists returning to their units count in our separation figures. The two main categories of separations are those who are eligible for pensions and those who leave before they are pension eligible. It is this category, the 5.9 per cent of service men and women who left the service in 1986-87 before their 20 years were up, which is the critical component in our separation profile. This compares with a 10-year average of 5.1 per cent. So there is an increase but it is about 0.8 per cent in that key category. This means that in 1986-87, 491 ADF personnel over and above the 10-year average left the service before their 20 years were up. That is the extent of the problem. The honourable member for McPherson referred to five ships captains and to two battalion commanders. In fact, there were five ships captains and two unit commanders, and they all left after their 20 years were up. If the honourable member wants to change that policy and encourage them to stay longer he should perhaps suggest that we change the pension system. There is no doubt that there are problem areas. These include Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) pilots and people in the computer field, but the people in these areas have always been very attractive to the private sector. It is not just a problem now; it is a problem that has existed for a very long time. A report in 1982 highlighted the fact that people in these sorts of categories that were attractive to the private sector were leaving. It was a problem in 1982; it will probably always be a problem in the Defence Force unless we can offer them salaries equal to those in the private sector, and I believe we cannot. We obviously have to keep their salaries in line with trends in the community and we are doing that. We are doing that through the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, and recently we have seen a 4 per cent second tier wage increase that flowed on immediately to the ADF. The Government has supported that. We have had increases in the service allowance of 22 per cent, in the field allowance, in the submarine, seagoing and hard lying allowances, and we also have an increase under way in the flying allowance. These are areas in which we are making some input. I do not have sufficient time to go into all the details of improvements in Defence Force personnel issues but I will list just some of them because we should take them on later in the debate. The Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff, a recommendation of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses, is providing support to families. Education is also an issue where action was needed and I delivered immediately in that area. We now have a special tuition allowance for children from the last two years of primary school right through to high school. Added to that we have a new system for trying to get some uniformity in our otherwise diverse State education systems and I am piloting a scheme throughout Australia. This is not talk; this is action. These are key areas for Defence Force personnel. We are also spending $750m on housing, and that is an area where we will see considerable improvements, not just in the provision of capital but also in repairs and maintenance. This Government gives high importance and emphasis to defence personnel. This is a balanced White Paper. We believe that our most valuable assets and our most vital resources are Defence Force personnel and their families. That is why there is now a Minister specifically directed to look after Defence Force personnel issues. I am very committed to that. I see myself very much as a spokesman for Defence Force members and their families. We have made significant improvements in this area and we will continue to do so in a sensible way, fitting in with our defence White Paper, with procurement policy and with the economic directions of the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(5.26) —Anyone in the precincts of Parliament House at lunchtime today would have been aware of the considerable and noisy Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) activity outside. One wondered whether these activities were some novel form of intimidatory tactics adopted by the Government in a last desperate bid to silence the Opposition's response to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Perhaps it was the precursor to a coup attempt by frustrated Australian Labor Party factional back bench members anxious to maintain their seats at the next election, or Barrie Unsworth beating a fast retreat from the debacle that was last Saturday's New South Wales election. Perhaps it was the last of our remaining Hornet pilots rushing to the Qantas or Cathay Pacific recruiting offices. In fact, it was none of these options. I am reliably informed that the display was an initiative of the Minister for Defence to draw attention to his statement on the implementation of the defence White Paper. It is no wonder that service personnel continue to display their confidence in the Minister by leaving in droves. Having listened to the Minister's statement this afternoon one wonders why he should be so enthusiastic about highlighting what could generously be described as 27 double-spaced pages of misleading waffle and meaningless rhetoric, exceeded only by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) a moment ago. If this is the best the Government can offer we are in diabolical strife. In fact, as far as our defence position is concerned, `diabolical strife' is a mild term. After all, our defence policy is, or should be, all about defending Australia. The basic question the Minister should be addressing is: `Can our armed forces adequately defend us?'. This question was posed by the well respected and authoritative defence writer Peter Young in an article which appeared late last year in the Australian. The answer, he contended, must be a definite no, at least not for the foreseeable future. In this article, Peter Young referred to some of the major factors influencing the present critical situation facing our defence forces and their effect on our defence capability. In the context of the Minister's statement today, some of Young's comments are most relevant and provide an excellent summary of existing problems for which, apparently, this Government is unwilling or unable to find adequate and appropriate solutions. He continued: As a result the emphasis has shifted to the development of an operational deployment force capable of meeting this lower end of the threat, and which in turn would be backed up by the deployment of heavier forces and increased logistic support as the situation developed. This is all very well in theory-especially when based on what Defence minister Beazley always qualified as `credible' threats. Others, however, see them as carefully contrived scenarios designed to fit our limited capabilities in much the same manner that the Dibb report was written around the existing hardware. Peter Young continued: But the hard facts are that we don't even have a full division, since each of its three brigades can field only two battalions. This first-line force of only six under-strength rifle battalions and scaled-down supporting arms and services is demonstrably incapable of defending vital installations, let alone meeting any major threat. These are the words-and warnings-of one of Australia's most highly regarded defence commentators and analysts. Mrs Kelly —By you. Mr HALVERSON —I notice that the Minister refers to him when and as often as it suits her. His conclusion bears repeating: This first-line force is demonstrably incapable of defending vital installations, let alone meeting any major threat. The Opposition has continually highlighted and warned both the Government and the community generally about the obvious and ongoing deficiencies which have led to this appalling and alarming decline in Australia's defence capability-most of them attributable to past and present financial constraints and the continuing policy of this Government to pretend that the very real threats facing Australia, and the enormous problems now facing our defence planners and forces do not just exist, or, if they do, will apparently solve themselves. The worst, the most critical, problem is the enormous loss of trained personnel from all sections of the defence forces. Thirty-six per cent of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel left the Services in the three-year period to June 1987, and the projected loss rate in all areas of defence administration for this year is in the vicinity of 16,000. This is a deplorable and potentially disastrous state of affairs. Again I refer to the words of Peter Young: The defence forces themselves are doing the best with what is given them, but it is obviously not enough. They are now being asked to make bricks without straw. As a result, while a two-battalion response force might be able to deal with a single minor incursion, our defence forces are neither structured nor supported to defend the nation in the face of anything bigger than a strictly limited low-level threat. The effects of the current wastage crisis were examined during Senate Estimates committee deliberations on 22 October last year. In responding to a question from Senator David MacGibbon regarding the impact of the present high Royal Australian Air Force pilot resignation rates on the FA18 program, Air Vice-Marshal R. W. Bradford, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, said: Obviously if we are losing pilots, the losses are occurring amongst our more experienced pilots. Whilst our overall numbers are still not very far down on what we would wish, our numbers of experienced pilots are considerably down. In response to a further question, the Air Vice-Marshal continued: We are suffering more because of a loss of experienced pilots-those who have been in the service, in the main, between, say, six and 16 years. They are the ones who are leaving. Senator MacGibbon also asked about the current position with respect to qualified flying instructors: Do you have enough? Have you had resignations from experienced pilots? Air Vice-Marshal Bradford replied: We do not have enough QFIs at the moment. Our loss of pilots has included a large number of qualified flying instructors. Our ability to make up the QFI shortfall is limited. The House should note that further crippling losses of experienced pilots and qualified flying instructors continue to the present day and show no signs of abating. Senator MacGibbon asked Bradford why the resignation rate had gone up. Bradford offered the opinion: Fundamentally it is a quality of life problem. This should be of serious concern to the Minister. He went on to mention factors such as better pay and conditions offered outside the Services; increased mobility in terms of career aspirations; more pressure in regard to children's education; more pressure on wives to work; and the effect of constant postings-on both spouses and children. The Minister acknowledges: The Opposition said a lot about our defence personnel policies . . . He goes on to accuse us of not offering solutions to what he describes as `the undoubted difficulties the ADF faces in keeping highly skilled people'. Of course we have offered solutions-but the Minister has conveniently chosen to ignore them. When the problems are as obvious as they are, the solutions are also obvious: better conditions of employment, better living conditions, better recompense, and better recognition for the responsibilities and challenges undertaken by the members of our armed forces which will in turn lead to a sense of purpose and achievement; in other words-and this is something that the Minister has not even remotely mentioned to date-job satisfaction. Despite the Minister's glib assurances that everything is under control, it is obvious that the personnel wastage situation is still out of control-and there is little indication or prospect that the position will be rectified in the near future. It must be remembered that the strength of our defence forces lies in personnel-not equipment. Equipment is necessary to maximise that strength. There is an old and well-known military adage: Mongols without horses are still a force to be reckoned with, but horses without riders are nothing. There are many obvious deficiencies in the Minister's statement. I have chosen to concentrate on that area which has always been of primary concern to me-the people who are our defence forces. I remind the Minister that new planes, new submarines, new minesweepers and expanded Jindalee over the horizon radar stations are useless if they cannot be manned by trained personnel. It is fatuous to discuss the relocation of significant elements of the defence forces to our northern regions if there are not enough forces to relocate. Equipment can be purchased more readily and quickly-and sometimes more cheaply-than the personnel needed to operate them can be recruited and trained. Whilst this Government continues to ignore-or at best pays lip-service to-the Defence Force wastage crisis we are facing, the Minister can deliver statements to this House till the cows come home but they will be, as his statement today has been, empty boasts with potentially disastrous implications for the future security of this nation. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(5.39) —In addressing the statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) I will not indulge myself or waste the time of the House by commenting on the very fatuous and distinctly uninformed remarks of Opposition speakers so far-the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson), neither of whom addressed the key issues of substance that were raised in the Minister's statement. The statement details progress on the implementation of the proposals in the Government's White Paper on defence. It underlines this Government's commitment to both a coherent defence strategy and an enhanced defence capacity that its policy of self-reliance in defence requires. I remind the House, as the Minister for Defence said in the statement which he tabled on 19 March 1987, that `this strategy dictates that we develop an Australian Defence Force (ADF) capable of meeting any hostile force within our area of direct military interest, with successive layers of forces capable of detecting, identifying and engaging any hostile approach'. As the Minister said then in his statement, `this strategy is, in the broadest political sense, defensive'. It is to be emphasised that a comprehensive defence in-depth strategy requires military superiority in the sea-air gap to the north and across northern Australia. `Defence in-depth' means that an opponent would have to defeat a layer of deployed assets through and to our north. As the Minister pointed out in his statement of March 1987, there would be three layers to this approach. The first layer comprises high level and comprehensive intelligence about military developments in our region, and a variety of surveillance capabilities to detect and track hostile intruders in our maritime and air approaches. The second layer is a naval-air capability to destroy enemy forces in our approaches and to protect local points and shipping lanes. It means, for higher levels of conflict, having forces able to strike at an adversary's base and being able to interdict his lines of supply. The third layer comprises a flexible ground force with air and naval support to react to any enemy incursion on our territory and be able to protect dispersed population centres and civil and military infrastructure. The establishment of a Northern Command based at Darwin is of particular relevance to this structured defence. Hitherto, the ADF has had a joint control structure in Darwin, without a `command' hierarchy of the type that will now be in place. The new structure should not detract from the integrity of the existing joint service arrangement. The Minister, in his statement to the House today, emphasised that the new structure will be a `true joint force headquarters'. Paul Dibb in his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, in referring to the need for the Government to consider regional command and central arrangements and the expansion of defence assets in Northern Australia, said of the establishment of a Northern Command joint Force headquarters: The headquarters might be on an experimental basis at first, and developed further as experience indicated. The establishment would recognise the importance of credible northern contingencies, and would allow a smoother and more effective transition from peace to hostilities. Importantly, the establishment of Norcom will provide the capacity for a number of additional functions to be undertaken in the Top End. The new command structure will be in a position to work on operational matters, to have greater involvement in the planning and coordination role in training and the carrying out of major exercises and be responsible for the trialling of new techniques and pieces of equipment. An aspect of the function of the ADF in northern Australia which Norcom in conjunction with the Defence Command in Canberra would be involved in, would be the ongoing development of a doctrine for northern defence. This will inevitably require some assessment of what force would, in the case of an emergency, be required to protect key installations such as the Tindal and Darwin airfields, the naval base at Coonawarra and the various communications bases in Darwin and, down the track, including Jindalee and other critical national installations as well as major towns. In my view, such an assessment would highlight the need for additional land forces to be based in the Top End and for the deployment at some future time of ADF personnel in important towns in the Top End. An important aspect of these new command arrangements is the relationship that is built up between civilian infrastructure that may be involved in any conflict, especially low level conflict, where for example Australian territory may have been breached by a small party of insurgents. Defence is everyone's responsibility and requires the closest of cooperation between civil and defence authorities. Confident effective working relationships between defence personnel and civil authorities, especially police and emergency services, is of paramount importance if our defence strategies are to be effective. Currently the joint forces in the Top End enjoy a close relationship not only with the police and emergency services but also with the political and administrative hierarchies and the civilian community generally. The establishment of the Northern Command will provide for a higher level of involvement on a continuous basis between the ADF and civilian authorities in the Top End. With the deployment of the FA18 squadron at Tindal, the basing of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Darwin by 1992, and the important future deployment of a battalion or brigade to Darwin at some further time down the track, there will of course be major social and economic impacts, not only in terms of the host community but also in terms of the defence personnel who are transferred on a long term basis to what is a remote area, away from family and other support mechanisms that they have in other parts of Australia. It is important that defence and civil planners alike remain cognisant of and attuned to the problems that may arise with the deployment of relatively large numbers of defence personnel into areas of comparatively small populations, such as Katherine and, to a lesser extent, Darwin. The lessening of any negative impacts will occur only with continued close cooperation between the ADF and civilian authorities and communities. In my view, the Australian Armed Forces Federation is, from an ADF viewpoint, very important in this regard, as are the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses and the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff. It is of the utmost importance that in areas such as Katherine, that will feel the significant impact of the deployment of large numbers of defence personnel, the local community is safeguarded and, most importantly, that Aboriginal people are not further marginalised in their own country. In economic terms, the injection of funds to acquire assets such as Tindal and to upgrade and consolidate existing ADF infrastructure in Darwin in particular has provided a great deal of stimulus to the Northern Territory economy. To date, in the Tindal project some 379 houses have been approved for construction. In the next stage, stage 2 of the project, a further 20 houses will be built. This will mean that a total of 399 houses will have been approved for construction by the end of this year. The total project cost is $230m, of which $175m has either been spent or already been committed for spending. Defence expenditure on capital equipment is $75m, of which $24.5m has been spent on housing. Before construction of the Tindal air base began the population of Katherine was 4,000. By the end of 1988 it is expected to have doubled to 8,000. This emphasises the impact of the Tindal development on the Katherine community. Prior to the expansion of Tindal there were only two banks in Katherine, and now there are four. There is a new Woolworths Ltd store which employs 110 people. Seven hundred to 800 people have been employed in the construction phase of the Tindal base, and there will be 70 permanent civilian jobs when the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base becomes operational. Expenditure on an annual basis in Katherine will be around $10m to $20m. The arrival of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in the Top End will be at a total cost of $79m, and the construction of 175 married quarters will cost some $19m. This all emphasises the importance of capital expenditure from the Commonwealth, in terms of the deployment of defence personnel in northern Australia, to the Northern Territory economy. Capital expenditure aside, as I have illustrated, the deployment of large numbers of defence personnel with their families will have obvious long term multiplier effects on the Northern Territory economy and will contribute directly to much needed long term job creation within the general community. There are important and tangible spin-offs to northern Australia which have resulted and will continue to result from the build-up in the defence presence in the Top End. The level of defence expenditure underscores the primary role of the government sector as a basic stimulus to economic growth in the Territory. The Government is conscious of the potential of these economic benefits to be derived from the deployment of personnel to the Top End and the acquisition of capital assets to the Territory economy, and it has provided special briefings on the proposals for the Top End to business communities and Northern Territory Government representatives, as well as to unionists. There is little doubt that there are significant opportunities for private enterprise in the Top End in servicing the requirements of the expanding defence force in the region. The challenge for the business community is to be competitive, to demonstrate that it has the skill and expertise to provide the services that will inevitably be required. Unfortunately, difficulties have arisen at Tindal which have delayed the deployment of some personnel to the base. Such delays may require the Government to adopt a more rigorous approach in the oversighting of contracts. A by-product of the ongoing presence and exercising of the ADF in northern Australia is that other direct benefits accrue to the civilian population, particularly in the area of search and rescue. I was recently a witness to a joint search and rescue operation off the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean, which islands, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, are part of the electorate of the Northern Territory. This operation involved two P3 Orions, one from the United States Navy based at Diego Garcia, one from the RAAF's 92 Wing under the command of Flight Lieutenant Terry MacKinnon, based at Edinburgh in South Australia, one civil aviation Gulf Stream based in Perth and one Canair F27. The cooperation and professionalism shown by all involved, including the flight service personnel under the officer-in-charge, Jim Downey, and the administration at Cocos Islands under the Acting Administrator and Official Secretary, Mike Jopling, were extremely impressive and highly commendable. This is but one example, of course. The reconnaissance role of the Air Force and the work of the naval patrol boats is crucial in protecting us from incursions along our northern coastline from unwanted visitors who may have as their purpose the poaching of Australian fish or the landing of illegal immigrants. There are obvious direct and indirect benefits in these activities, not the least of which is the protection of livestock and native plant and animal species against exotic diseases that may be imported as a result of such unwanted landings. As the third layer of the defence strategy requires a flexible ground force, it is important, to carry out appropriate training and exercises, that the ADF has access to land across the Top End. In this respect it is significant that Norforce, an Army component of the land based operations of the ADF in the Top End, has in general very good relationships with landholders in the Top End, particularly with Aboriginal people. I wish now to draw the attention of honourable members to a comment of a former commanding officer of Norforce, Lieutenant-Colonel Neil Weekes, that appeared in the Sunday Territorian on 2 February 1986: The traditional owners and the Land Councils have been extremely co-operative with Norforce and have never refused entry of a patrol onto Aboriginal land. That's more than can be said about a number of private property owners who on occasions have refused us permission to conduct exercises on their land. That last comment should be of special interest to members of the Opposition. Two weeks prior to this statement being made, the then Premier of Queensland had claimed publicly that land rights were a threat to the defence of the north. Such was his sophistry. The fostering of such a positive relationship, where the ADF is mindful of and has respect and regard for the unique relationship that Aboriginal people have with the land, is an important element in guaranteeing the success of the flexible response that the Government's defence strategy demands. I emphasise that the concept of self-reliance demands that the Australian community accepts the responsibility for maintaining a level of credible defence that would deter any would-be aggressor within our region. There are other defence strategies that could be applied but they would require an even greater level of commitment from the Australian population generally or would place an intolerable burden on others to protect our interests. Self-reliance provides us with the capacity to become more independent and less reliant on others. I support the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.55) —In rising to speak to the House on this important defence statement I should like to remind the honourable member for Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) that it was a previous coalition government and a former Leader of the National Party in particular that took on a driving role with regard to the Tindal development, that magnificent project at Katherine in the Northern Territory. This Government has now hit upon a period of delay, as referred to by the honourable member for Northern Territory. I wish to make reference to the contribution that was made by the previous coalition government to that bold initiative with regard to protecting our north. This is in sharp contrast to the saga we witnessed with Amann Aviation Ltd with northern coastal surveillance during 1987, which developed into a national scandal that has not yet been fully resolved. At the outset I remind the House of those matters. This progress report was delivered by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is obviously enjoying the power that has been conferred on him to list items of business now that he has become the Leader of the House. Not long ago, last month, a further defence paper on self-reliance, cooperation and Australia's regional defence policy was delivered. I welcome both debates. For too long the House of Representatives has not considered the fundamental issues of defence. If it be a bonus conferred on this House that the Minister for Defence now occupies the position of Leader of the House, so be it. I disagree, however, with many aspects of the statements made by both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who have contributed to this debate this afternoon. Too often we take defence for granted. In my role as the Opposition spokesperson on veterans' affairs, I have moved around Australia and have met with veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel, and serving personnel. In doing so I have encountered many concerns about Australia's defence preparedness and about the nation's commitment to its defence. Concern is expressed also about the range of decisions that have been taken by the Government, particularly the 2 per cent cutback in the defence force retirement benefits (DFRB) pension payments and the chopping and changing of the defence service home loan scheme. I wish to refer at some length to both those issues, because I want to focus on defence personnel, which was to the forefront of the statement of the Minister for Defence. At page 21 of his statement the Minister said: The Government recognised in the White Paper that the highly skilled and dedicated members of the Defence Force are our most valuable defence resource. With that statement I agree. The statement continued: The Opposition said a lot about our defence personnel policies, but they have offered no solutions to the undoubted difficulties the ADF faces in keeping highly-skilled people. I disagree with that second contention. Through the shadow Minister for Defence the Opposition has offered a comprehensive approach to a defence policy. At the time of the July Federal elections, as part of the formal policy documents of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, and more recently during debates on defence in this Parliament, the Opposition has taken a strong stand in relation to the conditions of service pertaining to defence personnel. The Opposition recognises that morale in the defence forces is, as I have said on previous occasions, very much on a knife edge. I do not refer in this sense to unit morale. Unit morale, by and large, is worked on in a comprehensive manner by individual Defence Force commanders at all levels. They work very hard to ensure that whatever difficulties face particular units, a strong spirit exists within that unit; for example, in the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, the submarine HMAS Onslow, and 75 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force in Darwin-that is, if sufficient pilots were available to enable that squadron to enjoy a fighting unit morale. I have been supplied with information which reveals that the number of pilots in that squadron is down to single figures. There are insufficient pilots-in fact, only sufficient to fly fewer than half the number of aircraft available to our one and only operational squadron in that forward northern region. What a disgrace! There are only seven pilots at this time equipped and ready to operate in the defence of this nation, no matter what type of warfare or conflict might suddenly arise. It can no longer be said about planet Earth that one can predict confidently that Australia will not become involved in conflict for ever more. That would be a head in the sand, unrealistic approach. Unit morale is maintained through great efforts of skills of man management, but it is not helped by the examples set by the Government. It is not helped by the knowledge that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), for his part, with regard to defence forces' roles seems to spend a great deal of his time on golf courses by day and on occasion a good deal of his time playing backgammon by night, running between the two and leaving very little time to run the country in the process. That is the perception. His Sunday morning confession to the media in the aftermath of the New South Wales State election result does little to assuage the feeling of the community at large that it has a Prime Minister besotted by the golf ball and by blackjack cards. Running the country is a hobby, an interest, to which he devotes himself in between his games of golf and his visits to casinos. Mr Staples —Cheap. Mr TIM FISCHER —I am told by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, who is at the table, that that is a cheap shot. I tell honourable members that I mix around the streets of Albury and Deniliquin in my electorate and I attend farming meetings throughout the rural part of Australia and visit factory floors, and that is what they are saying at the grassroots level. So it is not a cheap shot. It is a shot reflecting the feeling at the grassroots level. They have had enough of a Prime Minister who spends a Friday getting a hole in one. I do not for one moment begrudge him a degree of hobby activity but I believe that he should keep it in perspective. He should be reminded that he is Prime Minister of this country with enormous commitments associated with that office and that he is responsible for his image. The public at large today and the Army, Navy and Air Force personnel who would dearly like to be able to go and play golf and backgammon commensurate with their particular station in life are not able to do so because of the Defence Force service conditions that the Hawke Labor Government has brought forward under its five years in office. Let me make it very clear that I am only referring to the Prime Minister in passing in the context of this defence debate. But it is relevant because these are signals, perceptions, which the Government is sending to our sailors, airmen and Army personnel. They are not happy and they have a right not to be happy. Let us look at what the Government has done to their Defence Force retirement benefits. No fair dinkum shop steward-if there are any left amongst all the dark-suited, cigar-smoking members of the Federal Labor back bench-would accept what the Government did to the DFRB pension payments. The Government breached a contract with the workers-in this case the personnel of our armed forces. On 10 October 1986, as part of the then Budget strategy, the Government applied a 2 per cent cut. Since then the Government has stated quite clearly that the defence forces and other Commonwealth superannuation pensions will not be discounted in perpetuity and that pension benefits will be restored as soon as economic circumstances permit. But nothing has yet happened. I understand that the matter has gone back to Caucus for review, but a number of communications and submissions have been made by veterans organisations such as the Returned Services League, the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association and many other veterans organisations seeking a restoration of that 2 per cent cut. It would be a tremendous signal to send to the armed forces personnel of this country that the in perpetuity aspect, the compounding aspect, of that 2 per cent cut will be rectified in the mini-Budget or Budget later this year, as has been promised by the Government. I say to the members of the armed forces and the ex-service personnel in particular, `Don't hold your breath, because there are no guarantees that this particular constituency will be accorded the same sort of priority that the Government accords to various other sectors of the community which, in my book, should enjoy a whole lot less priority'. I believe that the Government is responsible for the morale of individuals in our service being on a knife edge. This has exacerbated the resignation rate. The other key area is that of defence service home loans which was chopped and changed throughout the last quarter of last year to an extraordinary degree. Initially, we had a new scheme announced with the cessation of all $25,000 loans and instead a $10,000 grant. A week later we had the restoration of the $25,000 loans and a narrow window whereby a person could still apply for the $10,000 grant, one-off tax free mechanism. Then suddenly in December there was another chopping and changing with the Government abolishing the $10,000 grant, reducing the maximum term from 32 years to 25 years and, to be fair, admitting that it brought in portability of new loans but, by and large, leaving a very unhappy Defence Force with regard to both the 2 per cent DFRB compounding cutback and the defence service home loans scheme. There still has been no real progress in the privatisation of that scheme, which has been promised so often since May 1985. The Government has lost all credibility on that privatisation. The situation with our defence forces personnel is crucial. For many it has reached a crisis stage and they have made a decision to resign, which has decimated the ranks of experienced personnel in our armed forces, as the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has pointed out very capably. There is another reason why this situation has prevailed. I refer back to the debates on the Veterans' Entitlements Act in April 1986 when the Government said that it was going to bring forward a military compensation scheme for serving personnel to replace the use of the Repatriation Act, now the Veterans' Entitlements Act, for those serving personnel. Now, some two years later, we have had neither sight nor sound of a military compensation scheme. There has not been a signal from the Government that it is genuine in proceeding with a military compensation scheme. I remind the House that it was only the action of the Liberal and National parties that ensured that enlisting personnel remained at least under repatriation cover during this interim period, which has now extended to two years, before the introduction of a military compensation scheme. So there are many reasons why our veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel feel very strongly about defence, entitlements and the downgrading of defence service conditions and have taken the final step of proffering their resignations where they are members of the Navy, Army and Air Force. It is not too late for the Government to fight back. Today it put on an equipment display on the lawns in front of Parliament House. It is typical of the Government's efficiency. We were notified of the display fairly late this morning and had no warning of it. Perhaps Government members had earlier notification. It was a pity because it was a magnificent display, yet the numbers attending were not all that large. In the circumstances of a parliamentary sitting day I am sure a lot more members on both sides of the House would have gone across to that display had they received earlier notification of it. I did feel for those pilots who buzzed Canberra, Parliament House and the Parliamentary Triangle today. My gosh, they must have been tempted to come down a few extra feet and really shake the windows of this Parliament to get their message across. The Minister and Government members are out of touch with the defence constituency. They are not communicating with any degree of accuracy with the key people who make up that constituency. It is about time that they got back in touch for the sake of running the defences of this country for the few short months that they remain on the treasury bench in this House until the next Federal election, whenever it occurs. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.09) —Twelve months ago the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) came before this Parliament and put forward a statement on defence policy which the Minister said `set the course for a decade or more of development of self-reliance in the defence and security of Australia'. It is appropriate, 12 months later, that we, as a parliament, review and debate the progress of implementation of that strategy. I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who rightly commented that it was the Minister for Defence who initiated debate on the Defence White Paper and on the Government's progress in implementing action on that strategy. What a tragedy it is for this Parliament that we do not have an opposition that is prepared to take up defence issues and bring them before the Parliament. What a strange irony it is that it is the Government which initiates debate and at least gives the opportunity for the Opposition to raise points of policy. Perhaps the honourable member for Farrer would do well to speak to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who has not addressed one question without notice to the Minister for Defence since the last Federal election. It is not my approach to make personal attacks on people, as honourable members will know, but I must say that the honourable member for McPherson is not doing a job in this Parliament for defence personnel. That, of course, is reflected by his Leader's refusal to permit him to join the shadow Cabinet. How the Liberal and National parties have changed from years gone by. In those days the Opposition-the then Government-did accord some priority to defence and to the issues of defence personnel and their families. But now those issues are not voiced by anyone in the shadow Cabinet and the shadow Minister has not asked one question of the Minister since the last election. I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate because it provides an opportunity to review progress. When the Minister for Defence put forward his statement to the Parliament 12 months ago it was greeted with universal acclaim by defence commentators. The prominent newspapers of this country referred to the Minister's statement as a bold defence plan and recorded the fact that there was virtually no substantive criticism. Twelve months down the track, despite the enormous difficulties we face as a nation, we have lived up to our commitments in that initial statement by the Government. I want to say something briefly, by way of introduction, about the role of defence in the future of our country. I believe that a prerequisite for national security, independence and the peaceful development of Australia is the capacity for self-defence. Our defence policy must ensure our territorial security and freedom to develop as an independent nation. This requires an independent capacity to defend our own territory, our offshore resources and our maritime approaches. The conviction of the Australian Labor Party is to base our defence and foreign policy on the belief that war can and will be averted. We believe that Australia has a part to play in its prevention. Nevertheless, a strong defence capability must be maintained and be effective to demonstrate beyond all doubt that Australia intends to defend itself and its vital interests. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in promoting a forthright view, promoting peace and disarmament throughout the world and, at the same time, promoting an independent and viable Australian defence force. There is one omission from the Minister's White Paper and his statement to the House 12 months ago. One matter the Minister did not mention-I think it is important to mention it in this debate-is that Australia did then and continues to renounce the option of nuclear weapons for Australia. This Parliament, by virtue of the passage of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act, became the first sovereign country in the world to renounce, by way of domestic legislation, the option of nuclear weapons. That law, which passed through both Houses of the Australian Parliament, rules out the option of nuclear weapons for the defence of Australia. It rules out their permanent stationing on Australian shores. It is a matter of profound regret that the Opposition was not prepared to support that important statement of principle which sends a signal to the world. I have spoken in broad terms of how I see the development of the Australian Defence Force and how that relates to my personal philosophy and my commitment to the principles of the Australian Labor Party for an independent and peaceful future for Australia. I return to the subject of the Opposition, before I relate a number of matters regarding the Government's achievements in its defence policy, particularly the achievements it has secured for defence personnel and their families. I have told the House that the Opposition has not asked one question of the Minister for Defence. That amounts to an abdication by the shadow Minister and it is probably one of the reasons why he is excluded from the shadow cabinet. I ask the shadow Minister, on behalf of the Australian defence forces and their families: What is the Opposition's defence policy? Is there a document? Is there a policy statement? Is there a speech which contains some record of the Opposition's views? The answer is that there is no policy. We have heard no statement from the Opposition about what it would do if it were ever to form a government. We have heard horrendous stories about the cuts that would be made in the Budget of the Commonwealth of Australia affecting a whole range of services across Commonwealth outlays. The cuts proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would strike at the very heart of the Government's defence strategy and would amount to a sabotage of all that this Government is trying to achieve. I challenge the Opposition to tell us where the cuts would be made. The Minister for Defence dealt comprehensively with the broad strategic questions and issues of equipment purchase and industry policy. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) raised issues concerning the programs and policies of this Government put in place to benefit service personnel and their families. My contribution as the member for Hughes is to expand on the contribution made by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I have a special interest in this area as a member representing an electorate covering Holsworthy, Moorebank, Hammondville, and other important areas of my electorate where defence personnel and their families live. I represent the naval estates of Heathcote and East Hills. I am very much committed to ensuring that at the local level those communities get the best possible deal from this Government. I believe that all honourable members who represent service communities, especially those members on the Government side, have to take a national approach to this question. That is why the Minister who is at the table, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), and other members of our Party established the Government members defence force action committee. It is a group of back bench members committed to intervene and defend the rights of service personnel and their families. There have been criticisms by one person, who has had some publicity as a journalist, about the integrity of our committee. When the crunch came, and there was some threat to the defence service homes loan scheme, the Government members committee, comprising Labor Party members from throughout Australia, stood shoulder to shoulder with service personnel and their families to ensure the preservation of that scheme. I believe that our integrity is beyond doubt. For the first time in the history of this Parliament, a group of back bench members are prepared to take a united stand and be outspoken to protect the interests of service personnel and their families. The major reforms which have been initiated by this government during its term of office and which are directly related to the Government's defence strategy are the report of the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses and the initiatives flowing from it; the establishment of the Defence Service Homes Corporation; the establishment of the Defence Forces Remuneration Tribunal; initiatives to assist with the education of service children; the establishment of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff; improvements in posting policy; support for the establishment of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia; establishment of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses; and improvements in the lot of single members of the Australian Defence Force, as referred to in one respect in the report concerning improvements in living-in accommodation tabled immediately before this debate. I could speak in some detail about each of those important initiatives but my time is limited in this debate. However, I want to set the scene for the strategy that lies behind the Government's initiatives. One of the centrepieces of this Government's strategy for its third term of office is its national social justice strategy, which is a unanimous tenet of Australian Labor Party policy, adopted at its last National Conference. That strategy supports a number of key initiatives, including the promotion of access to economic resources and power, the proposal to protect and expand the rights of individuals, the important principle of ensuring greater equity of access to goods and services, and the expansion of opportunities for participation in decisions affecting the everyday lives of Australians. They are noble goals; they are statements of high principle. We on this side of the chamber make no apology for being idealists. Our mission, our goal, is to expand the horizons of Australians and to deliver to them our broad social justice strategy. I raise that matter in the course of this debate to remind the House that before this Government was elected to office service personnel and their families were the forgotten people. An hour ago in this House I spoke about soldiers literally living in World War II slum huts in my electorate, and adjacent to it, when I was first elected to Parliament in 1984. That situation was a disgrace and a blot on this Parliament; but, more than that, there were no opportunities for participation, or for lobbying by service spouses and their families. There was no Armed Forces Federation. The Government has set in place not simply token reforms but institutional reforms, structural reforms, that cannot be taken away by a future government. I truly believe that the sum total of these initiatives is to change fundamentally for all time the conditions of service personnel and their families. I compliment the Minister on initiating this debate and I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in it. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(6.24) —The Labor Government's isolationist defence philosophy is further advanced by the progress report of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Yet again, the guise of self-reliance is very thin indeed. Regrettably, this Minister has made Australia a laughing-stock. His recent statement that the Soviet Union is not a military threat to Australia, but is merely a political challenge, has been greeted with total disbelief among our allies. It is a quite incredible statement. As far as I am concerned, the Minister's political problems, or challenges as he prefers to call them, will lead to war if they go unresolved. History is full of examples of governments which, to unite their people in a common cause when confronted by major domestic problems, have externalised those problems by going to war. Indonesia did so in the 1960s when it sought confrontation with Malaya; more recently, Argentina did likewise when it invaded the Falkland Islands. The Minister's statement about the Soviet threat being a political challenge demonstrates a basic lack of understanding not only of history but of Australia's defence needs. The fact is that this Government's isolationist philosophy is causing our allies and an increasing number of Australians a great deal of concern. At present Australia does not have the capacity to meet either its own defence needs or its obligations to the Western alliance. Let me give a simple example. In 1951 Australia accepted allied responsibility for protection of merchant shipping over vast areas of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean when it signed the Radford-Collins Naval Control of Shipping Agreement. Under that agreement, Australia's area of responsibility stretches from just east of the Seychelles to beyond Tuvalu. That commitment is still binding on Australia. However, the defence policies of this Government have clearly put our commitment beyond the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy. In his progress report the Minister has again concentrated on Australia's area of responsibility in the Pacific Ocean. Once more he has evaded comment on the precarious situation now confronting us on our western border. That situation, of course, is the build-up by India of a navy capable of dominating the entire Indian Ocean region, and particularly our vital western approaches. Our northern border region does not get the attention it merits, and our southern border is totally ignored. The Pacific area has long been neglected by this Government. Only in recent times has the Government attempted to rectify this particular problem. This Government's neglect of the Pacific region was highlighted as recently as yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Julius Chan, who spoke of his country's expanding educational ties with the Soviet Union as being a result of what he called-and I quote-the `closed door policy' by Australia. In other words, because Australia has neglected the region, the countries which form the region have had to look elsewhere. Inevitably, it has been the Soviet Union that has been only too willing to provide assistance to them. Yesterday, Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to the President of the United States of America from 1977 to 1981, referred to the massive increase in the Soviet Pacific fleet and the attempts by the Soviet Union to translate military power into political power. We are all very aware of the growing political influence of the Soviet Union in our Pacific region. However, it is little wonder that this has occurred, given our minuscule political, diplomatic and military presence in the region. Our western border, formed by the Indian Ocean, clearly does not appear on any map the Minister may possess. For many months now I have been promoting discussion on the massive Indian naval build-up occurring in the Indian Ocean, discussions in which the Minister has refused to become involved in the hope of keeping Australians ignorant and therefore quiet. The only public comment he made was on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program on 24 February when he added a whole new dimension to Australian innocence by saying: India is not a country that has been hostile to us. There is nothing in Indian policy which is hostile to us. That was an extraordinary response to a substantial shift in the strategic balance in one of our major oceans. Neville Chamberlain could not have said it better. It also begs the question in my earlier remarks on the Minister's comments on political challenges. Were Indonesia and Argentina ever hostile to, or did they promote policies hostile to, Malaya and the United Kingdom before provoking the respective wars which took place? The answer in both cases is clearly no. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ALDRED —To take up where I left off before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I reiterate that the Minister for Defence shows a demonstrable lack of understanding of strategic defence. During question time at yesterday's conference on Soviet ambitions in the Pacific, Dr Brzezinski referred to the possibility that internal domestic problems in India could lead to a break-up of the union, a possibility now being seriously considered as a result of the seemingly insurmountable ethnic domestic problems facing India. Should this begin to eventuate it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Indian Government, following the lessons of history, will consider uniting its people by externalising its problems-that is, provoke a confrontation. With such a large and powerful blue water navy and India's ability to project her military power through her forward bases and aircraft carrier forces, Australia, because of its weak defences, could well be a logical choice to confront. We would be easy prey for an Indian military adventure directed against the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Island. The Indian build-up should have begun ringing alarm bells in the Defence Minister's office a long time ago. It did not. Recently there was considerable media coverage surrounding the Soviet delivery to India of a Charlie class nuclear submarine, presumably for use as a training vessel by the Indian Navy. Yet still there was no comment from the Minister on this further tipping of the balance of power against Australia. Since India acquired this somewhat outdated and noisy nuclear submarine I have ascertained that she is to acquire six more. Until now it was thought that these would be of the relatively old Sierra class. However, I am now informed that the six submarines are to be of the advanced Victor III hunter-killer class, capable of launching the Soviet SS-N-7 underwater launched anti-ship missile, which can carry a nuclear warhead. Whilst the Soviets may not supply the nuclear warheads, India's domestic nuclear weapons program is believed to be close to producing the nuclear warheads that would be needed. Again during question time at yesterday's Institute of Public Affairs defence conference in Melbourne, Mr James Webb, who recently resigned as United States Secretary of the Navy, referred to the Indian expansion as obviously having major implications for Australia. I am, therefore, not alone in my concern. It was somewhat heartening to read in the Minister's statement that elements of the defence forces are being permanently deployed in defence of our northern borders. This is particularly timely, given the now changing political scene in Indonesia which is of some concern. The latently anti-Australian General Benny Murdani was problem enough when he was the commander of Indonesia's armed forces. Now that he is Defence Minister the problems can only get worse. Furthermore, the outward aggressiveness of General Murdani will no longer be restrained by the calming hand of Dr Mochtar, the Foreign Minister, who has consistently been favourably disposed toward Australia, because President Suharto has seen fit not to reappoint Dr Mochtar-a very sad fact for the region and for Australia, and, I might add, for Indonesia. The Indonesians look like becoming the second regional power to acquire nuclear submarines. At present they are seriously considering acquiring the French Rubis class nuclear hunter-killer submarine, an action that will further tip the strategic balance against Australia. I turn now to Australia's fourth border region to which the Minister made no reference whatsoever. Our southern border fronts on to the Great Southern Ocean, which in turn forms a border for the great land mass of Antarctica. Our southern border is important, particularly because of one key method of analysis the Soviets use to interpret the global geo-strategic axis. Essentially to facilitate their geo-strategic military planning, the Soviets have broken the world into two halves and have moved the polar axis in both. The northern half of the globe, with the pole centred on Moscow, is regarded primarily as an area requiring domination by ground forces. The southern half of the globe, with the pole centred on Sydney, in New South Wales, is regarded as an area requiring domination by maritime forces. It can, therefore, be appreciated that the Southern Ocean is integral to the Soviet's quest to increase their military and political influence in our region. Politically, the Soviets have already demonstrated that they regard themselves as having an interest in Antarctica. Indeed, they have recently established a base on Australian Antarctic Territory without notifying Australia-a serious contravention of the spirit of the Antarctic Treaty. As well as pressure from the Soviets, there is continuing pressure through the United Nations from the countries of the non-aligned movement, which are seeking to internationalise Antarctica and dislodge Australia and other Western powers. It can thus be seen that in the future our southern border region can expect to see much more activity from numerous countries, all of which aim to weaken Australia's territorial claims on Antarctica. As far as is known, the Minister for Defence has not undertaken any strategic planning to counter these pressures. Yet again, the Minister's presentation lacks any strategic perspective or perception of the major problems increasingly confronting us on our four major oceanic borders. For the good of this nation the Minister and the Government of which he is part had better take off their blinkers, for time is fast running out. Debate (on motion by Mr Punch) adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.06) —Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the smile on your face, we are not talking about turkeys or Barrie Unsworth or people who lay eggs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I understand that the honourable member for Richmond wanted to talk about not only one Chicken Bill but two. I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988 concurrently with the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill 1988. Mr Carlton —It is a double-yolker, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must say that the humour of the honourable member for Mackellar is up to its normal standard. Mr BLUNT —I will resist the temptation to relate the business before the chamber tonight to the events of last Saturday or even to the personalities involved. It is very serious legislation. A vast number of people are involved in the production of eggs in New South Wales and, for that matter, Australia. It is not something we should take lightly or dismiss. The Laying Chicken Levy Bill is a machinery Bill which has the support of the industry and the Opposition parties. For that reason we will not be delaying the passage of this legislation through the chamber tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think all puns are out of order this evening. Mr BLUNT —I thought you had missed that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Carlton —Cut the cackle and get on with your speech. Mr BLUNT —As I said, this is machinery legislation which has the support of the industry. The Government has responded to the industry's need to have this legislation. The Opposition does not oppose it. We support the legislation. It is part of the necessary support government provides to industry to ensure that it can continue to operate in its current regulatory framework, which is undoubtedly of considerable benefit to the industry and the chickens themselves. On that note I commend the Bill to the House. (Quorum formed) Mr PRICE(Chifley)(8.12) —I am pleased to support the Laying Chicken Levy Bill and the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill. The need for them arises because if some of the States withdraw from some of the present arrangements the legislation supporting the levy will become inoperative and it is important for the Government to put in place this legislation. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the chicken producers, particularly the egg producers, whose very livelihood depends on the continuation of the orderly marketing scheme. I think it is important for the chicken producers not only of my State of New South Wales but of Australia to understand that, whilst on the one hand this legislation is being supported by the Opposition and the National Party of Australia in particular, it is also true to say that when the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill was before the House in October the support given by the Liberal spokesman was less than effusive. In fact, the honourable member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), whom I always enjoy listening to, surprised me somewhat in the nature of his comments. Basically, he was advocating a detailed study of the structure and the economics of the industry, not with a view to continuing this orderly marketing arrangement and scheme, which basically has put a bottom line on producers leaving the industry and has allowed the industry to become more efficient, principally because of State egg marketing corporations and their activities: what the honourable member for Berowra was really saying was that producers and consumers would be better off without this arrangement. I must say I am very shocked at the nature of coalition politics that, on the one hand the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), can support the legislation while on the other hand his support speaker from the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Berowra, whilst giving support to it, really is advocating the removal of the egg industry research levy. On 27 October when the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill went through the Liberal spokesman said that there should be a fundamental and detailed study of the structure and the economics of the industry and that basically the support that underpins the research and the levy should be removed to allow market forces to dominate in this industry. I point out to the House that I believe fundamentally that the present arrangements have benefited the industry. For example, in my State over the last 13 years about 1,500 egg producers have gone out of the industry, but there are still very many small chicken farmers and families involved in family chicken farms producing not only eggs but also meat. I feel very strongly that they are worthy of support and a continued livelihood in this industry. It is interesting that in New South Wales the price of eggs has come down significantly and since the levy was first introduced, when it was set at $6.10 per hen, it has come down to between $2 and $3 per hen. But this has not been at a cost to the consumer. Indeed, the quality remains high and supply is continuous. The honourable member for Berowra, in his previous speech on this subject, referred quite extensively to the export of egg pulp at below cost. But this situation in both Victoria and New South Wales has been turned around dramatically. The other thing I would say to the Opposition in speaking to these Bills is that it ought at least to have had the decency and integrity to be honest about the Opposition policy in New South Wales to the rebel egg producers. I say that those rebel egg producers who defy the law, who by their very actions wish to bring down this orderly marketing scheme, want free market forces to operate-so that there will be insufficient eggs and then a glut of eggs. Price and quality will vary, but most particularly-I am putting that to one side for the consumers-on the production side even more small family egg producers will go out of business. Indeed, the very introduction of the levy has had the effect of rationalising the industry and forcing farmers into larger unit production. This is a very efficient industry as it is. I believe that the worthy farmers involved in the production of eggs in my electorate and in other electorates in Australia should have the support and benefits of the continued orderly marketing scheme and in particular the benefits of these two Bills. I know that some honourable members may wonder why I should be interested in this subject as I represent a seat in the western suburbs of Sydney, but historically in the western suburbs of Sydney there has always been a large number of egg producers. Indeed, at one stage my parents were egg producers. I was a bit too young to remember this, although I can still picture the empty sheds after egg production had ceased. We have always supported sensible economic management, whether we are talking about manufacturing industries or rural industries, and we strongly support these two Bills. We strongly support the concept of the levy system for egg producers and we are certainly prepared to give unequivocal, unqualified support for the legislation. I say to the Opposition and to the Opposition speakers who will follow me in this debate that I think the egg producers deserve a clear answer from them as to whether the National Party really does have the carriage of this legislation and there is unqualified support, or whether the honourable member for Berowra, who commented previously in the debate, has the upper hand and they are going to try a dry economic approach to this industry as a dry run for others. The producers deserve to hear exactly what the Opposition's policy is in clear and unequivocal terms. I have much pleasure as a Government back bench member in supporting this legislation. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.21) —I am very pleased to support the Laying Chicken Levy Bill and the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill. Of course the previous speaker, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), brought a bit of politics into the debate by saying, `You don't do this and you don't do that'. There are many producers in my electorate and in other Liberal and National Party electorates and we always give them as much support as humanly possible. Invariably they are small businessmen working very hard in a very difficult industry. Let me talk about the egg. Many people are not aware of the importance of the egg. Two-thirds of the world's population live in absolute poverty. There is much talk about free-range chooks; in my own State there is a woman by the name of Mrs Pam Clarke who continually gains notoriety for what she does for free-range chooks. But let me tell her that there are many starving people in the world today who would love to have an egg for breakfast, who would love to have an egg for lunch, who would love to have an egg for dinner, but they cannot because of the world shortage of food. Two-thirds of the world's population lives in absolute poverty, yet we have people such as Mrs Clarke pushing single issues. Of course we all feel sorry for animals that are kept in captivity but we understand that poultry farmers who produce eggs at the cheapest possible rate can supply a staple food not only for the Australian people but for the world's population. Of course we support those farmers and we support this legislation, although the egg industry is mainly the responsibility of the States. We support it as wholeheartedly as we can because we realise that it is a very important industry for Australia. We make cakes out of the very humble and important egg. We have eggs for breakfast and eggs for lunch. Sometimes I think more could be done in the marketing of eggs. I am not an `eggspert' on marketing but I do think more could be done. Mr Charles —Oh! Mr GOODLUCK —That was not a `poultry' remark, so I hope that person on the other side of the House does not interfere. The egg industry is a very important industry which sometimes is forgotten because it does not get the publicity or the notoriety it deserves. The use of the egg is very varied. The honourable member for Chifley talked about what the egg can be used for. We can have bacon and eggs for breakfast, we can have eggs for lunch and we can have eggs for dinner, so of course the producers of eggs in this country should be given all the support humanly possible. If we can inject more finance into helping with their marketing strategies it will benefit Australia. There is not much one can say about this legislation because it is very straightforward. Since egg marketing arrangements are a matter for State governments to administer there is little relevance at the Federal level. In this case, the Federal contribution is to go towards research, and that is important. We need to make certain that research continues in order to improve egg production. Mrs Pamela Clarke in Tasmania, who continually achieves notoriety, who is continually mentioned in the Press, who continually causes trouble at the government level, must realise that although we do not want to see all fowls in captivity, regrettably they have to be there in order to produce eggs at the best possible price which is for the good of the starving world and for many low income people in Australia. The Opposition supports these Bills. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(8.26) —As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have always wanted to talk on the Laying Chicken Levy Bill and the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill. I thank members of the Opposition for their support, particularly the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Do not forget the honourable member for Franklin, who has an intimate knowledge of this industry. Mr PUNCH —Quite so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Goodluck —I am one person in this House who can cackle like a fowl and even lay an egg if necessary. If you want me to do it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We will have no more of those chicken man jokes. Mr PUNCH —There has been some feather-bedding on this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Franklin that it is not possible to table an egg. Mr Carlton —But he can lay it on the table. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I told the honourable member for Mackellar earlier that his puns were out of order, although they are quite funny. I think the Minister must rise to the occasion. Mr PUNCH —No, Mr Deputy Speaker, after the previous contributions to the debate I would not dare. I thank all honourable members for their contributions, real and otherwise. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.29) —The purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill is to amend three sections of the Trade Practices Act: section 53, section 65u and the section relating to the ability of the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs to authorise prosecutions without depending upon the authorisation of the Minister. The three amendments proposed are basically supported by the Opposition, except that we propose to move an amendment concerning proposed new section 65u. The Government's amendment, as it stands, puts a time limit on a provision that will extend the Federal law as it relates to product liability. The first amendment in the Bill, relating to section 53, inserts `value' as one of the criteria in determining false representation. It is our assessment that this addition is probably in the best overall interests of that section. It is brought about by a case in which the judge made a special explanation in his judgment that if the word `value' were added to the section the section would make a lot more sense. As a non-lawyer, I am fascinated to hear judges make comments on value, as indeed I am to hear all lawyers make comments about value. But this addition is quite consistent with the words used and, although I must rely on the judgment of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in this matter, I am quite sure it represents the best possible position. As a consequence, the Opposition supports the amendment proposed by the Government to section 53. I turn to the amendment to section 65u. The original intent of this section was to give the States an appropriate amount of time to introduce uniform legislation. The Government appears to have abandoned hope that such legislation may occur. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as other honourable members would be aware, consumer affairs Ministers meet to make determinations about particular products, and they have requested the States to bring forward mirror legislation. Therefore the States should be granted an extension of time to implement the decision taken, presumably, by the Standing Committee of Ministers of Consumer Affairs. Some States have not met their responsibilities as laid down by the Standing Committee. As a matter of fact, only Queensland and Western Australia have been able to put in place legislation in response to the Standing Committee. The States have powers under their food Acts, as they were introduced under a procedure endorsed, presumably, by the consumer affairs Ministers. The fact that the other States have not met the timetable does not mean and ought not to mean that the Federal body can come in under this legislation and pre-empt any action by the States to enact such legislation. The Opposition's proposed amendment would ensure that the States were given adequate time-we are proposing two years-to enact their legislation in preference to another grab for power, and the centralisation of power, by the Federal Government. This in itself might not seem particularly significant but it underscores the Australian Labor Party's push for central power. Although only a small area, it is another area that exemplifies what the coalition views as an unnecessary intrusion into State powers in Australia. Because of that we do not believe that we should authorise a permanent extension of Federal power in relation to this matter. The two-year extension of time we propose is necessary in order to ensure that the States can introduce the necessary legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, coming from New South Wales, you would readily understand that State governments may have some other matters on their minds. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -As the honourable member would know, State governments all around Australia, even in Queensland, have other things on their minds. Mr MOORE —But Queensland has passed it, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the only trouble with your argument. In Queensland we have passed this legislation. Even the National Party of Australia has been able to do that in government. What you say is a very poor excuse, if I might say so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I only made the intervention because the honourable member suggested that I should. Mr MOORE —I know that it was done in jest but unfortunately you picked the wrong area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As usual. Mr MOORE —As usual. There is no Love Boat about that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We will not have any reflections upon the Chair. The honourable member might take a trip on the water himself if he is not careful. Let us get back to the matter before us. Mr MOORE —To keep our feet on the land; the final amendment proposed in this Bill bears testimony to your sensitivity, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it allows officers of the Bureau of Consumer Affairs to launch prosecutions themselves under part V of the Trade Practices Act. To date only the Minister has been able to authorise those prosecutions. All those who have held the position of Minister, including the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), would be very concerned about the obligation under an Act of parliament to sign prosecutions as recommended by the secretary to a department because one never knows what the background might be. Under these circumstances the relevant department may launch prosecutions, and it would have to bear the consequences of them. We take the view that this administrative adjustment is the right and appropriate way to go. So of the three amendments proposed by the Government we go along with two. The other we find in error because it intrudes on the ability of State governments to carry out their business as it is allotted to them under the Constitution. There are other aspects of this matter which we really ought to talk about, including the whole area of consumerism and the Liberal Party's approach to it. The Liberal Party of Australia and the coalition generally are very committed to consumerism. The Liberal Party believes that there is no inherent conflict of interest between the consumer and the provider in a private enterprise system. The public interest lies in democratic institutions and in direct consumer sovereignty. The great difference between the coalition and the Labor Party is in our approach to consumer affairs. Our approach is to free up public enterprises, to reduce waste and public expenditure and to reduce regulation, which regulation leads to increases in costs. The Labor Party's approach is to set up committees, councils and advisory groups and then to put consumer representatives on all these bodies. That creates more red tape and wastes more public money, and these groups are removed further from the real problem. Our commitment stems from a belief that the marketplace, on the whole, can provide the best for consumers. There is a very real need to protect the health, wealth and welfare of Australians as far as possible. Part V of the Trade Practices Act, which relates to consumer protection, has been widely supported by business at large. Regulation has its place, but it must be scrutinised closely to ensure that it meets two criteria: firstly, that there is a clear deficiency in the market resulting in a need for regulation; and, secondly, that regulation, if put in place, must have a fair chance of correcting that deficiency without causing unnecessary disruption to the market. Part V of the Act largely meets these criteria but each and every regulation must undergo this sort of examination. This conflicts quite strongly with remarks made by members of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO). Recently at a symposium entitled `Business Regulation, When Does the Consumer Profit?' AFCO said: Consumers want at least the current level of protection afforded by regulation. The rhetoric of de-regulation goes too far . . . The outcome of the regulation debate will significantly shape the legal and social environment of the Australian economy in the years to come. It was the Liberal-National Party Government that put in place the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, which today commands a great deal of influence and advises the Ministers with responsibility for consumer affairs. Its membership comprises four consumers, five business people and six various other representatives. We should not delude ourselves by thinking that the Trade Practices Act is the one and only form of consumer protection in Australia. Reform in the wider macro-economic environment, the lifting of tariff protections, the reviewing of merger and takeover activity, and the removal of burdensome government taxes and changes would all provide great relief to consumer. Privatisation is another area where the benefits which would accrue to consumers would be very great. The inefficiencies of many of our public enterprises, and the inability of the Australian Labor Party to address these inefficiencies, are inflicting more pain upon Australian consumers than the whole of the business community could ever inflict. I draw attention here to a couple of complaints made in 1986 about Telecom Australia, one of the great institutions about which the Labor Party said, `We must review it', and then today said, `We must not touch it because it is one of those bodies that give a public service'. But it gives a greater public service to members of a particular trade union which has great influence within the Australian Labor Party. In 1986 complaints made against Telecom won it the brickbat award. That is quite something. The North Sydney rugby league team could not even win that. Oral complaints to the Ombudsman in Canberra about Telecom rose by 10 per cent in 1982-83, by a further 9 per cent in 1983-84, by a further 9.7 per cent in 1984-85, by a further 9 per cent in 1985-86 and by a further 12 per cent in 1986-87. Written complaints rose by 24 per cent, 17 per cent, 14 per cent, 13 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively. The reason for this rise is that a public instrumentality such as Telecom has no consumer body which looks at its affairs. It is self-regulatory. If people complain to Telecom, it will give them its answer because it is not answerable to anybody. Good old Telecom! It regulates itself. It is a wholly government owned and operated public monopoly. If there are any complaints it says, `We will give you an answer. That does not mean to say we will give you satisfaction'. As a consequence, the people associated with the services of Telecom, who are not all wrong, sometimes have a lot to bear. Recently we have heard a lot of debate about this. But we have not heard much debate about the interests of the consumer or the person who pays for the use of Telecom's facilities. We have heard a lot about who should own it, who should pay for it, who should raise the money for it, and the working conditions of Telecom's employees. But we have not heard a lot about the consumer or the user of Telecom. That is an area in which the coalition and the Labor Party would be completely at odds. As a whole, the coalition finds that public enterprises are in a very favoured position-and Telecom is a typical example-because no competition means less choice. Higher prices are charged due to Public Service conditions and constraints. There is no threat of bankruptcy, so there is no incentive to perform. The only pressure is brought about when people start to talk about competition. That has occurred only in recent years, when some people have taken a particular interest in the performance of these public instrumentalities in relation to the consumer. I therefore hope that those who take an interest in consumer affairs in Australia direct their interest towards consumers rather than the vested interests, which is so frequently evident from the Government today. I wish to make some observations on the attitudes of consumer advocates in Australia. Consumer advocates should spend more time dwelling on those vital issues than on attacking, without good cause and without reliable research, minor industries such as the pate industry, or the dietary supplement industry, as they have recently been known to do. The Australian Consumers Association (ACA) has used its publication Choice to launch substantial attacks upon a variety of industries, and in many cases without appropriate research. A headlines in Choice stated `Cancer Risks in Baby Bottles'. The research which went into that particular article was hardly substantial. Another headline stated `Is your Turkey a Health Risk?'. Mr Hawker —It depends who the turkey is. Mr MOORE —We saw the turkey well cooked on Saturday, and I do not know what it was stuffed with. Mr Carlton —The Health Minister lost his seat. Mr MOORE —The Health Minister lost his seat and Unsworth has decided not to run again. That is a complaint within the Labor Party. That is what happens when the Prime Minister is a bit of a gobbler. Another headline stated `Rustproofing A Waste of Time and Money'. All these assertions are made in the magazine when a lot of the comments lack appropriate research. But the articles, because of the authority, carry substantial weight. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is not in the best interests of Australian consumers. People ought to be more concerned about this. I conclude by saying that one of the less weighty problems which Choice attacked was the pate industry. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) is a pate eater, so he would take a keen interest in this. Choice concluded in a sensational article: In the light of our findings, it's probably safest to make your own. The industry countered by saying that the ACA campaign was grossly inaccurate and unfair, claiming that regular independent laboratory tests were carried out on the pate it made and that it passed with flying colours. I realise that this all sounds fairly trite, as the Minister would understand, and as a consequence I shall not pursue it. Nevertheless, it does point to the fact that some consumer associations' attacks are based more on prejudice than on research. As a consequence of that, we would hope that in future consumer organisations in Australia that develop an antibusiness stance ought not to be taken as much notice of as those who take a balanced approach and recognise that business in Australia and in the world can succeed only when it recognises that the consumer is king and that a free and competitive market must exist. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.51) —I listened with great interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I concur that there is a need for balance. There is a need for realisation on the part of consumer organisations, to put it in my own words, that one gets more with sugar than one does with lemon when dealing in the marketplace. I suggest, however, that the honourable member's contribution, setting aside those points, was quite frightening, because he suggested that there was a need for a freeing up or deregulating of the marketplace, particularly with regard to protection in that marketplace. The honourable member for Ryan is the Opposition spokesman on these matters, indeed he is the spokesman for the Liberal Party of Australia, and it is important that consumers who listen to and read this debate understand exactly where the Liberal Party stands on this issue. I find it surprising that tonight the Opposition should say that it is opposed to one of the important amendments that deals with product recall as it relates to food. I do not believe that I misunderstood what the honourable member said. Mr Moore —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: the Standing Orders provide that members are required to tell the truth. The honourable member for Capricornia is not doing that. If one reads the amendment, one will see that the Opposition is seeking a two-year extension and not a permanent situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! I am not happy that the honourable member for Ryan is suggesting that the honourable member for Capricornia is not telling the truth. The honourable member for Capricornia is debating the point, and I ask him to continue. Mr WRIGHT —It appeared to me that the Opposition was saying here that it did not believe that the Federal Government, the national Government, ought to be responsible for product safety with regard to food products. That is quite an amazing stance to take when one considers that often food manufacturers operate in a national market; that State borders are little more than lines on maps; that section 92 of the Constitution allows any manufacturer in Victoria or in New South Wales, or indeed in any other State, to sell goods in another State; and that, in border towns, people who live on one side of the border often buy products that are manufactured in the adjoining State. Surely there must be a realisation that there is a need for a national approach when it comes to product safety, product recall, and the control of food products and beverages. Honourable members will remember that there was agreement when the Trade Practices Act was amended in 1986 to permit the sunset clause to prevail. We realise also there is a deadline in July 1988. Therefore, there is a need to act. I find it amazing that the Opposition should take this stance and introduce points that I feel are rather inept. As I said earlier, the contribution of the honourable member for Ryan was frightening. He talked about freeing up and deregulating protection in the marketplace. The Trade Practices Act deals with two distinct areas: restricted trade practices-which are protections for business-and consumer protection. I invite the honourable member for Ryan, who is still present in the chamber, to inform this House and the people of Australia whether he opposes prohibited practices and anticompetitive agreements. Does he oppose the provisions in the Trade Practices Act against the misuse of market power? Does he oppose the provisions that are involved in the prevention of resale price maintenance? Is he seeking that provisions relating to mergers that result in market dominance be thrown out the window? When the honourable member refers to deregulation, freeing up, and casting aside protection, what areas are being referred to? Or, shall we return to those aspects of the Trade Practices Act that relate specifically to consumer protection? Is he saying that all those provisions in section 6 that relate to unfair practices should be cast aside and that there be no such thing as prohibited practices, penalties or remedies when people become engaged in unfair business practices? Does he believe that all those provisions should be cast aside? Was the honourable member for Ryan referring to product safety and product information, in relation to which we talk about the need for compulsory consumer products standards, when there is a need for controls over unsafe goods and a need to ban products and to have those products ultimately recalled? Does the honourable member advocate a situation as it existed in Victoria where some 200 people were taken to hospital because of illness caused by unsafe food products? Is that the stance the honourable member is taking? Does he want the provisions requiring warning notices removed? Does he seek the removal of the provisions of voluntary product recall and compulsory action on the part of manufacturers to advise this Government when they are going to recall a product? Does he want to remove all those aspects, the remedies and the penalties, that have created standards of protection for the people of this country? That is what the honourable member said. He said that the people of Australia are overprotected. He said that the businesses of Australia are overprotected. Mr Andrew —Hear, hear! Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member for Wakefield says, `Hear, hear'! What a frightful and shameful position to adopt. Last year I attended a dinner held by the Housing Industry Association in Queensland. Sitting all around me people were saying that we need to remove all the consumer protection that exists in this country. They said, `Let it be the law of the jungle. If a manufacturer makes a product that is unsafe, the consumers will ultimately react'. They had no concern for those who might be hurt. They had no concern for those who might be hospitalised. They wanted the law of the jungle; let the cash register mentality prevail. I, on behalf of the Government, say that is not the way that it shall be. This Labor Government, the Hawke Government, its Ministers for Consumer Affairs-initially the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), and now Senator Nick Bolkus-and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), have pioneered these areas to ensure that the people of this country have proper consumer protection. It frightens me when I hear the honourable member for Ryan, who is respected in my own State of Queensland, get up and advocate a freeing up of the marketplace and getting rid of protection. Let the honourable member say it outside to the pensioner groups who stand with the Government on this issue. Let him say it to the small business groups that know what it is like to get caught up in unfair resale price maintenance arrangements and what it is like to get caught up when there is misuse and abuse of market power. Mr Andrew —Get back to the Bill. Mr WRIGHT —I am addressing the Bill. The Bill is about protection of the consumer. Had the honourable member for Wakefield bothered to read the Bill, he would know that it refers to product recall, product safety-food recall. The honourable member for Wakefield takes the position that it does not matter. Well, I say it does matter. It is time that the people of Australia realised exactly what the strategy of the Liberal Party and the National Party is in this regard. The Opposition seeks to remove the rights of consumers in the marketplace. It does not want the balance or the protection. It wants the cash register mentality. If it happens that a manufacturer does the wrong thing, the Opposition says, `Let the consumers react. Let them not buy the product. Forget those people who have suffered'. That is not the position taken by this Government. The Trade Practices Act was introduced by a Labor Government. It was amended by a Labor Government. Despite opposition from Liberals and Nationals, despite their attempts to procrastinate and hold back the legislation for almost a year in the Senate, we at last have provisions for the protection of every person, be they small business people, farmers, or housewives-for every consumer. As I move around this country and work with consumer groups and business organisations, I find that they support what we have done. They do not want to go too far. As the honourable member for Ryan said earlier, they, too, agree that there is a need for balance. I suggest that that is what the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations pursues, that is what the Australian Consumers Association pursues and that is what the 62 voluntary organisations which are affiliated with ACO pursue. They believe that there is a need for dialogue, there is a need to sit down and talk it through with the banks, insurance companies, finance groups and manufacturers. But ultimately there has to be a bottom line. There have to be rules and there has to be some type of measure that says, `That is as far as we will let you go'. It worries and frightens me that we have Liberal members representing the Opposition and any future government in 10 or 15 years, if they are lucky, saying that they will cast aside these protections for those who do not have the same sophisticated capacity in the marketplace. When they buy a product they do not know whether the representations made are correct. So it is too that the small business person who starts a business, goes out on his own, wants the same types of protections. I find it quite amazing that a person such as the honourable member for Ryan would stand up here and advocate a policy that says, `Do away with these provisions'. What the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) has introduced in the second reading speech, what the Government is doing, is vitally necessary. These are provisions that must be because of the need to maintain the strength of the Trade Practices Act, to ensure that there are no loopholes. As an ex-State member of parliament I, too, would have liked to see the States carry out their responsibilities. That is what it is about. We gave them time to introduce those protections in the food product area, but some did not do it. So what do we do? Stand back and say, `Oh well, it doesn't matter. Let the loopholes prevail. It does not matter that we have this situation where we don't have uniform legislation or nationwide protection. It doesn't matter because we have this fine principle of saying that the States have to do it.'? But what, may I ask, do we do when the States do not do it? That is what this Government is trying to address. Mr Hawker —What happened in Queensland? Mr WRIGHT —With all due respect to the honourable member for Wannon, Queensland has already been acknowledged for the work it has done in this area. I believe Queensland was the first State to bring down the model food Act. I am not attacking Queensland. Queensland has had some excellent legislative initiatives. I never attack my own State in that area because when it went back to Bill Knox, when he was the Attorney-General and I was the shadow Attorney, we put through initiative and pioneering legislation in all sorts of areas. Vince Lester has done the same thing and Paul Clauson continues to do the same thing. But the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has raised the point and backed the point that I make. It makes no difference if Queensland does it when the other States do not because the Constitution allows another State to manufacture the product and send it into Queensland. It is amazing that an honourable member with some intelligence would say such a thing. Why does he think this Government acted and brought down product safety and protection in the consumer safety areas? Because the States were not acting, because we had a situation where New South Wales would act on an unsafe product, it would ban it and the manufacturers and importers would simply shift it to Victoria. When Victoria acted, banned it and moved to stop the sale, the manufacturers and importers would shift it to South Australia, the Northern Territory or Queensland. As honourable members will recall, in my maiden speech in this House at the beginning of 1985 I said that we needed a national approach. Attorney-General Bowen said, `We are going to get that'. It was conservative Ministers such as Vince Lester who said, `We need it', and he acted to do something about it. So that reinforces my argument that it is quite amazing, frightening and alarming when Liberal and National Party members in this chamber want to throw out the good work done not only by this Government but also by conservative State governments. The provisions being put forward in these amendments are vitally important to keep the strength of the Trade Practices Act. They are vitally important to see that we have a national approach to product safety and they are vitally important to see that we encompass the food area as well. I am quite amazed and surprised that Liberal members would suggest that they are going to move an amendment that will frustrate the endeavours of this Government to ensure that the people of Australia are protected. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.05) —I welcome the opportunity to follow the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). People listening to this debate either in the chamber tonight or on the air waves could be forgiven for thinking that the Opposition intended to vote against the legislation. The honourable member for Capricornia has, in his unusual charismatic and emotive way, given the impression that the Opposition has no interest whatsoever in consumer protection legislation. The reality is that of the three amendments before the House, amendments proposed by the Government, the Opposition intends to support unequivocally two of them and on one amendment, far from opposing it, merely seeks an extension of time. To quote the honourable member for Capricornia, he alleged-he kept using this phrase over and over again-that we are guilty of `casting aside all measure of consumer protection'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The history of this Opposition when in government has not been a history of casting aside consumer protection; it has been a history of doing what we are doing tonight and recognising the sovereignty of every consumer. It is not true to suggest that the Opposition has failed in this House to enter a plea on behalf of every consumer. It is not true to suggest that the Opposition has some form of tunnel vision when it comes to protecting consumers through consumer legislation. It is not true to suggest that we have failed to recognise the rights of consumers across Australia. The plea of the Opposition in the stance it takes on this legislation tonight is a plea to give to every Australian the maximum choice without exposing him or her unduly to the sort of exploitation that would occur in an entirely laissez-faire style of system. What we have asserted is not that the legislation should be thrown out, as the honourable member for Capricornia would have us believe-if that were the case, we would be voting against it-but that the responsibility for consumer affairs is best served in most areas at State level. The legislation before the House proposes amendments in three areas of the Trade Practices Act. First, it proposes to amend section 53 to prohibit false representation as to the value of goods. As I have said to the House, contrary to the impression given by the honourable member for Capricornia, the Opposition does not oppose that amendment. Secondly, it proposes that section 65u be repealed. In that area we will be moving an amendment proposing that, instead of this section being repealed, the sunset clause be extended for a further two years to allow the States to act in this area of consumer responsibility leaving, once again, accountability and responsibility with the State governments. The final amendment being debated before the House tonight is a proposal to allow officers of the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs authorised by the Secretary to the Department-in writing, I might add-to initiate prosecutions in the same way as they are currently instituted by the Trade Practices Commission. The Opposition does not propose to oppose that particular amendment. Once again, I must take issue with the honourable member for Capricornia who has left both the House and the nation with the impression that the Opposition has no concern at all for consumer affairs protection when, in fact, we propose to support two of the Government amendments and not to vote against the other Government amendment but to move a further amendment that allows greater flexibility for State governments. The honourable member for Capricornia referred to his maiden speech wherein, once again, in his emotive style he called on the Government to introduce a department of consumer affairs and a Minister for consumer affairs. He will be flattered to know that I was interested enough in his maiden speech to chase through some of the speeches he has given more recently in the House. I discovered that consistent-I commend him on that-with the call he made tonight, he did, on 6 October last year, when addressing the Appropriation Bill, refer, once again, to consumer affairs. He said: . . . We need to understand companies do not recognise State boundaries. He said that again tonight. He continued: They want some uniformity when it comes to advertising laws, labelling laws, packaging laws, health standards, safety requirements and warranties. Mr Wright —Do you agree? Mr ANDREW —My fellow member should give me an opportunity to finish my sentence before he endeavours foolishly to carve me apart. He continued: That can best be done at a federal level. I say to the honourable member for Capricornia that that is the point at which the Opposition takes issue with the Government. It takes issue with the statement that this can best be done at the Federal level. We do not contend that it cannot be done at the Federal level or, as he would allege, that if it cannot be done at the Federal level it should not be done at all. We say that there are better ways of doing this than to bring the heavy hand of the Federal Government unnecessarily into the area of consumer affairs. It cannot best be done at the Federal level by the standards applied by the Opposition. We accept that it may be most efficiently, if you like, done at the Federal level, just as a sledgehammer may be easily the most efficient way of cracking nuts-provided that a person does not want any nuts left to eat after he has done the cracking. We contend that the best way to do this is to allow the consumer the maximum choice and the maximum freedom. This gives to the consumer a measure of dignity and sovereignty over consumer rights that should be paramount in any legislative assembly. We reject the arrogance time and again from the Government benches that suggests that supreme wisdom has somehow been vested in this chamber. There is precious little evidence to back up that claim. Because there is so little evidence to back it up we put it to the Government that there is also wisdom, sovereignty and dignity in the way in which State chambers go about their business. All that we are doing is asserting the federalist policy of the Opposition-recognising the role and accountability of State parliaments-and stating the absolutely irrefutable fact that the State Parliament happens to be closer to the people than does the Federal Parliament. For the benefit of honourable members opposite, let me say that we are not proud of the delays that have occurred in the implementation of consumer protection. We are not even defensive of those delays. We as a Federal parliament have no right to be dictatorial about those things that are the responsibility of State governments. While those opposite will rush to point out what have been the shortcomings of State governments, I remind them that State governments remain answerable and accountable, as we are, to the consumer-who is, of course, the elector-only more so because they are that much closer to the elector than we are geographically able to be. For that reason, we do not oppose the legislation that is before the House tonight. We seek this amendment in relation to section 65u to give State governments an additional period of two years to play the game, as it were. One of the safeguards that consumers around Australia must recognise is that, whether they are dealing with State or Federal parliaments, the people who represent those seats are answerable to those consumers at State elections. The other safeguard that consumers have in Australia is, surely, the safeguard of a free Press. We as an Opposition want to ensure that the laws of slander do not prevent people who have been disadvantaged by unscrupulous consumer affairs from saying so and ensuring that other consumers are alerted through the free Press to inferior products, beverages or food. I remind the House, because it seems timely to do so, that the Government has made a great deal of political mileage out of the actions of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and his price watch committee, which has been set up solely for the purpose of consumer protection. I am quite prepared to accept that the motive for setting up that committee may have been consumer interest, but during the last two weeks we have discovered that some consumers have been disadvantaged by that committee because the privacy that consumers are entitled to has been exposed and lost under its relentless eye and because of the rather wishy-washy way in which the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has gone about supervising his Department. I repeat that the Opposition does not pretend for a moment that existing consumer affairs laws are perfect. We merely contend that to give this sort of power at this time to the Federal Government is to impose a legislative dinosaur on the consumers of Australia. I repeat that the Opposition does not want to have those vulnerable consumers exploited by ruthless companies. Our whole track record illustrates that point. We are not opposing this legislation for that very reason, but in the interests of the sovereignty of consumers and State governments we are proposing an amendment which gives an additional two years for State governments to come into line. The honourable member for Capricornia shakes his head, as I might have guessed he would. I remind him that consumer affairs protection is in no way vested in the Federal Parliament or even exclusively in the State parliaments. Local government has a key role to play in the protection of consumer affairs and acting in the consumer interest. There would be no member of Federal Parliament who does not have local governing bodies in his constituency already responsible for minimum health standards in such businesses as butchers' shops, restaurants and various food outlets. Consumer affairs protection is not exclusively the right of the Federal Parliament. It is a responsibility shared also by State and local governments. In the interests of the sovereignty of every Australian, the Opposition proposes-not, as the honourable member for Capricornia has alleged, to oppose this legislation-to support those parts which we can and to ensure that State governments maintain their sovereignty in the interests of the consumers of Australia. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(9.18) —I am very grateful for the contribution of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) because he certainly clarified for the House in a very unambiguous way precisely where the Opposition stands in relation to consumer protection law. If I understood the honourable gentleman correctly, he was saying that the Opposition is concerned about consumer protection and the interests of consumers, but that the Opposition believes primarily that this issue is a matter for the States. Mr Andrew —For the consumers. Mr TICKNER —For the consumers and indeed for State government regulation rather than Commonwealth government regulation. Mr Andrew —For the consumers, as voters exercising their right to vote. Mr TICKNER —The honourable gentleman confirms the assessment I have made. I want to take him and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), through a little history in order that people may understand the consistency the Opposition has displayed in this area, since consumer protection legislation was first introduced into this Parliament. There are three amendments in the legislation before the House tonight, each of which I will deal with. The Opposition is prepared to support two of them; the other it is not. In relation to the Government's amendment to give the Commonwealth Government a continuing role in consumer protection with regard to food and beverages Australia-wide, the Opposition says we should have only a transient interest in this area and that we ought to leave it to the States to regulate. As I have said, that has been the consistent approach of the Opposition ever since consumer protection laws were debated in this Parliament. When the Trade Practices Bill was before the House in 1974, the then shadow Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, a former member for Wentworth, referred to the State laws then in operation and moved for the deletion of the entire consumer protection sections of the Trade Practices Bill. During the next decade the Opposition philosophy went through a maturing process, but unfortunately it was left in exactly the same ideological position as it was in in 1974. In 1985 when this Government introduced amendments to the Trade Practices Act to confer a power of compulsory recall of dangerous and life-threatening products, the Opposition again opposed the amendments. I remind the House of the types of products we are talking about when we speak of compulsory recall. We are not talking about products that may have some minor deficiency in their construction; we are talking about life-threatening products. If people around Australia listen, they will remember that over recent years there have been examples of swimming pool filters which have literally, in the most horrific manner, disembowelled young children. Those products, of course, were still on the market and still being sold. Only because of the power of compulsory recall can we ensure that such a situation never occurs again. However, in 1985 the Opposition opposed the principle of compulsory recall. We now find the shadow Minister for business and consumer affairs, the honourable member for Ryan-in one of his few Press statements-once more saying that consumers want no more intervention to protect their interests. Of course, that is a consistent view which the Opposition has displayed since 1974. I turn now to deal very specifically with this issue of States rights. Let us just examine the public record to see the commitment and the reforming zeal which State governments bring to consumer protection law. Mr Wright —Or lack thereof. Mr TICKNER —As the honourable member for Capricornia invites me to do, let me refer to a particular example of the lack of any real commitment on the part of a State government to protect the interests of consumers. I refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and honourable members to an episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The Investigators broadcast on 4 September 1985. During the program considerable criticism was made by independent commentators of the appalling nature of consumer protection legislation, some of which literally dates back to the earlier part of this century. On the program the then Tasmanian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Lyons, who was charged with the administration of consumer affairs in that State, in one sentence struck a devastating blow to the Opposition in this Parliament and all those who trumpet the phoney States rights argument in relation to the health and well-being of Australian consumers. Mr Lyons was asked whether Tasmania would have effective consumer protection legislation, and was invited to comment on Australia-wide comparisons. When asked about comparative legislation, this social reformer Tasmanian style, in whom the honourable member for Wakefield and the honourable member for Ryan would have us place our trust as the protector and guardian of consumer rights in Tasmania, said: Look, I'm sorry, I'm really not familiar with what it's like on the mainland. I know that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), who sits near me in Parliament, has come into this place with a mission. He has many causes which he will take up during his time in this Parliament. One of those causes is to try to drag the State of Tasmania kicking and screaming into the 1980s when it comes to consumer protection legislation. That has not happened in Tasmania and I regret to say that, despite some efforts by a number of States, the lesson is that the States have not been willing to initiate consistent and uniform reforms. That is why in 1974 the Whitlam Government introduced, for the first time in the history of Australia, the Trade Practices Act and consumer protection provisions. That is why this Government is continuing with legislative reform in the Bill before the House. Let me address the rhetoric of the Opposition on consumer protection. The honourable member for Ryan and the honourable member for Wakefield in their addresses to the House spoke about consumer sovereignty. They spoke about the role of the market and advanced the view that, by those mechanisms, the interests of consumers would be protected. Let me inform those honourable members that if one entered any law school in Australia or in any democratic country throughout the world, and sought to advance the argument that the interests of consumers are protected by the marketplace, one would fail and be bounced out of the institution. It is not only an economic insult; it is an absolute affront to the intelligence of people to suggest that Mr and Mrs Smith or Mr and Mrs Bloggs or Mr and Mrs Jones in the suburbs of Australia can enter into a contract with any of the major departmental stores, or any of the multinational product manufacturers, and hope to bargain or contract as an equal. But I warn people to beware of the rhetoric, beware of the sleight of hand approach of the Opposition that says, `Consumer sovereignty-let the market operate. Let us deregulate. Let us take all these unnecessary regulations that protect consumers, and let the forces of the market operate and all will be well'. As I have said, that is simply not in accordance with the reality of how society works. I would have hoped that by 1988 a bipartisan approach would be adopted to issues of consumer protection. Before I turn to the particular provisions of the Bill, I make these points because it is often said that there are no significant differences between the Opposition and the Government on a range of social policies. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are cavernous differences on almost every significant social policy. Nowhere is that more evident than in this area of consumer protection where the Opposition advocates a hands-off approach by the Commonwealth. Three amendments to the Trade Practices Act are before the House tonight. The first provides that a corporation, and in some cases an individual, shall not, in trade or commerce, falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the scope of the prohibitions contained in section 53 (a) and section 53 (aa) of the Act, and follows on from the comment in a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia that a representation as to value may be a representation as to quality, as defined in section 53, but whether it does depends on the facts of each case. The purpose of the amendment is to remove any doubt that section 53 prohibits false representations as to the value of goods or services. It is a technical amendment, but it is precisely the sort of technical amendment that has to be made on a regular basis to keep pace with the decisions of the courts and their interpretation of the Trade Practices Act. If these necessary amendments are not made, unscrupulous retailers are able to violate the spirit of the law and have cases against them for what may well be a fraud thrown out of court. So, the amendment is technical but nevertheless important. Another amendment is administrative, resulting from a transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of part V, division 1a of the Act from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Again, it is a technical amendment. I welcome at least the fact that the Opposition has not sought to oppose this amendment. It is the third amendment which causes the difficulty. Section 65u of the Act was inserted at the behest of the Australian Democrats and of the Opposition and came into force on 1 July 1986. It provides that two years after the day on which the division comes into operation it shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are food or drinks intended for human consumption. If this section is not repealed it will have the effect of removing foods and beverages from the product safety provisions in the Act. It was hoped, as has been said in this debate, that there would have been uniform food recall legislation at State level. But that has not happened. Some States do not have specific food recall powers and the existing State powers are not uniform. What an absurd situation it would be if the Government were not moving, as it is, to repeal this section. We would have the crazy result that dangerous products such as the one I referred to-one of many-the swimming pool filter that could disembowel a child, which has happened, tragically, would still be covered by the existing law. If we were not seeking to effect this reform, food and beverages would be outside the ambit of the Act. That would be an absolute farce for the reasons honourable members will quickly see. If we do not repeal the section, the Commonwealth will lose the power to ban the supply of unsafe food and beverages, to set safety or information standards in respect of food and beverages, and to require suppliers to take action to protect consumers from a hazardous food or beverage if voluntary action proved unsatisfactory. The present mandatory notification of voluntary recall of foods and beverages would also be removed. I had hoped that the Opposition would have acknowledged that food and beverages are essential consumer items. It is simply not feasible to omit food and beverages from the reach of the Act, particularly in relation to recall, in the absence of some other mechanism. I do not want to chronicle the quite substantial history of, literally, life-threatening products, food and beverages, which have been put on sale in shops throughout Australia and which, thankfully, have been recalled in time to avert a major consumer tragedy. It follows, obviously, that we need to have that back-up power to ensure that dangerous products, which may have been contaminated or which may be life-threatening, are able to be recalled. For the Opposition's benefit, the reason why we need continuing Commonwealth intervention in this area is that food and beverage markets, as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said, are not State markets. We are a national market. Food and beverages are distributed and marketed nationally. Therefore, a nationally coordinated approach to safety-related food recalls is essential. State borders are obviously artificial in the national food market. The mandatory notification system for voluntary food recalls has been operating efficiently and effectively. The Opposition has not sought to challenge the operation of the regime since it was put in place over a year and a half ago. In consultation with the States it has recently been agreed that a uniform food legislation and interpretation committee will be established, comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and State health departments. The Commonwealth will provide the chair and the secretariat. It is proposed that the coordination of the national recall system will, in future, be performed by the secretariat and oversighted by that committee. The efficiency and effectiveness of the national food and beverage recall system is heavily dependent on the existing product recall provisions in the Trade Practices Act. For all those reasons, I would have thought that the Opposition would have abandoned its free market, New Rightist, States rights approach that the Commonwealth has no role in the important area of consumer protection. But I acknowledge that Opposition members are consistent. They said it in 1974, they said it in 1985 and they continue to say it in 1988. They take the same view about environmental protection. They say that it is a State responsibility. We say that there are some vital areas where the States fail to perform their responsibilities and that, therefore, there is a national need for intervention. I conclude by placing our commitment to consumer protection in the context of the social justice strategy of the Australian Labor Party. That social justice strategy is the guiding light for what we are on about as a national Labor Government in our third term of office. We have the objectives of creating fairness in access to economic power and resources. We have a commitment to protect and ensure the effective exercise of industrial and political rights. We have a commitment to ensure greater equality of access to essential goods and services. Finally, we have a commitment to ensure expanded opportunities for participation by people in decisions affecting their lives. That, I admit, is a grand plan, but all that we do in all the portfolios of this Government is directed towards that grand plan. It is truly our light on the hill as a Federal Labor Government as we proceed through our historic third term. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.38) —I was very interested to hear some of the views of the preceding speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). He tried to argue, in a very reasonable fashion, some quite unreasonable points. When we talk about grand plans and lights on the hill I get very sceptical because I think it tends to cover up what is really going on. In supporting the speeches of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), I reiterate that the Opposition supports two parts of the amendments to the Trade Practices Act. We believe that there should be some clarification of section 53. We also have no problem with the fact that officers of the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs may be authorised in writing by the Secretary to the Department to institute prosecutions, rather than having to get the direction of the Minister, as we now have the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. We seek to extend the sunset clause on the repeal of section 65u. In that regard I take exception to what the honourable member for Hughes was saying. It was extremely misleading. He tried to intimate that food and beverages are subject to this section now. Obviously, they are not. That is the whole point of why the Government is trying to repeal section 65u. Currently food and beverages are not included under the Trade Practices Act. All we are seeking to do is to extend this sunset clause for another two years. As has already been admitted by honourable members on the other side of the chamber, some States have passed consumer protection laws in the food and beverages area, which are completely acceptable to the Government. It rather concerned me when the honourable member for Hughes appeared to imply that he had some benign belief that, should this legislation be passed, as the Government has proposed, without the Opposition's amendment, automatically all food and beverages will suddenly become safe for Australians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously, in many cases food and beverages are highly perishable products and no matter how many laws we pass the goodwill and ability of wholesalers and retailers are required to ensure the products get to consumers in safe form and to ensure that consumers are protected. It is just wishful thinking to believe that passing this law, with the wave of a magic wand, will somehow solve all the problems. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that. As the honourable member for Hughes has already admitted a voluntary recall system is already working very well and I would have thought that somehow that indicates sometimes governments ought to stand back and say, `Hang on, we already have a system that is starting to work. Let us not rush in to pass more legislation, bring in extra bureaucracy and force more red tape on business'. Talking of more red tape, I find it amazing that in the second reading speech the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) suggested in the financial impact statement that any extra work involved in ensuring compliance with the amended provisions of the Act should be capable of being absorbed by existing resources. That implies one of two things: either the current bureaucracy that is in place is not fully extended, in other words is being wasteful and duplicating a lot of things, or else the bureaucracy involved will drop other areas of its enforcement. Either way, I think that reflects rather badly on the administration of this Government. I would like also to take up just a couple of points with the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). What he was saying was highly emotional and extremely misleading and when he admits that some of the States have already passed laws in this area he contradicts a lot of what he was saying. He relied very heavily on emotion and rhetoric and brought in all sorts of spurious arguments on matters that should have been treated far more seriously than he appeared to be willing to do. I would like to follow up on a point made by the honourable member for Ryan. It involves consumer groups and in particular the magazine Choice. Some time ago I had occasion to take Choice to task over its involvement in things which I thought were quite beyond the scope of consumer protection, and I still believe this. At the end of 1982 or in early 1983 Choice took it upon itself to write a feature article on gun laws. I found it amazing that an organisation that was supposed to be involved in consumer protection should buy into an issue quite unrelated to what would normally be considered within its ambit of responsibility. I wrote to Choice and took it to task on this. Unfortunately, by the time I got around to writing it was just after I had been elected and all I got back was a reply that my views were political. Maybe they are political but I would suggest that the views of Choice on this occasion were equally political. I wonder whether consumer protection is having its cause advanced by people who quite clearly take strongly political views in areas that should be beyond the ambit of consumer protection. I also endorse the words of the honourable member for Ryan when he said that in many cases those who represent consumer affairs are strongly anti-business, are often looking for sensational headlines to promote their cause and in many cases present a very unbalanced argument. One will often find that their arguments are easily debunked by those who have had their product criticised, but how often do we see the recanting of the criticism by those consumer organisations? Even when we do, it certainly does not receive the prominence that the original criticism received. For that reason I think consumer protection agencies in their various forms ought to take a long, hard look at themselves and see whether they are protecting those whom they claim to protect or only furthering their own selfish cause and promoting the individuals involved, who wish to promote themselves rather than the cause that they espouse. I support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ryan to extend for a further two years the sunset clause on section 65U. I believe the Government could and should continue to impress upon the State governments that have not done so already the need to consider what they should be doing in this area of protection for consumers, particularly with beverages and food products. Despite what honourable members opposite are saying, I believe there is a very important and clear role for State governments to play in this area. The Government should exercise a little more patience in this area because there is a strong likelihood that State governments, if they feel the need, will take up the opportunity to maintain their rights. It is important in all these things that we maintain some balance between Commonwealth and State responsibilities. Two States have already passed legislation in this area and have been praised by Government members for doing so. This is a very clear indication that the States can and should be allowed to accept responsibility in this area. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.46) —The Trade Practices Act 1974 has undergone a substantial number of reviews and amendments. For example, the Trade Practices Committee of Review looked at it in 1976. In February 1984, following an internal review, the Hawke Government published a Green Paper canvassing wholesale changes to the Act. In September 1987 the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission was to carry out a review of laws covering product liability. Last month it was announced that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is to undertake a major inquiry into the mergers, acquisitions and monopolies provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The Trade Practices Act seeks to regulate various business practices with the principal aim of enhancing and protecting the rights of consumers. This objective is to be realised by the promotion of competition through the outlawing of various collusive and monopolistic practices, principally by part IV of the Act, and by directly strengthening the market position of consumers relative to producers and distributors by prohibiting a variety of unfair practices and creating certain non-excludable rights, principally by part V of the Act. The philosophy which underpins the Trade Practices Act is that regulation can make markets more efficient, as well as fairer, by doing away with self-serving forms of private regulation and control and by ensuring that consumer choices are based on adequate and accurate information as to price, description and quality. Despite frequent industry calls for greater reliance on self-regulation, the available evidence suggests that parts of the business community cannot be left to their own devices. The Trade Practices Commission, in its 1986-87 annual report, states that it received over 34,000 inquiries and complaints regarding consumer rights under part V of the Act. Likewise, State government agencies are well patronised. For example, the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs receives over 200,000 inquiries and in excess of 20,000 formal complaints from consumers each year. Thus critics who argue that such legislation does not fulfil some basic need within the community are flying in the face of the facts. The object of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill is to make three amendments to the consumer protection provisions in part V of the Act. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill succinctly outlines all the amendments contained in this Bill. I quote: The first amendment proposes the inclusion in section 53 of an express prohibition on false representations as to the value of goods or services. This is essentially a clarification of the existing prohibition on false representations that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. The second amendment proposes the repeal of section 65u. That section would have the effect as from 1 July 1988 of exempting food and drink for human consumption from the product safety and production information provisions in Part V, Division 1a of the Act. The section was enacted in the belief that uniform State/Territory legislation would be enacted to fill the gap, but this has not occurred. The final amendment proposes that a person authorised by the Secretary to the relevant Commonwealth Department may institute criminal prosecutions without being required to first obtain the consent in writing of the Minister. The amendment is administrative in nature, resulting from the transfer of some functions related to the enforcement of the Act from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs . . . The three proposed amendments break no new ground. They are consistent with the underlying objectives of the Act and they are not inconsistent with the existing regulatory framework set up by the legislation. I will now discuss the amendments contained in the Bill. First I refer to clause 3, which deals with false and misleading representations. Section 53 of the Trade Practices Act prohibits various types of false or misleading representations. The section, by way of contrast to more general sections in the Act, actually lists specific areas in which representations need to be accurate and conduct that must not mislead. An infringement of section 53 is a criminal offence. Accordingly, the offence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it has been held that mens rea is not an element. This means that wrongful intention is not relevant to a person's guilt or innocence under the section. In 1977 the Fraser Government inserted sections 53 (a) and 53 (aa) into the Act. Those sections presently cover false representations going to the particular standard, quality, grade, composition, style or model, particular history or particular previous use of goods. Following the decision in Ducret v. Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd it is unclear as to whether the sections as they are currently worded include false representation as to value. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to apply the full provisions of the Act to ensure that false representation as to value of goods is prohibited. The facts of Ducret v. Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd were that a businessman, Chaudhary, was charged under section 79 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 with being knowingly concerned with the commission of an offence against the Act by the company. The prosecutor alleged that in contravention of section 53e of the Trade Practices Act the company, that is Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd, had made misleading statements in a Melbourne newspaper with respect to the price of certain carpets. One of the allegedly offending statements was that the price of one type of carpet was `usually $4,675; sale price $1,759; now only $497'. In another part of the advertisement, an illustration of another type of carpet was accompanied by a drawing of a price ticket which bore the legend `usually $250; sale price $125; now only $12.50'. The prosecutor alleged that the statements were misleading because they indicated that the usual or fair retail prices of the carpets in Melbourne were $4,675 and $250, which allegedly was not the case. Expert evidence was adduced that it was impossible to specify a single specific price as the usual retail price in Melbourne of rugs of a particular size and type. The court dismissed the charges against the company on the basis that the actual advertisement in this case did not in its view contain a statement which indicated either the usual retail price or a fair retail price or a fair retail value of a rug to which the advertisement referred. The court, however, allowed for the possibility that in some circumstances goods which had a definite degree of some reasonable characteristic which was recognised or so widely accepted within the relevant trade or by commercial practice generally that to ascribe that value to them in, say, an advertisement was inferentially to warrant that they were of standard liked to that value. I now refer to clause 4, which deals with the repeal of section 65u. The section in question forms part of division 1a of part V of the Act. That division, inserted in the Act in 1986, provides for the banning of unsafe goods, the declaration of product safety and product information and the mandatory recall of hazardous goods. The new division replaced the former section 62 and 63 of the Act, which dealt with the area of the law in a less detailed fashion. Prior to their repeal, sections 62 and 63 provided for the creation of consumer product safety standards and consumer product information standards by regulation. Such regulations were made by the Governor-General in pursuance of his power under section 172 of the Act. The Minister could also declare that a particular standard, or part of it, prepared by the Standards Association of Australia, or another association or body, was a standard for the purposes of sections 62 or 63. Section 62 (2d) permitted the banning of goods considered to be `unsafe'. In introducing the 1986 amendments to the Act, the Attorney-General stated the Government's reasoning for replacing sections 62 and 63 with a new code. Those reasons were that, first, the old provisions had no application to unsafe products supplied before a banning order is issued; secondly, there were no powers available to deal with the problem of unsafe products which had reached the hands of consumers; and, thirdly, under the legislation adequate opportunity was not provided to review decisions taken by the Minister under sections 62 and 63. Section 65b provides for the publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of various warning notices by the Minister in relation to potentially injurious goods. Consumer product safety standards, unsafe goods declarations, and banning orders are dealt with in section 65c. Consumer product information standards are outlined in section 65d. In addition to the formulation of new standards, existing safety and information standards may be adopted and declared by the Minister, and this course is outlined in section 65e. The new area of compulsory product recall is dealt with in section 65f, and section 65g covers compliance with such orders. A deeming provision in section 65h is concerned with loss or damage suffered as a result of non-compliance with a compulsory recall order. Conferences may be held before the finalisation of certain decisions and the provisions dealing with these conferences are contained in sections 65j and 65q. Conferences may also be held following the declaration that goods are unsafe, and that is dealt with in section 65m. It is now compulsory to notify the Trade Practices Commission where goods are voluntarily recalled because of potential danger and this duty, in addition to penalties for their breach, is outlined in section 65r. Section 65t safeguards insurance contracts in situations where information is supplied to authorities in respect of defective goods. Section 65u provides for the cessation of the operation of the division in respect of food and drink intended for human consumption after a period of two years. To assist suppliers regarding the operation of the new product safety provisions, the Commonwealth Office of Consumer Affairs has issued a publication entitled Product Safety-Guide to the Operation of the Trade Practices Act. It is section 65u which is the subject of the second of the three proposed amendments to the Act. It provides: At the expiration of 2 years after the day on which this Division comes into operation, this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption. The explanatory memorandum states: The Section 65u was inserted by the Trade Practices Revision Act 1986 as a result of an amendment in the Senate. The amendment was proposed by Senator Haines, Leader of the Australian Democrats. In moving the amendment she said: The purpose of the sunset clause was to chivvy the States into getting their food Acts into line. The Democrat amendment was supported by the Liberal and National parties and consequently became law. Two years have now passed since the sunset clause was inserted in division 1a. If this legislation is not passed division 1a of part V of the Act will not apply to food and drink. The Democrat amendment gave rise to a number of separate issues. First, there is some uncertainty as to whether its authors intended the amendment to apply to all of division 1a or just to the recall powers principally contained in sections 65f and 65j. In so far as recall powers are concerned, only Western Australia has during the past two years enacted new regulations providing for recall of unsafe products. Queensland had earlier enacted regulations providing for product recall, and South Australia claims that its Food Act 1985 provides sufficient power to cover its problems in this area. A third issue is whether it is appropriate for food and drink to be treated as separate categories. In 1976 the Trade Practices Committee of Review considered: That at the present time food should not be excluded from the products in respect of which a standard may be prescribed under the Trade Practices Act . . . when national uniform food standard legislation is adopted in Australia the Committee would see it as appropriate for that legislation to prescribe standards for food products rather than under the Trade Practices Act. As yet no such uniform national law exists. A model food Act was drafted by a working party of Federal and State health Ministers in 1980. It has been adopted in principle by all States but the legislation that has resulted to date has not been uniform. New South Wales, for example, has yet to enact legislation that would include the model food Act in its Pure Food Act 1908. The Australian Capital Territory does not have a food ordinance. Similarly, the food standards code recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council, which was gazetted by the Federal Government on 27 August 1987, has yet to achieve uniform coverage. On the question of recalls, the 1976 Trade Practices Committee of Review found that the inability of the Trade Practices Act to deal with hazardous products was `a substantial legislative defect'. Indeed, one justification for consumer protection law is that consumers are seldom in a position to evaluate the worth or safety of a product until that product has been purchased or consumed. Consumers may not realise that a product is unsafe or unmerchantable until it is too late for them to do anything about it. In the case of food and drink, this precept applies with added force. In the absence of any separate or distinct uniform code governing the sale of food and drink, it is absolutely necessary to continue applying the provisions of the Trade Practices Act to those products. Arising out of this latter debate is the question of States rights, which was raised earlier. The position of the so-called States righters is rather weak. Section 65u gave the States two years to enact the necessary recall laws. Only one State, Western Australia, has enacted such legislation. Furthermore, the Federal law acts only as a reserve power; that is, mandatory sanctions are to be applied only if voluntary compliance is not forthcoming. In addition the Commonwealth, following the High Court of Australia decision in the concrete pipes case, has clear power under the Federal compact to enact such legislation. Furthermore, the legislation will not inhibit the ability of the States to pass laws dealing with the supply of food and drink. The States have not, through the Uniform Food Law Interpretation Committee, objected to the removal of section 65u. Recall powers preventing re-export from State to State are more expeditiously managed by the Commonwealth, and this power is no different from the Commonwealth power under the Customs Act to prevent the import into Australia of dangerous goods for sale. Even if the States succeeded in passing uniform food legislation it is doubtful whether such legislation would remain uniform for long. These three amendments make up hallmark legislation to enhance and strengthen the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. It is a positive piece of legislation and the amendment proposed by the Opposition has in it all the faults contained in the original amendment put forward by Senator Haines during the debate in the Senate in April 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who just entered the chamber, has been here sufficiently long to know the he should not walk between the member on his feet and the Chair. I have already had occasion to caution the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. I remind the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that there are alternative routes. I am sure he is sufficiently aware of the layout of the chamber to know that. I do not want to be pedantic on this but the Minister places me, as a Deputy Speaker, in an awkward position. I ask that you pay more attention to that, and particularly when in this case it is a colleague of the Minister who is speaking. Mr LINDSAY —The amendment proposed by the Opposition is not well thought out and I am sure that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who has had much experience in the commercial world, realises that the amendment is defective. I believe that he has been forced to put forward that amendment under the direction of his Party. Accordingly, I do not believe that his heart is in the amendment and therefore that he is seriously urging members of this House to support it. The three amendments proposed by the Government are merited, they are warranted, and the people of Australia need them for their protection to ensure that good quality standards with respect to food and drink are always maintained. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear your rebuke of the honourable member for Melbourne, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). He is a student-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Goldstein continues he will place me in an even more embarrassing situation. I would prefer he did not. Mr MACPHEE —I am sorry, I was just about to observe that the honourable member for Melbourne is a student of the rituals of the original Australians and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were referring to the rituals of the Westminster system. Yet the distinguished member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has been referring to what are, I think, very respected rituals of the American system which has been a model-a sometimes misunderstood model-for capitalism in the Western democratic tradition. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 is an endeavour to amend an Act which was put in place by a Liberal government. Whatever the defects of this Bill or the Act which it seeks to amend, the spirit of this Bill is terribly important because it gets to the core of the economic system which governs Australia and all Western democratic countries, including Japan and other Asian countries which adopt that capitalist democratic tradition. So, what we are looking at is what it is under the domestic law which enables our private investment system, our private capitalism system, to work better. This Bill is important. I respect very much the honourable member for Herbert. I have known him for many years. He has made a big contribution to Australia and many of the points he has made are significant. I was looking down the list of people from both sides of the House who have been listed to speak. They include the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), who is a distinguished economist who understands the workings of our mixed economy. Each of them understands the role of government in a society like Australia and therefore the role which trade practices legislation plays in ensuring that there is capital competition, competition between corporations within a country and competition by virtue of sensible exchange rates, sensible tariff policies and, of course, sensible policies for protection, which includes investment allowances, export incentives, and research and development grants. In the context of this Bill we are looking at the amendments to a piece of legislation enacted not by a socialist government but by the Menzies Government based on a private member's Bill introduced in this Parliament by one of my predecessors as the member for Balaclava, Sir Percy Joske, or, as he then was, Mr Percy Joske. This was a very important legislation. It was trail blazing because it was the first time that people who said that they espoused capitalism had come to terms with the fact that capitalism can lead to monopoly and monopoly can lead to abuse and exploitation. The importance of the trade practices legislation is that it enables there to be competition between people who invest capital and employ people who invest labour. It allows fair competition on equitable grounds within Australia and competition with people who invest and trade in Australia and who trade against Australia in other countries. What I hate to say, but I must, is that this Government has forgotten the essence of this very legislation. This Government has abandoned the spirit. My friend and colleague of long standing, the honourable member for Berowra, an economic historian as well as a member of parliament, knows that this Government which poses as the friend of the people and the workers-- Mr Hand —Both of you should be on the front bench. You are underrated. Mr MACPHEE —I know that the problems the Minister has as a frontbencher are greater than he should reasonably have to bear. The Minister has my profound respect because he is a man of stoic resistance; but in time he and his colleague beside him will realise that they should have spoken out before this-and the honourable member for Herbert knows this too-against the abuses which the Government has allowed to take place in the marketplace. It is just as well that the honourable member for Melbourne is leaving the chamber. Even his own faction would expel him. Even it is selling out. No, he is coming back. I am glad that he is coming back, because he has to hear this. The Labor Party, this once great party-- Mr Staples —Still great. Ms Jakobsen —Still great. Mr MACPHEE —Honourable members opposite say that it is still great. It is transformed. I have studied Australian history too. I know what the solidarity pledge meant to Australia. I know the great battles that the trade union movement and the early pioneers of the Labor Party fought to keep Australia fair, egalitarian and free. What has the Government done? What have this great white knight in the office of Prime Minister and the man in the office below him, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the man who aspires to be Prime Minister, done with their cigar smoking mates? We have heard this from the New South Wales Premier. I and other members know that the New South Wales Premier, who has just been defeated, is right to say that they have sold out to their mates. They have gone in breach of this very legislation that is now before the Parliament. I have no quarrel with the Bill before us, beyond what the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has said. But it does not even touch at the edges of the problem which the Government has ignored. Of course the legislation produced by the previous Government has proved to be inadequate in terms of the public interest, in terms of a public detriment test, or the lack thereof, and in terms of a proper test for determining a lessening of competition. We know that by experience. It was not a conscious decision of the previous Government. But it has to be cured, and I for one intend to do my best to try to cure it. But these amendments before us tonight go no way towards curing that. What is the Government now on about? The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is kind enough to stay. I think highly of him and I think very fondly of him. I admire his fortitude in trying to stay. I am asking him not to go. I am pleading with him. I am in a position of total impotence here. No-one could be further back on the back bench than I am. There is nowhere else to go. But the Minister is on the front bench of a government that has two years to run. Goodness knows what there is facing this country under this Government which has two years to run, unless the Minister has some influence. It is very important that the Minister, the honourable member for Herbert and the Minister at the table, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples)-who is silent, but I hope that he will not be silent in some of the forums behind the scenes-speak out. I notice that the Treasurer has never been to the Northern Territory on official duties. Can honourable members imagine a man being Treasurer of this country for five years and never once going to the Northern Territory? It is the place about which we had a defence debate this afternoon. The Treasurer has never even gone to Australia's northern bastion. What does the Treasurer think about trade practices? That is the subject before this chamber tonight. His friends include Warren Anderson, Kerry Packer and all of these chaps who own these ranches in the Northern Territory that he likes to visit privately. He does not visit them publicly of course, but he goes there privately-at whose expense I do not know. He shoots from aircraft; he shoots wild pigs and so forth. There is no gesture to the environmentalists in that. But what does he think about the Trade Practices Amendment Bill? We have not heard a word. This Bill that is now before us is supposed to be quite significant. I suppose it is, as far as it goes. We know that one of the amendments clarifies the scope of the Trade Practices Act in respect of false representations. This concerns the value of goods and services. I certainly support the Government's amendment to clarify section 53 regarding false representations. That is very sensible, particularly in view of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia, and we have heard all about that too. As has been said, the second amendment seeks to repeal section 65u of the Act. That was a sunset clause and we have heard the history of that. The second amendment requires the expression of some reservations, and those reservations have been expressed by the honourable member for Ryan. I am concerned that here we are, at this time of night, and there is hardly a Labor member in sight. Those who are here are concerned about the well-being of consumers and, frankly, none of them is really concerned about the real issues of the day, about what this Government, the Government of which they are a part, has done. It has handed over to a limited number of people, both by mismanagement and by deliberate Government decisions, the control of our major retail outlets. I refer, of course, to the Coles-Myer takeover. No democratic country in the world has allowed a concentration of retail ownership of the magnitude of Coles Myer Ltd. I agree that the fault lies in the legislation presented by the previous Government, not knowing that that would be the consequence. I think it also lies in the interpretation of that legislation and in the unimaginative interpretation by the administration of the Trade Practices Commission. But the Government did nothing at all to correct it. It was perfectly happy to see the creation of that massive and, I believe, inefficient monopoly. But, not satisfied with that, the Government went on to create a monopoly in the area of television. I have spoken about that before. It went on to condone a very near dominance in the print media. The Treasurer of this country, who had the hypocrisy to come in here today and talk about people as though he understood them, has come in here before and spoken about people with their lunches in brown paper bags as though he understood them. I have travelled by train, with a brown paper bag containing my lunch, more than he has-certainly in recent years. I find it unbelievable that this Treasurer can go on imagining that he is standing up for the well-being of the country in understanding the purposes of legislation such as is now before the House. I find it absolutely astounding. He has enabled an American citizen to take over 70 per cent of the print media of this country in defiance of the Foreign Takeovers Act and in defiance of the legislation now before the House. We have before us legislation concerning food and the role of the Commonwealth in respect of that, because the States have not adequately dealt with what is before them. I agree that the States have to sharpen up. I have no difficulty with the idea that this Parliament in the end, in the interests of the consumers, should take over that role if the States do not. So, we have before us effectively a proposal to extend the sunset clause which was inserted by the Democrats in the Senate. If the States do not provide legislation which is in the interests of the consumers, as opposed to the interests of the food industry, which is increasingly multinational and increasingly able to take advantage of the weakness of this Government in taking over the Australian food industry, I think this Parliament should take over and be more influential in this area. I am personally greatly committed to the concept of trade practices legislation as a necessary and fundamental instrument of ensuring that proper and certain codes of business conduct are engaged in and are aimed at preventing anti-competitive behaviour such as collusive tendering-this Government condones that-and such as price fixing. There is a good deal of evidence to show that this anti-competitive dealing has been engaged in within the Australian economy, especially within the last three years. Unfortunately, the present Government has not had the same philosophical commitment; it has not had the same commitment to competition. It speaks of the marketplace in a way which leaves it open to unscrupulous traders, most of whom have apparently hosted the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer on yachts, gaming reserves, casinos and other places which are attractive to them and unrelated to the well-being of the average Australian. I find this legislation inadequate in terms of addressing the real changes that should be made to the Trade Practices Act. This Bill really does highlight the inadequacies of the Act as a whole. These piecemeal changes proposed by the Government, and the intention of the Government to set up some sort of standing committee to review other sections of the Act, will ensure that there is ongoing debate about the role and effectiveness of trade practices law. The Government, however, does not seem to have a clear idea of what to do about it. What about airline passengers? I have raised this matter previously. I refer to those airline passengers, both domestic and business consumers, who would like to have had the choice of travelling on East-West Airlines. East-West Airlines was shaping up to be the third major airline in Australia. This Government presided over the demise of that company. What the Trade Practices Commission has done in this regard amounts to a slap in the face not only for the Government, and the legislation it was administering, but also for the Australian people. Effectively East-West Airlines has been destroyed. The Government instructed Australian Airlines to take over something that was not even viable. East-West Airlines was taking the rough with the smooth and was operating well. Ansett Airlines has taken up the rest and is still operating it, even though it was asked to divest itself, because no one else will buy it. It does not require great imagination to know that when the Prime Minister gets his way and sells Qantas Airways Ltd, apart from a few shares that may go to employees of Qantas the remainder of the shares will go to Ansett Airlines of Australia. I realise that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) does not agree with the Prime Minister and in that I agree with the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Ansett Airlines of Australia, which has no relationship to Bob Ansett, will become Ansett International and will seek to take over the world, or at least the South Pacific. The Ansett operations in New Zealand, Samoa and elsewhere will unite. Australia has to wake up to itself. What is it asking of the private sector? Is it asking for competition and therefore efficiency and therefore consumer choice? Or is it asking for monopolies of a private kind which, I would have thought, were antithetical to the interests and views of most Australians. Mr Scott —The honourable member is on the wrong side. Mr MACPHEE —No, I am on the right side; the honourable member for Hindmarsh is on the wrong side. The Australian Labor Party is selling out all these interests. The Government may well say that it is attempting to protect consumers from unscrupulous traders, but it is not doing that. Ms Jakobsen —Your Party never did anything about it. Mr MACPHEE —No government led by Malcolm Fraser would have allowed to happen what this Government has allowed to happen to the media, to retail industry and to airlines in this country. I ask members on the Government side of the House: What is it that the present Government is allowing to happen in areas that matter and affect people? I have read various statements by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications-the champion of what he calls the open skies policy. Nothing is surer than that what he is advocating will produce a closed skies policy, apart from trying to dismantle the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and give his blessing to other takeovers such as the TNT and News Ltd takeovers. He is selling out everything that relates to the civil liberties interests of people in Australia. I find it astounding that we have before us a Bill seeking to amend the powers of the Trade Practices Commission, when at least 700 people that we know of have lost their jobs in the newspaper industry alone in recent weeks because of the voracious appetite of one of the friends of the Government, especially the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-Mr Murdoch. One must not forget who it is who owns Ansett Airlines; it is News Ltd, owned by an American citizen, and TNT, owned by Sir Peter Abeles. Together those two individuals are taking over not just the skies but a whole range of communication industries as well. They have a massive capacity also to invest in a range of other industries sensitive to the Australian economy and to civil liberties. Here tonight we are examining legislation that goes around the fringe. I agree with what the honourable member for Ryan has said about a Bill which is otherwise puny; that it needs to be amended in certain respects. What is really the point about the real concerns of ordinary Australians, who are concerned with competition, is that competition ought to produce efficiency and freedom of choice for consumers. People want information and service. They are not getting that. I despair that this amendment that has come to this Parliament during this session has missed the point of the real concern of Australians who want the Trade Practices Commission and the legislation to be effective in the public interest. Not a word is said about the public interest. Not a word can I get from the Treasurer about why he granted Murdoch's takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times but refused the Australian Associated Press takeover, nor why he now says that Maxwell is unlikely to be accepted. No criteria are spelled out and no reason is given. The public interest does not ever count. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.26) —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I note the comments of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) in his sanguine contribution. Mr Macphee —Come over here. Ms JAKOBSEN —I would not be on that side of the House for all the tea in China. I am ashamed for the honourable member for Goldstein that he happens to be such a small minority in such a terrible party. He has worthwhile contributions to make and many members on this side of the House would have more in common with him than would many members on his side of the House. His contribution was somewhat embittered. It is a shame that the honourable member is not a member of the Opposition front bench, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), commented earlier. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) misconstrued section 65u. This bears some clarification. He intimated that the clause meant that the Commonwealth did not currently possess the power to intervene to recall products that were affecting the safety of consumers in Australia. The honourable member for Wannon claimed that the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) was wrong. In fact, the honourable member for Wannon was wrong. To clarify the position, I point out that the explanatory memorandum, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), does indicate quite clearly that at the expiration of two years after the day on which this division comes into operation, the division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods that are foods and drinks intended for human consumption. Part V, division 1a, of the Act, provides for the banning of unsafe goods, the declaration of product safety and product information standards, and the mandatory recall of hazardous goods. The division came into operation on 1 July 1986, and, therefore, will cease to apply to food and drink for human consumption as from 1 July 1988-which is precisely why we have to repeal section 65u at this stage if the Commonwealth is to continue to have the power in the future. This matter was raised in the Senate by the Australian Democrats and the two-year extension was made available to provide the States with time to introduce their own legislation. The honourable member for Herbert also pointed out that Western Australia is the only State to introduce legislation since that time. That legislation is not uniform with legislation in other States. Therefore, without uniformity there is little point in allowing the States the right to recall products, because products cannot be recalled across the nation. Dr Harry Edwards —For a further two years. Ms JAKOBSEN —I do not agree with the comment of the honourable member of Berowra. The amendment put forward by the Opposition is simply a further stalling mechanism to stop the Commonwealth exercising its true and necessary powers in this area to protect all consumers in Australia, not just the consumers of Western Australia and South Australia. If a person in Queensland buys a tin of tuna and takes it to Western Australia, and the consumer becomes sick from eating contaminated food, the Commonwealth should have the power to act in relation to that. That particular consumer should not have to be concerned about whether the matter has to be taken up with the Queensland Government, which may or may not have legislation to enable it to cope with that recall. Many firms manufacturing goods in Australia are sending products all over Australia. National recall power is required, not just State recall power. That is a fair question. No doubt if the Australian Democrats still feel strongly about this matter the Opposition will have its way in the Senate. There is not much that the Government can do about that. However, this is nothing but a stalling mechanism; I say that sincerely to this House. Even if all States bring in legislation about this particular aspect, the legislation will not be uniform. It is not uniform now and will not be uniform at that stage. It will not overcome the problems faced by consumers in this regard. I also want to mention the fact that one of the amendments in this Bill provides for those corporations falsely representing that goods or services are of a particular value. I am sure that other honourable members in this place have noticed that there are advertisements on television, of great length in some instances and usually quite late at night, which advertise certain products and bonus offers and encourage people to mail in their applications and their cheques for the provision of these goods. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.30) —Country municipalities throughout Victoria will be badly disadvantaged under the new Victorian Grants Commission formula. Personally, I have reservations about the effectiveness of allocating Federal funds to local government functions. This encourages a lack of responsibility by those who spend the money compared with those who raise the revenue. However, in Victoria, the $166m that has been allocated by the Federal Government will be distributed in a manner which will discriminate against the more frugal and efficiently administered councils. In simple terms, smaller country municipalities will have harsh cut backs in the revenue received from the Commonwealth over the next four years. In Victoria, the readjustment taking place under the new formula will be completed in four years, rather than seven years, as is the case in some other States. This implies some quite catastrophic reductions in the Commonwealth funds available to some local councils. The implication of the Victorian Grants Commission formula is that Federal funds will be applied across the board, based on the ability of all municipalities throughout Victoria to raise revenue. Previously, the formula was based on the average revenue raising capacity of the top 25 per cent of municipalities. The new formula takes into account the average revenue of all municipalities, which is 9.3c in the dollar. Under the new system, those shires and councils which are asset rich but revenue poor will be discriminated against in a most unfair manner. Urban based councils have a greater capacity to extract revenue from ratepayers whose disposable income is mostly derived from employment in the metropolitan area. In rural Victoria, councils have to strike a rate which is relative to the income producing capacity of the land. In terms of raising rate revenue this is often very difficult. Those councils which have been careful in their loan borrowings for capital works, and therefore have a lower interest bill, again will be discriminated against, as their interest bill will tend to be less than the average borrowings of councils throughout Victoria. Similarly, those councils which have not undertaken major welfare initiatives, will not meet the formula requirements. At a time when governments throughout Australia are being encouraged to reduce expenditure, the thrust of the Victorian Grants Commission formula is to encourage increased expenditure at the local level to attract Federal moneys. Not only are local councils being encouraged to spend more but also they are being compared with neighbouring councils in their ability to attract Federal funds and retain similar rates. The Victorian Government has been imposing further burdens on local government since 1982. In the beginning, an offer is made on a dollar for dollar basis. This means that the local government provides a service which was formerly provided by the State government. This is particularly so in the welfare-recreational area. Further down the track, the State Government withdraws its State funding support and local government is left funding the activity from local rates. The Cain Government's bid to amalgamate councils in Victoria was rejected outright. However, the Cain socialist Government is intent on achieving its amalgamation objectives by stealth, in that those smaller, efficient, locally representative councils will be starved of funds until they are forced to look at amalgamation alternatives. In my own electorate of Corangamite, the figures give a stark contrast between those urban based councils which have had virtually no change in their Commonwealth funding-both in real and monetary terms-and rural based municipalities. For instance, the Winchelsea Shire will receive a reduction of 9.06 per cent in 1987-88, and by 1990-91 its grant will be reduced by 72 per cent. In 1986-87, the Winchelsea Shire received $448,667 and by 1990-91 this will fall to $123,000. The Shire of Otway will suffer a 44 per cent reduction in Federal funding over a similar period. The Leigh Shire, well known for its conservative approach to expenditure, will suffer a loss of funding from $161,318 in 1986-87 to $26,000 in 1990-91, a reduction of 83 per cent. In the Leigh Shire there is a considerable contribution to welfare services from volunteers. This contribution is not recognised on the balance sheets, and again does not assist the Grants Commission formula for Federal funding. In fact, in this instance, the Leigh Shire is being positively discriminated against for showing initiative in providing volunteer services. It would appear that, under the new formula, larger regionally based councils will not be affected and could gain extra revenue from the Commonwealth. For instance, the city of Colac received $524,285 in 1986-87 and by 1990-91 will receive $816,000-an increase of 55 per cent. I call on the Government in the name of fairness and equity to instigate an immediate and urgent reassessment of the presumably `unintended consequences' of the Victorian Grants Commission formula, administered under the direction of the Commonwealth. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.35) —Several days ago in the Queensland Parliament, the member for Callide, Mrs McCauley, asked a question in the Queensland Parliament concerning a matter involving a constituent of mine. My constituent contacted me after seeing an advertisement I had placed in a local newspaper. As a result of his contacting me, I made representations on his behalf to the Minister for Local Government in Queensland, Mr Randell. In the question in the Queensland Parliament to Mr Randell, Mrs McCauley named the constituent and gave an address for him. The question was an obvious set-up because the newspapers in my electorate had been contacted about it long before the question in printed form was available to Queensland members. The result was that my constituent's name was splashed on the front page of the newspaper and he became an unwitting victim in a petty National Party power play. My constituent telephoned my office upset about the incident because he believed that he had approached me on a confidential basis. In turn, my office treated his representation to the Minister, Mr Randell, on a confidential basis. My staff asked the constituent if he had ever approached Mrs McCauley. Not only did he deny ever approaching here but also he had not the faintest idea who she was. The case is more interesting. When my office staff took the call they wrote the constituent's christian initial as `T' and listed his address as Steptoe Street. In fact, the `T' was an abbreviation for Anthony and the Steptoe Street is only a business address. He is listed in the telephone book and the electoral roll as having an address in Ruddell Street. In other words, the leaked name and address were only available to the National Party member for Callide either from someone in the Queensland Local Government Department or from Minister Randell's office because the initial and the address of the constituent were unique to my office. There is a serious breach of confidentiality either in Minister Randell's office or the Department of Local Government. If this had occurred at a Federal level, I am certain that the National Party in this place would be calling on the Australian Federal Police to investigate this matter. All electorate staff and public servants are bound by Public Service secrecy provisions and the Crimes Act. All members' staff have to sign it. To my knowledge, all public servants sign it. Apparently this is not the case with the Public Service in Queensland. The Premier, Mr Ahern, is not only responsible for the Public Service but also responsible for the Cabinet Ministers. I call on the Queensland Premier to ask the Queensland Local Government Minister to stand aside while this matter is investigated. When members of parliament make representations to Ministers they do so on the basis of confidence that the Minister is responsible. People in our electorate approach us on the basis of trust that their affairs will be dealt with confidentially. They do not expect a Minister to leak the details to a member of his own Party. The whole issue of representation to Government is involved in this case. A National Party backbencher has been privy to a piece of private correspondence which has nothing to do with her. The people in Callide should now be aware that if they approach Mrs McCauley for help she is likely to scatter their personal details all over the newspapers if she sees some mileage in it. Mr Ahern should act quickly to restore integrity to the Local Government Department and to his Ministry. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.40) —I rise this evening to bring to the attention of the House a matter of major concern to me as the member for Wakefield. It is a matter of concern that is shared by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who is currently on the Opposition front bench. Mr Sciacca —Is it only temporary? Mr ANDREW —I wish it were. This issue is a matter that demands the attention of the House because it concerns the way in which hospital facilities are being delivered to those constituents who reside in South Australian country electorates, particularly the electorates of Wakefield and Barker. Incredibly, the South Australian Health Commission has the audacity to propose the closure of three major country health facilities in South Australia. Two of these facilities are located in my electorate, at Laura and Blyth, and the third is in the electorate of the honourable member for Barker and is located at Tailem Bend. So widespread is the indignation of South Australian country people at the proposal of the South Australian Health Commission to close these facilities that only last month the Country Women's Association (CWA) marched on the South Australian Parliament House and presented a petition containing 40,000 signatures opposing the closure of country hospitals, as proposed by the South Australian Health Minister, John Cornwall. The signatures were collected in 23 towns, while simultaneously CWA members pushed a bed from Cummins on the far west coast of South Australia to the city as a protest measure against Dr Cornwall's rationalisation bid. Dr Cornwall defends the decision to close these hospitals on the grounds that such a move would be `significant in terms of reducing the number of assets requiring replacement in the long term'. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that it is relatively insignificant in terms of the total expenditure on the Medicare budget. It is the blow-out in the Medicare budget and the consequent reduction in funds in the Medicare reservoir that has put pressure on the South Australian Health Commission. Consider, for example, the fact that the current Medicare levy of 1.25 per cent raises about $2,065m. The cost of Federal hospital and medical services, if I may take a further point, is $5,212m. To meet this total cost, a levy of 3.15 per cent would be required. The total cost of health care in Australia-Federal, State and local government-is $18,000m, equivalent to $25 a week for every man, woman and child in Australia, or $100 per family per week. This figure should be compared with the $5 or $6 Medicare levy we are paying each week, thinking that we are meeting the total cost of our health schedule program. It is clearly the blow-out in Medicare expenditure which is soaking up Commonwealth funds and denying to Dr Cornwall and the Health Commission the opportunity to continue the services that South Australians have come to take for granted. I point out that in my electorate, in the towns of Laura and Blyth, these hospitals are the focal point of the towns. The current proposal of the South Australian Health Commission, which is contained in a government discussion paper, is that hospitals with 20 or 30 beds should, if you please, be converted to old folks homes. The suggestion, of course, is that there would be old folks home facilities and, adjacent to these facilities, there would be four or five acute care beds available from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what does a person do if he lives in Laura, Blyth or Tailem Bend and becomes ill at some time other than during the convenient hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.? I return to my earlier point. These hospitals are the focal point of the rural communities. What Dr Cornwall fails to recognise, and what the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) fails to recognise, is that the cost of caring for people in these country hospitals is only half the cost of equivalent care in a major urban institution. So much of what is done in these country hospitals is done on a voluntary basis. The present action being taken by Dr Cornwall will destroy the very heart of these rural communities by destroying that focus for voluntary activity that has characterised these rural communities, with which members on this side of the House so readily identify. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.44) —Tonight I want to refer to something that is very much part of the Parliament and goes back many centuries. Mr Porter —The Speaker's chair? Mr SCOTT —No, it is not the Speaker's chair. It is not something so materialistic as that to which the honourable member refers; in fact, it is the right of citizens to petition Parliament. The right of petitioning Parliament remains a fundamental right of citizens. I shall rely on Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, pages 688 and 689, for the matters I want to raise tonight. The right of petitioning the Crown and parliament for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of King Edward I in the thirteenth century. It was from petitions that legislation by Bill was gradually derived. Petitions have been described as the oldest of all parliamentary forms-the fertile seed of all the proceedings of the House of Commons. The form and purpose of petitions has changed over the centuries, the present form having developed in the seventeenth century. The rights of petitioners and the power of the House of Commons to deal with petitions were affirmed by the following resolution in 1669: That it is an inherent right of every Commoner of England to prepare and present petitions to the House in case of grievance; and of the House of Commons to receive them. That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the House of Commons to adjudge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such Petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received. I repeat: the right of petitioning Parliament remains a fundamental right of the citizens. My reason for raising this matter is that in the recent changes to the Standing Orders, petitions are now received only once a week. It is true that the matter was before the House and that was the agreement that was reached. I think, on reflection, that there would have been much more debate on the issue had honourable members on both sides been aware of what was about to happen. In the past it has not been difficult for the powers-that-be to determine whether a petition was acceptable to the Parliament. I accept that there have to be certain rules, but my complaint is that in the changes to the petitioning, and bearing in mind that petitioning of Parliament is so terribly important, one fact that has been overlooked is that many petitions in the community do not comply with the letter of the new requirements. I have 10,000 signatures from petitioners on a very important issue, that is, the question of the possible introduction of food irradiation in Australia. I feel that the petition should be not only a right of the citizen but also a part of the democratic process. Through petitions, the individual citizen feels that he has access to this Parliament. I hope that commonsense will prevail and that those petitions that are currently in shopping centres, clubs, on notice boards, in factories and canteens and have been signed by citizens to convey their particular grievance to this Parliament will be received and will not be disqualified because they do not contain a particular word that is necessary. I am sure that members on both sides of the House would agree that there is a need for some leeway, perhaps a moratorium, so that all petitions can be received properly in the House and the new wording that is required hopefully will be available as soon as possible Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.49) —I want to talk tonight about the unscrupulous activities of some life insurance companies. Because it would be difficult to condense a description of all the unscrupulous activities of all insurance companies into a five-minute speech, I will confine my comments to the activities of the Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Company Ltd (MLC) and in particular its exploitation of the agents who sell its policies and the consequences of this treatment for the insurance buying public. I was contacted recently by Mr Peter Anderson, a former agent for MLC and one of my constituents, who feels that he and other agents have been cleverly exploited by the insurance company. He explained to me the way in which he and no doubt hundreds of others are enticed into situations of massive indebtedness to the company in a way which would put most used car salesmen to shame. It is certainly not the way in which people expect these supposedly highly reputable companies to behave, probably because of the image they project of themselves through their multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. Mr Anderson worked as an agent of MLC from March to November 1985, when financial difficulties and a healthy dislike of the work led to his resignation. His original decision to enter the field of selling insurance was encouraged by the company's typical recruitment lines, such as `Be your own boss' and `Earn unlimited income'. The reality was sadly different. The system under which Mr Anderson worked at MLC was the highly reprehensible advance system, whereby the sales agents were advanced an amount of money-in Mr Anderson's case, $200 at that time-and it was up to them to sell policies to cover the advance. If they did not earn enough commission, the money was still owed to the insurance company; in other words, there was no risk to MLC. More often than not agents found themselves getting deeper and deeper into debt with the company. The motive behind the advance system is clear-to force the agents into making sales to cover their debt with the company. When the debt increases, the agents become desperate and tend to do anything to make a sale. There is no doubt that this sort of pressure was brought to bear on the agent, Anthony Bryant and Co., which was before the court last year on a charge of misconduct in the sale of insurance policies issued by Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society. In that case it was alleged that the agent told potential buyers that policies with 25-year terms could be cashed in after 10 years. That is the sort of pressure brought to bear on agents who sell for companies such as MLC through the advance system. The company itself is deemed to be completely free of blame when this sort of thing happens. It is not only through the system of commission advances that companies seek to keep their agents permanently indebted to them. MLC also offers very low interest rates to agents who meet certain qualifications. However, a condition of the loan is immediate refinancing upon termination of employment. Agents who want to get off this never ending treadmill face the prospect of not only paying back advances but also their loans refinanced at considerably higher interest rates. The only option for many agents is to try to sell their way out of debt with the company. That is when desperation sets in and where the potential danger lies for the policy buying public. The temptation exists to be less than honest when making a sale, as in the case of Anthony Bryant. It is also apparent that MLC and similar companies pumped large numbers of recruits through their system. The apparent motive behind this was that each agent had a minimum number of friends and relatives who would purchase a policy. Once these ran out, the agents sank more and more into debt until they got out of the game, owing money to the company. However, MLC retained the policies and collected the premiums. This is where an even more reprehensible policy of MLC comes into play. After leaving the company and paying their debt, the agents breathe a sigh of relief, thinking they are free. However, at the end of a two-year period from the date of their resignation, they receive a bill from MLC for commission paid to them for all policies sold by them which had subsequently been cancelled. The company makes the agents pay back the commission earned for selling a policy if that policy is subsequently cancelled for whatever reason. That is the case with Mr Anderson. Recently he received a letter from a debt collector saying, `Give us back $1,800 because some of the policies you sold went bad'. I ask: Where in all this is there any risk whatever for the insurance company? Any advance paid to the agent is either recovered by the commission for a sale or is owed back to the company. In the case of any policies which are cancelled, the agent has to pay back the commission, even if he no longer sells for that company. In the case of the loans, though the interest rates are low, they are still revenue raisers which in any case need to be renegotiated if the agent leaves the company. This is all perfectly legal, but in my view highly immoral and extremely suspect, and structured in such a way as to encourage poor sales practices and possible illegal activity on the part of an agent. When this does occur, the company is at no legal fault despite the direct and undoubted link between the activities and company policy. According to information obtained from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, this sort of thing is still going on today. The only change seems to be that the scheme is a little more refined in that the companies have moved from the advance system to one of lending the money to the agents. This slight change does not alter the fact that every day hundreds of insurance policies are sold by agents who are under immense pressure to get themselves out of debt. This situation cannot be in the best interests of the policy buying public, and I urge the Government to legislate to clean up this aspect of the insurance industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the marketing of honey and certain other matters concerning the honey industry. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and for related purposes. Mr White to move- That the regulation repealing the Australian Rifle Club Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 198 No. 17, made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 March 1988: Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1988-Postal-Amendment No. 2. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 81. Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 52. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 364) Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 2 November 1987: Will he again consider the urgent provision of Medicare offices to service the residents of the Shires of Maroochy, Landsborough and Noosa in the light of the continuing rapid growth in the Sunshine Coast region of Queensland. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A detailed analysis of demographic factors and Medicare claiming patterns in these areas has been conducted and, on this basis, the cost of establishment of a new Medicare office in the Noosa Shire cannot be justified. Two Medicare offices are already located in the Landsborough Shire, at Caloundra and Kawana Waters, and the Nambour Medicare office is situated in the Shire of Maroochy. (Question No. 400) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Community Services and Health: (1) $197,820. (2) (i) To establish a benchmark of knowledge, opinions and attitudes relating to AIDS programs prior to the Government proceeding to advertise the programs-$184,100. (ii) To assess changes in community attitudes to drugs over the period of operation of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse media and information campaign. Benchmark research had been done in late 1985-$13,720. (3) (i) Australian Market Research. (ii) Reark Research Pty Ltd, as part of an omnibus survey. (4) (i) Yes, they are currently being prepared. (ii) Yes. The Health Insurance Commission: (1) $61,000. (2) On-going monitoring of the Medicare scheme. (3) Australian National Opinion Polls. (4) No, as the poll is conducted not only to assess general awareness of and attitudes toward Medicare, but also to assess operational specifics. (Question No. 449) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) What sum was spent on Australia's attendance at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Harare. (2) Who was in the official Australian delegation. (3) Were special allowances granted to the Australian delegation; if so, what allowances were granted. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The amount spent on Australia's attendance at the Non-Aligned Summit in Harare in August-September 1986 was $A10,939.43. This was made up of (a) the cost of the fares and travelling allowances for the two members of the Australian delegation who travelled to Harare specifically for this meeting, namely Mr G. N. Bilney M.P. and H. E. Mr R. A. Woolcott, Ambassador to the United Nations: Mr Bilney $5,532.31 Mr Woolcott $5,071.12 (b) The amount of $335 for a dinner, hosted by the Australian High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, (met by the High Commissioner from his normal representation allowance). (2) The Australian delegation comprised: Mr G. N. Bilney M.P.-Delegation leader H. E. Mr C. A. Edwards-(then) Australian High Commissioner to Zimbabwe H. E. Mr R. A. Woolcott-Australian Ambassador to the U.N New York Mr R. D. Sturkey-(then) Assistant Secretary, South Asia, Africa &Middle East Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Canberra (3) No special allowances were paid to any members of this delegation: (a) The allowances paid to Messrs Bilney and Woolcott comprised only travelling allowance at the rates normally applicable in each of their cases; (b) As Mr Sturkey was making an official visit to Zimbabwe for other purposes at the time, there were no costs caused by his inclusion in the delegation to this meeting; (c) The inclusion of the High Commissioner resident in Harare also involved no financial cost. (Question No. 453) Mr Howard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) How many requests have been made by the Philippines Government for assistance in identifying assets and investments in Australia by former President Marcos, his family and associates. (2) What will the Government do to assist with the repatriation of investments made through ill-gotten wealth. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Philippines Government through the Presidential Commission on Good Government has made two requests for information concerning certain properties it believes may be owned by Mr Marcos or his associates. (2) The Australian Government indicated soon after the accession of the Aquino Government that it would consider sympathetic ally any request for assistance in the repatriation of assets, consistent with Australian law. The Australian Government has investigated relevant public records and has made appropriate arrangements with the Philippine Government for any available information to be passed to it. Information has been provided to the Philippine Government in connection with both requests; the Australian Government has also passed on additional documents which it believed might be of interest to Philippine authorities. It is, of course, open to the Philippine Government to seek to institute proceedings in Australia involving assets to which it lays claim. The Australian Government would be happy to assist the Philippine authorities in relation to arrangements for the institution of such proceedings. (Question No. 484) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Has the Radiation Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council prepared and published a final draft code of practice for the design and safe operation of non-medical irradiation facilities using sealed gamma sources, bremsstrahlung or electron sources with energies up to 10 million electron-volts. (2) Did he either authorise or endorse the preparation of the code; if so, (a) when and (b) why. (3) If he did not authorise or endorse the preparation of the code, who did and under what authority. (4) Does the draft code cover irradiation facilities for non-medical purposes, including the irradiation of food. (5) Does the draft code cover irradiators incorporating the radioactive substances cobalt 60 or caesium 137, and will such sources be contained in a storage pool which usually contains water. (6) Is caesium 137 soluble in water. (7) Does the draft code state that it is anticipated that future developments in irradiators, including the use of mobile machine sources for the irradiation of food, may require additions to the code; if so, what is the reason for such an inclusion in the draft code and is it a provision being anticipated by 1 or more States. (8) If it is being anticipated by some States, which States are showing an interest in mobile irradiators. (9) Has his attention been drawn to a recent accident in Brazil involving caesium 137; if so, is he able to say how many deaths resulted from this accident and how many more deaths are anticipated. (10) Is he able to say whether the accident resulted in a population of over 70,000 having to be tested for radiation contamination. (11) Is caesium 137 the same radioactive substance used in some food irradiation plants. (12) Is caesium 137 a product of the nuclear weapons industry. (13) What is the half life of caesium 137. (14) Can an exposure to the whole body, or critical organs, of only a few gray produce acute radiation syndrome with severe illness and possible death. (15) What is the range of capacity in curie, of irradiators whose source is (a) cobalt 60 and (b) caesium 137. (16) Is ozone produced in the operation of an irradiation plant using either cobalt 60 or caesium 137; if so, what happens to this ozone and is it harmful to health. (17) Are some components of machine source irradiators capable of generating radio frequency radiation; if so, what is radio frequency radiation and if it is harmful to health, what is the nature of its effects. (18) In the service and maintenance of machine source irradiators are there circumstances for personnel to be exposed to additional potential hazards; if so, what are these hazards and how can personnel be protected from them. (19) Does the potential exist for machine source irradiators to become contaminated from induced radioactivity and can this type of contamination occur in machine sources designed for food irradiation. (20) What is contamination from induced radioactivity and how long does such contamination last. (21) Can such contaminated machines be cleaned or is it necessary to dispose of them. (22) If it is necessary to dispose of contaminated machines, how can this be done. (23) Would food put through a contaminated machine become radioactive or contaminated; if so, can the contaminated or radioactive food be identified easily and what methods would be used to dispose of it. (24) Does the draft code have provisions for the retention of medical records of employees who in the course of their employment may be exposed to ionizing radiation; if not, why not. (25) In cases where either cobalt 60 or caesium 137 is imported, will there be a Government to Government contract covering the import, storage, record keeping and return of spent fuel; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Radiation Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council is preparing a draft ``Code of Practice for the Design and Safe Operation of Non-medical Irradiation Facilities using Sealed Gamma Ray Sources, or X-ray or Electron Sources with Energies up to 10 MeV''. The Code is approaching but is not yet in final draft form and would only be published by the National Health and Medical Research Council after consideration and approval by the Radiation Health Committee and Public Health Advisory Committee. (2) No. (3) Following initial consideration by the Radiation Health Committee and the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1985, the Public Health Advisory Committee agreed to the development of the Code by the Radiation Health Committee. (4) The draft Code covers irradiation facilities used for non-medical purposes. If the irradiation of food were approved in Australia, the draft Code would be applicable to facilities used for this purpose. (5) Sealed source irradiators covered by the draft Code are limited to those incorporating the radioactive substances cobalt-60 or caesium-137 where the source is contained in a storage pool (usually containing water) when not in use. (6) Caesium-137 is generally used in the form of a salt such as caesium chloride which is water soluble. The caesium is suitably enclosed in stainless steel capsules which prevent leakage. (7) The draft Code in the present form covers fixed irradiation facilities only. In the draft Code it is pointed out that any future developments in irradiator design, such as the use of mobile machine sources for the irradiation of food, which are outside the scope of the present Code, will require appropriate modifications at the time. This applies to any State where such a development might be proposed. (8) I am unaware of particular interest in mobile irradiators in any State. (9) The Brazil incident, which occurred in mid-September 1987, has received widespread press publicity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has advised that by the end of November, 4 people had died and a further 28 are under continuing medical surveillance. (10) The IAEA has also advised that a total of about 80,000 people living in the area have been checked for contamination. (11) Yes. Caesium-137 is used in a very few food irradiation plants. Most plants use cobalt-60. (12) Caesium-137 is formed within a nuclear reactor (whether civilian or military) as a by-product of the fission reaction. The caesium is extracted during refurbishment of the fuel rods of the reactor. (13) The half life of caesium-137 is 30 years. (14) Yes, exposure of the human body to an absorbed dose of a few gray in a short time interval (either to the whole body or to critical organs) could cause acute radiation syndrome with severe illness and possible death. (15) Large quantities of caesium-137 or cobalt-60 (of the order of a million curies) can be required in an irradiation facility. The exact quantity will depend on the design of the plant and the intended use. (16) Ozone is produced during the operation of irradiation facilities using caesium-137 or cobalt-60, and can be harmful to health in sufficient concentration. Ozone is unstable and reverts to the normal form of oxygen in time. The exposure of personnel to ozone in an irradiation facility can be controlled using suitable ventilation systems and time delay interlocks to prevent access of personnel to areas of potentially high concentration before a preset time has elapsed. (17) Various components of machine sources can generate electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies (i.e. radiofrequency radiation). At high exposure levels behavioural effects, genetic effects, effects on development and teratogenic effects have been observed in animals. Cataracts and internal body lesions have also been produced. Studies on humans who have been occupationally exposed to low levels of radiofrequency radiation have yielded inconsistent results. However, recommended maximum exposure levels have been set with a high margin of safety so that any deleterious effects on workers or the general population are extremely unlikely. (18) The service of the radiation generator in a machine source facility can be expected to generate particular radiation-related hazards. While machine sources are safe when de-energized, it is likely that service personnel will be required to energize the equipment and may need to disarm safety interlocks from time to time. Personnel can be protected from these hazards by suitable engineering design and administrative controls which relate to how personnel use the facility. (19) Radioactivity can be induced in components of a machine source irradiator which are irradiated by the electron or bremsstrahlung beam, to an extent that depends on the energy, beam power and type of material irradiated. Some degree of activity is probable for energies above about 10 MeV. Levels of induced activity would be extremely small in machine source irradiators designed for food irradiation as these irradiators are limited to a maximum energy of 5 MeV for bremsstrahlung beams and 10MeV for electron beams. (20) See (19). Any radioactivity induced in components of an irradiator would decay with time at a rate which depends on the type of material irradiated. (21) Since the components of the irradiator itself become radioactive, cleaning would not be possible. If the level of induced activity was considered to be a problem, such components would be left for a sufficient time for the induced radioactivity to decay, or be disposed of appropriately. (22) Disposal of complete machines would never be required. At most, small components with low levels of activity would be affected. Issues raised in questions (17) and (22) are common to machine irradiation facilities used in radiation therapy, where many years of operating experience have indicated that induced activities do not pose intractable problems. (23) Induced activity in irradiator components would not be transferable to food passing through the irradiator. The food itself may become radioactive at an extremely low level due to the irradiation process. At most this activity would only be a small fraction of the natural radioactivity content of the food. (24) The draft Code does not require retention of medical records of employees who may be exposed to ionizing radiation in the course of their employment. Such employees are required to be issued with personal monitors to record their exposure to ionizing radiation. Recommended exposure limits have been set to ensure that medical problems due to radiation exposure in workers or the general population are extremely unlikely. State authorities (who licence the operation of the facilities) can direct that medical examinations are performed if this is considered necessary. (25) Importation of cobalt-60 or caesium-137 will require approval under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. This approval will be conditional upon the importer and the user having appropriate licences under the relevant State Radioactive Substances Act. This licence will require that safe transport conditions, operational procedures and storage conditions are used and that satisfactory arrangements are in place regarding the ultimate return of the sources to the supplier. (Question No. 499) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) Has the Government investigated the alleged role of Mr R. Kelly of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union in the 2 coups d'etat in Fiji in 1987; if so, what was the result of these investigations. (2) If the alleged role of Mr Kelly has not been investigated, will the Government do so. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No. As Senator Evans said in the Senate on 18 November, the Australian High Commission in Suva was aware that Mr Kelly was in contact with some members of the then Fiji Government, but on the information available to my Department there was no suggestion these contacts had other than private and commercial purposes. (Question No. 584) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) What was the establishment cost of the embassy in Addis Ababa? (2) What was the (a) total cost and (b) cost in each calendar year, for the operation of the embassy? (3) What was the (a) total number and (b) position, of staff employed at the embassy at the date of the announcement of its closure? (4) Is he able to say which countries currently operate embassies in Addis Ababa? (5) Which countries have (a) opened and (b) closed, their embassies in Addis Ababa since 1974, and when were they closed? (6) How many applications were received for (a) travel to Australia and (b) permanent residency in Australia, from Ethiopia by the Australian embassy in Addis Ababa in each year since 1985? (7) What was the nature of those applications? (8) What was the value in Australian dollars of (a) Australian exports to Ethiopia and (b) Ethiopian exports to Australia, in 1986-87 and what are the estimated values for 1987-88? (9) What was the nature and value in Australian dollars of aid to Ethiopia which Australia either contributed directly or through multilateral aid programs in each year since 1982-83? (10) What are the ongoing and proposed aid programs for Ethiopia to which Australia will contribute and how, in the absence of an embassy in Ethiopia, will the government be able to supervise or be properly informed about the implementation of such aid programs. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $485,000. As a result of the embassy closure an amount of $349,000 was received for sale/transfer of motor vehicles and fittings and transfer of furniture to other posts. Net establishment cost is therefore $136,000. (2) (a) $2,911,006. (b) 1984-85 FY $235,630; 1985-86 FY $1,064,602; 1986-87 FY $1,310,613; 1987-88 FY to date $300,161. (3) (a) 8. (b) Ambassador; Second Secretary (Consular and Administrative); Second Secretary (Development Assistance); Head of Mission Secretary; Senior clerk; Consular Assistant; Receptionist/Telephonist/Typist; Driver/Messenger. (4) Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, GDR, FRG, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Cote d'Ivoire, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, DPRK, ROK, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Britain, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Venezuela, Vietnam, YAR, PDRY, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. In addition, there are offices representing the PLO and the Saharawi Democratic Republic. (5) (a) Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Holy See, DPRK, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Niger. (b) Australia 1987, Malaysia 1982, Morocco 1983, Pakistan 1979, Somalia 1977, Thailand 1981, Trinidad and Tobago 1977. (6) (a)- 1985 - ... 41 1986 - ... 63 1987 to 9/87 - ... 74 Total ... 178 (b) Prior to its closure the embassy was only responsible for the issuing of temporary entry visas. Applications from Ethiopian citizens for migrant visas were usually processed by the Australian High Commission in Nairobi. (7) The nature of the temporary entry applications received by the embassy from 1985 to closure was: Visitor ... 123 Student ... 41 Temporary Resident ... 14 Total ... 178 (8) (a) 1986-87 - $37,894,000; 1987-88 - $262,000 (year to October 1987) (b) 1986-87 - $1,404,000; 1987-88 - $377,000 (year to October 1987) Due to the agricultural nature of the majority of imports/exports and the effect weather has on levels and quality of output it is not practicable to estimate value for 1987-88. (9) Australian aid to Ethiopia since 1982-83 comprised technical assistance, subsidies for Ethiopian students studying in Australia, emergency food relief and direct assistance through multilateral organisations. This assistance totalled: 1982-83 $4,331,000 1983-84 $5,423,000 1984-85 $23,945,000 1985-86 $16,677,000 1986-87 $11,382,000 1987-88 see (10) below The multilateral component of these figures represents the value of direct shipments to Ethiopia only. It is likely that, of the over $200 million provided as multilateral aid every year, a sizeable portion has been used in or for Ethiopia by the various multilateral organisations. (10) Australia's pledges to Ethiopia this financial year total to date $12,900,000 of which $4,400,000 is for development assistance and $8,500,000 is for emergency relief. In view of the seriousness of the ongoing famine in Ethiopia, Australia will be considering further responses as needs, other donor responses and logistical arrangements become clearer. Developmental assistance for 1988-89 and beyond is likely to be maintained at a constant level but actual levels will be subject to review in the budget context. Emergency assistance in future years cannot be predicted. The Ethiopian program is to be administered from Nairobi as it was prior to the opening of an Australian embassy in Addis Ababa. A Nairobi-based officer of the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) will visit on a regular basis. A small locally staffed AIDAB office will also be maintained in Addis Ababa. These arrangements will enable Australia to continue to supervise and remain properly informed about the implementation of its aid program to Ethiopia. (Question No. 608) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) Is he able to say which countries have ratified the Common Fund for Commodities. (2) What proportion of the capital required to bring the agreement into force has now been contributed. (3) What additional capital is required to bring the agreement into force. (4) Is he able to say when the USSR deposited with the UN Secretary-General its official instrument of acceptance of the agreement establishing the Fund. (5) Has Australia ratified the Fund; if not, (a) is this still under consideration and (b) what factors are involved in consideration of the issue. (6) Is he able to say whether Australian ratification would be sufficient to make the Common Fund operational. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A total of ninety-nine countries have ratified the Agreement Establishing the Common Fund for Commodities. These countries are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Yemen, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. (2) As the Agreement Establishing the Common Fund for Commodities has not come into force no capital has been contributed. The ratification process has been completed by countries representing 66 per cent of the Fund's Directly Contributed Capital. (3) For the Agreement to come into force 90 countries accounting for two-thirds of the Directly Contributed Capital-66.67 per cent-must ratify. There is therefore an outstanding balance of 0.67 per cent of the Directly Contributed Capital. (4) The USSR deposited its instrument of approval of the Agreement Establishing the Common Fund for Commodities on 9 December 1987. (5) Australia deposited its instrument of ratification of the Agreement Establishing the Common Fund for Commodities on 9 October 1981. (6) See answers 3. and 5. above. (Question No. 656) Mr Hollis asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Is he able to say (a) on what subjects; (b) where and (c) when did the Directors-General of UNESCO and World Intellectual Property Organization convene Committees of Governmental Experts in 1986 and 1987. (2) Was Australia invited to attend the meetings. (3) Is he able to say which states, intergovernmental organisations and international non-governmental organisations participated in each meeting. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In answer to parts (1) (a) (b) and (c) and (3) of the question, the Directors-General of UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organization convened meetings of the following Committees of Governmental Experts in 1986 and 1987: (a) Committee of Governmental Experts on Model Provisions for National Laws on Employed Authors (Geneva, 27-31 January 1986) (i) States-Algeria, Bangladesh, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Soviet Union, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (ALESCO), Council of Europe (CE). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisation-European Broadcasting Union (EBU), International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), International Bureau of Societies Administering the Rights of Mechanical Recording and Reproduction (BIEM), International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF), International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Secretariat of Arts, Media and Entertainment Trade (ISETU). (b) Committee of Governmental Experts on Audiovisual Works and Phonograms (Paris, 2-6 June 1986) (i) States-Angola, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, Holy See, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Soviet Union, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (ALESCO). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisation-European Broadcasting Union (EBU), European Tape Industry Council (ETIC), International Alliance for Distribution by Cable (AID), International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in intellectual Property (ATRIP), International Association of Sound Archives (IASA), International Bureau of Societies Administering Recording and Mechanical Reproduction Rights (BIEM), International Catholic Organisation for the Cinema and Audiovisuals (OCIC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), International Copyright Society (INTERGU), International Federation of Actors (FIA), International Federation of Film Distributors Association (FIAD), International Federation of Film Producers Association of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF), International Federation of Musicians (FIM), International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers (IFPI), International Film and Television Council (IFTC), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Music Council (IMC), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Secretariat for Arts, Mass Media and Entertainment Trade Unions (ISETU), Latin American Federation of Performers (LAFP). (c) Committee of Governmental Experts on Works of Architecture (Geneva, 20-22 October 1986). (i) States-Algeria, Austria, Cameroon, Denmark, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Madagascar, Netherlands, Peru, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-International Labour Organisations (ILO). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisations-International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), International Publishers Association (IPA), Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law, World Crafts Council (WCC). (d) Committee of Governmental Experts on Works of Visual Art (Paris, 16-19 December 1986). (i) States-Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Holy See, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI), Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation (AGECOOP), Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (ALECSO), Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisations-Inter-African Union of Lawyers (UIAA), International Association of Art (IAA), International Catholic Organisation for the Cinema and Audiovisuals (OCIC), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Confederation of Professional and Intellectual Workers (CITI), International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), International Copyright Society (INTERGU), International Council of Archives (ICA), International Federation of Translators (FIT), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Secretariat for Arts, Mass Media and Entertainment Trade Unions (ISETU), International Union of Architects (IUA), Law Association for Asia and the Western Pacific (LAWASIA), Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law, World Crafts Council (WCC). (e) Committee of Governmental Experts on Dramatic, Choreographic and Musical Works (Paris May 11-15, 1987). (i) States-Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guatemala, Guinea, Holy See, Hungary, India, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Panama, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-Arab Educational Cultural and Scientific Organisation (ALECSO). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisations-Broadcasting Organisation of the Non-Aligned Countries (BONAC), European Broadcasting Union (EBU), International Bureau of Societies Administering Recording and Mechanical Reproduction Rights (BIEM), International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), International Federation of Actors (FIA), International Federation of Musicians (FIM), International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers (IFPI), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Publishers Association (IPA), International Secretariat for Arts, Mass Media and Entertainment Trade Unions (ISETU), International Theatre Institute (ITI), Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law. (f) Committee of Governmental Experts on Works of Applied Art (Geneva, October 5-9, 1987). (i) States-Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Guinea, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Republic of Korea, Soviet Union, Sweden, United States of America, Uruguay. (ii) Intergovernmental Organisations-Commission of the European Communities (CEC), Intergovernmental Bureau for Informatics (IBI), League of Arab States (LAS). (iii) International Non-Governmental Organisations-International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), International Secretariat for Arts, Mass Media and Entertainment Trade Unions (ISETU/FIET), International Union of Architects (IUA), World Crafts Council (WCC). (2) In response to part (2) of the question, the Australian Government was invited to be represented at each of the meetings mentioned. However, having regard to overall priorities concerning attendance at international meetings, it was not possible to send an Australian Government expert to any but the last mentioned meetings which was considered of particular importance in view of current proposals relating to the application of designs in the industrial and commercial fields.