Thursday, 14 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. by Mr Brumby (from 39 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 10 citizens), Mr Holding (from 17 citizens), Mr Peacock (from 186 citizens) and Mr Rocher (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned Electors showeth: That any proposed redistribution of funds for Nursing and Personal Care staff costs in Nursing Homes will detrimentally affect the quality of care given in Nursing Homes in South Australia and the quality of life of the residents in those Nursing Homes. The Outcome Standards for Nursing Homes, so recently established, will not be achieved and elderly people will not receive the standard of care or quality of life that they need. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will raise the funding level for Nursing and Personal Care staff hours for all States to enable at least the number of hours of care for Nursing Home residents in South Australia to be achieved by all States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett (from 945 citizens), Mr Porter (from 3,142 citizens), and Mr Wilson (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justification for the proposal has been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Fife (from 84 citizens), Dr Hewson (from 69 citizens) and Mr Ruddock (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a general dissatisfaction in the community at the levels of road funding made available by the Federal Government. While noting the commitment of the Government to maintain a high standard of roads in Australia, we are specifically concerned at the real cutbacks for road funding in the Local Government area. We especially note that roadworks are a labour intensive industry and cutbacks will create unemployment and hardship in rural areas. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, give due consideration to increasing the amount of funds available to Local Government authorities for roadworks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby (from 12 citizens) and Mr Lloyd (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Murray respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 151 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm, and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Cross (from 17 citizens) and Mr Johns (from 188 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Punch (from 247 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of South Australia draws to the attention of the House that: We, the undersigned, strongly object to the Commonwealth Government planning to reduce the hours for Nursing Homes to allow for an Australia-wide re-distribution. We, like the Voluntary Care Association are vitally concerned about the continued well-being of Nursing Home residents. We believe plans to phase in a State-wide reduction of staff hours from July 1st, 1988, will have an adverse effect on the quality care in most Nursing Homes, resulting in: (1) Fundamental nursing needs only being provided. (2) Minimal rehabilitation. (3) Reduction of choice with subsequent reduction in residents' rights. (4) Reduction in therapy. (5) Loss of valued staff. We are determined to maintain the existing standards of care for South Australia and in doing so force the Federal Government to change its position in this vital issue. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will: Voice strong objections to the Commonwealth Government over plans to reduce the staffing hours for Nursing Homes. by Mr Andrew (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain Northern Region Careproviders Association Inc. draws to the attention of the House Part III Division III Section 33 of the Children's Services Act which states: A person who proposes for monetary or other consideration to care for not more than ``Three Children under the Age of Six Years''. Your petitioners therefore pray that this be changed to ``Three Children under the Age of Five years''. Careproviders feel that once a child begins school we should be able to take another full time child in their place otherwise our earning potential is cut by a third. by Dr Blewett (from 359 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Federal Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients, and call upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 515 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors of the Division of Corangamite, respectively showeth: That we are gravely concerned about the public release of confidential medical information, sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients, and call upon the House to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that the House ensures that there will be no further public release of such private confidential medical information. by Mr McArthur (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to time local telephone calls gravely concerns all people. Isolation and communication was the second biggest problem facing rural women according to the ``Survey of Rural Women'' questionnaire and any attempt at timing local calls will add to this problem, not decrease it. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that Telecom do not proceed with the timing of local telephone calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron (from 15 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos (and ER), and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Hewson (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: An $8 million wealth inquiry will give the Hawke Labor Government the information it needs for a wealth tax and the reintroduction of death duties. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject any wealth inquiry or new wealth taxes or death duties on the Australian people and businesses already struggling under 16 new Hawke Labor Government taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to the proposed restructuring of the A.B.C. We believe that the A.B.C. is one of the most important public services in Australia and a mainstay of democracy. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the A.B.C. is permitted to continue to offer ``comprehensive'' broadcasting services under its present charter. by Mr Kerr (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents or persons employed in the Australian Capital Territory points out to the House that: it is appropriate that State and local government policy and administrative functions should be managed by persons accountable to ACT residents, and that all Australian residents would agree that there should be no taxation without representation, and that the Commonwealth Parliament should give just and equitable consideration to redressing the wrongs afflicting the ACT. Your petitioners therefore request urgently that Members agree to provide the ACT with an elected form of self government which will be responsible for all the functions of the ACT Office of Administration and, in addition, for those of local law enforcement and the administration of justice. by Mr Langmore (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: They strongly oppose the introduction of timed local telephone calls in regional and rural areas as they are already severely disadvantaged in comparison with telephone users in the major metropolitan areas in their ability to contact other people on an untimed local call basis. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Correct the problem created in the major metropolitan areas, do not alter the present untimed local call policy in regional and rural areas and reinstate the ability for those living in remote areas to have an untimed local call. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Murray electorate respectfully showeth that: The August 1st changes to Medicare Benefit rebates are unfair to patients, such as those with chronic disabilities requiring consultant physician or after hours consultations. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Amend the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act to restore the original rebates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of Food Irradiation into Australia and; 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and cesium-137 and cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service and should therefore remain intact and continue to provide the same comprehensive range of services; that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia; that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will oppose the dismantling of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Time-charging for the business sector is also unfair and unreasonable as any charge increase to business will be borne by consumers in the end. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent both Australian people and Australian business from being seriously disadvantaged by yet another ludicrous charge. by Mr Moore (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Gwydir respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to; Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Australia shows: that the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage the sick, elderly and disabled people as well as counselling and community services, particularly Lifeline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will reject the present proposal by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls as being an unfair cost burden on private individuals. by Mr Braithwaite (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain Port Augusta citizens (citizens of Australia) (Electors of the Division of Grey) Respectfully showeth (here circumstances of case stated) that the unemployed in trying to better themselves by full-time study, lose $17 per week, which is the gap between unemployment benefits and Austudy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that (here terms of action petitioned stated) Supporting parents do not lose any money under the same circumstances. Why should unemployed be discriminated against? Humbly pray that there be no loss of money between unemployment benefits and Austudy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Borough of Wonthaggi respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to terminate an existing agreement with Latrobe Health Insurance for the provision of facilities for the receipt and limited processing of Medicare claims will: Deny ready access to cash reimbursements of Medicare Claims; Deprive citizens of a personalized reliable claims payment service; Reduce job opportunities in the area; Not effect the savings to Government as stated within the Budget papers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will reconsider their previous decision to discontinue Medicare Agency arrangements. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith (from 660 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectively showeth- That the action of those of the Federal Government and/or decision makers of the Medicare structure, to close the Medicare agency office at Wonthaggi, is of grave concern to the residents of the South West Gippsland sub-region. The closure of this office will mean all claims will require to be forwarded by mail for processing, which means a delay of at least one to two weeks for the receipt of their refunds. Current service provides immediate payment for normal consultations and delays occur for more specialized services. Many low-income and benefit recipients will suffer genuine hardship if the closure of this office is allowed to proceed, there will be those that may refrain from seeking medical attention as required because of the delays envisaged. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, address this matter and trust appropriate intervention will allow the continuation of this vital service within the South West Gippsland sub-region. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith (from 458 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the abovementioned Bill to the appropriate Parliamentary committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from five citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effect on children and young people. by Mr Ruddock (from 233 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia (representing all the employees of Rheem Australia Limited, North Rocks Plant) respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggests that the present Federal Government intends to place further taxes on the Superannuation system. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to ensure that no further tax in any form, either on Superannuation Benefits or on accumulated Superannuation Funds, be imposed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 104 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned members of the Wynnum R.S.L. Services Memorial Club and concerned citizens respectfully showeth:- ``That the automatic increase in Excise Duty on beer, wine and spirits at six monthly intervals on a C.P.I. basis would increase prices to what is an exorbitant level. Secondly, in the interests of road safety and Club viability, consideration be given to lowering the Excise Duty on low alcohol beer to a level where it will be more financially advantageous to drink in preference to full strength beers.'' Now, therefore, your Petitioners request that The House of Representatives and Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decision of the Government which have brought this six monthly automatic excise duty increase. by Mr Sciacca (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's I.D. card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's I.D. card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 115 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: We object to Telecom's past decisions to alter the time period for cheaper rates for STD telephone calls and to introduce a fee for local call inquiries. We further oppose any proposal to introduce a time charge on local telephone calls. These changes in Telecom's charging policy seriously disadvantages the elderly, poor, disabled, and distressed persons in our community as well as unfairly increasing costs to telephone counselling services. They place further cost burdens on already tight family budgets. Your petitioners therefore humbly seek your consideration of the serious consequences of these changes and humbly pray that you use your influence to reverse such decisions. by Mr Webster (from 20 citizens). The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And Your Petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. Any your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal to deny Western District Health Fund Medicare Agency rights in the Blue Mountains and to deny Springwood the availability of a Medicare Agency altogether. The Agency has provided an important service to a community characterised by its large number of young families and aged persons and by its public transport difficulties. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the termination of the Medicare Agency rights for Western District Health Fund and the withdrawal of Medicare services in Springwood in particular. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 394 citizens). Petitions received. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the second report of the Committee, entitled The ringing of the bells and the Chamber precincts in the new Parliament House and certification of petitions not in the English language, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MOUNTFORD —This report, the second report of the Procedure Committee for this Parliament, makes three recommendations to the House. Two of the recommendations relate to our impending move to the new Parliament House and the other relates to the certification of translations of those petitions that are in languages other than English. Honourable members who have already visited the new Parliament House will have been struck by the many ways in which it differs from this our home for the past 61 years. The sheer size of the building alone is daunting, apart from other aspects of the new environment which in the long run may effect significant changes to our operations. Whatever long term changes may evolve, the Procedure Committee is committed to resolving anticipated needs and monitoring the adjustment of current procedures in the new environment. The Committee believes that there are two specific aspects of the House's quorum and division procedures that need to be addressed prior to the move. These are the duration of the ringing of the bells and the definition of the precincts of the chamber. It has been anticipated that the size of the building may affect the ability of honourable members to respond in time to bells calling them to divisions or to form quorums. The Committee conducted trials in the new building and concluded that, for an initial period at least, it will be necessary to extend the current times for the ringing of bells. The Committee recognises that, due to unfamiliarity with the building and, for some honourable members, longer distances to walk, there should be a trial period of three sitting weeks when bells will ring for four minutes rather than the current three. During this time the Committee will monitor the situation and, if necessary, submit another recommendation to the House on the duration of the ringing of bells. Honourable members may be aware that the floor of the chamber in the new House is different from this one in that there are no galleries for senators, diplomats or guests and the bar of the House is located at the rear of the last row of members' seats directly opposite the Speaker. Also, there are no alcoves. There are seats allocated for officials, as is the case in this chamber. Standing order 46a defines in some detail certain areas on or adjacent to the floor of the chamber where members may not be counted for the purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. I understand that this precise definition was adopted as a direct result of a 1971 count-out and a resulting inquiry by the Committee of Privileges. As there are no alcoves or special galleries on the floor of the new chamber the Committee has recommended that for the purpose of determining whether a quorum of members is present all members who are within the physical limits of the chamber should be counted. As set out in the report, the Committee's understanding of the term `physical limits' is that it includes all areas on the floor of the chamber, including officials' seats. The Committee has concluded, however, that there is no need to change the standing orders relating to the boundaries for divisions to accommodate changes to the layout of the chamber. It is proposed that to be counted in a division members should still remain within the seats allotted to members. Should a member wish to withdraw from a division, he or she may do so by withdrawing from the area within the seats allotted to members while remaining in the chamber. The Committee has recommended, therefore, that standing orders 46a and 47, relating to the calling of quorums, be omitted and replaced with a new standing order 47 indicating that the boundaries of the floor of the chamber be the boundaries within which members can be counted for the purposes of a quorum. There is another issue, one relating to our petitioning procedures, that has been brought to the attention of the Committee. Since 1901 the Standing Orders have required members to certify the translation of petitions that are not in the English language. The Committee was made aware of the potential difficulties this may cause, in that many members would not be in a position to certify accurately such translations. The Committee concluded that members should not be required to certify translations of non-English petitions, although they may do so should they so wish. It is proposed that petitions that are not in the English language should continue to require a certified translation, and that those who certify the translations be required to affix their name and address to those translations. I commend the report to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.13) —As Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure may I express the hope that the Opposition, of which I am also a member, will see fit to accept these very sensible recommendations. Having been to the new Parliament House and having been part of the stopwatch exercise undertaken to see how long it takes to walk to the new chamber, I can assure honourable members that some will have to undertake an exercise of fitness when we shift up on to the hill. All honourable members will finish up with lean, hungry looks, just having to respond to the bells. This probably will not be a bad thing anyway; it may remove some of the excess weight. Mr Ronald Edwards —Speak for yourself. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am very lean and also I am not hungry. Probably it is a little ridiculous that in the past the practice that any member who was seated in a chair outside or in the back seats of this chamber was not regarded as being in the chamber for the purposes of a quorum. The Committee is recommending that, if a member is in the House, he or she will be deemed to be in; if he or she is out, he or she will be deemed to be out. It is an uncomplicated recommendation. The recommendation relating to petitions I do not think is exactly earth shattering. The present procedure has been in place for a long time. It is totally unrealistic to expect members of this chamber to be able to read the many written forms of language that now exist in Australia as the result of the migration to this country of people from all over the world. I inform the Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), that from my point of view, as Deputy Chairman of the Committee and as an Opposition member, the recommendations have my total support. I hope that the honourable member for Hume will be able to agree to the recommendations on behalf of the Opposition. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.15) —In supporting the second report from the Standing Committee on Procedure I share the hope of the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) that the report's recommendations will be looked at very seriously and given support by the Opposition and by the Government. There are two observations that I think are relevant from the point of view of those who may be listening to this debate. This move to the new Parliament House, the Australian people's new Parliament House, is quite significant. It is significant obviously because it is a much larger and more sophisticated building than this one. It will also, I believe, afford a greater opportunity for members of the public to witness parliament in process and, I would hope, to enjoy the procedures and the precincts of parliament. I say to those who feel that this has been a major and very costly step for the Australian community that when people experience the new Parliament House they will agree with most people here that, in fact, it will be a place to be proud of. It will also serve an important purpose in affording the opportunity for the Australian community to witness very directly the procedures of parliament. One of the difficulties with the current arrangement is that it is not always possible for people to get into the galleries, particularly during Question Time. In the new Parliament House that opportunity will be more readily available, and I think the Australian community will find that that will be a great boon. There is another aspect which I ought to emphasise. The Committee is very conscious of the need to modernise the procedures of parliament and it is continuing to do that. I believe that Parliament will continue to be relevant and effective. However, one concern I have about the new Parliament House is that, because of its physical size, there may be a separation of the parliamentary members from the members of the Government and the Executive. I think that is of concern to all of us because one of the strengths of this Parliament is, if I can use the term, the rubbing of shoulders, the fact that people from the Opposition and the Government can get together and talk. That is a regular process and debate is facilitated by the fact that we are mixing together on a regular basis. As members we should be conscious, in the new Parliament House, of not becoming separated from one another so that the process of discussion is not diminished. That is a very important role and one we must all play. The Committee is conscious of that and that is why it is making these sorts of decisions. If members of parliament and members of the Executive are equally conscious of that, parliament will continue to serve the Australian people as well as it has done to date. Mr FIFE(Hume)(10.17) —On behalf of the Opposition, and I think I can presume to speak on behalf of all members of the House, I thank the Standing Committee on Procedure for this second report and for the work it is doing in relation to the procedures of this House. Obviously, when we move to the new Parliament House there will be a need for some changes in the procedures because of the changes in the physical layout and the distances that will have to be travelled by members to get from their offices and other parts of the building to the House of Representatives chamber and the Senate chamber. I say to the House, and particularly to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, who have both spoken, that the Opposition will very carefully examine the report. I have not had an opportunity to read it but I will do so. We will make an official response to that report. As I said earlier, I thank the Committee for the work it is doing. Many new procedures will be required. It is a very important time as we move from one building to the other because many of the decisions we take will be followed by parliaments well into the future. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.18) —I move: That this House expresses it deep concern at the negligent way the Government has conducted Australia's relations with the South Pacific nations since 1983. I have moved this motion because, as a member of the Australian Parliament, I have a very real concern about the lack of proper regional focus in Australian foreign policy, about the lack of any coherent foreign policy strategy for this country. All of this is symptomatic of the obvious lack of long term planning and thought in Australian foreign policy. This is not a personal view; this is the view not only of many members on this side of the House but, sadly, of a large number of members of our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Pacific, as I think all members of this House would be well aware, is vital to Australia in two ways-in terms of the economic development of this country and in terms of our security. In economic terms, the Pacific taken as a whole, not just specifically the South Pacific, will be the future of economic power in the world. There is no doubt that in the next 50 years Japan, China, some members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and one or two others such as South Korea will be the economic engines of this globe. With that in mind it is enormously important for us to be deeply involved in that region because there is so much from which we can benefit if the region is to be economically successful-as I believe it will. An important part of economic success is trade and an important part of trade is that it can pass unhindered through a region-in this case through the Pacific, including more specifically the South Pacific. One of the reasons this region has grown economically so effectively over the years is simply that trade has passed unhindered. That has been achieved through a policy of what one could describe as strategic denial, making the region an area of strategic denial to the Soviet Union in particular and making the region free from the debilitating superpower rivalry that has plagued other parts of the world. We have managed to achieve a zone of strategic denial particularly through the vehicle of the ANZUS alliance but we have also been able to build on that through countries such as ours and New Zealand developing extremely close relations with many of the Pacific island states-perhaps one could say all of the Pacific island states. These achievements were reached above all by governments such as the Menzies Government and the Fraser Government. But in the world in which we live today, in 1988, the South Pacific-and the Pacific region generally-is not so simple. It is a region that has gone through an enormous process of change. First, there has been a very significant change in the domestic politics of many of the countries in our region. We have seen, in some of the Pacific island states, very significant changes; for example, in such countries as Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands-and I hardly need to remind the House of the significant changes that have taken place in Fiji. Papua New Guinea as well is undergoing a certain amount of political instability at the moment which certainly causes me-and I know causes the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar)-some considerable concern. One of the phenomena that we have seen in our region is, to put it simply, an upsurge in Melanesian chauvinism. But we have also seen some very significant changes in the politics of New Zealand. What these two things have done is significantly change also the foreign policy attitudes of those countries. We have seen in New Zealand a push towards unilateralism which has led to the demise of the ANZUS alliance. We have seen throughout the region a growth in opposition to the role of the United States and greater emphasis on what is sometimes described as moral equivalence, where people regard the Soviet Union and the United States as equally evil. That is an attitude that I think is extraordinarily unfortunate. We have also seen a significant growth in opposition to the presence of France in the region. I remain a strong opponent of the French policy of nuclear testing at Mururoa and the new place to which it is moving its tests. However, the Government's position in particular on French involvement in New Caledonia has been motivated more by traditional Anglo-Saxon francophobia than by rational analysis of the very real difficulties and conflicts which exist within that country. So we are seeing in our region generally a very significant change in its domestic environment. We are also seeing a very significant change in the strategic environment of our region. Not least, we have seen a great deal of interest in our region coming from the Soviet Union and an increase in its involvement. The Soviet Union's approach is, of course, to bring to an end the policy of strategic denial, which, as I have already explained, has been so beneficial to Australia and to the region as a whole over so many years. If one goes back to 1984 one can see that the Soviet Union has wanted to achieve that. Moscow Radio said on 15 July 1984: The Lange victory- the victory of the Lange Government in New Zealand- could set off a chain reaction leading to the collapse of the ANZUS bloc. That is what Moscow Radio said and, of course, in a sense Moscow Radio turned out to be right. Since 1984 we have had the collapse of ANZUS; we have had the encroachment of the Soviet Union, admittedly on commercial grounds, into a number of the Pacific islands-and perhaps one cannot blame those islands for that; we have the famous Vladivostok speech of Mr Gorbachev, emphasising the growing role for the Soviet Union in our region; and we had the very significant Soviet military build-up both in Cam Ranh Bay and Vietnam generally, and also the growth of the Soviet Pacific fleet which now constitutes something like 32 per cent of all Soviet Union surface ships. This sort of development is hardly conducive to increased stability or the maintenance of stability in our region, because what is happening increasingly is that the phenomenon of superpower rivalry is arriving on our doorstep. Some, in response to this, would say that the Soviet Union has completely changed; it is now a benign nation; that we have to look at things in terms of moral equivalence; that I am just Red baiting; and all this sort of thing. But I believe that the wise members of this chamber-and I know there are many of them-will be concerned that things can change, and change quickly, in the Soviet Union and the phenomenon of Soviet involvement in our region is certainly leading to a degree of superpower rivalry that most members of this House, but certainly not all, would regard as unpalatable. Madam Speaker, when you look at the way the Government has reacted to these very significant changes in the strategic and domestic environments within our region, you, and other members of this House have a right to be deeply concerned. The Government's approach to the South Pacific and the Pacific generally in terms of foreign policy has been overwhelming an approach of benign neglect. It has been frightened to shore up Australia's role, and to shore up the role of the Western alliance in our region, because its whole argument is built on a false premise of not wanting to be involved and appearing to be overbearing and imperialistic. We saw, for example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) turn his back on the region for the first three years of his period in that portfolio. It took him about three years before he made any formal visit to the South Pacific region. We have seen the Australian Government reduce the aid budget in our region, particularly to Papua New Guinea, where it breached an agreement with that country, which inevitably led to significant resentment within both the Government and the bureaucracy of Papua New Guinea. The Government has closed down the Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings (CHOGRM) because the Foreign Minister, I suspect, for reasons unbeknown to any other members of this House, has some sort an antipathy towards the institution of the Commonwealth. The Government has sat by and watched the ANZUS alliance collapse without going to New Zealand, simply on the grounds that the issue is too hard and it would not want to interfere with New Zealand in any way at all. On the defence side we have the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities report and the Defence White Paper, which again turn their backs on the region and on the defence of the region generally, withdrawing into a mentality of fortress Australia. It is not true to say that the Government has launched no initiatives at all in the region. It has actually launched three initiatives. The first was to create-and it was the Australian Government that created it because if Australia had opposed it, it would not have come to much-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. This was a treaty of which the Soviet Embassy said on 12 August 1986: The creation of a nuclear free zone would contribute to the formation of a multilateral system of security in the Asia-Pacific region. I am sure that is right, but that is shorthand for saying that the Soviet Union sees it as the first step towards the superpower rivalry which it wants to bring to our region. What that treaty effectively does is to deny a role for the United States in the event of the worst possible scenario-let me emphasise that: the worst possible scenario-and God forbid it should ever happen. It denies the United States a role as a player in providing nuclear deterrence in our region. I think that that is an extraordinarily short-sighted and political thing to do. It is not something that this nation should be involving itself in. We should have a broader and more long term perspective than that. As I have explained, the Government has done more than just introduce the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on behalf of the Government, has called for the constructive involvement of the Soviet Union in our region. The Prime Minister made that call recently in Singapore on his way to the Soviet Union. I suppose that he did that in order to ingratiate himself with his putative hosts. But where in the world have we seen the Soviet Union being constructively involved in any region, constructively involved from the point of view of the democracies and the Western alliance? Fancy an Australian Prime Minister coming out and calling for that kind of involvement! Honourable members can rest assured that I have found from talking with diplomats from various countries that they have been as alarmed as this Opposition by that quite extraordinary and indefensible statement by the Prime Minister. Of course, we also have as a third initiative by this Government the rather childish slanging match with France, which has proved to be completely unproductive. I think that what we need to do is to develop a strategy in this country which shores up our security and increases the sense of regional consciousness. I think we can do four things to achieve that. First of all, in terms of security, Australia should develop its defence cooperation within the region. That would be an important initiative. Already we have a degree of defence cooperation within our region but we ought to offer further cooperation wherever it is willingly accepted. I doubt whether there would be much opposition to that proposition from the other side of the House. Secondly, I have argued that Australia, as one of the major powers of this region, should promote a regional trading initiative which would lead to the creation of an ASEAN-South Pacific common market. In one sense this common market would be similar to the European Community-perhaps only in one sense-in that it would provide for common external tariffs and a free trade zone within that region. I have very little optimism about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round of negotiations. I do not think that we are going to get the sort of multilateral trade agreement which will overwhelmingly benefit Australia. We have to look regionally and think regionally. The development of free trade in our region is the way to stimulate regional economic growth and regional consciousness. Such a regional trade initiative is an important way of doing that. Thirdly, we should revitalise the Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings. As honourable members may know, Malaysia is due to be the next host of CHOGRM. Malaysia is simply waiting for the Australian Government to say that it is happy to go ahead with the CHOGRM meeting. Malaysia has not called the meeting, because it is aware of opposition from our Foreign Minister to such a meeting. CHOGRM is yet another important way of improving regional consciousness and regional cooperation. Finally, I think it is important that we restore in real terms the budget that we had originally under the Fraser Government for aid to our region instead of deflecting $100m over a three- to five-year period to the front line states of southern Africa. I strongly urge the House to support this motion. It is a matter of great concern to me that our South Pacific strategy has no coherence or direction. I believe that this side of the House offers that coherence and that direction. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion at this stage and reserve my right to speak. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(10.35) —The content of this motion put up by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), namely, the alleged neglect of the South Pacific by this Government, has been a recurrent theme in Opposition foreign policy statements over the past couple of years. For example, this year the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and no doubt many others have belaboured this erroneous point in numerous statements both inside and outside this chamber. As late as 7 December last year, Senator Hill raised this issue as a matter of public importance in the Senate. At the time his claims of neglect were refuted most ably and definitively by Senator Gareth Evans. I cannot do better than refer the honourable member for Mayo and any other honourable members who are interested to Senator Evans's excellent speech on that occasion. However, not to be outdone, the honourable member for Mayo who, like many of his Opposition colleagues, is always loath to let the facts get in the way of a good argument, has chosen to waste the time of this House by putting us through this tedious procedure once more. Knowing as I do that the honourable member for Mayo fancies himself as a bit of an expert on foreign affairs, I must say-and I am sure I speak also for the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney)-that we are rather disappointed that he could not have come up with something more original on this occasion. Mr Downer —You wrote this before I spoke. Mrs HARVEY —I am talking about the motion itself, not what the honourable member said. I would have thought that the motion could have been a little more original and novel and not something that has already been done to death in the Senate and various other forums. However, I do not mind getting up and telling the House about our foreign affairs record and our present policies in the South Pacific because these polices are something of which this Government can be proud and for which this Government receives the respect and approval of South Pacific nations. I will concentrate on refuting the claims of the honourable member for Mayo that this Government lacks any coherent strategy or any long term plan as far as the South Pacific is concerned. This Government has a strong five-year record of sympathetic response and leadership in the South Pacific. When we came to power in 1983, Australian attitudes were still characterised by a sense of post-colonial complacency. Since that time we have responded flexibly and with imagination to a new assertion of values and interests by the countries of the region. Our dealings with the South Pacific region have not, as the honourable member for Mayo claimed, been piecemeal or unplanned. We have had the foresight to conduct careful planning activities related to the region. For example, in 1983 a thorough review of the ANZUS Treaty checked and confirmed its validity. This was the first and essential ingredient in a stocktake of the welfare of the region and of the condition of our policy towards it. This clarification and confirmation of our position has enabled us to respond promptly and with confidence to issues such as port visits. Other planning activities which have been undertaken over the past two years include a review of Australia's South Pacific options in early 1986; a major policy speech by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in May 1986 at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, setting out basic Australian approaches to the region; and a preparation of detailed submissions on the South Pacific to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade-or to its subcommittee inquiring into the South Pacific. In the light of Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the subsequent Defence White Paper, there has been an assessment of regional security implications. There have also been reviews of Australian policy on Papua New Guinea and meetings of Pacific heads of missions in 1986 and 1987. The Government has also shown leadership in the South Pacific at a time when there was an urgent need to respond rapidly to growing concerns about nuclear arms testing and dumping. In the area of multilateral relations, Australia has taken steps to encourage Western countries, such as France and Japan, to develop constructive relations with governments of the South Pacific nations. In regard to relations between the island states and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Australia recognises the island states' sovereign authority. It would be hypocritical for Australia to tell the island governments that it is improper for them to enter into economic relations with the USSR when Australia itself enjoys the benefits of a constructive economic relationship with the Soviet Union. However, Australia has alerted island governments to prospects that the USSR may endeavour, through these arrangements, to develop a presence which goes beyond normal diplomatic and commercial relationships. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade drew Australia's concerns in this regard to the attention of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, during his visit to Canberra last year. As regards regionalism, the Australian Go-vernment has played a full role within the South Pacific Forum in the development of regional positions on significant issues affecting the region as a whole. At the 1987 Apia Forum, Australia proposed the establishment of a committee of officials to look at the evolution of regional institutions. Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea are entering a new phase following the signing of the joint declaration of principles by the two Prime Ministers last December, and meetings of Ministers and officials will take place over the next few months. Australian aid to the South Pacific is something that the honourable member for Mayo mentioned at the end of his speech. He claimed, as many members of his Party have before, that we have our aid priorities wrong, that we are not giving as much as we should to the South Pacific, and that we are diverting aid to other areas. Australia is still currently the major bilateral donor of aid to the South Pacific. If we look at aid to the South Pacific countries, excluding Papua New Guinea, we find that in 1970-71, Australian aid to the region totalled approximately $1m. In 1987-88, the allocation of bilateral funds to the region was $68.2m. At the 1982 Rotorua South Pacific Forum the then Liberal Government announced a pledge to the region of $300m to be provided as development assistance over a five-year period. This commitment was confirmed by the present Labor Go-vernment and is due to expire at the end of the current financial year. During the five-year currency of the pledge it is expected that approximately $312m will be given. If other aid expenditure such as disaster relief is taken into account, it will mean that Australia's total aid expenditure during the five-year period will be of the order of $360m-$60m more than the Liberal Government pledged back in 1982. Australian aid to Papua New Guinea accounts for some 85 per cent of that country's aid receipts and currently represents 30 per cent of Australia's aid program. The 1987-88 Budget provides $301.8m in aid to Papua New Guinea, the vast majority of which takes the form of untied budget support. A new treaty of development cooperation is being negotiated with Papua New Guinea in accordance with the aims of the joint declaration of principles. It must be remembered that issues such as Papua New Guinea's declared intention to achieve fiscal self-reliance, as well as a diversification of its sources of aid, will influence the outcome of these new arrangements. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently informed Prime Minister Wingti that Australia will maintain the level of Budget support to Papua New Guinea at $275m for each of the next three years. Over this period, project aid is expected to increase. Mr Wingti has welcomed this commitment of increased levels of Australian aid in helping Papua New Guinea to achieve self-sustaining development. Claims by the honourable member for Mayo of neglect in the South Pacific are not borne out when one looks at the number of visits to the region by Australian Ministers over the last five years. Since 1983, no fewer than 22 ministerial visits to the South Pacific have taken place, including four by the Prime Minister and four by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The honourable member for Mayo should know all this because one of the more trivial and nitpicking exercises of his much vaunted, but not very effective, Waste Watch Committee was to count up ministerial visits and claim that they were a waste of taxpayers' money. Does the honourable member claim that these trips were a waste of money or is he, for the purposes of this argument, shifting ground and saying that there should have been more? As well as increasing direct contacts between the Australian Government and the governments of the South Pacific nations, we have strengthened our diplomatic representation in the area. We have accredited representation to the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands and we have put additional personnel in Port Moresby, Apia, Suva and Vila. We are represented in all the independent South Pacific countries-nine of them by resident representatives and five by non-resident representatives. We also have representatives in Honolulu and Noumea. To sum up, our policy and programs in the South Pacific do not indicate neglect, as the honourable member for Mayo claims. Mr Bilney —Quite the reverse. Mrs HARVEY —On the contrary, as the honourable member for Kingston says, they indicate a great degree of commitment. More importantly, they indicate a more mature, consistent and flexible approach to South Pacific aspirations and events. This Government can only be commended for its firm and sensible handling, for example, of the Fijian situation. Mr Downer —I think that was a bad example to take, actually. Mrs HARVEY —I will give the honourable member another example. In contrast, one has only to recall the extraordinarily naive, clumsy and insensitive actions and performance of the former Opposition foreign affairs spokesman-the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown)-when he was in Fiji at the time of the first coup. Mr Bilney —And the present one. Mrs HARVEY —And the present one. That is evidence of the ignorance and lack of understanding on the part of the Opposition of political changes which have taken place in the region since it left government. I reject the motion put forward by the honourable member for Mayo and I urge honourable members to do the same. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.46) —In considering this important motion, which I am pleased the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) has brought up, we should go back in time a little. We need to remember and consider that it was the advance of Japan in the Second World War to Australia's shores, through Papua New Guinea and the south-west Pacific nations, which brought home to Australia that the future security of the Pacific region is absolutely vital to this country's interests. That point was brought up by the honourable member for Mayo. Speaking at that time, the then Foreign Minister, Dr Evatt, made that abundantly clear in a number of speeches. In San Francisco on 6 December 1945 he stressed the need for a Pacific security zone which would be largely dependent `upon the relationship between the United States on the one hand and Australia and New Zealand on the other'. The foreign policy principles established at that time, which have remained largely intact to the present, were to balance the needs of Australian security against the economic and political aspirations of the island peoples. Above all, this meant the creation and maintenance of goodwill between a diverse and widely scattered group of Polynesian and Melanesian islands on the one hand and a European oriented Australia and New Zealand on the other. That is the point I start with. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) is a recent member of this House and has not had the opportunity, I guess, to travel widely in the South Pacific region. When I hear speeches such as the one she has just made I recognise that they come from a background of looking at the matter solely from Australia's point of view, without having the opportunity of travelling to the islands, talking to the people involved and getting an impression from them as to Australia's capacity and the proper direction of Australia's foreign policy as it affects them. When we deal with South Pacific nations it is not as if we are dealing with more sophisticated groupings such as occur in western Europe and North America. The fact is that the people of the South Pacific live in small nations, with very small populations in many cases, and their attitudes are coloured very much more by their capacity to meet, talk to, get to know and build relationships on a personal basis than would be the case in our other foreign policy relationships. The apparently impressive statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) recently that half of his departmental overseas policy staff work in the Asian-Pacific region takes on an entirely different complexion if we remove the Asian component and examine the number of foreign affairs officers actually located in South Pacific nations, excluding Papua New Guinea. We find that 30 officers are physically located in the whole of the South Pacific and that almost half of those are in Suva, Fiji. Similarly, the Foreign Minister's claim of significantly increased aid to South Pacific nations is not correct; it is simply wrong. It would have been much more honest of the Foreign Minister if he had acknowledged that, after increases in total aid to the region for several years, the August 1987 Budget not only reduced overall allocations in 1987-88 but also imposed significant cutbacks to nations such as Vanuatu, Tonga, Kiribati, the Cook Islands and the South Pacific Commission. So the claim cannot be defended in terms of aid to the region because the reality is that aid has been cut back. As I have said, goodwill is the key to our relations with these nations, for it is this which will ultimately determine the effectiveness of Australia's security objectives. So the key question in this debate might well be: has the Hawke Government maintained and extended Australia's goodwill with its Pacific island neighbours? Looking at the situation in those terms, I think the answer has to be no. Apart from the superficial listing of the Government's achievements, when we actually go to the places and talk to the people there we find a disturbingly high level of cynicism and disillusionment amongst those nations of the South Pacific and their leaders at the manner in which the Hawke Government has conducted its foreign policies in the Pacific area. In particular, that all important goodwill has been eroded to a point where there is a very real danger that many Pacific nations will cast their attentions beyond Australia for the leadership and support which are so necessary for their economic and political circumstances. It is instructive to recall that a previous Labor government also found itself in difficulties in the Pacific region. The very authoritative work Australia in World Affairs 1971-75 states that in that period Canberra disappointed the expectations of the island peoples, Australia had an ambivalent record and our ostentatious presence at the 1983 South Pacific Forum meeting was handled so badly as to be `generally viewed by the islands as a gauche reminder of Big Brother'. At that meeting it was also very embarrassing for Australia to have to receive a complaint from the Fijian Prime Minister against the activities of Australian trade unionists in Fiji. There is a long history of interference by Australian trade unionists in Fiji. What happened in the Whitlam years was nothing compared with what happened in the 1980s. Australian trade unionists such as Mr Halfpenny and Mr Clancy were closely associated with the formation of the Fijian Labor Party in 1985 and with agitation for Fijian workers to receive remuneration and working conditions commensurate with those of their Australian counterparts, regardless of local considerations. Is it any wonder that when the Fijian coup subsequently occurred, and the Australian trade union movement imposed black bans on shipping and airline movements into and from Fiji, the Hawke Government's inability or disinclination to stop those bans caused a serious and totally understandable breakdown in relations between Fiji and the Australian Government? The coup was wrong. It was proper to condemn the coup, but the subsequent handling of the situation by this Government was totally inept. Colonel Rabuka has been quoted as saying-- Mrs Harvey —He is no authority. Mr MacKELLAR —He had something to do with the coup and he has something to do with what is subsequently occurring in Fiji. Whether we like it or not, Australia has to take that into consideration. He said: It (the coup) has affected our standing somewhat adversely, but those who understand the region and who are members of it, understand our situation. I'm talking about the true members of the region-the Asians, Far East, Indonesians, the Filipinos, the Micronesians, the Melanesians, the Polynesians. I can't say the same for Australia and New Zealand, which are European communities in a Pacific environment. They are isolated from the European community they identify with, and they are trying to impress upon us their values and expectations. All the leaders of the Pacific islands, if asked about the Fijian coup, will say that they understand it and have a certain sympathy with it. We say, quite properly, that it was wrong. Many of the Fijians will say that they did not like it, but to pretend that we can impose our values upon that situation, which this Government tried to do, is simply to be out of touch with the reality and to put us in a very difficult position in our relationships with other nations in the area. It is just one example of an increasing flow of evidence from the Pacific region that the Hawke Government's handling of the Fijian coup has left us in a less than perfect position. Obviously, the Government was not well prepared for the situation, despite the very obvious instability which had been caused by the election in May 1987 of a coalition of labour and Indian based parties. Unfortunately, the Government had no inkling of the coup beforehand and the record shows that it misinterpreted events in the days and weeks immediately afterwards. These are the signs of a government which has neglected its responsibilities. Whatever carefully selected facts might be placed before the Parliament by the Foreign Minister to deny the claim of negligence, the reality in the region speaks for itself. The south-west Pacific is one of our most important neighbourhood regions, yet the Foreign Minister visited that region only once in the first three years of his tenure of the office. In the meantime, ANZUS has collapsed, the situation in New Caledonia has become explosive, the Soviets are stepping up their political and commercial activity in the region, Libya is stirring the pot, democracy needs to be rebuilt in Fiji, aid is being cut back throughout the region and Australia's handling of aid to Papua New Guinea is disturbing, to say the least, and comes at a time when that country's economic and political stability is deteriorating. I would be very interested to hear the Hawke Government's response to the present situation in Papua and New Guinea, because this is an utterly important part of the region in terms of Australia's strategic situation. The atmosphere there causes me a very great deal of concern. I hope to hear something from the Government on that matter before too long. This region is of vital importance to Australia, as was acknowledged by Dr Evatt as far back as 1945 and has been acknowledged by all successive governments. It has been treated badly, wrongly and ineptly by the Hawke Government. It is certainly not in Australia's interests that that treatment should continue. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.57) —It is difficult to know where to begin in opposing such a confused presentation as we have had from the Opposition of what I suppose it laughingly calls its point of view on developments in the South Pacific. The motion moved by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) reads: That this House expresses its deep concern at the negligent way the Government has conducted Australia's relations with the South Pacific nations since 1983. He accused the Government of lacking a coherent strategy, of benign neglect, of not taking initiatives and so forth. It is very difficult to work out whose point of view one is to debate here-that of the honourable member for Mayo, which I found either outrageous or amusing, or that of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), whose contribution was a good deal more thoughtful. This brings out the tension in the Opposition between its wish, on the one hand, to interfere in the affairs of countries in the South Pacific-we should have done this, that we should have done that and we should have done the other thing, according to the honourable member for Mayo, the former Opposition spokesman, who conveyed the feeling that we should have sent a division or two into Fiji to sort out the Fijians- and, on the other hand, the idea that we should allow these countries to determine their own destinies. Australia has been pursuing in the South Pacific a policy of keen and close interest, a coherent policy which has been developed over the years and which has been remarkably successful. I got the most amusement out of the invidious comparison given by the honourable member for Mayo of this Government's attitude over the last five years with that of the Menzies Government. To the very best of my knowledge, Sir Robert Menzies regarded the South Pacific as a place that one flew over on one's way to visit great and powerful friends in the Northern Hemisphere. Several years after he left office, the total aid by Australian governments to the South Pacific was less than $1m. He regarded the countries of the South Pacific as colonies which should remain so, and was unsympathetic to their aspirations, and one hears echoes of that in statements that the Opposition makes: nowadays if only these people would see sense and agree to be run by Australia in a proper colonial manner, things would be much better. That is not the attitude of this Government and it is not an attitude which is designed to lead to a successful policy of friendship with the countries of the South Pacific. In the time I have remaining to me I wish to mention a couple of matters which have been touched on in the debate. I passed from a sense of amusement at what the honourable member for Mayo was saying to a sense of outrage, in relation to the matter of trade. The honourable member claimed as his own initiative that there should be some development of trade in the South Pacific and that various things ought to be done so far as trade is concerned. In recent years this Government has placed great emphasis upon expansion of trade with the South Pacific, which involves mechanisms such as SPARTECA, the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement, and relations with Papua New Guinea under PATCRA, the Papua New Guinea-Australia Trade and Commercial Relations Agreement. Under those agreements all exports from Papua New Guinea and the other islands that form the Pacific Forum, with the exception of one or two items to which sectoral policies apply, now enter Australia duty free and quota free. We have provided funds for an independent consultant to look at the benefits for island governments with respect to closer economic cooperation among themselves. Also, we have provided funds to support the office of the South Pacific Trade Commissioner in Sydney to assist the islands to market their products in Australia. For the honourable member for Mayo to claim ownership of efforts to expand trade with the South Pacific seems to me to be ludicrous. Another aspect in relation to which the honourable member for Mayo was neglectful, it seemed to me, was his assertion that the Australian Government had taken only three initiatives in respect of the South Pacific in the past three years. That indicates either a lamentable unfamiliarity with the area-and perhaps that is true-or a lamentable inability to count, if we are to accept the honourable member's assertion of the number of Government initiatives as being accurate. His assertion omitted an area, for example, that the honourable member touched upon-defence. He left out that very important area of defence-the expansion of defence cooperation with countries of the South Pacific, as exemplified perhaps best of all through the Pacific patrol boat program. It is now the case that two of those patrol boats with which Australia is supplying countries in the South Pacific have been delivered and more are to be delivered as the program proceeds. The boats, which are built in Australia, are an excellent contribution to the defence of these countries, which rely heavily on the resources of the seas around them, and to their being able to protect those resources from depredations-from illegal fishing operations and so forth. This is precisely the response that is required from Australia and precisely the type of cooperative, carefully considered, well thought out policy that needs to be followed. In fact, this policy is the epitome of a coherent strategy and is the opposite of neglect. Lastly, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I am pleased to be the Chairman, and of which the honourable member for Warringah is the Deputy Chairman, is conducting an inquiry into Australia's relations with the South Pacific. It has been advised that-I think for the first time in history; certainly this did not happen during the terms of the Menzies Government or the Fraser Government-it has been given the use of a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft so that the Committee may visit, as the honourable member for Warringah rightly says it should, the countries in the South Pacific that are small and difficult to get to so that the inquiry conducted by the Committee can produce the best results in terms of advising the Government on future policies. I emphasise that such policies have been extremely successful in the past and will continue to be so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Kingston will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.06) —I move: That this House calls on the Government to review urgently the implementation of the care aggregate module and prevent a severe decline in the standard of care in Australian nursing homes. I am rather disappointed that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) is not present in the House, but I hope that those with whom he is associated will bring to the Minister's attention the points that will be made in this debate. There are approximately 60,000 Australians resident in nursing homes. It is essential that adequate and affordable accommodation become available for our rapidly greying population and that the quality of this care be given the highest possible priority. The Opposition believes that quality aged care at an affordable cost is achievable. It is also apparent that, whenever government involvement in the administration of aged care is reduced, the cost of running a nursing home falls. Labor's approach has been high handed and, more seriously, inadequate. Its policy has caused insecurity and uncertainty for nursing home residents; ignored the views of the aged care industry; unfairly damaged the reputation of private nursing homes; duplicated, at great cost to the taxpayer and nursing homes, State government quality of care regulations; excluded the valuable and necessary involvement of private interests in the development of hostel accommodation; and increased the likelihood of many more nursing homes closing their doors. The Government's policy has resulted in an increasing shortage of places in both nursing homes and hostels and, consequently, more people in need of care are being forced back into the community. Assessment teams now review the health of the elderly, replacing the opinion of the general practitioner. Licences for new nursing homes have been curtailed in what many see as a cost saving exercise to the Government. Mr Barry Lake, the administrator of the Wesley Gardens retirement complex in Belrose, New South Wales, said, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 January 1988: They are pushing people back up the pipeline. It costs the Government $250 for every patient in nursing care and about $50 for every one in a hostel. I am sure the Minister will be scathing about any criticism, but he should listen to the people. He needs to listen to the industry; needs to listen to the people concerned. I remind the Minister of the responses to the Commonwealth-State working party on nursing home standards from the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations (AAVCA). I shall quote some of its responses to the Minister: We submit that if in fact, the Government does not recognise this Submission as realistic and provide a positive response, quite clearly some serious results will occur. These will include: I shall now list the fears of that Association: 1. Reduction in patient care in the following areas: 1. Feeding Increasing dependency will occur as a direct result of insufficient time to supervise/assist patients. Meals will become `Production Line' as a timesaving measure . . . 2. Continence An increase in the incidence and frequency of incontinence will occur as a direct result of insufficient staff time to maintain continence through regular individual maintenance programs. 3. Bathing Showering/bathing will occur less frequently, leading to problems associated with a breakdown in general hygiene; i.e. skin problems, eye infections, mouth ulcers etc. 4. Patients will be left in bed for longer periods of time, with reduced stimulation and therapy to joints, resulting in contractures. 5. Opportunities for socialisation will be significantly reduced, leading to withdrawal, anxiety, depression, etc. I assure the Minister that these are not my criticisms; these are the genuine fears of people associated with the industry-fears that they see coming to fruition if the right steps are not taken. The Association goes on to say: 6. Communication with families will become non-existent or at the best very brief. 7. Staff will have less time to `listen to' patients, stress levels for both staff and patients will rise . . . 8. Chemical and physical restraint will be necessary to prevent the confused ambulant patient from wandering . . . 9. Respite beds may disappear-to avoid the see/saw effect on rostering brought about by frequent changes in patient category hours . . . 10. Possible reduction in staff will result in an increase in `incidents' within Nursing Homes; for example-an increase in staff accidents due to haste; an increase in patient accidents, resulting in admission to acute hospitals. This in turn leads to increased costs in workers' compensation benefits, social security payments and disability pensions, loss of production, increase in workers' compensation premiums, increased administrative costs. I am sure that Government members who follow me in this debate will say that these matters are fear-mongering. I can see it in their eyes now. But these are the genuine fears of people who are associated with the industry. Further responses stated: 11. Nursing homes will be unable to meet the Outcome Standards, care will be at best `custodial', and will have difficulty in recruiting competent, qualified staff. 12. There will be increased stress in not carrying out `Non Nursing' duties with industrial action being a direct result of redundancy, greater pressures and demarcation. 13. The greater need to seek volunteer assistance will cause ethical and industrial problems, particularly any activity related to the performance of direct care. 14. Directors of Nursing will be unable to complete the necessary Departmental bureaucratic paperwork-assessments etc. 15. Serious staff burnout-particularly of key people such as directors of nursing. 16. An increase in dependency as a result of only having time to provide custodial care. 17. Nationwide serious industrial action. 18. Political effects with patients and relatives being rallied to action. I would like to assure the Minister that the last forecast of the organisation is undoubtedly true. He has not seen anything if he believes that the Government can go ahead and reduce the standard of care in nursing homes for the aged people of Australia and not get a backlash. The Minister had better believe it. I would like to revert briefly to the forecast of industrial problems. The nursing unions also claim that changes to nursing homes policies are placing an increasing strain on their members, with the result that many opt to leave the field. According to Marilyn Beaumont, Secretary of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 January this year: They the Government have reduced ancillary staff levels, such as domestics, and the work that they did has been transferred by default to the nursing staff. These are things like cooking and cleaning. Right now the Victorian conciliation and arbitration court is considering a matter under the hospital and benevolent homes award brought about by staff dismissals caused by the Commonwealth. That court is due to report back on 2 May, but 50 jobs have been lost already. What happens when there is a further 22 1/2 per cent cut on 1 July? I think we should pay a little attention to the resident classification instrument (RCI). The resident classification instrument is intended to replace the present NH10 form used to claim extensive care benefits. The study consisted of 12 questions, and proprietors were asked to complete a survey form for every third, fourth or sixth resident, depending on the capacity of the home. Twelve hundred and fifty nursing homes were invited to participate, representing more than 17,000 residents. It is interesting to see that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care claimed on 24 March that all residents of nursing homes had been assessed as to the type and level of care they required. This is wrong. Only 17,000 out of 60,000 were assessed. It is also worth noting that those forms had to be returned in only 72 hours. In most cases it was hardly enough time for the survey to be carried out correctly. The comment has also been made that the questionnaire was not objective but subjective, designed to produce the answers wanted by the Department. The Resthaven Nursing Home in South Australia recently carried out a series of computer projections based on results of the RCI, and on the assumption that one-third of the nursing home population would be replaced in each of the next three years with more dependent people. Resthaven's projections concluded: . . . for South Australia there would be a marginal increase in hours approved for 1988-89 and then a gradual reduction into 1990-91 resulting in a decrease of time per resident per week. In the voluntary sector this would be nearer two hours per resident per week . . . Each hour or reduction over the state equates to the loss of 168 full-time equivalent jobs. Directors of nursing in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland tested the RCI upon several nursing homes of member organisations. They determined: Using the illustrative 17.1 National Average hours per patient per week the resultant staffing of nursing homes appeared to result in drastic cuts to nursing home `Nursing and Personal Care' staffing across all tested homes . . . We feel that without considerable modification of the Patient Classification Instrument the outcome from the use of the P.C.I. as a determinant of Nursing and Personal Care staffing levels will be disastrous. And it will. We should recall the points already made by the AAVCA and the Private Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria, for instance. Since the introduction of the standard aggregate module (SAM) at least 916 beds are under receiver managership in Victoria. With further cuts scheduled on 1 July 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, it is expected that further problems will occur. Something must be radically wrong for at present 916 beds are under receiver managership. With respect to the care aggregate module (CAM) component, the Government has developed a statistical profile of dependency using a much smaller sample than in the SAM survey. Previous studies such as the 1985 nursing inquiry in Victoria, the BENECS-the Joint Study by the Extended Care Society of Victoria and the Bendigo Home and Hospital-study in 1986-87 and the recent Victorian Aged Services Peak Council study on patient dependency all indicate that, at existing dependency levels in Victoria, 26.6 hours per resident week are required. With minimal staffing who will properly look after patients once they are moved out of the nursing homes into the hostels? With the introduction of CAM from 1 July 1988 it will be possible for some nursing homes in New South Wales to have up to 70 different fees at any one time. Many would have at least 28 different fees. No consideration has been given for the additional administration costs involved, let alone the problems that will occur in the nursing home's operation. The fact is that many nursing homes will lose existing nursing hours that are currently providing basic nursing care. To stop the increasing incidence of sick leave, employee burnout and resignations, more hours are required, not less. In New South Wales there are hundreds of nursing home beds that could face closure. The Government has not had proper regard for the human element in the staffing of nursing homes. It is not the easiest job in the nursing profession, and already the workload of the nursing home nurse is much heavier and requires much more face to face contact with patients than the counterpart in either the public hospital or the private hospital system. The Government and the Department have both failed miserably to consider the staffing element in these new plans. It is difficult to understand why, in an exercise which is supposedly centred upon cost reduction, the Commonwealth is insisting on the duplication of the inspection or monitoring process. Why is the Commonwealth not prepared to contract out to the State to do this job? Empire building is the obvious answer because the States already have the system in place. Some strange statements have been made by the Minister, and I refer to articles that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 and 7 April. The statement that nursing homes set their own fees is absolute rubbish. To then go on and state that `if fees exceed the pension the difference must come from the families of patients' or `patients would need to do unpaid work' is absolutely ludicrous. If the Government has any knowledge of the situation in the nursing homes and of the patients in them, how can any Minister of the Crown seriously suggest that those patients should make up the unpaid fees by doing unpaid work? It is an insult to the elderly Australians living in nursing homes. The result of Labor's fiddling with the care of the aged is that more nursing home beds may close, forcing residents to look for alternative accommodation in our already overcrowded public hospitals, but more likely with their families. The Liberal and National parties have called for a trial run of the new nursing home funding arrangements in at least one government-owned and operated nursing home before its module is implemented Australia-wide. It is imperative that the Government ensure that its proposals work before inflicting irreparable damage on the nursing home industry by forcing its changes on residents, their relatives and staff. I know that the Minister will make an announcement next week. It was originally scheduled for 19 April; now it is to be made on 21 April. I say to the Minister and to the Government, `For heaven's sake, do not rush in. Have a trial first before you completely destroy and disrupt this extremely valuable industry'. The time for trial and research of these new arrangements is now, not 12 months down the track, when the disruption and the reduction of services have already occurred. The aged care industry has expressed serious concern that the proposed new flat rate government subsidies for nursing homes will not meet the cost of caring for nursing home residents. Unless the Hawke Government conducts a trial of its new arrangements and finds out whether it will properly cover costs, nursing homes could close and residents could find themselves dipping further into their savings. When the Government first announced its latest aged care policy, it said 25 per cent of nursing home residents would be shifted or relocated to hostels. Over the last five years admissions to nursing homes have been more stringently controlled than ever by Commonwealth medical officers, by assessment teams and by the homes themselves. This has meant that nursing home and hostel residents are significantly more dependent than they were in each preceding year. By and large, the people in nursing homes now are not capable of being moved out into hostels. But we are told by the Government that 40 per cent of the present population of nursing homes is to be moved into hostel care. All it proves is that this Labor Administration does not have a clue about the real needs of nursing home residents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Millar —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(11.21) —Obviously, I oppose the motion and take the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) to task. One of the very real problems in nursing home care has been exposed in the survey which was conducted recently. The conditions in nursing homes are a disgrace. Less than one in 10 of the residents in Australian nursing homes receive the hours of quality nursing and personal care assessed as appopriate for their needs. The situation is desperate, and it is this situation which our Government and the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) have turned their attention to and attempted to redress. The approach of the Australian Labor Party has not been high-handed and has involved a long period of consultation. Over the lengthy period, representatives of industry, aged people, a Commonwealth parliamentary committee and other bodies have been drawing attention to a very wide range of problems. As I said, one of their major concerns was the fact that only one in 10 residents received the hours of quality care that were appropriate for them. There was also an unsatisfactory mix of services, particularly an excessive amount of nursing home accommodation and a shortage of hostel facilities and home and community care services. The kind of nursing home accommodation and accommodation for aged care which we have in mind is one of equity and opportunity. It also means that people will not be institutionalised. It is a key to give people an independent lifestyle, to be able to make a choice, to choose to live with their families. I am interested to hear that the honourable member for Cowper suggests that having aged people living with their families is not a viable option in his Party. This comes from the Party that espouses families and the joy of the family. Of course that is an option and people are entitled to make the kinds of choices and have the options which they want. We are talking about equality and equity no matter where people live in Australia and no matter how much money they may happen to have. The other problems which emerged from that survey were the inadequate arrangements for the assessment of need, the very poor standards of care which were provided in many of our nursing homes and the inefficiency of the arrangements under which Commonwealth-funded nursing homes provided homes, with little management flexibility and no incentive for greater efficiency in their management processes. The key objective of the Commonwealth Government has been to implement a national aged care policy to provide greater choice of care for aged people and fairness for nursing home residents in the care provided. In the 1986-87 Budget and since, the Government has provided significant additional money to implement that strategy, including planned increases in nursing home and hostel places in line with the ageing of our population. It has also increased resources of hostels, expanded assessment services, provided new funding for the care of dementia sufferers and increased access to care for both migrant and Aboriginal groups. In terms of the dementia program, I am very well aware of the kind of freedom of movement which such programs give people, allowing them to establish some kind of independence and quality of life. At the Neilsen Home in my electorate there is a dementia program from which 20 people have emerged to be able to live a more realistic life with much better quality. Is this the kind of choice which is being denied to the aged people in our community simply because they are older and powerless? That kind of commitment from us is very important. Last year this Government announced that it would make major changes to the existing nursing home funding arrangements which were inequitable and based on cost reimbursement with no incentive for operator efficiency. They also involved excessive regulation and continued to produce unacceptable cost escalation and growth in government expenditure. The changes are now to be phased in over the period of 1 July 1987 to July 1991. Those proposed new arrangements are based on the recommendations of the working party and they attempt to achieve greater social equity in the way in which the Commonwealth provides support to people who need nursing home care. I reiterate that it should not matter where one lives or how much money one has when determining the quality of care to which one is entitled. Directors of nursing will have much greater flexibility and there will be incentives for nursing homes to manage their resources more efficiently according to the needs of their residents and labour market conditions. This policy centres very much upon the needs of the residents, the assessment of those needs and delivering services that cater for the needs of our aged community. This is a client-oriented program, not a finance-oriented program. We are on about delivering care to people in our community, many of whom, because of their age and situation, are powerless. It is our duty to ensure that, no matter where these people live, the quality and type of care which best suits them is delivered. That is what we are about and that is what this program attempts to do. In essence, the working party proposed that future funding for nursing and personal care staff be based on residents' needs. A new classification system has been developed extensively and trialed. It will determine in which of the five categories a person will be classified. The dollars will flow from there. The kind of scaremongering which has gone on at times has been somewhat frightening. I draw people's attention to the fact that in Queensland the money for aged people's care is only $282 per person in nursing home care, compared with $418 in Victoria. Are we suggesting that because people live in Queensland and have been shabbily treated by many of their State governments they should not be entitled to the extra care which many of the residents in other States get? Of course we are not. We are talking about providing a system of care which is for everybody, irrespective of where people live or the kind of money they have in their pocket. One of the nursing homes in my electorate, Canossa, which is run by the Canossan Sisters, provides excellent care for its residents. It provides a wide range of care: through individual units, hostel accommodation for people who are mobile, a migrant section for people who have had difficulty in learning to speak English and who, in their later years, wish to participate in a lifestyle which is very much part of their own country, and nursing care for people who are extremely ill and senile. The quality of care there is determined not by the dollar but by the dedication of the women who work in that hospital because they have a commitment. It is that kind and quality of care which I want to see spread across Australia. It is not possible for the rest of the community to be served by people such as the Canossan Sisters, people who are particularly committed. It is that quality of care which they can deliver which we must ensure is delivered to everybody. There is no problem for our Government in suggesting that everybody in our community is entitled to have his or her care needs met. Surely, if such a system is to be put in place by this Government it cannot be argued that we are attempting to debilitate the aged and frail. That is simply a nonsense. It is also a nonsense to suggest that the new arrangements will provide directors of nursing with great staff changes. The new arrangements will allow directors of nursing to average out their staff over a full year. They will then not have to make sudden staffing adjustments. Under these new arrangements directors of nursing, by offering to accept more dependent or less dependent new residents, will be able to influence their resident service needs mix to match their staffing resources. So it is in fact a question of directors of nursing being able to assess their residents' needs, assess their staffing resources and match them adequately which surely brings about the best and most efficient delivery of service. In terms of the trialling of the resident classification instrument, there has been a great deal of confusion and a great deal of discussion. However, the nursing home industry has been extensively involved in the trials of the new resident classification instrument through which individual nursing homes will be applying the proposed new system to individual residents. There have been three sets of trials. The first two sets covered a sample of nursing homes in four States-surely a very wide-ranging sample. The third set of trials sought to cover every non-government nursing home in Australia, and 95 per cent of them actually participated. It was at the end of the first two trials that extensive feedback and discussion sessions were held with the directors of nursing of those homes. In the case of the third set of trials, every director of nursing around Australia was invited to provide comments on the new arrangements. A substantial proportion accepted that invitation. I suggest to the House that people cannot complain about not being consulted if they failed to take up the consultative processes placed in their way but subsequently did not like the way in which they saw things being met. The suggestion that aged person needs should be at the forefront of the kind of care and services which are delivered by nursing homes seems to have raised quite considerable discussion. I thought nursing homes were there specifically to provide the best sorts of services and to meet the needs of their own residents, but I fear there are members of the Opposition who suggest this is not so. Moreover, we have seen that the new resident classification system is based on the perceptions of more than 1,200 directors of nursing and the way in which they deliver their services to meet the needs of their residents. I simply draw attention to the fact that to suggest there has been no consultation is blatant nonsense. We also had a list of serious problems which very many members of the Australian Voluntary Care Association suggested would accrue. Let me say as someone who visits a vast range of nursing homes, and who did so for a very long time prior to my political life, that many of the services which are delivered to the aged within our nursing homes are almost entirely dependent on the way in which nursing directors and staff tend to operate. If we have good directors of nursing and people who are committed and who care-and I have cited two such homes in my electorate, Canossa Hostel and Neilson Home-we can be assured that, irrespective of whatever money we as a government place, those services will be delivered, and that people will not be condemned to sitting round doing nothing, to not being fed properly, to not being washed properly, to finding themselves covered with bedsores. To suggest that communication between patients and their families will be affected is surely blatant nonsense. Indeed, such values and practices are inherent within the nature in which hostels and nursing homes operate. It is surely imperative that we as a government seek to ensure that directors of nursing homes and their staffs carry out all kinds of needs of their patients, not simply those which they perceive to be at the forefront. We have also heard that the Minister is incorrect when he says that fees are set by nursing homes. Indeed, I can cite a number of cases of fees having been set by nursing homes. I think we could all cite cases of residents in nursing homes, particularly in hostels, doing voluntary work in exchange for the payment of fees. What we are seeking, and what we hope will happen in the delivery of this program, is that no pensioners will be required to pay more than 87.5 per cent of their pension for the kind of care that will best serve their needs. They are after all people who have contributed to our country. They are people who are deserving in their old age of being looked after and cared for. They also have individual needs. It is the assessment of those individual needs which this new program attempts to set straight. It is simply a question of not putting people into institutions and suggesting that everybody is the same. Surely we are talking about the rights of an individual, an independent lifestyle, and a departure from institutionalising people so that our aged maintain a quality of life in what is very definitely becoming an ageing Australia. I reiterate that this Government does not intend to back away from the broad approach it has adopted in this matter of care for the aged. It certainly will not be found parroting the concern of vested interests at the expense of people in need. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.36) —Initially I address the remarks of the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford) who in a spirited presentation expressed a number of general principles with which honourable members of this House would not disagree. They are laudable objectives. The difference rests in the means employed to attain the objectives. My colleague the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) was less than fairly treated when he was charged with having stated that there had been no consultation. That was not the case. His lament rested on the fact that there is a gap between consultation and implementation. To ensure that we do not in all good intent embark on a policy which may lead to an adverse result we should have a pilot arrangement to test such measures thoroughly. The Government then would be in a position to embark more confidently on their general application. As I say, there is a difference in attitude as to how the objectives might be achieved. Whilst we talk of adequate consultation or inadequate consultation, the inescapable fact remains that there is a very significant disparity in the calculations of the aged care industry and the Government's advisers in respect of the care aggregated model. Surely, if the industry calculates a requirement of 27 hours a week for intensive care, and it is the Government's proposition that there be only 17, that would suggest, indeed insist, that someone is very much wrong. Though I thought the honourable member for Forde impugned some within the aged care industry, implying a lack of moral respectability in the way they exploit, inferentially, the aged for profit, there are an overwhelming number of establishments where that motivation is conspicuous by its absence. The honourable member for Forde cited the Sisters of Mercy. Every honourable member of this House will have visited nursing homes within his or her electorate and will have no doubts as to the integrity, competence and veracity of nursing home administrators and staff. Those are the people who are saying that the proposal will leave them in a state of total disarray which must lead inevitably to a lack of adequate care for those who, on everybody's assessment, have an urgent requirement. Are we to adopt the stance predicated on alleged immorality of the administrators within the industry, or are we to accept that there is ample evidence in the broad that there is a respectability, efficiency and competence within the application of these quite laudable ambitions of the Government and of the House to relieve the needy? The honourable member for Forde, on my understanding, is quite insistent that all aged persons in Australia, regardless of their walk of life or means, should have an entitlement to adequate care. I rather deduced that the entitlement related to government input, that the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. At the risk of offending some, I must say that I regard that as absolute nonsense. Ageing and dying are as much a part of life as is birth. If the people so beset by those unhappy circumstances have the financial resources to sustain themselves they should be obliged to do so. However, those people who are denied such resources must, of necessity, become the charge of the state, if I may use a term that has some ugly connotations. In reality the taxpayer will assume the burden to ensure that those people spend their last years maintaining, to the extent that it is possible, their dignity and being afforded the care that reconciles with the standards that we believe should attach to the treatment of our fellow human creatures. In that situation the resources of the Commonwealth could be more effectively applied to those people who demonstrably are in need of it, not just because of their physical condition but because of their financial resources also. If we were restricted to meeting that requirement, clearly the resources available would have a much wider spread in terms of in-depth care. That is what it is really about. The inescapable fact, as I mentioned before, is that there is a massive disparity of opinion among those who, by any measure, should have a competence to express a view. Somebody must be very seriously wrong. The only way to establish beyond question of doubt as to where the truth lies is to conduct a pilot trial. We are not dealing with constants with aged people. There is a diurnal variation. We do not have a mode in terms of nursing home inmates. They are all different, as we have all witnessed sadly when we have visited those places. There must be a significant factoring of requirement to meet the unexpected-the variations in their particular needs and their behaviour on a given day. We cannot meet that requirement if staff are continually stretched to breaking point trying to do that which is beyond their capacity because of the lack of fiscal support and because of the physical restraints. In short, somebody must be wrong. It would be derelict of this Parliament to ignore the submissions of those who should know and, I insist, do know where the truth of the matter lies. The only way we can achieve satisfaction in that respect is to conduct a trial for a reasonable period to establish beyond question of doubt whether the scheme will work. There will be massive disarray in the aged care industry, within nursing homes in all our electorates, when it is demonstrated, as unquestionably it will, that this well-intended-I concede it is well-intended-move by the Government falls lamentably short of its objective. We cannot simply dismiss that as an unfortunate circumstance and go back to square one and start again, because considerable damage will have been done. I acknowledge that by using statistics the Government has manifestly made efforts to meet the requirements of the aged. There have been significant funding increases, of 11.6 per cent, 10.8 per cent and 38.5 per cent, for aged persons home and hostels, home and community care and hostels care subsidy in the prevailing Budget. Notwithstanding that, we are faced with the unfortunate reality that there is a considerable gap between that which is desirable and that which is attainable. Notwithstanding the laudable ambitions of the honourable member for Forde, we are not going to be able to accommodate the expectations of all those who may turn to the Government-the taxpayer-to meet their requirements. The state of our Budget reflects that unhappy circumstance. In the ultimate we have to make judgments as to how we can best accommodate those who have a demonstrable dependence-I underline the word `dependence'-on the taxpayers' magnanimity or sense of duty and responsibility to their fellows. There are not the means, nor will there be the means. One could open up the Budget blindly and put one's finger on any page and see that this is so. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is sitting on the front bench here in the House. He is a gentleman for whom we have a high regard, even if at times we submit to human frailty and make mildly offensive comments about him. He knows very well that he could double his defence budget and still not be thoroughly satisfied that Australia was as secure as he would wish. In any area of government responsibility we will find that there is a shortfall because of the limit on our resources. Unless we address that particular matter as a nation with a common sense of purpose we are going to find our conditions worsened rather than improved. We accept the fact that something has to be done. I personally am prepared to concede that the Government, on advice, has moved in the direction of achieving that desirable objective. But the nub of the matter is that there is a very substantial division of opinion as to what should be achieved, how it should be achieved and, in the ultimate consideration, what benefit that may bring to those who in their declining years can fairly expect the compassion and support of their fellows. I support the motion. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.46) —In rising to speak in opposition to the motion I would like to dwell on a point raised by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). In perhaps a moment of clairvoyance, it seemed he deigned to read my mind when he said that he felt that I would stand up and accuse him of embarking on some fearmongering campaign. I think it is outside the Standing Orders and not proper to impute motives to the honourable gentleman. However, I make the comment in regard to the accusation of fearmongering because this is a very sensitive debate. The members of the community that use nursing homes are a very frail and elderly population. They are susceptible to being misled. We need to have a careful and rational debate about the issues that arise in regard to changes to nursing home policy. That is not to say that both the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) have not tried to make reasoned contributions to the debate today. Let us look at the present situation as it applies to nursing home care. I think it is acknowledged that this is an area-I will try not to be partisan in these comments-that has been neglected in the past. It is an area that the Federal Government needs to look at seriously. A series of recent studies and reports indicates the issues that need to be addressed. I will cite just a few of them. In 1981 there was an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General. There was a report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing chaired by Senator Giles. There was the report of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee chaired by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). Finally, there was of course the 1986 Review of Nursing Homes and Hostels by the Department of Community Services. It is interesting to reflect that this present debate on the new classification system arose from that review of 1986. Senator Grimes announced on 16 April that there would be a review and that one of the important elements of the strategy was to develop a funding system for uniform nursing home staffing standards appropriate to the achievement of the quality of care and lifestyle standards. The important point we need to address is the right of people choosing to enter nursing homes to the best care possible. It is our duty to ensure that they get the best care possible and that we maintain the standards. What Senator Grimes and the review of 1986 highlighted was the need to eliminate the current interstate and interhome inequities in the funding of the nursing home program and that these should be expressed as staffing hours per resident day. I highlight some of the disparities at present. In Victoria the Commonwealth benefit per week is $418. In Queensland it is $282 a week and in New South Wales $325. These are some of the issues that the present process has tried to address. Let us look at the arrangements that are under discussion and that are likely to be the subject of some comment next week by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). We must look at these new arrangements and ask what they will achieve. Firstly, they will achieve a great deal of equity. People with the same care needs will receive the same staffing resources. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Scullin will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(11.50) —I move: That the Government promotes Australian agricultural produce as being free from nuclear contamination and non-irradiated. This notice was placed on the Notice Paper on 15 September last year and I am pleased that it has been brought on at this time. Australia's reputation as a food exporter would be enhanced if Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor were shut. That would be considered a radical statement, calling as it does for the closure of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Who would make such a call? The call to close Lucas Heights came from the President of the National Farmers Federation (NFF), Ian McLachlan. It is reported in the 26 March 1987 edition of The Land. Under the heading `Call for ``Nuclear-free'' Agriculture', the newspaper article says: Australia's reputation as a food exporter would be enhanced if Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was shut, the President of the National Farmers' Federation, Ian McLachlan, said. Mr McLachlan's call last week for the closure of the Lucas Heights reactor-hit recently by a fire scare-so Australia can claim nuclear free-status is a view shared by many of our customers in south-east Asia. They are becoming deeply worried about buying European food in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia. Mr McLachlan reported to the National Farmers Federation annual conference in Canberra in May 1987 that he had been in Europe when the Chernobyl accident occurred. He reported seeing an overwhelming commercial interest in farm product free from the risk of nuclear accident. The concerns of the NFF President were reported in The Land of Thursday, 14 May 1987. That report says: He- that is, Mr McLachlan- was aware that Australia had had `piles of milk powder hanging around' before the accident- that is, Chernobyl- which had now `disappeared' into Asian markets. `If we are to keep ahead of a fiercely competitive pack in the years to come, we must investigate and exploit every other possible commercial advantage', he said. `The future for all our agricultural products lies in capturing the premium end of markets, investing heavily in research and development, packaging, promotion, getting consistent quality and ensuring reliability of supply.' At this point it is worth while reflecting on what happened at Chernobyl two years ago. I refer to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Countrywide of 22 April 1987 which dealt with Chernobyl, a year after the disaster. The Countrywide reporter said: The station- that is, Chernobyl power station- is spewing a radioactive cloud over Europe. A melt-down is the disaster long feared in the nuclear power industry, but the accident at the Chernobyl power station in the Ukraine is apparently even more complex. That's because the ignition of graphite is fanning the release of radioactive waste. Western experts say there's nothing to be done until the reactor burns itself out. The reporter continued: Radioactive iodine, caesium and strontium, all cancer causing elements, have become lodged in parts of the food chain and time, it seems, has far from eased the situation. After the two explosions at Chernobyl, broadleaved vegetables in Italy measured 400 times the legal levels of radiation. The entire vegetable crop was destroyed and farmers were compensated. Consumption of home grown vegetables was banned but the caesium will remain in the soil for 30 years. In the hill country of Wales 300,000 sheep on 300 farms are declared unfit for slaughter because of the high levels of radiation in their meat. The farmers were told the restriction on slaughter and movement would be lifted in the third week of February this year-that is, ten months after the accident. The Government has extended the ban on the sale for human consumption of the 300,000 sheep for a least one more year. Then there is the general case of the European lakes. Caesium now rests on the lake beds. Only a small percentage of lakes have been examined but the scientific presumption is that all are contaminated and the creatures of the lakes are now consuming high levels of caesium. The level of caesium in milk went up by ten times and this has tended to stay high, but at a level well below the peak. But now the caesium content of milk is again rising as the contaminated hay cut last summer is fed to the cows. Millions of dollars worth of food has been destroyed and with all this, the Russians have not paid one kopek in compensation. And now a team of Japanese scientists tells us that things can only get worse. They say that the Russians have grossly underestimated the environmental effects, in fact the water table in Russia is contaminated with twenty times the level of caesium, strontium and plutonium that the Russians claim. The Japanese scientists say these elements will work their way slowly to the Black Sea and then, in some years, plutonium, strontium and caesium will be deposited in the fish of the Mediterranean and there it will remain for a very long time. That is one year after Chernobyl. One of the legacies to result from that disaster is that Australia is now promoting its produce as radioactive free. Take the case of powdered milk: we've almost sold out of this season's stocks already with Japan and South East Asia preferring our supplies to those from Europe. Nuclear power is being promoted as an environmentally safe alternative to coal, gas and oil-fired power stations. With a growing awareness of the fragility of our environment, the nuclear club has jumped on the bandwagon and is using environmental arguments to promote its industry. There are accidents in conventional power stations, but these do not result in millions of hectares of agriculture land being wiped out for decades, perhaps for ever. The proponents of nuclear power argue that it is a safer industry than the conventional power industry because of the low accident statistics. The facts disprove this claim. Figures compiled by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) show that in 1985 there were 750 emergency plant shutdowns-28 per cent more than in 1984. There were 3,000 nuclear mishaps reported to the NRC-23 per cent more than in 1984. Any one of these accidents could have led to another Chernobyl. Further and more frightening details of nuclear power station accidents are reported in other documents. If we think we are remote from this process at this stage, we are lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. There are energy experts on record as advocating a new nuclear power station sited in the south east of South Australia serving via a grid the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. This information is contained in an article entitled `Electricity and Gas Supply in South Eastern Australia, 1980-2020' in Energy Economics of January 1985. The nuclear power proponents argue the safety and confinement of any minor accidents. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl literally blew their argument apart. If a nuclear power station were sited in the south-east of South Australia and a major accident occurred, prime agricultural land in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would be wiped out and the prevailing winds could carry nuclear debris down to Tasmania with devastating results for that State's agricultural economy, not to mention the disastrous effects on the health of the population. Contamination from Chernobyl, a nuclear power station, has had its greatest impact in the Northern Hemisphere. Australia has been fortunate, as has New Zealand, in that the contamination and fallout in the Southern Hemisphere have been only slight. One of our immediate major trading competitors in this area is New Zealand. That country can boast about its record on broader nuclear questions. On the agricultural front, New Zealand is promoting its products as coming from a country which has a clean, green image. This view was promoted in a paper on food irradiation presented by two of the delegates to the fifty-sixth Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress in New Zealand in January 1987. Their view was that New Zealand would, if it were silly enough to adopt food irradiation, be giving away a major trading advantage. Worldwide, governments and consumers more and more are questioning the price and quality of the food products they import from outside their national borders. In this respect, we only need recall the recent limitation placed on our beef exports by the United States Government because of pesticide contamination. I think it is worth quoting a reference in a Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health pamphlet which deals with the new awareness of the consuming public about what to eat. The pamphlet states: We live in a community becoming more and more nutrition conscious, diet conscious and consumer conscious. People today are interested not just in whether something tastes good-or whether the children will eat it; they are interested in whether it is good for them; they are interested in what it has in it. I should now like to refer to the food irradiation connection. The food industry recognises that there is massive public opposition to mixing nuclear technology and food products. This was evident during a 1985 agricultural conference held in Canberra when a spokesman for G. J. Coles dealt with the question of food irradiation. He said: I think my first priority above all would be to endeavour to devise some alternative name other than irradiation, which would hopefully have less of a `scary' image for the shopper and ultimate consumer. There is a clear link in the minds of consumers between food being irradiated by radioactive fallout and food being irradiated by the use of radioactive cobalt 60. I find one aspect of the pro-irradiation argument most repugnant, and that is the line that irradiated food is the answer to Third World hunger. This is a most offensive argument because the types of food being proposed-prawns, chicken meat, strawberries and exotic tropical fruits-are not exactly the staple diet of the Third World. These are the luxury foods of an affluent community. One of the answers to Third World hunger is a distribution of the world's food excess from the stockpiles in the United States and the European Economic Community. The irradiation of food should not even be on the agenda, let alone be touted as the saviour of the starving. Contamination from nuclear fallout can give us a contaminated food chain. It may be somewhat ironic that the food irradiation process also has very strong links with contaminated food-that is, the use made by food irradiation technology to attempt to `clean up' contaminated food. Any advantages we may have in living in the Southern Hemisphere and being reasonably free from nuclear fallout would be lost if we were foolish enough to embrace food irradiation technology. Some of the attempts to `clean up' contaminated food-that is, food unfit for human consumption-have been detected and recorded. This sort of thing has happened in Europe and it has happened here in Australia. Two batches of imported shrimps were irradiated in 1978 to reduce the microbiological levels. They were contaminated. The shrimps were irradiated and were then sold to Chinese restaurants in Melbourne. The report which dealt with this contamination stated: In 1978 a crisis occurred when, without notice, microbiological standards for frozen food were amended and made more stringent. Tonnes of frozen shrimps, in transit to Australia when the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&RC) standard was imposed, were placed in quarantine in cold storage warehouses in Sydney because the shrimps failed to meet the new microbiological specifications. Faced with the prospect of dumping or re-exporting the shrimps, and consequent financial loss, two importing companies obtained permission to examine the feasibility of using radiation to reduce the microbial population to acceptable levels. Subsequently these companies were granted a once-only approval to irradiate and market 47 and 14 tonnes of frozen shrimps respectively. This paper is an account of various aspects of this first limited commercial application of food irradiation in Australia. Irradiation used to clean up contaminated food is one of the serious problems we will have to face if we go down that track. Further, there is no known commercial method to detect whether food has already been irradiated. An additional problem would be the cost of the irradiation process, which would be passed on to the consumer. The loss of nutritional value and the loss of vitamins as a result of irradiation have been well documented. Another major problem is, of course, the safety of food that has been irradiated. I mentioned at the commencement of my speech that this motion was put on the Notice Paper on 15 September last year. I am pleased that the House has determined since that time that the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts should continue its inquiry into food irradiation in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.08) —I rise this afternoon with extreme reluctance to respond to the motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott). My reluctance is not because the matter is not an important one. We all know that to many people food irradiation is a very significant and highly contentious issue. I do not rise because I doubt the concern and the commitment of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I think he is probably more sincere about this topic than anyone else in this country. The honourable member has, if I can use the term, a consuming interest in this matter. I am reluctant because I believe that the timing of this motion is very inappropriate. I realise that the motion was placed on the books some months ago, but there has been time for it to be withdrawn. I believe that debating it in this House today will inhibit the process of reasoned and informed debate on this highly contentious issue of food irradiation. This matter is being considered by a committee, and I should like to enlighten the House on what has taken place. As Deputy Chairman of the former Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and as Deputy Chairman of the present Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, I believe that some important facts must be raised in the debate today. The former Environment and Conservation Committee commenced taking evidence on food irradiation some 12 months ago. With the formation of the new House Committee, the former Minister for Consumer Affairs, the present Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), referred this matter to the Committee for an intensive inquiry. The honourable member for Hindmarsh had approached the Committee Chairman, my friend the very hard working member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), and urged that an inquiry be undertaken into food irradiation. He pressed upon that Committee the need to have such an inquiry and the Committee was very happy to do that. The Committee has taken nearly 3,000 pages of evidence from organisations which are opposed to the process of irradiation, from some organisations which totally support the process and from others who can be described as experts who recognise both sides of the debate. Any member has the right to hurry along a parliamentary committee which appears to be dragging its feet. I hardly think that such a claim could be sustained against the Environment Committee on this issue. I am sure that the Committee Chairman will agree with me on that. That being the case, it is entirely inappropriate for the House to be asked to debate this matter until the Committee has tabled its report. The report is expected to be tabled in October. I have too much respect for the processes of this House and its committee system to pre-empt, during this debate, any decisions the Committee may take. However, this motion, and some of the information which has been presented to the House by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, require a few salient points to be made. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has provided the House-I think that there is no argument about this-with only one side of the debate. The Environment Committee has received extremely well-researched and persuasive submissions from those opposed to the process. In most cases, the submissions were very well prepared. The challenge for the Committee, and eventually this House, is that the submissions from supporters of the process are equally well-researched and persuasive. Unlike the honourable member for Hindmarsh, I think it inappropriate to attempt to weigh the evidence for either side before the process is complete. It cannot be done in a 45-minute debate. For the sake of debate, let me attempt to mention some of the benefits claimed for the process. Firstly, with the banning of some chemical fumigants and the potential banning of others, it has been argued that irradiation of grains in particular and some fruits provide, a feasible, safe and effectively alternative. Such is the case, for example, with the mango seed weevil, which cannot be touched with fumigants. It has been proven to be able to be removed by the irradiation of the mango. Secondly, it has been argued that the process can reduce the dangers of food poisoning from salmonella in chicken. I am sure that that will be hotly debated by Labor speakers. A third benefit, it is claimed, is the extension of shelf life for a limited range of products. Finally, it needs to be pointed out that not all foodstuffs will be involved, nor will consumers be denied access to non-nuclear foods. If-I emphasise the word `if', because absolutely no decisions have been made by the Committee, nor are there any feelings as to how the decisions will go-the process is approved, controls will be stringent and only a few foodstuffs will be involved. I have no time to discuss the evidence of the significant export expansion that could also result from this process. A number of countries have approved this process. I seek leave to table a list of those countries and the foodstuffs involved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is leave granted? Mr Hand —What is it? Mr WEBSTER —It is a list of the countries that have already approved the irradiation of various foods for human consumption. Leave granted. Mr WEBSTER —I thank the House. As mentioned earlier, the Environment Committee's report on this matter will be available for debate during the Budget session, perhaps towards the end of that session. The issue is complex. Expert opinion is divided. Both sides need to be heard and examined critically. One cannot do so on an occasion such as this. That kind of critical examination and reasoned and comprehensive debate will probably go on and on irrespective of what the Committee's findings might be. It certainly cannot be conducted without the benefit of extensive investigation and clarification of the problems which will result from the Committee's report, as I have indicated on a number of occasions. For that reason, I cannot support the motion. The debate today should be used, and ought to have been used, as a way of alerting honourable members to the issues which will be debated more appropriately later in the year. We should respect the committee process of the House. We should not pre-empt proper inquiries. Therefore, we should not carry this motion. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.15) —I am surprised that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has taken the position that he has because I would have thought that, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, which is carrying out an investigation into this issue, he would want as much debate as possible and would want people from every walk of life-politicians, scientists or consumer advocates-to come forward and express a point of view. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) explained so properly, this issue was brought up and placed on the Notice Paper a long time ago. It is timely that we debate the issue because food irradiation has been around for four decades. Mr Hand —They are afraid of public debate. Mr WRIGHT —I agree with the Minister. The process has been around for four decades, yet we still do not know enough about its long term effect on humans. Throughout the world there are two distinct camps-those for food irradiation and those against it. But in the middle there is a huge group of people who do not know. There have been dozens of studies and hundreds of reports and they are mostly conflicting. The use of food irradiation is being pushed very hard by the nuclear industry and major food manufacturers. If it was a safe way of extending the shelf life of a product, a way in which we could improve this country's exports in terms of the commodities we sell across the world and a way in which we could bring about a new quality of life for Third World countries whose people do not have refrigeration or for whom it is an unaffordable luxury, I would support it-provided it was safe. I do not blame the exporters, food processors and some primary producing organisations for wanting governments to deal with the issue and, finally, to approve its use, but I do not condone the special interest groups with which the honourable member for Macquarie obviously wants to align himself, particularly the nuclear industry, and the multinational food companies that are directing this debate and conducting a worldwide campaign to try to convince consumers, governments and producers, and in fact the world, to adopt the process without examining the risks. I do not condone what I believe is a bodgied up debate. That is what has been happening across the world. Even in our own country the Atomic Energy Commission is sending people to speak at technical and further education colleges, institutes and producer-sponsored forums around this nation to promote food irradiation. I do not condone the nuclear industry combining with others in the world and setting down a strategy, as it says, to convince and convert the world to use this process. I believe that there has to be a balanced approach. That is what this Government is doing. Despite the confusion and conflict of opinion, this Government funded an inquiry through the Australian Consumers Association. This Government also ensured, initiated and supported the very committee of which the honourable member for Macquarie is now Deputy Chairman-a committee which, headed so ably by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), is carrying out an ongoing investigation into this very important issue. I commend the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) because he has encouraged the States not to proceed with this process. They have a constitutional right to do so and that is the dilemma. The Commonwealth has a recommendatory power and controls over imports and exports, but it cannot stop any State from setting up a food processing facility, as Queensland wants to do. Let us realise that Queensland is well down the track. It has the land and I am told that it is well under way, using the Queensland Fish Board, to setting up an irradiation process for marine products. There is a concern and an urgency for this debate to continue. I also commend the Minister for acting to reverse the watering down of the labelling recommendations by the National Health and Medical Research Council. I agree that there are two distinct sides to the argument and I recognise that many people do not understand what is going on. On the one hand there is the gung ho approach of the Queensland Government, about which I have spoken, the nuclear industry and many multinationals and, on the other hand, people are saying, `Put it on the back burner. We do not know enough about it'. It is not the Australian Labor Party in Queensland saying that. We have no official distinct policy. Thinking people are saying that the risks are there. The British Medical Association has studied this question. What did its findings say? `Put it on the back burner'. What did the Canadian Parliament say? `Leave it on the back burner'. What did the Europeans say? `Leave it on the back burner'. What did the New Zealand Government say after its inquiry? `Leave it on the back burner'. Countries around the world are saying this. The honourable member for Macquarie has tabled a list of all the countries using food irradiation. What he has not bothered to say is how the countries differ. South Africa has a gung ho approach and I believe imposes no limitations on the dosage. It can be 25 kilograys if that is what processors want. What about the United States of America? It imposes a limit of one kilogray. What do the Americans know that the South Africans do not know? What do the Americans know that we do not? In Australia the National Health and Medical Research Council has come forward with a recommendation of 10 kilograys. Why? I believe that it is because the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has argued that line. It argues the line that the World Health Organisation is also saying that it supports the process. But it does not bother to say that the World Health Organisation supports the idea of the extension of shop life but does not support irradiation simply to cover up contaminated foods. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has properly raised this issue. Rotten Malaysian shrimps exported to England were rushed off to the Netherlands, irradiated, brought back and sold. The point is that we cannot tell when a product is irradiated. Is it any wonder that very important nutritionists, dietitians, scientists and consumer advocates are saying, `Let us be careful about this because we do not know enough.'? We do not know the nutrition loss. We do not know the vitamin and mineral losses once we cook something that has been irradiated. We do not know the effects of irradiating a product. Whilst it might overcome some sort of bacterial problem, in a product such as chicken we could get rid of salmonella and end up with botulism. The studies of these effects are the ones we should be concerned about. I believe that the inquiry is proper. I believe that the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Macquarie have taken a balanced attitude in this inquiry to ensure that all sorts of points of view are considered. But let us not try to stop debate. I think the honourable member for Macquarie was saying that he does not believe that the debate is proper at this time. Of course the debate is proper when right across the world we have commercial interests saying, `Cover up the word ``irradiation''; let us not use it'. In America there was an attempt not to use the word `irradiation' but to use the terms `peko fresh' and `peko waved'. Moves were made in this country barely a year and a half ago to have the National Health and Medical Research Council change the labelling provisions. That has happened here, and people wonder why honourable members get anxious about it. People wonder why we are concerned when we know the amounts of money, the billions of dollars, that will be open to the nuclear industry if this goes ahead, and when we know the millions of dollars that are being spent in a national and an international campaign to convince people to adopt this proposition. I say that we do not know enough. Beverley Sutherland-Smith, a top Australian food writer, says the same thing. How do we overcome the labelling problems? How does the consumer know whether the product he is about to eat in a restaurant has been irradiated? Is the restaurateur going to list non-irradiated foods on one side of his menu and, on the other, the warning: `These are irradiated foods; watch out.'? When we buy an apple or a pear, will it have a stick-on label that says `Ionised'? Will there be some type of rule about that? It is ridiculous to suggest that everyone will know. What about the caterers and the fast food processors who work within the industry? We have no way of knowing what is irradiated. We do not know enough. This is what the issue is about. This is why I commend the honourable member for Hindmarsh for bringing this issue forward. There ought to be further and ongoing debate. We need to know more about nutrient destruction. We need to know more about the degree of that loss. If we find that we can lose 50 per cent of vitamin C from potatoes, that all sorts of vitamins-vitamins A, B complex and E-can be diminished or destroyed by irradiation-and these findings are the results of studies overseas-surely no government and no parliament can say, `Go ahead gung ho on this issue because it means dollars for big business and for the nuclear industry'. I understand that the debate has to continue, but let us make it balanced. Let us make sure that the facts are continually brought before the people-this is the issue-because they are the ones who ultimately have to buy the product. I express grave concern at the debate that is taking place at this moment but I commend this Government for its positive and very balanced approach to the issue. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(12.27) —The time available for this debate does not permit me to develop an argument or to answer the remarks from the other side of the House. Australia is today facing a serious economic challenge. Our living standards are falling in line with increases in our balance of payments deficit and our foreign debt is in excess of $110 billion. While our manufacturing industries are struggling to survive, to become competitive and to expand exports, our primary industries are facing up to the challenge of earning a major part of our export income and expanding markets against intense competition and corrupt trading practices. It is for this reason that I reject the motion moved by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott). Its intent is obviously to restrict our options for research and investigation presently taking place into the process of irradiation. While I acknowledge the genuine concern of the honourable member with any processes relating to the nuclear industry, I suggest that his motives with this motion are to close off rational discussion. To use as an example the malfunction at Chernobyl, a nuclear power station, to develop his arguments against irradiation is indeed to draw a long bow. He knows better than anyone else in this chamber that the Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts is in the final stages of reporting on this issue. He knows that many of the arguments he has espoused this morning are based on emotion and not fact and he knows that the process of irradiation is widely used throughout the world for the world's benefit in human health, quarantine and effective decontamination. As a member of this Environment Committee inquiring into food irradiation, I have concerns about the process. There are questions to which I still require answers, particularly in the evaluation of research already undertaken. But on one aspect I am thoroughly convinced. That is, the food irradiation process is an effective alternative to chemical bactericides and pesticides, including the suspected carcinogen ethylene dibromide. It passes through the food without leaving any residue and it does not make food radioactive. I reject the suggestion that irradiation is not free of radioactivity. Let us look very briefly at some of the facts. Food irradiation has been the subject of nearly 40 years of investigation in many parts of the world and is currently approved for use in more than 20 countries for over 40 products. This process of food preservation has been under consideration for some years by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the body which develops model food regulations for this country. The model regulation for food irradiation was endorsed by this Council in June 1986 and its adoption has been recommended to State and Territory governments. I remind the House that Australia has had a research program into food irradiation since 1960. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics presently uses electronic beam technology at Odessa for all imported grain, and its use as an alternative to fumigation treatment for export wheat is at present being investigated by the Australian Wheat Board. An option being considered is the construction of a pilot plant at a grain port terminal for comparison with other technologies. We all know some of the potential applications for food irradiation in Australia. One is the use of irradiation as a quarantine control treatment to disinfest fruit from fruit flies and mangoes from seed weevils. This is receiving the most attention because of the need to find an alternative treatment to the use of the potentially dangerous chemical ethylene dibromide. The effectiveness of radiation as a decontamination method for dried foods such as spices and other food ingredients suggests that these will be among the first foods to be treated commercially if this process is accepted. Consumer acceptance of irradiated food is yet to be tested in Australia and public education programs will be both necessary and essential. Regulations would need to require that food be labelled as treated with ionised radiation, and the consumer must be able to exercise the choice whether to eat irradiated foods. It should be stressed that, on the basis of logistics alone, there is no expectation that all of any variety of food will ever be irradiated. In addition, not all foods can be successfully preserved by irradiation, and in those cases, of course, the process will not be used. The capacity to meet domestic and export markets for our agricultural products is immense, but all options to improve our marketing skills and to upgrade the quality and reliability of our product must be open for research and appraisal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. In accordance with sessional order 104a the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Mallee will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(12.30) —My grievance relates to the concentration of media ownership, the threat that it poses to freedom of speech in Australia, and the way in which this Parliament is being treated with contempt by certain media magnates. I will not repeat what I have said many times in debates on the media and on trade practice legislation about the way in which the concentration of media ownership opens up a real threat, and one which can be demonstrated to have occurred, of edit- orial interference with both the electronic and print media in terms of what the public learns about what is happening. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) is trying very hard to get his Cabinet colleagues to understand the truth of what I am saying. I understand that he is not alone, but he and his colleagues are not winning at the moment. Without repeating those views I wish to refer some honourable members, who may not have seen them, to an exchange of letters in the Australian Financial Review between Mr Rupert Murdoch and me before Christmas, and between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me last week and on Monday of this week. The Treasurer has never explained to the public on what basis he allowed Mr Murdoch, an American citizen, to take over the Herald and Weekly Times under the Foreign Takeovers Act. Despite all the calls that have been made to him, the Treasurer has never said upon what basis he approved of that action in the public interest, which the Act provides he should consider. He has not supplied to me under freedom of information legislation any explanation for his approval. I am now taking the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in order to obtain that information in the public interest. It is also clear that the Government has not acted on the apparent breach of rulings of the Trade Practices Commission on the divestment of print by Mr Murdoch, and the refusal of the Government to strengthen the law leads only to the conclusion that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have no desire, for short term political gain, to offend media magnates. They are not worried about what the consequences may be for their Party or for other parties or for the public interest. I intend to introduce a Bill in this House either next week or the week after, which is aimed at remedying what the Government will not remedy. We have had public clamouring from people such as myself, which led the Treasurer finally to veto Mr Murdoch's takeover of the Australian Associated Press Wire Service. Again, no real reasons were given, but one could imagine the threat to freedom of speech that such a takeover would have represented had it proceeded. Likewise, after much public clamouring, the Prime Minister ruled out the takeover of the Age by a foreigner who described himself as politically acceptable to the Australian Labor Party. Public opinion is swinging against the Government in these areas. It is swinging against the concentration of ownership, especially foreign ownership, of our media. The Government ignores that public opinion; it is out of touch with reality once again. On the very day that the Treasurer made his final response to me in the Australian Financial Review, Monday of this week, he authorised Mr Murdoch to increase his stake in the Reuters' arm of Australian Associated Press to 97.6 per cent, thus removing virtually any Australian influence in Reuters, and to increase his stake in Australian Newsprint Mills to 50 per cent, the other 50 per cent being owned by New Zealanders. So our newsprint mills are no longer in Australian hands. The Treasurer, in his correspondence with me and in various Press conferences, where he has been personally abusive to me-this pleases me because obviously I am getting close to the bone-says how great his cross-media ownership laws are, yet he seeks to extend the right of Press owners to hold shares in television. He claims he has tight cross-media ownership rules but he seeks to extend from 5 per cent to 15 per cent the right of Press owners to hold shares in television. Why does the Treasurer seek to do that? It is because some of those owners who are identified as being mates of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister do not want to comply with the law; they will have to divest if the limit is 5 per cent. What do the Treasurer and the Government say about that? They say, `We will change the law so that they do not have to comply; so they do not have to divest'. This Parliament is being made a mockery of. Similarly, the Parliament, via a cynical deal in the Senate, about which I have spoken on a previous occasion, made the audience reach for one television owner a maximum of 60 per cent. In the United States of America the best parallel is 25 per cent. That is a cynical exercise to satisfy Bond media because it had acquired interests of that order. The Broadcasting and Television Act provides six months grace within which a person who exceeds the lawful limit can go to the Broadcasting Tribunal and rationalise his assets in order to comply with the law. That is a generous provision of grace. It was meant to help the working of the marketplace. However, these proprietors are deciding that they will not go to the Broadcasting Tribunal, which they want to be just an empty vessel; they will lobby both sides of the Parliament to try to have the law changed so that they do not have to divest and do not have to comply with the law in the same way as other corporate bodies and individuals have to do. I dissented from that particular law but it is the law of this country-a 60 per cent audience reach. But what will happen if they acquire interests that extend beyond the 75 per cent they are now asking for? They will want a 100 per cent audience reach. What will they want then? They will want the removal of local content in advertising and program making. They will want the removal of children's classification. These matters are costly. They want to make massive profits from the licence so they want to introduce the North Atlantic formula programs; one does not even have to speak English to understand them. They are American made and are transmitted via satellite throughout western Europe and to any other place that would seek to have the telecast beamed down upon it. What we then have is a major threat to our culture which coincides with the threat to editorial interference, about which I have spoken. The Parliament must take a stand. It is being made a mockery of. In these circumstances it is all the more important that we fund the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to allow them to become more independent and to structure them to be more independent of government and to reflect the evolving Australia. The commercial stations cannot be relied upon to do this, I put out a Press release, which I think only the Age gave coverage to-- Mr Hand —I wonder why. Mr MACPHEE —Because it is about the only independent form of media left in this country. I am grateful to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for his interjection. It is always a delight when I speak on this subject to know that the Minister is present. In that Press release I made the point that the Government was wrong to be considering full advertising on SBS. Since that time, as a result of an expose by Mr Austin in the Australian, it has become evident that advertisers-and indeed anyone interested in the well-being of television in Australia-are against the idea. It would be far better for the Government to adopt the recommendation of Mr Huw Evans, who is retained by the Australian Film Commission to examine the Channel 4 concept in Britain, where licence fees of commercial stations actually fund the program. In that situation there is an independent program with built-in statutory independence. Indeed, there is even a concept of group advertising, where the advertising revenue goes back to the commercial stations. The licence fees that the commercial stations pay are used to fund the station. SBS would lend itself very much to that proposition. The Government's funding could be augmented by using as a basis the commercial licence fees, which are probably now too low but are of the order of $80m. This would enable SBS to make and buy Australian programs that reflect the evolving Australian culture and are not imitations of the North Atlantic culture, which is being increasingly imposed upon us by the fact that the media magnates who, with their guaranteed five mainland capital stations, are now doing deals with production houses, especially in the United States, and getting economies of scale in that way. They are using their stations merely to transmit other people's products when we are trying to liberate ourselves from the colonialism of the North Atlantic and, from our own view of the world, we are looking at the Indian and Pacific oceans, the regions in which we are living, and through our own program making to enabling the world to see Australia and Australia's perspective. I put it very strongly that we need three commercial stations with a smaller audience reach and networking by affiliation. We need an independent ABC without commercials and we need an SBS which is again funded separately by a combination of Commonwealth Government grants and by the licence fees paid by the commercials each with their statutory authority. Then we would have some choice and we might save our freedom of speech and our culture. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.42) —One of the major challenges facing many families in the isolated towns and cities in my huge electorate of Grey is the challenge of providing a tertiary education for their children. The various colleges of technical and further education and the Whyalla campus of the South Australian Institute of Technology provide the constituents of Grey with some access to the tertiary level of education. However, the course and degree structures available are limited. The vast majority of my constituents wishing to enter higher education institutions are forced to leave their homes and move to Adelaide to gain access to either a university or college of advanced education. I should point out that the least distance my constituents have to travel to gain access to such an institution is 200 kilometres, with many having to travel as much as 800 kilometres or more. Suffice it to say that the vast distances mean great hardship for the families of those who wish to pursue tertiary education. Firstly, the students are forced by circumstances to leave the family home and establish themselves in a new environment, often without the support of their families or friends. Secondly, unless there are relatives or friends in Adelaide, students need to find rental accommodation which will provide a sound environment in which to study. Thirdly, in Adelaide, like all cities, accommodation is not cheap. Rental prices for flats and houses are expensive and so are the additional costs associated with establishing a new home. These costs include such things as bond money, furnishings, appliances and all the other necessities required to make a home livable. In effect, many of my constituents are forced to establish a second home in Adelaide so that their children can have the opportunity to study at a tertiary institution. For many families in my electorate of Grey the costs involved in establishing this second home are too high for the family to bear. As a result, all too often the decision is taken not to pursue further study in Adelaide but rather to try to enter the work force. Unfortunately, many very talented young people in my electorate never pursue higher education outside the electorate because they simply cannot afford it. I am sure that there are many honourable members from both sides of the House who represent country electorates that are remote from tertiary education centres and who understand the situation I am describing. I am sure that these members have been confronted, as I have, by parents and students who do not have the resources to face the enormous financial difficulties involved in establishing a second home far from the family home. Unfortunately, it is not only those who have to leave home who face financial difficulties in pursuing a higher education. More and more I am confronted by parents who have tertiary students living at home who are wholly or partially dependent upon their parents for income support. It is my view, and it is a considered view after many years of trying to assist working families to obtain the best future for their children, that the Austudy payment for tertiary students is inadequate for their needs. It is my understanding that the Government is moving towards bringing the tertiary Austudy payment into line with the unemployment benefit rate. In my view, this should be of the highest priority. In fact, I would even go as far as to suggest that the Austudy rate of payment should be significantly higher than the unemployment benefit rate, especially when the student is living away from the parental home. This would provide an incentive for young people to pursue further study as well as to provide them with a degree of income security commensurate with their needs as students. At present the full Austudy independent rate, regardless of the student's age, and the full away from home rate for students 18 years and over, is $91.20 a week. This is the same as the single unemployment benefit rate payable to 18- to 20-year-olds, but it is $17.20 a week less than the 21-year-old and above full unemployment rate, which is presently $108.40. This situation requires urgent attention, for, if we are serious about giving our young people the best opportunity in life, we must be prepared to pay them a decent living allowance whilst they are studying. In fact, the whole idea of student allowances is one that I feel needs revolutionary change from the concepts of the past to the realities of the present. It is my view that student allowances should be made universally available to all tertiary students, regardless of their parents' income. I believe that the parental income test for tertiary student allowances is an anachronism that is no longer relevant to present needs or realities in our society. In the so-called good old days, when only the wealthy had access to tertiary education, it was quite understandable that the parents of students should rightfully have maintained their children during tertiary study, but those days are long gone. Entry to tertiary education is now available to all Australians, based upon their ability rather than their bank balance. However, the ability of many students to sustain their studies in a long term is being determined more and more by their bank balance and less and less by their abilities. The notion therefore that you need to target student assistance programs only towards those on lower incomes becomes more and more discriminatory against working class people, whose incomes may be slightly above or below the cut-off point applied under the parental income test. I recently had a family in Whyalla approach me with an example of how their 19-year-old son, who was studying electrical engineering, was granted only $14.43 a fortnight Austudy because his father's annual income of $27,000 was taken into account. In this case the son still lives at home as he is able to complete his particular course in Whyalla. However, can we really expect that a 19-year-old adult should be dependent upon his parents for income simply because he is a tertiary student? Can we really expect that parents should have to provide continued economic support for a 19-year-old adult tertiary student? Recent figures from the Australian Institute of Family Studies indicate that it costs $93.73 a week for a family to keep a teenager living at home. One would presume that this figure would be much higher for young adults who are pursuing higher education. This figure does not include the cost of housing, transport and medical or dental expenses; it therefore cost nearly $5,000 a year to provide for a teenager at home. Under the present student assistance available to them, the family I mentioned earlier will receive only $375 a year to assist with the cost of providing a tertiary education for their 19-year-old son. A 19-year-old on unemployment benefit currently receives over $4,742 a year regardless of his parents' income. I cannot see any reasonable argument put forward which explains why a 19-year-old tertiary student should not be receiving at least the equivalent to that of a 19-year-old unemployed person. As stated previously, I would argue that perhaps a tertiary student should be receiving more than the equivalent unemployment benefit, especially if he is living away from the parental home. If we want a skilled society which is ready to take advantage of the technological revolution, and one which is ready to take this nation into the twenty-first century, we must be prepared to pay for the education of our young people and we must be prepared to provide them with adequate levels of assistance to help them to complete their education. This matter is of paramount importance to me because, as I have pointed out, it is creating terrible strains on ordinary working class families. Although some members might argue that a universally provided scheme of assistance to tertiary students would add an additional burden to the Federal Budget which is, of course, the first argument that would be used by those who opposed such a scheme, it is, however, unacceptable to allow inequity to exist simply because resources are supposedly unavailable to help to redress the inequity. Resources simply have to be found as a top priority if we are to address the serious anomalies that I have outlined here today. I urge all members here today to support me in my campaign to have the situation rectified and as quickly as possible. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.51) —It seems inevitable that from time to time and for a variety of reasons, whether good or bad, differences between peoples and nations will be expressed in hostile actions and wars. Since the Second World War this globe has been afflicted by many wars. At present we have two major conflicts-the Iran-Iraq war and the war which still continues in Afghanistan despite Soviet claimed intentions to vacate that country in the near future. It is no condonation of acts of war to observe that this is a reality which we seem to have to live with whilst striving to promote peace and to foster the endurance of peace. But when war breaks out, much as we would prefer that this never happens-that there should be no hostilities and that people should be able to determine the issues that divide them by international mechanisms-it is important to guard, so far as we can, against excesses and to mitigate the worst features. There are conventions which have been agreed upon between countries for that purpose; conventions relating to civilians, to torture, to the rules of war, and to the prohibition of certain kinds of weapons. But, unfortunately, as one weapon has been prohibited others have been found and the weapons which are found to replace the old weapons are usually more terrible than the old weapons themselves. In this context, Mr Deputy Speaker, the use of chemical weapons is universally deplored and condemned in this country. The Government has itself pursued in its disarmament negotiations the objective of a comprehensive ban upon chemical weapons and that is an objective that I and we on this side entirely support and one that in government we would pursue. But we need to go further than urging the end to the use of chemical weapons and seeking to secure a ban on the use of those weapons and the production of those weapons and at the same time, of course, the destruction of those weapons. Whenever people on this earth are afflicted by the disasters of chemical weapons we need to ask ourselves, as a civilised country, what we can do. I understand from what I have read in the newspapers and inquiries made by my office that an approach was recently made to the Australian Government from Iran, a plea to help in the care of war victims. I read from the Age newspaper of 8 April the following extract: The Foreign Affairs Department told Iranian representatives in Australia that Australia's own hospital facilities were stretched and Europe was a better destination for the war victims. The department, however, is known to fear that Australian assistance to Iranian soldiers would compromise Australia's neutral stance on the Gulf War. `We have given them our responses', a spokesman said. `It is not possible for us to accept their soldiers'. This was given, I understand, in response to a request to permit soldiers who had been injured by chemical weapons to be treated in this country. I understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade maintains that facilities in Iran for treating such victims are to be found and that there is no special expertise in Australia. I merely interpolate that it is probably unlikely that there is special expertise in the treatment of chemical weapons anywhere to be found in the world, since the use of chemical weapons has mercifully been somewhat restricted. But I would have thought that we would be in just as good a position as any country to provide help for the treatment of victims of chemical weapons. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I understand, also maintains that it is most concerned about moving victims to Australia, and that this would only exacerbate their condition. On such a subject one does not want to be unnecessarily critical of the Government and I will not be. But I do think that whilst we do not take sides in the war between Iran and Iraq, and we support the Government's position on that, it is no betrayal of that principle to provide help to those injured by chemical weapons, from whatever country and whoever asks for it. I would like the Government to ask itself this question: How can Australia, as a civilised country, help? We condemn the use of chemical weapons and that is right. But cannot we match our rhetoric with some actions? After all, rhetoric is cold comfort to those who have been injured. As a civilised country our condemnation of all governments of all people who use chemical weapons must be matched by more than words. I would hope that the Government would seek to assess what help can be given to the victims of chemical weapons, be they Iranians, be they Iraqis, be they Kurds, be they anyone else, either alone or in conjunction with other countries or agencies such as the International Red Cross, and so match our expression of concern and our expressions of condemnation with effective action for the victims of those weapons. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.59) —The use of foreign aid development grants and subsidies to boost export orders for industrial enterprise in developed nations has been the subject of debate for many years. Much thought and action have gone into reaching a situation where, according to the report of the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, which I received in my office today, and I quote, `A balance can, and should be found, between the humanitarian concerns of our aid and Australia's economic interests.' However, my grievance today goes beyond the aid-trade debate to one of even deeper concern to me-the corporate abuse of the opportunity to enter the Third World, or the Two-Thirds World, as many aid assistants are now referring to it, by transnational corporations who do not merely exploit this opportunity for valid trade purposes, but who deliberately erode the position of consumers in underdeveloped countries, just in order to boost profits. I will examine this process in the context of consumer activity against corporate abuse in the developed world. To the shame of the Western world, the nation which is already down and out may become a recipient of the developed world's rejects. I am referring to products that we do not want as a result of our consumer alertness in the West. I refer to the infamous example of baby formula which had been rejected by the United States Food and Drug Administration, being dumped on the Third World in the contaminated form of aid, with disastrous effect on young children. Thus consumer practice is not only the responsibility of individuals, but of governments, as well as the business sector. Certainly consumers from developing nations could be forgiven for believing that Western consumerism, in focusing on issues such as the use of additives to make meat more pleasing to the eye, or irradiation to prolong the storage of grain, has no relevance to consumers in the Two-Thirds World, where the very presence of grain, in any form, can mean the difference between life and death. But appearances can be deceptive. Consumerism is not just about consumers rejecting or demanding additives, but about consumers' growing hostility to marketplace practices designed to put dollars in the well-lined pockets of the few at the expense of the many. It is about the manner in which some market barons pursue their profits to the health and safety detriment of those why buy and those who consume. In this context, consumerism can effectively link issues common to both the developed and underdeveloped world alike, but given the harsher hand dealt out to consumers in the Two-Thirds World, it must be an aim of the Australian consumer movement to ensure that consumer abuses of practices in the developing world which are linked to the West are addressed. In Australia the issues are different depending on where you live, where you work, if you work. Aborigines, disabled, jobless, homeless, aged, low income earners, all have particular problems, but overall questions of safety, health and pricing affect all. The Federal Government is striving to get some pricing justice by setting up a national prices network and I am one of a number of Government members who are taking a part there. I am a Queensland co-ordinator. In the developed world, the world of private enterprise, householders or consumers have had little say in the prices they pay. I believe current marketing practices should be challenged. I do not wish to attack business practice per se, but what morality is there in allowing the marketplace to influence pricing? My discussions with chain retailers at executive level in Queensland have revealed that competitive pricing, or charge what you can get, is the basis for pricing in Queensland in the 1980s. In fact when the age of the supermarket emerged the new barons of the marketplace told consumers that, although they may lose the service of the corner store in switching to the supermarket, the payoff would be cheaper prices as a result of bulk buying. In Australia today, where is the promised trade-off, where is the cross-subsidisation to ensure that the profits of bulk buying flow on to the consumer, particularly in a monopoly or isolated situation? It does not exist and despite statements re narrow margins, the largest grocery chains are clocking up record profits. These, then, are the rewards of big business endeavour in Australia. What about the rewards of multinational endeavour? Are they too great? What effect do they have on the recipient consumer societies, and what responsibilities should and do multinationals assume to ensure that their intrusion does not cause greater problems for the society they claim to service but who, from the size of the rewards, could well be seen to be servicing their own desires for cumulative profits? Governments in developed nations have for some years gone beyond direct food handouts to the setting up of training and development programs which will assist the recipient developing country to take steps towards self-sufficiency. But a well recorded phenomenon which Colin Hines and Barbara Dinham, researchers, call agribusiness has worked against the interests of these people whom the projects are designed to assist. This is how agribusiness works: citizens of an underdeveloped nation are dying of malnutrition. They are not self-sufficient in the provision of food for the millions of people. The developed world decides that it will meet its humanitarian responsibilities not only by shipping grain or direct food aid to the worst affected areas, but by setting up major agricultural projects designed to lead to self-sufficiency. But the nature of agribusiness is to make a profit out of the inputs to farming-that is, seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, management and consultancies, animal foodstuffs, research-as well as from the outputs of the farms. Large companies such as Fiat and Coca-Cola have funded so-called agricultural projects which are intended to assist people in poorer nations, but which in fact assist to a far greater extent companies which make profits out of servicing the project. This phenomenon was started in about 1911 by W. H. Lever, forerunner to the world's biggest food business, Unilever. Money invested by Unilever and other multinationals such as ICI and Shell was designed to derive strength and profits from processing, trading, transport, marketing and distribution, often to the detriment of people in the Two-Thirds World. Take Nigeria. In 1980 the Nigerian Government launched the green revolution, a program designed to bring new land under cultivation and in which the proposed investment of $US8.2 billion was involved. A United States and Nigerian joint agricultural consultative committee was established in July 1980. This committee included representatives from multinationals, such as Coca-Cola, Ralston Purina and the Ford Motor Co. as well as large banking groups and it was to be the principal vehicle for transfer of United States agricultural technology to Nigeria. The move was commendable but according to Hines and Dinham the committee was involved particularly in supplying fertiliser, seed, milling and baking technologies, integrated poultry systems and methods for the small scale production and distribution of fresh produce. Another company-Pulman Kellogg-was involved in building a nitrogenous fertiliser plant. So who profited from the provision of fertiliser, seed, et cetera? Obviously United States farm exports to Nigeria as a result of projects such as this are big, big business involving big, big money. Did the project assist consumers in Nigeria? A similar project certainly did not assist 60,000 peasants who lived in northern Nigeria and who were forcibly removed from the land on which the project was sited. They were reportedly unable to farm; they were given no compensation and finally they protested and the state called in armed police to put them down. What we are looking at here is an unholy stampede to exploit potential within the developing world, to syphon off what small money there is from that world. It would be too harsh a judgment and would be quite unrealistic for me to suggest that self-interest motivated most programs of this nature, and this is just not so. Non-government organisations are doing a marvellous job in conjunction with the United Nations agency and, in the case of Australia, the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau and the Australian missions in Third World nations. But Western corporate practice can, and in many recorded instances has, encroached adversely on consumers in developing nations. In condemning this fact I do not attack small business, which is often the victim of the corporate creep. I do attack the system which allows uncontrolled accumulation of profits. For where is the halting point? What is the point of running sports aid projects such as the Bob Geldof effort, which was very commendable, when the very nations which we seek to help are being held back by corporate parasites who are deliberately exploiting people in nations already victims of widespread poverty and excessive foreign debt? Mr COBB(Parkes)(1.09) —I happen to be one of those who believe capital punishment should be restored in Australia. Though my opinion may well be in the minority in this chamber it is certainly not in the community. In every opinion poll I have seen taken in Australia, more people are in favour of capital punishment than against. In recent years polls have varied from a majority of 43 per cent in favour up to 95 per cent in favour. However, most polls have returned a substantial majority of around 70 per cent in favour and about 25 per cent against, with a handful of people being undecided. The classic case which shows how opinions on this issue cut across all barriers was a Morgan gallup poll taken in July 1986 regarding whether Australians who are convicted should be sentenced to death for drug trafficking in Malaysia. The question returned a result of 80 per cent in favour and 15 per cent against and the result was constant throughout all groups irrespective of how people voted, where they lived, whether they were male or female, and of age, occupation, education or income. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate this poll in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr COBB —I thank the House. I believe there is a strong case for holding a referendum in each State to seek the views of the people on this issue. I believe there is also a strong case for re-introducing capital punishment for a whole host of crimes. This would include first degree murder, treason, some forms of brutalised rape and mutilation, some forms of kidnapping and terrorism, especially where lives were at risk, and for serious forms of drug running. Certainly the death penalty should not be restricted to the crime of murder. If the Anita Cobby assailants had not actually murdered their victim, what they did to her up to that point would alone have justified the death penalty, in my opinion. Had she survived that brutal, degrading and horrific experience, she would have been mentally, if not physically, disfigured for life. Capital punishment has been carried out in several forms in different countries; we used to hang them in Australia. However, other countries have used methods which include electrocution, gas, lethal injection, firing squad, the guillotine, stoning, necklacing-which the African National Congress uses in South Africa-and torturing and mutilation. I would favour lethal injection, which is really equivalent to an overdose of an anaesthetic, as it is quick, painless, non-ghoulish and would avoid a lot of the hoo-ha that surrounds most executions. Most people believe capital punishment should be carried out with a minimum of publicity. Capital punishment still exists in most countries of the world, with the exception of the Western countries. However, even among those that have abolished capital punishment, the general public are usually in favour of it and, in some cases, are even reintroducing it; for example, 37 of 50 States in the United States of America have done so. In Australia we have hanged 114 murderers since 1901, with Ronald Ryan in Victoria the last to go in 1967. Of course, as recently as 7 July 1986 two Australians, Barlow and Chambers, were hanged in Malaysia for their drug activities. One of the prime arguments in favour of the death penalty is that the person who has committed the crime has forfeited his or her right to live. This argument says that so highly do we place human life itself that anyone who violates that principle through first degree murder and so on automatically forfeits his own right to live. Another argument in support of the death penalty is that execution prevents the criminal committing another murder. It is recognised that the number of murderers let out of gaol who go on to murder someone else is low. That, of course, is only what you would expect. Nevertheless, there is a percentage of murderers, especially those connected with violent crimes, who, after release, commit further murders. In New York in 1976-77, 85 persons arrested for homicide had a previous arrest for murder. I do not believe the population should be subject to that increase in risk. Of course, many citizens, especially among women and the frail and aged, worry about murderers in gaol escaping. It is a legitimate worry, especially as escape does happen, and all too frequently. Let us not dismiss lightly the fears of those innocent people. There seems to be no shortage of trendies and academics running around today agonising with concern for the rights and comforts of the perpetrators of such crimes. However, I hear none of their ilk expressing such concern for the victims of these crimes, let alone the potential victims. The fear of these criminals escaping and, while on the run, entering the homes of these innocent people is a very real one out there in society. The death penalty, of course, obviates the need for the expense of keeping these people in gaol. While I think this reason should be accorded a relatively low priority, it should not be overlooked. I understand it costs about $35,000 or $40,000 each year to keep a prisoner in gaol, but it can cost $100,000 or more to keep a high security prisoner in gaol. There are many who would consider that much of this money would be better spent on the welfare of the victim's relatives or even, for that matter, in preserving the lives of some of the millions who are dying from starvation overseas. Perhaps the most telling argument for capital punishment is that it is a proper punishment for the crime committed. There is a sense of justice about it, not only for the community, which is always appalled at these crimes, but also for the victim's relatives. For the victim, of course, it is all too late. Capital punishment is the only punishment that does not fall short of fulfilling the criterion of bringing a proper retribution. To gaol these criminals satisfies so few. We all know that a life sentence no longer means life. It does not even mean 20 years any more. In practice, the tenacity to lobby for the welfare of the criminals by the bleeding hearts in society usually means that the criminal is out after a decade, or even after five years or less in some cases. It is of no use saying that the situation can be improved. People have been saying that for years and yet the length of time that criminals stay in gaols gets shorter every year. The community also resents the fact that these prisoners live under such good conditions, with carpet, television, meals, sporting facilities, library and so on, being provided. Such short sentences only cheapen the value of the innocent life that has been taken and this causes resentment. Is that all a life is considered to be worth these days, 10 years, before the murderer or mutilator is let out into society again? People feel that the justice system is so stacked in favour of the rights of criminals today instead of the rights of the victims that they are now despairing. Capital punishment will help to maintain a respect for the law also, which has been somewhat diminished in recent years. It is interesting to note that those who chant the loudest to abolish capital punishment on the grounds of respect for human life are often the same people who so strongly advocate the right to abortion, which kills the innocent unborn. Another reason in support of capital punishment is that because of its finality it does not readily invite undesirable follow-on action by supporters of the criminals. This is particularly seen with terrorist acts. If, say, aircraft hijackers are apprehended and gaoled, their sympathisers are often tempted to hijack yet another aircraft and use the unfortunate hostages on this craft to bargain for the release of the first lot of hijackers. We saw this syndrome occur with the Baader-Meinhof gang when it was in action in Germany. Many people in favour of capital punishment say that it acts as a deterrent. While all elements of one's commonsense might tell one that this should be so, it is very hard to demonstrate in practice from the figures available. If all statistics are examined on the murder rates from countries that have either introduced or banned capital punishment, overall no discernible pattern can yet be established in support of the deterrence theory. Though capital punishment may well be a deterrent for some forms of murder the deterrent aspect cannot be used on any scientific basis as an argument in favour of the use of capital punishment overall. There are, of course, a number of arguments against capital punishment. A prime one is the respect for human life angle with a variance that it degrades civilisation to take a life and that capital punishment is a barbaric practice. I have just argued the opposite, namely, that the proponents claim that life is so precious that anything less than capital punishment for the perpetrators of murder and the like only cheapens life. I guess one argument cancels out the other and we end up supporting the one we inherently believe in. Some say that it is inhumane to apply capital punishment. No doubt others can argue that it is more inhumane to lock up a person for 20 years. This, of course, is why in practice these people are usually let out early. For some reason it is wrong to subject a criminal-even a murderer-to inhumane treatment. Some say that if the capital punishment exists for murder, a perpetrator of this crime may as well kill others, too, as the sentence cannot be increased. I find this a poor argument. The same can be said about giving 20 years gaol for a single or a multiple murder. Also, a murderer convicted for life has nothing to lose by killing to escape; the arguments cancel each other out. Much is often made of the fact that an innocent person may be hanged. No doubt, there has been the odd incidence of this happening. However, the argument is grossly overstated; such an occurrence would be extremely rare under our modern-day multi-layer appeal system which is lengthy and painstaking. Besides, the instances of a gaoled murderer escaping and killing an innocent person again would probably outweigh the risk of an innocent person being hanged. The risk is extremely small and is one that society should readily accept. Gaoling an innocent for life would surely be no more pleasant. It is intended to reintroduce capital punishment only for horrific crimes that are beyond doubt. Everything we do in life has some risk attached to it. We do not ban cars simply because 3,000 die on our roads every year. Others argue that most executed will be poor and, in the United States of America, black. However, most of the victims are poor and black too, as well as dead. Some claim capital punishment is a cruel and unusual treatment and that killing, whether done by the state or an individual is a no-no at all times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(1.19) —I rise to speak in this grievance debate on a matter which has been concerning me for some time, not only because it affects me personally but also because it affects the people in my electorate and beyond. If there is one thing that tends to bind country people together it is the parlous state of rural roads. They can differ on many other issues but a gradual and seemingly inexorable deterioration of the rural road system becomes a cause celebre for most people in rural communities. Those who live beyond town and city boundaries in my own electorate of Ballarat are no exception. One of the most common concerns of the 15 municipalities in my electorate is road funding, with particular reference to unclassified roads; and likewise, farmers also are concerned about road funding. I believe it is a relatively simple task to demonstrate the important function that roads have in economic and social terms. For instance-and this is not an exhaustive list of course-roads carry produce from the farm to the market; they carry tourists to their destination; the roads carry vehicles providing emergency services; roads carry children to schools; roads are a vital part of a modern society. The National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) in its recent report tells us that road transport related activities employ 500,000 people, or about one in 13 of the Australian work force. It is not difficult to imagine just how important these jobs are to small rural communities. It is not just jobs of the men who operate the heavy machinery or the blokes who hold the `Slow Down' or `Stop' signs. It is not just the road patrol people or the shire engineers. They are the visible ones. It is the jobs of those working extracting gravel and sand. It is the jobs in the local garage where the trucks and machinery are serviced and it is the jobs of the secretaries who work in all the offices servicing the industry et cetera. NASRA says that the road sector has the highest employment generating capacity of all sectors which produce a physical product of economic value. Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as being an important part of the economy we should be aware that an adequately funded road maintenance and construction industry contributes to road safety. The Federal Government has done an enormous amount to raise awareness of the cost to the community of road accidents. High profile safety campaigns have used the media effectively and imaginatively to emphasise the importance of safety on the roads. It is estimated that there are around 25,000 road crashes in Australia a year; 3,000 people lose their lives and 32,000 are admitted to hospital. Each fatality costs the community about $400,000. This is not a pleasant topic; it is almost macabre to look at death on the roads in terms of dollars and cents when the cost in grief and pain to family and friends is so great. But we just cannot escape the financial cost of road accidents either. Even the cost of injuries as a result of road accidents has been qualified; it is about $60,000 for each hospitalisation. In total, the cost to the community of road accidents is about $3,000m each year. It requires more than good roads to reduce the incidence of road accidents; we know that. But the condition of the road system is undoubtedly a real factor to be considered. We are all aware that the road system is a vital key to the life of all rural communities. Most people here are familiar with the great improvements that have been made to the highway system. Great credit must go to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) for his efforts to improve the system, and he enjoys enormous respect out in the community. Few people would be aware of the other roads, those referred to as unclassified roads. In Victoria alone there are about 133,000 kilometres of these. Many of these roads are far past their useful lifespan and they need not maintenance but total reconstruction. In Victoria, the most compact State in the Commonwealth, the density of rural traffic is an obvious factor in determining the needs for funds to maintain and upgrade the system. Spending cuts affect the maintenance of roads, the construction of new roads and the livelihood of people who work on the roads. The significance of the cost of a deteriorating road system to industry is often overlooked. If wear and tear on vehicles is excessive, the costs will be passed on to consumers and this applies whether we are talking about transporting primary produce or a truckload of assorted groceries. About 77 per cent of all goods is moved by road. We all know about the effects of the tyranny of distance in this country. The road system underpins successful commerce in this nation. Bearing these facts in mind, it is not hard for us to understand the special pressures on those who are charged with the responsibility for maintaining the quality of our roads, let alone improving them. To put the record straight, it is only fair to remind the House that this Government has a commendable record as far as road funding is concerned and as compared with that of our predecessors. But the Labor Government's record, better though it might be than that of the coalition when last in office, has taken a disconcerting direction over the past couple of years. The wear and tear on roads all over Australia is something we cannot run away from. Deterioration happening now to the road system will need fixing, either now or at some time in the future. I am fully aware of the Government's need to exercise sound standards of fiscal management and to reduce expenditure in this difficult economic period. Organisations such as the National Farmers Federation (NFF) are calling for huge Budget surpluses of at least $2.5m. I have to say that this is cloud-cuckooland stuff, if we are also to meet the costs of essential programs. One of these programs, even the NFF recognises, is construction and maintenance of the road system. Likewise, my municipalities and all road users feel the same way. Road funding must compete for a place among all items of expenditure. I am not suggesting that the Government is insensitive to the needs of local and State governments for increased support to maintain the road system. The Minister said when introducing changes to the Australian land transport program back in 1986: Road transport is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. Well designed and constructed roads make significant contributions to Australia. They reduce costs. They save lives. They encourage all forms of industry and they repay to Australia far more than their cost. However, I believe that funding for roads must be held at the very least to last year's levels in real terms. I want to stress `in real terms'. In fact, I would like to see it increased because last year's levels were a reduction in real terms on the previous year. The road construction industry, local government and all those involved in maintaining the standards of our roads should not have to survive another round of funding cuts. There is a particular need for a replacement program for the Australian bicentennial road development project. This was targeted to national highways and arterial roads. What is needed now is a specific program to arrest the deterioration of the unclassified roads around this country. I notice the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) in the chamber and I am sure that he agrees with me wholeheartedly, coming from where he does down in Bookar. Everybody knows where Bookar is. So many of these roads have long passed their effective lifespan that it will take years of purpose or planning and major expenditure to overcome the backlog of essential works. There is considerable anger about the increases in fuel excise without a proportional increase in the amount allocated to road funding. I think it is important for the Government to recognise this fact. Some lobby groups argue that all taxes raised from road users should be returned to road users through road funding. If one followed this argument with all aspects of government revenue one would end up with a very strange society indeed. If the Opposition succeeds in levying a consumption tax on bread we will have to ask: Will it be expected to return that to bread eaters exclusively? The mind boggles if we contemplate the implications when it comes to sales tax. Nevertheless, governments over the decades have used the tax on fuels as a means of raising revenue and the community is prepared to accept a proportion of the price it pays if the petrol pump is its way of contributing to the maintenance of the road system. I believe it is important that the Government make a greater allocation of excise available for road maintenance. There has been a good deal of speculation about the possibility that we will shortly see no more federal road funds as such. The Municipal Association of Victoria has urged all its members to lobby the Government. It believes that the Federal Government wants to hand funds directly to the States and priorities will then be set by the States on a State by State basis for road expenditure. It believes that should this happen there would be no guarantee that levels of road funding would be maintained. Road funding would have to compete against other programs and could suffer a reduction in its priority ranking. There is nothing more than rumour to base these fears upon but the point is still worth making. To some degree the maintenance of an adequate rural road system is everybody's concern, whether living in the city or the country. I raise this matter today in the hope that the Government will increase road funds and in the expectation that all members share my concerns. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.29) —Over the last 12 months parents of intellectually and physically handicapped persons have approached me in despair as to what might happen to members of their families with the introduction of a program of deinstitutionalisation. Would this mean that care for their sons or daughters would suddenly become their sole responsibility or would they be at the mercy of the inadequate community services? One has only to talk to both parents and clients to understand the trauma that these proposals have brought to their daily lives. This section of the community is severely disadvantaged, through no fault of its own, and governments need to provide support services and a compassionate guiding hand. Last September I wrote to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) expressing grave concern at the proposals to deinstitutionalise the physically and mentally handicapped in Victoria. I sought clarification of the situation, particularly in relation to the two institutions Karingal and Colanda in the Corangamite electorate. Three months later the Minister finally managed to reply: . . . that with the implementation of the Disabilities Services Act from 5 June 1987, services for people with disabilities which were previously funded under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, such as Karingal, would be involved in a five-year transition process to meet the principles and objectives of the new legislation. The principles and objectives of the Disabilities Services Act, so the Minister tells me, address a range of quality of life issues which focus on positive outcomes for people with disabilities. Parents, patients, administrators and the community at large will have difficulty in understanding exactly what this means. However, the Minister assured me that people with disabilities will not be left without appropriate services. In the present economic restraint, State and Federal governments will have to maximise the use of resources to look after the disabled. The Victorian Government's admission that it lost $1 billion in the share market crash will not help funds for those disabled in Victoria. There are serious doubts that deinstitutionalisation will offer those with psychiatric difficulties an improved quality of life. Deinstitutionalisation, discharging patients into the community, was introduced into the United States of America 30 years ago. Deinstitutionalisation on a massive scale has been a universal failure. Honourable members may have seen a recent television report which revealed that one in four of the homeless wandering the streets of New York are mentally ill patients who have been released into the community and who cannot cope with the pressures of life and self care. Is this to be the result of deinstitutionalising people in Australia? Our prisons could become de facto psychiatric hospitals. In spite of the best intentions and the undoubted benefits of integration into the community for some patients, the community at large simply cannot cope with the burden of looking after the physically and mentally handicapped. The services that are needed are too widely dispersed and they are neither sufficiently available nor accessible. To provide adequate services would entail long term training to develop skills. Placing patients suffering from chronic intellectual disability in community residential units would require adequate supervised accommodation; adequate community day centres; designated case managers; coordinated hospital and community services, both adequately staffed and available 24 hours a day and not nine to five; and coordinated administration to control standards. Institutions are strong, they offer mutual support; services and support groups are readily accessible when needed. All these are necessary in the care of the handicapped. The staff maintain their morale and support one another in a difficult professional environment. In community residential units they can become very isolated and suffer from lack of peer support. Deinstitutionalisation imposes strains on both staff and residents. In some cases clients in community residential units could find themselves more confined and more institutionalised than in the residential unit situation. Take one example: escorts are required when they wish to socialise. They are house-bound until they have assistance. There is a great need to look at the broad spectrum of client needs before deinstitutionalisation is widely embraced. Generic services cannot provide specialisation. In institutions medical experts are constantly on hand. In the community residential units there are no doctors on hand and clients would be relying on local general practitioners whose general practitioner training courses includes only a matter of hours on mental retardation. Some people are best serviced by specialised services; others certainly can benefit from integration with the community. It is the degree of illness which should govern the final decision. Balance is necessary to provide a place for both services. Above all, the parameters should be what is best for the client. There is a belief that the same principle must apply to everyone, but the intellectually retarded patients are not like everyone else. Existing institutions should become a resource base with some residents. They could well become the regional centre to provide backup services for those who are in residential community units. Six thousand adults in Victoria have no day places at this moment. The problem would be overwhelming if all those now in institutions were vying for them with places because the institutions had been closed down. There have been some recent cases where quite obviously people have spent a great deal of their time in institutions and have been released into the community, when quite clearly they should still be under constant care. In my own electorate of Corangamite there was a clear case of a person with schizophrenia undergoing treatment in an institution, where his condition was controlled by the use of drugs. However, under the law he was not restrained from returning to his home environment. Unsupervised, he failed to take his prescribed medication and the problem of violence arose. Family, friends and the police were unable to exercise any legal control over him and he became a danger to the community. Is deinstitutionalisation a good thing in this environment? Local government does not have the necessary support services to cope with people who have left institutional care. Further difficulties arise with the legal responsibilities of local government officials in handling these people. There is a community concern over legal liabilities, whether or not an insurance policy covers damage caused by people who through no fault of their own have been abandoned by the authorities, who have no hope of providing the necessary care for patients who have been used to getting care in institutions. Because the cost of providing care for the physically and intellectually impaired is skyrocketing, the Victorian Government seems intent on cost cutting by putting patients out into the community. In the city of Colac first-class institutional care is provided by Colanda. The staff is dedicated and the facilities are modern and located in a pleasant countryside environment. There is a recognition by the local community that Colanda plays an important role in looking after the disadvantaged. In turn, the city of Colac appreciates the contribution Colanda makes to the area. Karingal in Geelong is a fine example of supervised care being provided by a voluntary group. One hundred and thirty adults receive loving care and attention in an attempt to make their lives fulfilling and worth while. Karingal provides educational and recreational programs for its clients on their various establishments, supervised by dedicated staff. Karingal runs a horticultural farm operation which utilises clients' skills to commercial and personal advantage. It also operates a commercial laundry and workshop. Karingal is a voluntary organisation which receives about two-thirds of its funding from both State and Federal governments and raises the remainder from the community. Karingal is an outstanding example of a caring and understanding approach to looking after those less fortunate members of our community by providing skilled supervision in a modern, diversified institutional environment. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(1.38) —Events taking place in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are causing alarm and dismay in the international community, mainly because of Israeli brutality and intransigence towards the indigenous people, the Palestinians, but also because it is obvious to any reasonably thoughtful person how easily events could escalate and expand to involve us all. The record in the occupied territory since this period of Palestinian resistance began late last year speaks for itself; 191 Palestinians are dead and 6,000 to 8,000 are wounded. Basic human rights are being denied. A minimum of 8,000 people have been arrested with over 700 of these being administratively detained. What this means is that they have been imprisoned without charge, trial or review. Imprisonment under these regulations is allowed to continue for six months but it is indefinitely renewable. It is interesting to see that included among these numbers are lawyers, teachers, university lecturers and journalists; that is, the intellectual leaders of the community. This denies Israeli claims that those arrested are stone throwers and so-called terrorists. All schools in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been closed. This means that over 800 schools have been closed down. Restrictions have been placed on foreign media and the Israelis closed down the Palestine Press service in East Jerusalem over six months ago. Given this record by the Israelis in the occupied territories, we need to look at what they are hoping to achieve. I believe that an interesting pointer can be found in the death of the young Israeli settler only last week. Misinformation and the rhetoric surrounding this tragic incident all points in the same direction. I believe it is worth while going into some detail about not only the death itself but also the process of disinformation which followed. As an aside, I found it instructive to see the value placed on this one Israeli life compared with the indifference shown by Israel to the fate of many young Palestinians who have been shot or dragged from their homes and severely beaten. When the death of this girl was first reported we were told that she died as a result of a vicious and unprovoked attack with rocks by Palestinians on a group of young girls innocently hiking. There are further claims by settlers that the Palestinians had tried to slaughter the rest of the group as well. As a result of these reports immediate retribution began on the Palestinians. The Israeli Army blew up or bulldozed 14 houses of villagers suspected of involvement. Soldiers also shot dead a Palestinian youth who they claimed was running away. Presumably he did not want to have his bones smashed over a 40-minute period as happened to two youths in an incident filmed by the CBS network several weeks ago. Within a couple of days of the shooting a different version of the event began to leak out. It turned out that the girl had been shot with an M16 rifle bullet, the type of gun carried by the two men guarding the girls. It also turned out, as the Australian reported on Monday, that there was no evidence that villagers had tried to massacre other members of the party. The guard who had killed two villagers and wounded two others was the only other person seriously injured, despite ample opportunity for the villagers to have carried out a massacre. The incident was described in a New York Times article of 8 April as having been triggered by one of the settler guards unleashing `impulsive bursts of gunfire that killed one Palestinian and wounded another before the group of Israelis reached the village'. After these facts came out about the girl's death, settlers claimed that their reports that a Palestinian had been seen firing a Kalashnikov rifle from a fair distance away were being ignored. However, evidence from the autopsy showed that the shot that killed the girl had been fired from only a few metres away and from an American M16, not a Kalashnikov. The Israelis have not annexed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, at least in a formal sense. They refer to them as `occupied territories'. Despite this, settlers strongly believe that the land belongs to them and that the Palestinians have no rights there. One of the girls involved in the incident I have just described was interviewed on television and asked whether she did not think that their visit to the village was provocative, given the current situation. She replied that they were showing the Palestinians whom the land belongs to. This week's Newsweek magazine said, and I quote: `Hiking has become a political statement among Jewish settlers, a way of asserting their ownership of the biblical land'. I recommend this Newsweek report entitled `A Hike into Tragedy', for those who would like to read a comprehensive report from a publication hardly noted for its radical or anti-Israeli views. One further point about this incident that is worth mentioning, because it shows the unwillingness of Israel to punish settlers who take the law into their own hands, is that the guard who shot the girl, Roman Aldubi, who was apparently the one who led the hikers so close to the village, is an anti-Palestinian fanatic who was involved with a vigilante shooting in Nablus on the West Bank last year. His punishment for that crime was to be banished for six months from the city. A larger problem is that the attitudes so prevalent amongst the settlers are not surprising. It has been inevitable ever since Israel made the irrevocable decision to proceed with massive settlement of the occupied territories. Many millions of dollars have been poured into the settlement and it is obvious that the settlement was meant to be permanent; in other words, a de facto annexation. A great deal of this settlement was paid for by the United States. Israel forms the core of the United States strategic defence plans in the Middle East. Because of this, the United States has been prepared to massively bankroll Israel, with both civil and military aid. With the help of the United States, Israel has become the fourth largest military power in the world with an undoubted though unadmitted nuclear capacity. I do not suppose that the United States desires this money to be used to hegemonise the Palestinians but there are many things that the United States is prepared to tolerate, so long as it achieves what it sees as its strategic interests. Given that Israel intended from the start that its settlement of the Occupied Territories be permanent, one has to wonder what its future intentions have been for the indigenous Palestinians. There is little doubt that an influential group of Liberal politicians ultimately envisages the forced removal of the Palestinians from these areas. Immediately after the first reports of the incident, the Israeli Justice Minister called for the demolition of dozens of Arab homes and the expulsion of hundreds of Palestinians. Right-wing religious leaders and politicians, including Ariel Sharon, called for the village of Beita to be wiped from the face of the earth. We are seeing the engineering of a climate where an anti-Palestinian program of horrific dimensions is a real possibility; we are seeing the emergence of frightening racist attitudes, clearly manifested in the different value attached to Israel and Palestinian life. I mentioned earlier the large number of Palestinians killed and injured in prisons, but up to now there have been no civilian Israelis-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am firmly against Michael Mansell going to Libya. I just cannot understand why the Government does not stop his passport; secondly, that phoney Aboriginal passport of his should be burnt and thrown away; and, thirdly, we should do everything in our power to let the people of Australia know what he is all about. He is a publicist; he does not have the support of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people, he does not have the support of the Aboriginal people of Australia. All he is doing is going to a bloody butcher to try to get blood money to try to help the Aboriginals of Australia. What he is going to do is divide the people of Australia. All of a sudden in Hobart there is a resentment against the Aboriginals, there is a resentment caused by this fellow going over there. Let me quote from world news: Libya. Gaddafi has reduced Libya to a refuge of crime, corruption, bankruptcy and destruction. All of a sudden we see this group trying to go there, trying to help the Australian Aboriginals, and I repeat that they are doing more harm than good. I also note that now the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is thinking of sending a crew over there to cover this newsworthy item. Let me tell the ABC that it has a bit of support for trying to get additional funding to keep its good programs going, but if it is going to send a crew over there to follow this phoney, I am more of a Tasmanian Aboriginal than he is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHNS(Petrie) —I want to reply to a letter received from the Australian National Flag Association of Queensland. It wrote to me, amongst all members of the House, to suggest that there should be no change to the Australian national flag. I do not disagree; I think that is fine. What I want to draw attention to is the fact that it seeks, if there were to be a referendum held on the matter, that the form of the question to be given in the referendum should be as follows: `Do you see any reason for changing in any way your present Australian national flag?'. What I object to is the biased manner in which that question is phrased. It is a question which begs the answer, and as we know in any referendum, you cannot ask such a biased or begging question. It must always be in a neutral tone. So I have replied to the Australian National Flag Association of Queensland, making it quite clear that I am not against its move to have the current flag remain the Australian flag. That is not the issue, but if it wishes to enter into a debate about referendums and how referendums are to be used, then, please, it must ensure that questions are neutral and do not in fact beg the answer. I have written to the Association in those terms. I thank the House. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —I rise to call upon the Government to establish an independent committee of inquiry to examine and report on, firstly, the level of nursing and other care necessary to enable nursing homes to meet the outcome standards which the Government by legislation now obliges them to achieve; secondly, the appropriateness of these outcome standards to provide nursing home patients with an acceptable standard of living; thirdly, the suitability of the narrow medical approach of the formula contained in the resident classification instrument to determine the minimum level of nursing care at which the outcome standards or other appropriate standards can be achieved; fourthly, the level of non-nursing care required in relation to various levels of nursing care if these outcome standards or other more appropriate standards are to be achieved; and, fifthly, the funding necessary to meet the cost of employing staff engaged to provide nursing and non-nursing care to a level which enables nursing homes to achieve these outcome standards or other appropriate standards. I am advocating this, Mr Deputy Speaker, because there is a crisis of care facing those who operate nursing homes. There is a crisis of care facing nursing home patients. These crises have been caused by a government which is out of touch with the needs of the average Australian. These crises have been caused by a government which has become totally insensitive to the needs of the most frail in our community. I am amazed that the Government should now be cutting back on the funding available to nursing homes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —I wish to draw the House's attention to the committee of inquiry which has been established by some members of the Queensland Government supposedly investigating federal funding into further education in Queensland. I just want to point out to members of the House that in fact this committee is operating under somewhat of a cloud. In fact, the Queensland Government itself has failed to address the whole issue of higher education in relation to technical and further education and has turned down $1 1/2m for TAFE in the nurses education area. It has also failed to take up millions of dollars from the Department of Education, Employment and Training to offer courses to those people who are unemployed or who need to be retrained. All that money would have expanded the TAFE institutions within Queensland, but unfortunately those members of the Government and those people who were running TAFE centres at the time decided that they would rather remain inflexible and not expand the system and, hence, refused to allow our own Queensland youth into the system. However, their own inadequacies have now come back upon them and there are certain people in the community who are very anxious for their own youth to be part of that tertiary education process. This group now goes around blaming this particular Federal Government for not providing funding for further education in Queensland. It seems to me that very little of the real truth is being told. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PROSSER(Forrest) —Madam Speaker, since the recent elections around the country we have witnessed more than the usual panic on the other side of the House as the Government flounders in its own wake. Phrases like `Getting back to grass roots' have been uttered, loudly and often. In reality that will mean spending more and already we are seeing some amazing examples of the waste of taxpayers' money. One of the chief offenders is the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which has apparently latched onto the family allowance supplement as the Prime Minister's saviour. Families in my electorate have each received up to 10 identical letters signed by the Prime Minister himself promoting the family assistance package. The irony is that many of these families are not even eligible for the allowance. With some mirth and with a grain of truth one of the local newspapers is my electorate, the Collie Mail, described the fiasco as a taxing experience. One of the victims who received nine letters on 30 March and yet another letter the following day summed it up as follows: `It would have been bad enough to think the taxpayers' money was being spent like that if I qualified for the assistance, but I do not even qualify'. I suppose the Prime Minister's excuse will be that it was a computer error. I hope that one day in the future we will have a Prime Minister who says: `No excuses, the buck stops here'. Mr JOHNS(Petrie) —I want to discuss further the question raised by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) about Michael Mansell. In many respects he is quite correct in his comments. Perhaps he was a little too exuberant; nevertheless he was correct. One of the problems Mansell will create or may well create is to turn the tide of opinion amongst the general populace against the Aboriginal people and he would greatly disserve his own people by carrying on in the manner in which he has. I have had cause to write recently to constituents who are worried about the acts of Michael Mansell. As a government, of course, we do not support any of his actions; in fact we took away his support by the Aboriginal Legal Service in Tasmania, I think last year. So there is no way in which we give any support to Mansell. Should he head off to Libya or places further, then he will not retain any support from the Australian public and in fact, as I say, at a crucial time when resources are short, perhaps he will turn the tide of opinion against Aboriginal people. I guess since 1972 all Federal governments-I mean all governments-have served Aboriginal people in this country extremely well and I hope that Mansell's actions do not bring into disrepute those good acts of government. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Recently in this House I drew attention to reports that the Hawke Government is considering the abolition of tax deductability for donations to charitable and other community organisations. This concern arises in part from the decision of the New Zealand Government to abolish such deductability from 1 April last. The tax deductability of donations to recognised organisations is a well established practice which encourages voluntary and private sector support for those organisations. It is not in particular to be thought of as a benefit only to the rich who are able to make large gifts. As World Vision of Australia pointed out in a recent Press release, about 60,000 ordinary middle and low income Australians who sponsor a World Vision child in a poor developing country overseas for $288 a year benefit from the deduction. From the organisation's point of view, abolition of tax deductability would make it much more difficult and costly for it to raise funds and undoubtedly curtail such private initiative in assisting the poor and needy. I would again urge the Government to think long and carefully before it should seek to follow the New Zealand example in this matter. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —I wish to express deep concern that this Parliament has, as yet, not been able to set up a parliamentary standing committee to oversee the work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I further understand that the delay in setting up this particular committee is because either the National Party of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia, or perhaps both of them, cannot get its act together as to who the representatives should be, or the number of representatives that it should have on the committee. I would be urging the Government to proceed to set up this important committee, without the representation of the Liberal Party or the National Party, in order to force them to get their act together and nominate their delegates, so that the important work of this committee can get under way. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi) —Roads carry 77 per cent of our freight, and are used for 83 per cent of our domestic tourism journeys and 97 per cent of passenger trips. Road travel is expected to grow by 35 per cent between 1990 and the end of the century. Revenue from fuel excise has increased by about 200 per cent in real terms since the Australian bicentennial road development program was introduced. Federal road funds have remained at the same level in money terms for the last four years. It will not be long, Madam Speaker, before rural local governments will be tearing up sealed roads and converting them back to gravel roads. Mr LAMB(Streeton) —I want to advise the chamber that I intend to amend the Register of Members' Interests in that I wish to list a range of shareholdings I hold with 16 million other Australians. Of course, I refer to those government-owned enterprises which are held and owned by every citizen of Australia, every taxpayer, and for very good reasons I believe that these government enterprises should not be sold off in part or in total unless we have a general meeting. What better time than that is a general election, and if there is anything that distinguishes the Opposition most from ourselves over here, it is our attitude to these public enterprises and government instrumentalities. In other words, to make it very short, the Opposition believes in the user pays argument, where regardless of your income and your standing in society, you pay for whatever you get; there is no such thing as a social wage. On this side we believe utterly in social justice; that is, that these public enterprises provide a service which cannot be purchased purely with money. I intend to advice the Registrar of my shareholding interests, as I said, that I share with 16 million or more other Australians, so that we retain proper competition where there are two major competitors only such as the airlines, where we can set social goals, such as affirmative action and interest rates. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I just repeat that I am not too exuberant about Michael Mansell. His passport should be stopped. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) should dissociate himself from Mansell. He is going to a country that trains terrorists, he is going to introduce them back into Australia. Gadaffi is a brutal murderer and we should stop Mansell trying to say that he is going to help the Aboriginals. He is driving them apart from us and we should stop him, and I challenge the Minister to stop his passport and to cut out that stupid Aboriginal passport that he is leaving Australia with. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr CADMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that at a meeting in his office last Wednesday or Thursday, attended by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and two members of either his Department or his office, he instructed the Minister to ensure that certain recommendations in the FitzGerald report, which were critical of the Government's immigration policy, be changed? Mr HAWKE —Let me at the outset condemn on this issue the Leader of the Opposition, as he should be condemned, who once again has picked up a rumour and made an assertion which is absolutely false. He issued a Press release yesterday. I had expected that I might get a question from him, but I guess that is expecting too much. In his Press release he said: Reports that the Prime Minister has personally tampered with certain recommendations contained in the FitzGerald Committee review . . . Let me make it quite clear that that allegation-as is the insinuation in this question-is absolutely false. The position is that Dr FitzGerald, who is currently overseas, has indicated that he will be in a position to provide a final report to the Government within two weeks of his return. The Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, like many other government and non-government organisations, was consulted on aspects of the Committee's work, by the secretariat of the Committee. As did other departments, the office made some suggestions to the Committee in relation to a working draft of the report-I emphasise a working draft-which I have not read. I would not seek to change any recommend- ations, for the simple reason that when a government commissions inquiries there is no undertaking on the part of government that it will accept the recommendations. This Government, when it receives the final report, will conscientiously consider it and its recommendations and if there are recommendations in the report with which we agree and upon which we decide positive action should be taken we will take it. If recommendations come from this Committee with which we do not agree, we will not act on them. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Mr SAWFORD —Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to ask my first question in the national Parliament as the member for Port Adelaide. My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of reports that the Government could move the submarine project from South Australia, will the Minister advise the House of the precise situation regarding this contract? What prospects are there of the project proceeding according to schedule? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Port Adelaide for his maiden question and wish him a long and successful career in this House. I know that he is very interested in the submarine project, which is a major economic boost to Adelaide and to Port Adelaide in particular. Unfortunately, some substantial industrial relations problems are being experienced in relation to this project. To explain that I will say at the outset that, contrary to Opposition statements, there have been no work stoppages at this stage on this site. The project is in the construction phase and the assembly phase is some 18 months away. The construction work is continuing. It is slightly behind schedule because of a delay in the letting of some contracts. The delay was due to concern about getting finalisation of the site agreement before further contracts were let. Those contracts have now been let and the site agreement should be finalised very shortly. The real problem relates to the assembly phase. The Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC), which is the consortium constructing the submarines, made it clear from the outset that it would want to have a restricted union agreement for the assembly phase, as already exists in some shipbuilding yards in this country. At Australian Shipbuilding Industries (WA) Pty Ltd in Fremantle there is a one-union agreement in the most efficient shipbuilding yard in the country and at Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd in New South Wales there is a three-union agreement. So ASC is not asking for something which is unprecedented. It is already in operation in two major shipyards in this country. The concern of the Corporation not to have a multiplicity of unions is understandable because that brings inefficiencies, as we have seen at the Williamstown Dockyard where 23 unions have been on site and where inefficiency has been notorious. That comes about through demarcation disputes, an inflexible work force and, most importantly, the prevention of adopting more efficient restructured awards. Last December, the Australian Submarine Corporation reached agreement with three federal unions for a three-union agreement-with the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The South Australian unions and the United Trades and Labour Council in South Australia were not involved in that agreement. Since that time, they have refused to accept the three-union agreement. Last Monday they met and agreed to impose bans on new contracts for construction unless the three-union agreement was torn up. All unions that would normally have been members on such a project were able to do so. Yesterday, I went to South Australia to meet the South Australian unions and the United Trades and Labour Council to explain to them the Government's position in relation to this matter. I made it very clear that the Government supports the restricted union agreement. I said we supported the decision of ASC to seek such an agreement and the view of the ACTU that that was an appropriate way for such a project to go. I made it clear that if we cannot get that agreement as part of an overall efficient operation there are other options for the Government. Those options are difficult and unpleasant, but they are there. The Australian Submarine Corporation has a right under the contract to seek to have the first submarine built totally in Sweden if there is significant delay in the project-instead of most of it being built in Australia-and the Government has the option of taking the whole project to some other part of Australia where a more efficient operation would be possible through restricted union agreements. I instance the two yards I have already mentioned. What came out of that meeting was that it was agreed that the bans on new contracts for construction work would not apply, provided that there was conclusion of the site agreement which we expect to happen quite shortly and that a discussion process would take place between the Australian Submarine Corporation and all of the interested unions to explain to them what is involved in submarine assembly and module construction on and off the assembly site and what would happen in relation to employment for their members, much of which would occur for most of the interested unions off the site. The Corporation will also explain to the unions the importance of having a restricted union concept. I am hopeful that this process will demonstrate to many of the unions that their members would be unlikely to be involved in the assembly phase anyway in quite a few cases, that they will get substantial work for their members off site in module construction in South Australia and in other States and that the restricted union agreement is a sensible and necessary way for the project to go. I make it clear that, although at the level of the ACTU and significant Federal unions, there is a full understanding of the need to restructure the Australian economy and the implications of that for union activities, including restricted union agreements, that knowledge needs to seep down to lower levels of the union movement at a faster pace than has occurred hitherto. Yesterday's meeting would have helped in that process. I am sure that the discussion with the ASC over the next month or so certainly will assist in that process. I am confident that we will see more sensible views coming from the South Australian unions in the future because of that process. However-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WILLIS —If honourable members of the Opposition are not interested in a major project like this, I can understand that. They have no interest in shipbuilding in Australia. When the Fraser Government was in office it built two ships on a cost-plus basis-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will come to order. Mr WILLIS —Madam Speaker, I understand the Opposition's disinterest in this matter. In conclusion, I say that the unions have to understand that if they cannot get to a position where they fully understand the importance of restrictive union agreements in relation to the submarine project in South Australia, the other options I have mentioned will have to be exercised by the Government. That would be a tragedy for South Australia. We do not want that to happen, but it must remain a real possibility unless union attitudes in that State change considerably. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the answer he gave to the honourable member for Mitchell. I note that in that answer he denied having seen a copy of the original report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has received a detailed briefing on the contents of that report? Has he been told that the original report strongly condemned the thrust and delivery of the Government's immigration policy? Has he been told that on page 1 of that report the Government's policy was described as `a failure'? I ask whether the report also said: The current selection procedures are ineffective in controlling numbers. They are not seeking enough skilled and entrepreneurial migrants and they are widely considered inequitable. In the light of this, does the Prime Minister still adhere to the answer he gave to the first question and to journalists outside the house today? If so, on what basis? Mr HAWKE —I repeat: I have not read the report. I have received a briefing on the report. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —That is a matter that causes the machine to wind up-`Oh, the Prime Minister says he has received a briefing on the report'. I have received a briefing on the report. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am not going to tell him what goes on in conversations in my office, with one possible qualification: I may be prepared to do a deal with the Leader of the Opposition. If he will share with me the details of the conversations that go on in his office, when he tries to gag the honourable member for O'Connor and when he tries to ram down the throats of his colleagues his latest position on consumption tax, and if he is prepared to share with me the details of what must be extremely colourful conversations in his office-not as colourful, of course, as the conversations that the President of his Party has about him-I may give consideration to sharing with him the conversations in my office. I repeat, however, on the substance of this question, that I have received a brief on this matter. There would be no attempt on my part as a result of that briefing or on any other ground to change or try to determine the nature of the recommendations that are made by this Committee. The Committee can make any recommendations it likes. I hope that on the basis of any range of recommendations it makes there will be in this community sensible, rational, non-emotional discussion about this fundamentally important issue. I still cherish the vague hope that in that rational discussion within the community on this issue even the Opposition will play a part. Mr GRIFFITHS —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the revenue being collected by the Government's fringe benefits tax (FBT) and substantiation rules, capital gains tax and the removal of tax deductability for entertainment expenses? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong for his question and inform him that the fringe benefits tax and substantiation rules collect $940m, and the capital gains tax collects at least $80m. That is a total, as the honourable member will appreciate, of more than $1 billion. It is very interesting that the shadow Treasurer, when he was prepared to speak on the subject in March at the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party Conference said that the FBT and the capital gains tax are small beer in the total revenue picture. The shadow Treasurer, when he was speaking on this issue, said that a billion dollars is small beer. I also inform the honourable member for Maribyrnong that the end of the free lunches brings in another $330m, which takes the total to at least $1,350m. The only thing we know for certain about the Opposition's policy, as the honourable member will appreciate, is that it would remove these taxes on the privileged which this Government has brought in. They would also remove the assets test, at an additional cost of $350m, as I think the honourable member would appreciate. Madam Speaker, I remind you, the House and the honourable member who asked the question that that alone leaves a revenue hole of $1,700m before the Opposition parties even start to look at personal tax cuts. It is in those circumstances that at least one thing can be said in favour of the first of the three Johns, John Elliott, the President of the Liberal Party. John Elliott has the honesty to acknowledge that the only way of filling the revenue gap to which I have alluded, if those taxes are abolished and the assets test is removed, is with a consumption tax. But, of course, the second John, John Howard, the Leader of the Liberal Party, has not got this degree of honesty. I suggest, particularly to the honourable member for Maribyrnong, that we should remember the clear position of this gentleman in 1985 on the question of the consumption tax. I remind the honourable member and members of this House what the Leader of the Opposition said on 20 March 1985. These words are very important. No doubt the words of this John are in the ears and the mind of the other John, John Elliott. What the Leader of the Opposition had to say on 20 March 1985 was: If we really want to reform the Australian taxation system, if we really want to take the load off those marginal rates of personal taxation, we have to bring in a broad-based consumption tax. Those were his words. But that was not enough. He said: Furthermore, that broad-based consumption tax has to operate with minimal and desirably no exemptions. And he said this: Unless we do that, we will not have enough money to bring about a major reduction in personal income tax. That was in 1985. Two years later, in 1987, the same John, John Howard, had this to say: There will be no consumption tax. All Australians are fed up with new taxes and there won't be any under the Liberals. So a different section of his back bench applauds that statement. But the Federal President of the Liberal Party does not. We know what the position of John Elliott is. We know what the position lately of John Howard is. If honourable members want to know the position of the third John, John Stone, the shadow Minister for Finance, on the consumption tax, he said that it would be so crazy that no sensible person would be part of it. It would be both bad financial policy and bad politics. In conclusion, the important thing to note is that John Elliott has said, in regard to the Federal Leader of the Liberal Party: They have to make up their minds. They have got to get their act together. They have got to bring in their policies. The situation is, we have been told, that the Liberals will finalise all their policies, including tax, by August of this year. Madam Speaker, both you and, I am sure, the honourable member will recall the Leader of the Opposition undertaking that he would not put his name to any policy that would not add up. He said that he would not suspend the laws of arithmetic. I guess we are all waiting now with bated breath for August to see the tax policy of the Opposition. All we can be sure of then, however, is that it will not add up; it will not be a principled position. The only thing we can be sure of is that it will take away the taxes on the privileged brought in by Labor. It will restore the privileges and the rorts to the privileged of this country. In one way or another, most probably by a consumption tax, it will seek to impose a further burden on the ordinary people of this country. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind him that on 27 October I asked him a question concerning the net borrowing of public financial enterprises. The Treasurer promised to `furnish a reply'. After five months I am still waiting. I note that data released yesterday by the Victorian State Auditor-General put the losses at $918m in the wake of the October share market collapse for Victorian State Government enterprises, which include several public financial enterprises. I ask the Treasurer again: Why have some financial enterprises, including State Government insurance offices, been permitted to become substantial net borrowers in recent years? Moreover, what are the measures referred to on page 418 of the Budget Papers that are being taken by State governments to reduce the net borrowings of the respective insurance offices in order to place these organisations on a sound financial basis? Mr KEATING —It should come as no surprise to any member of the House that any superannuation fund or insurance office with financial assets, particularly if they reflect assets in the equity market, will have changed in value between the middle of last year and now as a result of the October share market crash. Companies record, as I am sure financial institutions do, paper losses or gains on the stock which they hold. But that said, the fact is that these funds are held in trust. Even though the body concerned may be a State government body, the funds are held in trust and are not available for State expenditure. That is, they are not part of the whole recurrent government expenditure business of, in this case, the State of Victoria. Therefore, I do not find that remarkable at all. Mr Aldred —You are happy to lose a billion dollars. Mr KEATING —Well, a lot of private companies have lost that. And the fact is that-- Mr Downer —No more pig shooting then. Mr KEATING —There is the idiot son of the Establishment piping up again. The fact of the matter is that I will furnish the honourable gentleman with a reply to his question. That work is in progress. As soon as I can give him one I will. Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of claims by the Opposition that the Hawke Government's commitment to ending child poverty by 1990 cannot be achieved? What progress is the Government making on achieving its objectives? Will the Hawke Government achieve its objectives? Mr HOWE —I am aware of the statements by the honourable member for Bradfield in the Melbourne Herald on Monday. He was quoted as saying, `I don't think you will ever eliminate poverty'. I am certain that the 1,765 low income working families receiving a family allowance supplement from the Townsville offices of my Department would never believe the honourable member for Bradfield and would support the honourable member for Herbert and the Government because of what the Government is doing. The statement of the honourable member for Bradfield highlights the usual misguided view of those on his side of politics in this country that to ensure a fair deal for every resident of Australia is just too hard, the politics are too tough, the work involved is too much and the vested interests are too strong, particularly at the top end of town. Let us look at the history of poverty in Australia in recent years. In 1976, before the Howard-Fraser Government had commenced hacking into the living standards of the poor, there were 372,000 children of pensioners or beneficiaries. Payments for each child were 15 per cent of the married rate of the pension. Over the seven years of conservative rule that number grew every year by 50,000 children. It grew by that number every year from 1976 to 1982. When the Howard-Fraser Government destroyed the labour market in 1982-83 a massive 150,000 children were added. Therefore, over the seven years of the Howard-Fraser period in office, 410,000 children had their parents forced into dependency on pension benefits. I repeat: 410,000 children. Honourable members opposite are the people who talk about incentive. They are the priorities of honourable members on that side of the House. In 1977 payments for children were 15.2 per cent of the married pension rate. In 1983 this figure had fallen to 11.1 per cent of the married rate pension. Over that period the real value of that married rate pension itself had also fallen. Let us look at this Government's record in comparison. In 1983 we inherited a situation of 266,910 children dependent on families in which there were no adults employed. We have reduced that number. In January this year there were 204,941 children in such families. We have cut the number of children in unemployment beneficiary families by 60,000 during our period in government. We have cut the number of children in pensioner and beneficiary families overall. We have done that not because the Prime Minister made a commitment last year. Let me make that very clear. In the period we have been in government we have moved from 11.1 per cent of the married rate pension which we inherited to 12 per cent in 1984, 12.6 per cent in 1985, 13 per cent in 1986, and last year 14.1 per cent for younger children and 17.2 per cent for the children aged 13, 14 and 15 years. Our commitment was clear. It was stated in the policy speech last year that we would lift those levels to 15 per cent of the married rate pension for children under 13 years and 20 per cent for older children. Mr Connolly —`There will be no children in poverty by 1990'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWE —For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth a child payment was being based on a standard of adequacy-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease for a moment. The honourable member for Bradfield will not interject again. I call the Minister. Mr Connolly —The Minister had better tell the truth. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has been warned. Mr HOWE —For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth there had been established a standard of adequacy in relation to child payment based on research on equivalent scales carried out in the Department and other research centres. For the first time in the history of any child payment made by the Commonwealth, that payment effectively was committed to indexation. Of course, there will be discussion about the extent of the Government's achievements and what can be done. Helen Brownlee of the Institute of Family Studies concluded that the achievement of the benchmarks will now mean a reduction in child poverty of more than 75 per cent in working families and more than 30 per cent in non-working families. If this were all that was achieved, it would be a magnificent achievement, given the massive build-up in child poverty that occurred as a result of high unemployment and marriage breakdown in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, of course, that is not the end of the Government's commitments specifically promised. There is also the child support scheme, which has the potential to assist hundreds of thousands of children in sole-parent families. Four hundred thousand of the 800,000 children of pensioners and beneficiaries are in sole-parent families. We are introducing that scheme to put an end to the gross inequities within families, between custodial and non-custodial parents following separation. The child support scheme will secure to custodial parents regular and timely income support. Of course, we recognise that along with those income transfer policies, which are highly equitable and progressive, there is more that needs to be done. The Government has given fundamental importance to the question of employment. It has introduced a number of social wage measures which affect the distribution of real income within the community. The Government recognises that in terms of meeting its commitment, it must act not only in relation to direct income transfers but also in relation to social wage. In conclusion I point out that a few moments ago the Prime Minister spoke about the $1.3 billion in relation to some tax measures introduced by the Government. The Opposition would throw out all those measures, thus undercutting its capacity to produce the kind of equity and social justice which has been the hallmark of this Government. Mr WHITE —Following the previous answer of the Minister for Industrial Relations, I ask him to give me a clear answer to a straight question. Will the Government approve a settlement of the current submarine dispute if that settlement involves the participation of more than the three unions currently agreed to? Mr WILLIS —I make it quite clear that the parties involved directly in this matter do not include the Government. They are the Australian Submarine Corporation, those unions involved in the three-union agreement and others who think they should be involved. Of course, as the purchaser of the submarines, the Government is extremely interested in this matter, but we are not a direct party. Thus, the decision on the number of unions involved in any restricted union agreement will be a matter for the parties directly concerned. Mr Beale —What were you talking about before? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. I will not speak to him again. Mr WILLIS —It will also be a matter for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which will be involved. I made it quite clear at the meeting yesterday that we strongly support the concept of restricted union agreements; that the numbers that apply in other shipyards where restricted union agreements are in place are small-one in one case and three in another-and that therefore, we would be supportive of that kind of concept. However, as a result of the process of discussion which will take place over the course of the next month or so, it may be that there will be a desire on the part of the parties to make some change. I do not know; that is something that will come out of that discussion. I must say that I would not expect there to be much change, otherwise the concept of a restricted union agreement would be considerably watered down. In the final analysis that is a matter for the parties. We strongly support the concept and I hope very much that in a short time an agreed restricted union process for the submarine assembly phase can be put in place and endorsed by the Arbitration Commission. I hope this will provide a smooth basis for this project to proceed from here on. Mr JENKINS —I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to claims made by the honourable member for O'Connor in a Press release dated 8 April 1988 that there was: a massive Medicare budgetary blow out of $882m in figures released by the Department of Finance for the eight months to the end of February. Mr Donald Cameron —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. This question is definitely out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair has not even heard the question yet! Mr JENKINS —Can the Minister inform the House as to whether Medicare is on budget this year? Dr BLEWETT —Of course the statement made by the honourable member for O'Connor was simply another of his extravagances. Mr Tuckey —What about Walsh then? Is he a liar? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor would do well to keep quiet. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a responsibility on Ministers in this place to tell the truth. The figures were published. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat or I will name him. The honourable member for O'Connor has no more right to grab the microphone and launch into speech than anyone else in the House. The Minister has the call. Dr BLEWETT —When discussing the truth in these matters, the allegation was made by the honourable member for O'Connor that the Medicare budget had blown out by some $800m. To the end of March Medicare medical benefits expenditure was slightly under budget-some $20m under budget. This, of course, follows the trend set last financial year when Medicare benefits again ended up slightly under budget. Indeed, one of the most encouraging features is that the rate of growth per capita in medical benefits expenditure has been slowing down under Medicare in the last two years. The facts show quite clearly that there is no blow out under Medicare and that the claims made by the honourable member for O'Connor are simply an extravagance. We can understand this and we can help him with the paper that he has before him by pointing out that the error occurred because he simply failed to comprehend the document that the Minister for Finance put out. If the honourable member reads that document he will note that the Finance Minister pointed out that there had been an advance payment on the Medicare benefits and that is simply an accounting explanation for the sorts of figures that he is producing. Indeed, the honourable member for O'Connor needs to try to understand the statement put out by the Finance Minister. But of course this extravagance is typical of the honourable member. For instance, yesterday he claimed that one could rip $3 billion off the States and the States would not suffer in any way. Yesterday or the day before he made claims that one could have risk rated insurance and get rid of community rating and it would not hurt families with young children or those in which the wives are in the child bearing years. He also claimed it would not hurt sick or elderly people. Those claims are just not believable. The honourable member has even suggested that under this scheme everyone would be eligible for attention in private hospitals. It is about time that he looked at the cost of that. either to individuals or to the Government. Does he simply intend to bankrupt the Government to enable everyone to be eligible for attention in private hospitals? How does he intend to pay for all these extravagances? When I read the Bulletin yesterday I discovered one of the ways in which he intends to pay for such extravagances. Talking about making private health insurance compulsory he said: I wouldn't throw you in jail or prosecute you . . . At least the rest of the community can feel satisfied and I suppose they should be thankful for small mercies. Mr Tuckey —You should be thankful it is only a $500 fine for what you did. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I give the honourable member for O'Connor a fair go in this House. He has been warned. He has again interjected. I am going to name him without warning in future. Dr BLEWETT —He said: I wouldn't throw you in jail or prosecute you, but I would penalise you through the tax system if you didn't have private cover. It could be $1, or it might be $1,000. So low and ordinary income families in this country know that if this Opposition ever came to power there would be tax fines imposed on them for not contributing to private insurance. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947, introduced by the Chifley Government, which makes any boycott or threat of boycott of an approved defence project an offence. Given that the current industrial action on the submarine project is an offence under this Act, will the Government use the provisions of this important legislation to ensure that work on the submarine project continues unhindered? Mr WILLIS —I think the honourable member for Mayo needs to understand a lot more about industrial relations if he is going to make any contribution on the matter in this House. The Opposition, and the honourable member for Mayo in his question, clearly think that by waving big sticks one can always achieve one's objective. The use of that kind of approach may have some justification in particular circumstances. What we are looking at here, however, is a need for work to be carried out in a satisfactory and efficient way on a project which is to run for a decade and a half or perhaps two decades. We do not want to bludgeon people back to work in the present circumstances and then expect them to operate in efficient ways. We do not want them to operate in a way that would restrict the possibilities of an efficient outcome from this project. We are looking here at the initial stages of what will undoubtedly become a wider concept. As a nation, we will reduce the number of unions in existence and in particular enterprises. That is part of the restructuring of this country which the trade union movement as a whole accepts. This was part of the Australia Reconstructed concept which was endorsed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) at its congress last year. Of course, putting this concept in place is a much more difficult process than simply adopting it. We are looking here at the initial stages of doing that. I do not think it helps particularly to say, `We will force you back by some kind of approach', particularly when we do not have in the present circumstances bans which are stopping the work from proceeding. The work is proceeding. We are looking at getting a satisfactory basis for the assembly phase, which is a year and a half away. We believe that we can get such a satisfactory basis. We have made it clear that if we cannot get it in South Australia we will get it somewhere else, because it already exists somewhere else. I believe that this basis exists in places such as the Williamstown Dockyard, which during the period of the Fraser Government continued in operation with 23 unions. No attempt was made by the then Government to achieve restricted union agreements. No attempt was made by it to make the Williamstown Dockyard, or any other dockyard for that matter, more efficient. No attempt was made by it to bring about a shipbuilding program in this nation. That Government simply bought everything off the shelf from overseas or ordered things from overseas. It had no desire to have an efficient shipbuilding industry in this country. This Government is facing up to that need for an efficient shipbuilding industry. We have something like $15 billion worth of naval shipping requirements for Australia lined up in the frigate program and the submarine program. This is a massive influx into the economy of funds and jobs. We are determined that those programs are going to be effective. We will undertake this task in the way that we believe likely to be most successful. I believe that the course we are embarking on is quite clearly likely to be the most successful. The big stick approach of the Opposition, in which it thinks it can simply bludgeon people back to work and then have them work efficiently and co-operatively, is quite absurd. We believe that the course we have embarked upon here is the right course. It has the support of the ACTU; it has the support of the major Federal unions. We have a problem in South Australia. I believe that that problem can be overcome. If it cannot, the project then can be taken to other parts of Australia where more commonsense approaches will apply. Mr COURTICE —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House of the scope of Commonwealth assistance for primary producers affected by drought in central and northern Queensland? Mr KERIN —I acknowledge the honourable member's representations and close interest on behalf of drought affected producers in his electorate. I listened with interest to the points he made in the Parliament last night. We are in the ironic situation of currently providing both flood and drought assistance in Queensland. This may come as news to National Party representatives because they have been running round the country claiming that there is no Federal assistance for drought affected producers. I do not mind if the Leader of the National Party wants to go to the electorate of the honourable member for Hinkler, as he did recently, and misrepresent the facts. By doing that, he only erodes his own credibility further, if that is possible. Of course, he did not have his farmhand with him in Eidsvold-the bloke who managed to put out a Press release in Canberra from Bendemeer without his boss's knowledge-so I suppose it is no wonder he got it wrong. Let us look at the facts. The facts are that the Commonwealth jointly funds drought assistance with the States under the natural disaster relief arrangements on a permanent basis, on an agreed formula basis with the States. It is the States that have the responsibility of declaring a disaster area, whether that area be a shire, a part shire, a pasture protection board district or even at the farm level in the case of South Australia. I set up a national drought consultative committee early in the life of my occupancy of this position. The National Farmers Federation and all the States were represented on this committee. We have an agreed method of dealing with droughts. For expenditures on all natural disasters within a year, above a certain trigger point-that point is $14m in the case of Queensland, according to the formula-the Commonwealth provides matching funding. Beyond the second trigger point-$24.5m in the case of the honourable member's State of Queensland-the Commonwealth provides $3 for every State dollar. This second trigger point has been passed and the Commonwealth is now funding 75 per cent of drought and flood assistance in Queensland. So, like the honourable member, I simply hope that we do not hear any more of this nonsense from the National Party in Queensland, including the Minister in that State, as well as the Leader of the National Party in this House. Mr GOODLUCK —In the spirit of consensus and cooperation which is one of my hallmarks, I ask: Is the Prime Minister aware that Libya is a training ground for terrorists led by a despotic butcher-with great respect for the ladies present, a bloody butcher? First, will the Prime Minister stop the passport of Michael Mansell? Secondly, will he outlaw the so-called Aboriginal passport? Thirdly, will he stop the funding to Michael Mansell? Fourthly, will he stop a proposed Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television crew, either black or white, covering the event if Mansell should ever go to Libya? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Franklin for his question. Reciprocating the spirit of consensus that led to his question, I say to him that I understand his concern about the person to whom he referred. I share that concern and, broadly, his assessment of the regime in the country to which he referred. Having said that I share that sort of concern and apprehension, I have then to say that I cannot satisfy the honourable gentleman any further. He asked whether I would stop the person in question going to Libya. No, I would not, because one of the things that distinguishes the sort of country which we believe in and the sort of democracy that we pride ourselves on having from that sort of regime is that we do not impose restrictions on the free movement of our citizens. I am afraid that-I hope the honourable gentleman will appreciate the sense in which I put it-were we to stop the free movement of Australian citizens, so much more would we be moving towards the sort of regime that we despise. That covers the second aspect of the question about a so-called Aboriginal passport. The people of this country have Australian passports and those are the ones on which they travel. Regarding funding, which was the third aspect of the honourable gentleman's question, action was taken on this matter in a previous year, but I understand that, to the best of my recollection, the then Minister, my friend and colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, undertook an analysis and received undertakings that no Commonwealth funding would be directed in any way towards purposes of the kind that the honourable member and I find abhorrent. As to the fourth and final part of the question-that is, whether I would take action to stop an ABC television crew, black or white, going to Libya-let me make two points. No, I would not do so, because there is no power in the Government to do such a thing, nor would it, I would think, be received with great acclamation generally across both sides of this House and outside in the community if the Prime Minister were seen to be interfering with the free exercise of the power of the ABC. Having said that, let me make it clear that I find it rather remarkable that an organisation which suggests that it is strapped for financial resources and is pressing the Government to make funds available should consider undertaking such an exercise. I do not think that it makes the best of cases in that regard. Mr MOUNTFORD —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. What would be the likely impact of the Commonwealth progressively withdrawing from education funding as proposed in some quarters recently? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am sure that what he is alluding to is the decision of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party to withdraw from the funding of schools throughout Australia. That was one of the many extraordinary decisions and apparently colourful events that occurred at the Hyatt Hotel recently. Of course, on the prominent issues the Leader of the Opposition took the course of simply siding with his boss, Mr Elliott, in order to ensure that he did not suffer the embarrassment of defeat. But on at least one issue he did go down in a screaming heap because, against his wishes, the Council adopted a motion which proposes the progressive withdrawal of Commonwealth involvement in the funding of schools throughout Australia. Since this Government has been in office there has been not only a substantial increase in funding for government and non-government schools but also we have put it on a secure basis so that schools throughout Australia have an idea of what they can expect from the Commonwealth. I can say that our secure funding arrangements will continue, although the precise level of funding in the future will depend on Budget decisions. This year we are committing some $950m to the non-government school sector alone. This is a serious matter because the Liberal Party intends to imperil the future of our children in Australia. It intends to imperil their education on the whim of the political fanatics who make up the Liberal Party Federal Council. The shadow Minister, who is the failed shadow Treasurer, also went down on this issue. He and his Leader opposed the motion and both were defeated. But he knows where the new power in the Liberal Party lies. He knows that that new power lies behind the locked doors of the Liberal Party's Federal Council where Mr Elliott and others can pursue their obsessions. The very next day he said, quite contrary to current Liberal Party policy, that he would observe the wishes of the Federal Council and he has gone about a review which will see, no doubt, the Federal Liberal policy being one of withdrawal of funds from the school sector. Such a policy would have enormous implications not only for the government sector but also, and more particularly, for the non-government sector. Honourable members must remember that the Commonwealth provides 50 per cent of the recurrent funds of Catholic schools throughout Australia and most of their capital requirements. Lest anyone thinks that the State governments might take up this responsibility with any alacrity, I might point out that this year the Queensland Government has reduced funding to non-government schools by 6 per cent in real terms. The proposal would not only threaten the secure arrangements for non-government schools, which depend so much on Federal funding, but also it would shatter the important partnership between the States and the Commonwealth in relation to establishing national priorities in our education system and determining the important priorities of higher retention and skills development. I think that this is just another example of the chaos which prevails in Liberal Party policy making, after the Liberal Party has been in opposition for years and has had plenty of time to make up its policies. It just shows that the Liberal Party is unequal to the obligation of office and can look forward to being in opposition forever. Dr Wooldridge —I raise a point of order. The Minister appeared to be reading from notes. Is he prepared to table them? Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to table his notes? Mr DAWKINS —No. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader 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- Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1986-87-Seat of Government Administration Act. Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-Anual Report 1986-87-section 122 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The Wheat Industry-Industries Assistance Commission Report No. 411. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —I claim to have been misrepresented. I also claim that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot claim that on behalf of the Minister for Finance. Mr TUCKEY —In Question Time the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) claimed that I had published a Press release saying that there had been an increase in Medicare expenditure. I will quote from the Press release of 29 March 1988. Mr Cleeland —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is very simple: the honourable gentleman is entitled to say that he has been misrepresented, but he is not entitled, in saying that, to debate the issue by the use of other publications. He is totally out of order in so doing. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has not yet given his personal explanation. He may not debate his explanation, but he is perfectly entitled to tell the Chair where he has been misrepresented. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —The Press release referred to by the Minister says, in part: The Shadow Minister for Health, Wilson Tuckey, said today that as he had been predicting for some time, the Federal Government will have no option but to increase the Medicare levy-- Dr Blewett —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the honourable member is confused. I was not referring to that Press release. I was referring to his Press release of 8 April. Madam SPEAKER —It is a point of explanation rather than a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor might get to the point. Mr TUCKEY —The point is, irrespective, that there has been a blow-out, and the figures are in the Minister's-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not debate the issue. The Chair gave him leave to show how he had been misrepresented. I ask him now to resume his seat. 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 —During Question Time the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) referred to an article, headed `Handouts won't stop hardship-poverty experts', in the Melbourne Herald of Monday 11 April 1988. The article gave quotations from Mr Julian Disney, Bishop Hollingworth, Dr Edgar, Dr Cass, Professor Bipond, Mr Saunders, Ms Brownlee, Ms Carter, Senator Powell and me. Mr Howe —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am sure that all those experts were named, but we are interested in where the honourable member was misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Yes. I would like the honourable member to get to the point. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister stated that I said that we cannot eliminate poverty. He did not read the complete quotation. The article stated that I `described Mr Hawke's promise as too ``deep'' to be fulfilled'. It went on: `There is a problem with the high level of single parent families', he said. `These people will remain in poverty unless family maintenance improves. Poverty concerns taxation, housing and the family environment, not just fiscal transfers. I don't think you will ever eliminate poverty,' . . . Every one of the other people quoted agreed with what I said. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his explanation. He will now sit down. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr CARLTON —During Question Time the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) claimed that I had said, following the passage of a resolution by the Liberal Party Federal Council calling for the progressive withdrawal of the Commonwealth from education, that I would implement that resolution. What I said was that I treated the resolution seriously as a motion passed by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party and that I would be putting an issues paper to the backbench committee and giving it proper consideration. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has now passed to me a further Press release in my name in which I referred to the process of giving a Medicare discount. It reads: He said that `such moves which would mean reformed smokers and drinkers and people who drastically altered their diet habits and increased their exercise levels would be offered a discount on their Medicare levy would be another contradiction to the already massive Medicare budgetary blowout of $882m. The figures for medical services and benefits released by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) show a blow-out of 22.6 per cent as compared with a budgetary estimate of 8.8 per cent. If medical services and benefits are not the real Medicare cost, the Minister might tell me what is. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now trying to debate the issue. He is quite out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The subversion of the proper process of inquiry and debate on Australia's immigration program by the Prime Minister. 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 CADMAN(Mitchell)(3.04) —The Government's Committee of Inquiry into Australia's Immigration Policies has reported to it on aspects of immigration for Australia's future, as instructed by the Government. The Committee, at the time of its establishment, was hailed by the Government as conducting the biggest review for a decade. It was chaired by Dr Stephen FitzGerald, a distinguished Australian. The Government has been told by this specialist Committee that its immigration program is a failure. The report prepared by Dr FitzGerald's Committee says: The current selection procedures are ineffective in controlling numbers. They are not seeking enough skilled and entrepreneurial migrants and they are widely considered inequitable. Mr Holding —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to stop the honourable gentleman's flow, but I do not have a completed report. For the honourable gentleman to say that he is quoting from the report is to mislead the House. I do not care what other description he gives it but I do not have, and there is not in existence at this stage, a report from the committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no strict point of order. Mr CADMAN —The Government established this Committee, appointing to it the people that it wanted. It gave it the terms of reference. It is the Government's own Committee. Now the Government is not prepared to wear the recommendations, the comments and the conclusions of its own Committee. Mick Young, in launching this Committee on 23 September 1987, said: I . . . urge Australians to become involved, to place their arguments, views and concerns before it, in a spirit of seeking policies in the national interest. So much for the national interest when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can subvert the report before it sees the light of day. The members of this Committee are distinguished Australians. They are not members of a Caucus committee; they are distinguished Australians. Let us find out about some of these Australians. They are individuals with the capacity and background to make such an inquiry. They are Dr Stephen FitzGerald, an academic, a businessman, former Ambassador to China, and consultant to the Government; Mr Alan Matheson from the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Dr Alessandra Pucci, Managing Director of Monoclonal Development Pty Ltd and Qantas businesswoman of the year in 1985; Mr Jim Hullick, Secretary of the South Australian Local Government Association; Mr Tony Bonnici, Chairman of the Victorian Ethnic Communities Council and a Victorian barrister; and Professor Helen Hughes, Professor of Economics and Executive Director of the National Centre for Development Studies at the Australian National University-a collection of people chosen by the Government to perform a task. The Committee was given six months to advise on the economics of immigration, changes to the legislation and administration needed, the relationship between immigration and our population, the capacity of the Australian community to absorb migrants, the proposals for an amnesty, illegal immigrants, refugees and the relationship between immigration and multiculturalism. That was a huge task to be performed in six months. The end of March was the deadline. The Committee reported and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) received the report. There were no comments about its being a draft report. There were no comments about time being extended to allow the Committee to brush the report up. The deadline was set. It was not a time for fudging, for bodgying up the report. The deadline was known by all Australians. The Prime Minister, by his answer today, accepted the substance of the questions put to him. The Prime Minister did know of the report, and he did interfere in the processes and final outcome of the report. He has subverted the inquiry and the debate. How will the House know and how will Australians know what was in the original report? How will they know what is the work of distinguished Australians and what is the work of the Prime Minister? How will they be able to sort out the results of long hours of consultation, of going through submissions, as this Committee has done? How will they distinguish that detail from the policy, polemics and philosophies of the Government? They will be intermixed. It will be a corrupted and doctored report. The cost of the report to the Australian community is $860,000-over three-quarters of a million dollars. Distinguished Australians have taken part in examining this huge list of sensitive and difficult matters. They have spent a lot of time and have received a lot of Government support. There has been $860,000 spent on this process. The Government is prepared to pollute, corrupt and subvert because it is not happy with the result of the Committee's inquiry. I refer to what Mick Young and Stephen FitzGerald have been reported as saying in national newspapers. Mick Young said, `I will not pre-empt the inquiry. I will not interfere'. FitzGerald said, `We are not going to be a rubber stamp for the Government'. Those two statements were made in the course of the inquiry and they are proper statements. These are sensitive issues; we do need to address them. I do not, nor does the Opposition, have any view about what Stephen FitzGerald and his Committee have reported. We want to discuss these matters but we want to know the base from where we should start. We want to know what that Committee found before the debate commences. There should be debate; it is proper that debate should take place on these matters. It is an important inquiry and there should be no doubt, from the commencement, that the Committee's report is a proper report-unpolluted and uncorrupted. What about the commitments of the Minister, the Prime Minister, and the Government? Today the Prime Minister shifted ground. In answer to the first question he said, `I have not read', and, `I did not direct'. His answer to the second question, however, was: `No, I did not read'; `I was briefed'. Typical skating out from under. Can we trust the Prime Minister? Most Australians do not, and this is the reason why-the bland statement up-front and then the backtrack. What about the second issue. The Prime Minister said, `I did not direct'. He watered that statement down to: `I will not change the recommendations'. What about the conclusions and the substance of the report? They are as significant as the recommendations. If the Opposition and all concerned Australians are to participate but conclusions have been manipulated and facts and chapters changed, how can we decide whether it is an accurate presentation? The Prime Minister is saying that the recommendations stand but that somehow or other it will change the process by which the recommendations are arrived. The recommendations are likely to suit the Government in any event. The Opposition believes this is a sensitive matter. There are community concerns, and, as a parliament, we cannot walk away from those concerns. My Party and the Opposition have a proud record in matters of immigration and the settlement of people from all around the world. We have a proud record in relation to the settlement of people with special humanitarian needs and special circumstances that apply to refugees and to families. We do not resile from that record; it is a fine record. May I say that that record is more substantial, both in quality and in quantity, than the record of this Government. That record is the reason that we want to be assured in detail of the changes that the Prime Minister has made. What directions did he give? How will the report be changed? How has the draft been fiddled with? I refer to the report in the past tense because the original report no doubt no longer exists. Already the work has started. It is no good the Government saying that it has not interfered. The Prime Minister, in his statement today, said that he has done so. Of the Committee the former Minister, Mr Young, said: Each member is specifically knowledgeable in the social, economic and population dimensions of immigration, while bringing a breadth of other experience to this task. These are people with diverse backgrounds and with wide interests. They are people, on one side, who are interested and knowledgeable in the law, economics, foreign affairs, and the world at large. They have a knowledge of the work force and business. They would appear to me to form an appropriate membership of the Committee, but the Committee was given an impossible task. I have read to the House the huge list of items the Government expected the Committee to address in a short period of six months. It was almost an Herculean task. But the Committee rose to the task and endeavoured to address matters of great importance to Australia. Yet the Government has sought to denigrate that process by changing the report before it becomes public, which is completely inappropriate. The Prime Minister, by his attitudes, has indicated that he does not believe inquiries are worth having. The fact of the matter is that this is the second inquiry in this area that the Government has changed, rejected or neglected. Do honourable members recall the Dr James Jupp Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services? It was supposed to provide all the answers to problems relating to the settlement of migrants in Australia. That report still has not been dealt with by the Government. It languishes on the sideboard because the Government has done nothing about it. If the Government wants to gain the trust, confidence, and goodwill of the Australian community in this regard, it has to be fair dinkum and up-front with it. It is no good the Government going behind closed doors, changing the substance of significant reports such as this where there is sensitivity and concern. The Prime Minister, by the stupid action he undertook, has corrupted the process. All we will have is a bodgie, doctored report. I hope that when the final report is prepared Stephen FitzGerald and the other members of the Committee will be public in their comments about whether or not the real intentions of the Committee were changed. I hope they are not knobbled by the Government. If anything is needed in Australia, it is honest debate. But the Prime Minister's personal attitudes do not permit that. I do not impute any motives to the Minister. I believe he has acted properly throughout this process and I express my appreciation to him for the way in which he has endeavoured to handle this difficult matter. But the Minister is not the problem; it is his boss-the bloke who is down there in the corner, who is so insecure and feels so threatened that he is not prepared to have a report tabled in the Parliament that is critical of a number of areas of Government policy. The Government, the Opposition, and the community can reject and modify the report. Ours is the decision-making process. But first of all, let us start with the facts, let us start with the real knowledge and with the work of these talented individuals so that we have a sure starting base, and, may I say, an equal starting base from which the Minister and his Party, and I and the Opposition, can work together. If doubts are sown in the minds of Opposition members and in the minds of Australian citizens at this stage, I do not like the Government's chances of getting through this process properly. It has to be done for the sake of the national interest, and now is the time to start. The man down in the corner, the Prime Minister, should be prevented from corrupting this process and from subverting the process of proper debate on such important issues as immigration, multiculturalism, settlement, selection, illegal immigrants, and the entire mess that the Minister inherited from the three Ministers who preceded him. In the 2 1/2 years that I have been shadow Minister, four different Ministers have occupied this portfolio. No wonder the program is in a mess. But let us try to settle the matter in a proper way. There is no doubt that the Government has been improper and inappropriate in its actions. It corrupted this process at the beginning and it has subverted the debate, the discussion and the report. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(3.20) —At the outset I should say that I feel a great sense of sadness for the way in which this matter has been presented on behalf of the Opposition. I feel this sadness for this reason: I have said publicly to the media, on television and on radio-and I say publicly to this House-that I believe the tabling of the report of the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies will make available a document that will provide the parameters for a rational, sensible debate on a wide variety of issues that go to the entire question of our immigration policy and the type of nation we want Australia to be. I do not for one moment resile from that commitment. As the shadow Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), will confirm, when I became Minister he asked me to provide him with a copy of a draft model Bill which will form part of the report of the FitzGerald Committee of Inquiry into Australia's immigration policies. I indicated to him that I would endeavour to discharge that. Early last week in a discussion with him I indicated that I would try to extract conclusions from the recommendations made in the report. I said that I would endeavour to provide that to him and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines) so that they would be in a position to consider all the issues and topics, which I think have to be considered with maturity, and I say with some deliberation, to enable parties in this Parliament and people in the broader community to formulate their positions. I think that was a proper gesture and I still stand by it. The problem is a simple one. There have been a number of speculative Press reports, not merely in the national media but in the ethnic Press, and I have endeavoured wherever possible to remedy that without in any way pre-empting the recommendations of the Committee. It is the Committee's report. How the report is put and the recommendations it makes are matters for the Committee. Let me go back to the immediate issue. Dr FitzGerald has made it perfectly clear that there are three elements in this report. The first is the report itself and its recommendations. The second is a series of accompanying documents and articles which are the work of private consultants who were commissioned by the Committee. I think some four of those documents have already been made public; as yet, the others have not. The final element is a draft Bill. That will constitute the report. When I receive it I expect to receive a letter, as I normally do, saying, `Minister, here is the report and the accompanying documents'. The report will contain recommendations, and when the report is tabled debate can begin. I indicated to the shadow Minister that to the extent to which I could put all honourable members on notice I would be happy to do so. What is the present position about directions from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and antagonism? The fact is that there was a totally erroneous Press report which indicated that there were directions by the Prime Minister, that I had been carpeted, and that all sorts of directions were issued. Let me say to the House that the statement made by the Prime Minister today was completely accurate. Mr Cadman —Which one? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member knows which one. I can enlarge upon it in this way. I sought the appointment with the Prime Minister because I had to inform him that we were not going to have the report within the timeframe and schedule in which I had hoped to get it. What I did receive was a working report. I received one before Easter and a second one after Easter. For the information of the honourable gentleman opposite, I received a third working document yesterday. At the request of the shadow Minister I have asked for copies of the working or model Bill, as it is called. I could not get them last week because I was told that work was still taking place in respect of it. Mr Cadman —I got one at a consultation. Mr HOLDING —Yes, but it is different from the one I have. It is a subsequent Bill that I received this week, which is different from the one the honourable member got at a consultation. The one I received this week is available; it is an updated model. On the front it is clearly marked `Draft Only', and work is continuing. That is the state of play. That is the reality. So whatever documents are available, either to the Caucus committee, to the Democrats, or to honourable members opposite, they are documents which, whatever they constitute, do not constitute the report. One may well ask: how did this matter of public importance before us today emerge? It emerged on the basis of a totally inaccurate Press report which suggested that the Prime Minister had given directions. I say without hesitation that that is completely false. I was there; I should know. It would have been appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), if he knew his job, to say in a Press release, `I've read that allegation. It's a matter of concern to me as a responsible Leader of the Opposition and I will press that matter home in order to discover either the truth or the falsity of it'. That would have been a responsible position for a responsible Leader of the Opposition to take. But what happened? Before Parliament had even met, the Leader of the Opposition issued a Press release on the basis of an inaccurate, false and mischievous Press report. What did he say? He not only attacked the Prime Minister-I understand that; we all understand that that is how the game is played-but also he attacked the Committee that has been lauded and praised by the shadow Minister. Let me quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition: The Prime Minister's behaviour has damaged not only his own credibility but that of the final report of the FitzGerald Committee. I ask honourable members to think about that and weigh it up. The Leader of the Opposition picks up a Press statement in the morning newspapers. He has no capacity to check it out. He does not wait for Parliament to meet, to use the proper and legitimate processes of this Parliament, to put whatever questions he wants to put to the Prime Minister and to myself. That is not the way this Leader of the Opposition behaves. He issues a Press statement based on a falsity, making allegations against the Prime Minister. He then goes on to attack the integrity of the Committee. In the second question asked yesterday, the chairman of the Caucus committee, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), asked me about the state of the FitzGerald report. I made a very full statement to the House as to the processes that had taken place, the nature of the report, and when I expected to receive it. It was open to the Leader of the Opposition to pursue me in respect of any of those details. It was open to the Opposition today to pursue the matter further. I did not receive one further question during the whole of Question Time yesterday. Today a question was directed to the Prime Minister in which he was asked whether he had issued any direction and the answer was perfectly clear that he had not. Before this Parliament had even met, before that question could even be put, I received on my table notice of this matter of public importance. It is not a question of coming in here and exploring and seeking the truth; it is a question of this Opposition grabbing any desperate piece of scuttlebutt and trying to mount a case. That is why I am sad. I do not believe that the shadow Minister has his heart in this matter of public importance. I do not believe it for two seconds. I believe that he was genuinely concerned to try, when the report was received and the relevant documents were there, to get his Party into a position where it had an informed and responsible position. He does not believe that Dr FitzGerald or any member of this Committee is the sort of Australian that would be stood over by anybody. He does not believe it and he knows in his heart that it is not true. I suppose that the problem if one is a shadow Minister-because the shadow Ministers have been muted by this incompetent Leader of the Opposition-is that one has to take whatever case one is given, whether or not it is based on a tissue of lies, and try to make something of it. I genuinely felt sad for the role the shadow Minister was called upon to play. I hope-and I believe that this is still possible -that this report will provide a basis for this House and this community to debate these serious issues as they ought to be debated, without heat or malice and in a spirit of trying to find solutions to what are very important and pressing problems. Whether those opposite agree with all the recommendations of the FitzGerald Committee or reject some and accept others is the prerogative of the Opposition, just as it is the prerogative of the Government to accept or reject any aspect of that report. That is how this process works. Mr MacKellar —How it should work. Mr HOLDING —That is how it will work according to this Government and this Minister; but the shadow Minister is talking about this matter today because the Leader of the Opposition has made yet another mess of this exercise, talking about a report which he has not seen-- Mr Cadman —How do you know? Mr HOLDING —He has not seen it, and the honourable member knows it. He has not seen the most recent draft because I got it only yesterday afternoon-and there is more to come. What is the honourable member talking about? There is no final report; so he has not seen it and his Leader has not seen it. But he thinks he is entitled, on the basis of that, having said that noble Australians are producing it, to say in this House-God help us-that the document these people have worked on has been corrupted and doctored. They are the terms that were used-corrupted and doctored, polluted and subverted. That is the terminology of those opposite. The people of Australia are entitled to expect much more than that from this Opposition and the people who have worked on this Committee are entitled to receive much more. I do not believe that the shadow Minister's heart was in this matter. He was trying to get this hopeless Leader of the Opposition out of the mess he got himself into by his own careless actions. Let me say that I will endeavour to argue, as I have argued, to maintain the integrity of this Committee and of this report. Where there are Press statements-and there have been plenty-which endeavour to distort some of the conclusions, I will try to answer those without in any way pre-empting the rights, obligations and duties of the Committee. This sad matter of public importance reflects grievously on the parlous state of this Opposition. What do we do as a government when the case that is built up against the Prime Minister is the subject of one question at Question Time in this Parliament? He denied it. Mr Peacock —There were two. Mr HOLDING —It does not matter whether there were two, three or four. The answers would have been the same. I did not get a question. It is bad enough that those opposite-and there are some men of honour on the other side-on a major issue which goes to the whole question of the fiscal structure of this Commonwealth and the whole basis of social justice and equity in the important area of taxation have allowed themselves to be neutered. I pray and hope that in the final FitzGerald report members of the Committee do not make recommendations and then suggest that they be paid for out of a consumption tax-because if that happens those opposite will be able to say nothing. I hope that the shadow Minister and other members of the Opposition will try to extract themselves from the impossible position they are in with respect to this report. I say to the shadow Minister that I will honour the undertakings that I have given him in terms of trying to get as much material as possible to him so that the Opposition can obtain an informed position-because I believe that it is in the interests of this country that it do that so that there can be informed and rational debate on this report. Let us have done with this nonsense about corruption and a document which is described in terms of being a corrupted and doctored report. There is no such thing. When I have received the final report it will be made available to this Parliament. To the extent that I can co-operate with the Opposition in providing the information it needs so that it, and my Caucus committee, can get themselves into a position where they are properly informed, those undertakings will be honoured. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.35) —I congratulate the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), the Minister at the table, for doing a pretty good job with a pretty poor subject. There is no doubt that immigration is an area which causes more discussion and concern in the community than just about anything else one can mention. It is particularly so today. We have seen it happen so often in the past few years that public debate about immigration can become extremely heated and people can become extremely emotional. Therefore I, like all the other members of the Opposition, welcome the decision by the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to set up the FitzGerald Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. It was in 1977, under the Fraser Government, that the previous broad-ranging investigation into immigration policies was carried out-and it resulted in the Green Paper. Mr Peacock —That was when you were the Minister. Mr MacKELLAR —I thank the honourable member. It happened to be when I was the Minister for Immigration. It was designed to accomplish and did accomplish the task of allowing people and groups throughout Australia to express their views as to the nature of the Australian immigration intake, the integration of migrants into Australia once they had arrived here and many other aspects of the whole process. It was an important task that that committee was given and it is an important task that the FitzGerald Committee has been given. It is important also that the public have confidence in the role of that Committee and in the final reports. The Minister has pointed out at some length that there is not just one report but three reports to come forward at the end of this process. It is important that the community can have confidence that those people, headed by Dr FitzGerald and appointed by the present Government, have been able to carry out their task free of coercion from anyone. That is the point about which this issue is being raised today-free of coercion from anyone, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). This is an area where, hopefully, debate will be less emotional than it can become. It is important for the future of this country that that process take place because there is no doubt that the future of this country hinges largely around the immigration process and program, just as it has particularly since the end of World War II. We would not be the country we are today without the immigration program. The nature and composition of the immigration program determines the sort of nation Australia will become. That is why this matter is so important and why it is important that this Committee should have expertise available to it and should be able to consider the submissions made to it, free of coercion. Let me come to the coercion point. The Minister at the table was very clever in the way he approached the task of answering the charges. He said, `You should not believe what you read in the papers'. I understand that completely. All of us in politics would endorse that sentiment. But then he went on to say, `I sought an appointment with the Prime Minister. I was not carpeted. He did not say anything nasty and cruel to me. I went along to see him'. Why did the Minister go along to see the Prime Minister? Why was it necessary for the Minister to talk to the Prime Minister about the working papers which the FitzGerald Committee had made available to him? Is that not, by itself, an interference in the affairs of the Committee? Why was it necessary to brief the Prime Minister? Could it be that the Prime Minister was being briefed by somebody else? I remember what happened during the Green Paper debate in 1977. The Prime Minister of the day was also very keen on being briefed by his experts. Mr Peacock —He did that quite a bit, too. Mr MacKELLAR —He did it in a number of areas but particularly in relation to immigration-and the present Prime Minister learned from the previous Prime Minister. He has an office within his Department which briefs him on these matters, the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If the present Prime Minister-and I believe this to be the case-has some of the attitudes of the previous Prime Minister, I am quite certain he would want to know what was likely to be happening in the FitzGerald inquiry. He would say to his advisers, `Hey, what is the buzz? What are these guys up to? What are they coming forward with?'. I am quite certain that he would receive information and a report from his advisers. Now we get the spectacle of the present Minister, on his own instigation, going along to the Prime Minister and saying: `Look, I am coming to see you about this draft report. Let us have a bit of a chat about it'. I do not know what went on. I was not present when the Minister, at his instigation, sought that meeting with the Prime Minister. I really would like to know why he felt it was so important that he should go along at that time and brief the Prime Minister. But what do we find the Prime Minister saying? In answer to the first question he said, `I have not read the report'. That is quite right, he has not read the report. He probably has not even read the draft report-the first, second, third or however many versions there are. But what did he say later? He said, `I was briefed'. Who briefed the Prime Minister, apart from the Minister? What was the briefing about, and what did it contain? Did it disturb the Prime Minister? Was he concerned with the briefing that he got? Did he raise with the Minister some of the concerns he had been briefed about? Did he say anything to the Minister? Did he say, `Look, I have got this briefing. It seems to me that the chaps are heading a little bit in the wrong direction here and there and I think we might make some adjustments, don't you believe so, Clyde, mate, digger, cobber, sport'? Would not that be more likely? `I have not read the report', he said, all sanctimoniously, `but I was briefed'. He did not say what the briefing was. Why did not the Minister tell us what the briefing was? `I didn't direct', he said. What did he go on to say? `The recommendations will not be changed'. That is very significant-`the recommendations will not be changed'. He did not say anything about the content of the report. He did not say there were some aspects of the report that the people who were briefing the Prime Minister were pretty concerned about. And he did not like the way some of the statements leading up to the recommendations were being made. He may have been concerned about that, but he does not say anything about that in his answer in the House today. `The recommendations will not be changed', is what he said. He did not deny that he may have made some suggestions as to the content of the final report. Mr Holding —He did so; he made that quite clear. Mr MacKELLAR —Is the Minister saying to me that there is no truth in the belief, which some people have, that some suggestions were made by the Prime Minister-not directions, suggestions? Mr Holding —You can speculate all you like; you are bound by his answer. Mr MacKELLAR —The interesting thing is that an incredible amount of work is going on at present on finalising this report. Why is that incredible amount of work going on at present? Why did the Minister go to the Prime Minister-at the Minister's own instigation, he hastens to tell us? He was not carpeted-not much! Everybody knows the way this Prime Minister operates. Everybody knows the way this Prime Minister would like to see this report come out-based on the aspects of immigration and the directions of immigration that he would like to see. That is the really worrying aspect of this whole thing. This is a matter which requires, hopefully, dispassionate debate. It is an area which requires the opportunity for groups and individuals right throughout the Australian community to put forward their suggestions, their ideas, their fears and their hopes about the composition, make-up, direction and all other aspects of Australia's migration program, ranging from skilled people to family reunion, to the question of illegal migrants, to the question of refugee resettlement. That whole issue is enormously important. That we have a situation where it appears pretty apparent that the Prime Minister has had discussions with his Minister responsible for this area before the report is presented to this Parliament, gives the unmistakable impression that once again the Prime Minister has interfered, and once again the Minister has had to come into the House and use all his legal trickery to get away from the prime point; and the prime point is that the Prime Minister did haul the Minister over the coals. The Prime Minister did make sure that the report would be written in the general direction he sought. That is an utter disgrace. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.45) —I see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is about to leave the chamber. Well, he should not, because he is a disgrace as Leader of the Opposition in the way he has behaved in trying to bring the name of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) into this matter and in the way in which he has tried to smear members of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. I proceed to substantiate the comments which I have just made. As the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding) said in his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement on the basis of nothing more than a report in one newspaper. Similar reports had appeared in previous times, but nothing was done about them. But, in this particular newspaper there was an exciting statement. The statement that excited the Leader of the Opposition was something to the effect that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs had been carpeted by the Prime Minister. What rubbish! On the basis of that the Opposition decided there was something in that report and it had better do something about it. Without even consulting the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement. He did not wait until the afternoon to ask questions about it in the House; he issued a statement in which he attempted to smear the Prime Minister and to smear members of the FitzGerald inquiry. Unfortunately, that process has been followed up by the shadow Minister. He also has sought to smear Dr FitzGerald and the other members of his inquiry in a disgraceful way. He started off by saying what distinguished Australians they are, what intellectual integrity they had, and so on. Then he said that the report had been doctored and corrupted. Mr Cadman —By the Prime Minister. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that Dr FitzGerald will change the report simply because some suggestions are supposed to have been made-and we deny that they have been made-to him by the Prime Minister? That is an extraordinary suggestion to be making about a man of the integrity of Dr Stephen FitzGerald. The Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of himself. Furthermore, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) suggested that coercion had been used in this matter. What rubbish! Members of the Opposition do not even know what has been going on. That is their problem. They do not know the whole process. The shadow Minister should know. The Leader of the Opposition would not have a clue because he never takes an interest in issues of immigration and certainly never takes an interest in issues of multiculturalism. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opposition defend the concept of multiculturalism in this House. That is the sort of man we are dealing with. He allows the shadow Minister to race around Australia and talk about multiculturalism, but he never does that himself because fundamentally he does not believe in it. I return to the basic point, which is that Dr FitzGerald received many submissions and as part of his job decided to discuss aspects of his report with a number of people. He has done that. So what! It was his job to discuss aspects of his report with a number of people. The shadow Minister would not deny that, would he? Mr Cadman —Good idea. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes. The shadow Minister went to a workshop on this matter along with the FitzGerald Committee. This has been an open process. The collection of data has been an open process. Therefore, why should the Minister, according to the scenario we have heard here, take the report under his jacket, race off to the Prime Minister's office and say to the Prime Minister, `We have got some problems with this report.'? What rubbish! First, the Prime Minister is, as the honourable member for Warringah says, aware of the submissions made to the Committee because he has been kept in touch with those processes. It has been an open process, not a closed process that Dr FitzGerald has undertaken. What is the big secret supposed to be? I go to my next point. As the shadow Minister himself has said, when this report comes out-it is not finalised yet-it will contain a series of recommendations. It will contain a series of statements about immigration, about multiculturalism and a number of other matters. As a result of that report we will have community discussion and a discussion in the Parliament. Therefore, why should the Minister worry if, for example, there are aspects of the report about which either the Prime Minister or he are unhappy? Why should they worry about that? The fact is that Dr FitzGerald can recommend what he wishes. It is up to the Government and the Parliament to accept or reject those recommendations. That point has been made again and again. It has not only been made by the Government but also been supported by some Opposition speakers. Logically, why should the Prime Minister be involved in such a process? Of course, this is all an absurdity. What is even more serious is the hypocrisy that is involved. We have heard the shadow Minister talking about the subversion by the Prime Minister of the proper process of inquiry and debate on Australia's immigration program. If we are to accuse anyone of being involved in subversion of the debate on this matter we must accuse members of the Opposition because they have made a series of statements in relation to the FitzGerald review. This is the latest action on their part. However, I remind them of an earlier action which shows just how much they believe in debate. When I made my submission to the FitzGerald inquiry as chairman of the Government members immigration committee-I also made a personal submission-what happened? The shadow Minister without even reading my submission-I had the courtesy to send him my submission but he had not then received it-attacked the submission on the basis of Press reports. My submission was described in an Age editorial as worthy of consideration in the most serious terms by the FitzGerald Committee. The shadow Minister attacked it. Last Sunday, after he had read the report, he was asked on a Special Broadcasting Service program, `What do you think about Dr Theophanous's recommendations?'. He said, `I agree with quite a few of these. I agree with this problem'. This is the shadow Minister who does not know what he is doing, who jumps the gun. This is another case of his having jumped the gun. Certainly, he was not interested in debate in relation to that aspect of the submission. I ask him: What about the other submissions to the FitzGerald inquiry which have been made public? Has he considered those? Has he contributed to the debate on those? If he wants to have a serious debate on this matter we will have a debate. Of course we are going to have such a debate. However, the action taken here today has made the debate more difficult because the shadow Minister in his comments has tried to undermine the integrity of Dr FitzGerald and the report itself. In so doing he is suggesting that people such as Dr FitzGerald will be submitted to some form of coercion or that the report will be corrupted. That is what was said. The shadow Minister did not simply imply that the Prime Minister might have been trying to do an exercise. He said that the report had been corrupted and doctored. That is an outrageous statement. If the shadow Minister made that statement outside this House Dr FitzGerald and other people would be entitled to take legal action against him for implying that they had been pushed around by the Minister, the Prime Minister or anybody else. Mr Peacock —Rubbish! Dr THEOPHANOUS —That is not rubbish at all. The fact is that he made that statement. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said: The Prime Minister's behaviour has damaged not only his own credibility but that of the final report of the FitzGerald Committee. Mr Sciacca —Humbug! Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is humbug that the Prime Minister had anything to do with those actions described by the shadow Minister. Secondly, what the Opposition has done by raising this issue on the basis of a false statement in the newspapers is that it has thrown a lot of cold water on the integrity of the report itself and the people writing the report. The shadow Minister then has the cheek to stand up and describe them as brilliant Australians who are making a substantial contribution. That is a very hypocritical approach to have taken. I say to the shadow Minister that we will proceed. We will not be deflected. We will proceed with a genuine debate on immigration in this country. We call on honourable members opposite to get involved in the decent aspects of the debate and not to try to bring up red herrings of this kind. Finally, I say that the Prime Minister has been unjustly slandered in this process by the shadow Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. His record on these matters, especially his defence of multiculturalism, can withstand anything honourable members opposite say. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The debate is concluded. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 21 April 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Monday, 18 April 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 21 April 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 21 April 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee report Statements upon presentation Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Committee-Report on the Canberra leasehold system. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR TICKNER: To move-That this House- (1) views with concern the emergence of the extremist new right in Australia and the increased influence of these forces on Australian institutions and society; (2) believes that this development poses a threat to the well-being of the Australian community; and (3) calls on concerned Australians to unite and participate in the democratic processes in order to preserve the Australian way of life. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) 45 mins *2 MR LAMB: To move-That this House supports action to increase employment for all Australians, particularly through- (1) developing training programs to assist young people, the disadvantaged and those affected by technological and structural change; and (2) providing financial support for the development of innovative training schemes designed to assist the Australian workforce to become a highly-skilled part of an internationally competitive economy. (Notice given 15 September 1987: amended 13 April 1988.) 45 mins *3 MR D. M. CAMERON: To move-That this House- (1) expresses deep concern at the effects of aircraft noise upon several suburbs of the City of Brisbane following the opening of the new Brisbane Airport; and (2) calls upon the Government and the Department of Transport and Communications to take corrective measures immediately. (Notice given 13 April 1988) 45 mins *4 MR I. M. D. CAMERON: To move-That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs for the lack of funding and the new arrangements for the distribution of funds for the 800 local government councils in Australia. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) any remaining private Members business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day D. M. CAMERON 14 April 1988...Acting Chairman Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate Appropriation Bill (No. 3) concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.56) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) and the Government for bringing this business before the House slightly out of order as per the blue sheet purely and simply to meet my convenience. For that I am grateful. Today we are debating Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88. These traditional Bills are to meet expenditure additional to the appropriations made for the current financial year under Appropriation Act (No. 1) and Appropriation Act (No. 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. As these Bills are an integral part of the budgetary process, the coalition will not be opposing them. Of course, these appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget, as well as requirements of an ongoing nature. The principal factors underlying these requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases and other parameter changes since the Budget was prepared. In fact, the Government likes to tell us that these are essential and unavoidable expenditures. That may be so in one sense-in a technical or contractual sense. However, there is no way that many of these expenditures and the programs of which they form part could legitimately be regarded as essential and unavoidable. The reason why this Government, frankly, is on the nose throughout every State in Australia is its intrusion into people's lives. The dead hand of government weighs heavily as a burden on taxpayers' backs. These expenditures simply translate into tax collections elsewhere in the Government's books. To highlight that I move an amendment which states: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting, the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) Budget estimates put Commonwealth Government outlays at over a quarter of Australia's GDP, and that this is funded by revenue collection that has made this the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; (3) national productivity is not expected to rise much more than a dismal 0.5% during the course of 1987-88; and (4) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $87 billion foreign debt strait jacket without further reductions in our standard of living''. I expect that various shadow Ministers and other Opposition members will discuss the specific effects of these Bills on various portfolios. However, I wish to address myself, in line with the amendment I have just moved, to the poor state of the Australian economy. In September 1986 Moody's downgraded Australia's AAA credit rating and the current Treasurer (Mr Keating) was rated the world's second worst Finance Minister by Euromoney magazine. That is the same journal which, a couple of years earlier, had given him some kudos. To use a previous farming analogy of the Treasurer, the Government had ploughed the field and sown the seeds and now it was harvest time. What a bitter harvest it has been. The Government sowed the seeds when it added $15 billion to this country's public debt in its first two years of government. This swallowed up domestic savings into wasteful expenditures and caused business to go offshore for funds. However, to listen to the Government today, one would think that the earlier crisis of a short 18 months ago had vanished. Nonetheless, that has not fooled, amongst others, the overseas analysts and it certainly has not fooled the people of Australia. As far as overseas analysts are concerned, in reviewing Australia's credit rating drop in March this year Moody's stated: The pace of adjustment since 1983 has been steady but slow relative to several other OECD countries that have faced similar deficit problems. A pertinent question is whether this gradualist approach to reform will succeed rapidly enough to prevent external borrowing requirements from reaching unacceptably high levels. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that at the end of last year net foreign debt stood at $86.8 billion, up by $4.1 billion on the level at the end of September 1987. Any perceived improvements in the Australian economy in recent months are just that-mainly perceived, but without substance. Our economy is still highly vulnerable as is shown by the foreign debt figures. The terms of trade have been rising as commodity prices respond. Wool has dominated the rise in commodity prices, while nickel prices have skyrocketed and prices for aluminium, beef and wheat have also grown strongly. This has led to a slightly improved export outlook. But what is our future? The stock market crash of October 1987 was a warning to certain countries to address their structural problems. Australia was obviously one of those in need of warning and with such an enormous stock of foreign debt, there is no doubt that we remain one of the most vulnerable economies in the industrialised world. Yet today, a highly misleading media statement was released by the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI). The CAI makes a number of points. It states that the Australian economy can be regarded as being `in the process of recovery'. I find it incredible that this organisation can hold such a view in the face of the evidence-huge and growing foreign debt, more than 580,000 people unemployed and an inflation rate more than double that of our trading partners. The CAI implies that there has been `restraint'. What restraint? Nominal wages have been running at about 6.5 per cent per annum over the last few years and public sector demand continues to grow. The CAI also climbs on to the Government's and the trade union leadership's band wagon and claims that `labour market flexibility has been improved'. If it had been, why are more than half a million people unemployed? The CAI's claims, quite frankly, are more than spurious in this regard. The Government has supported flat, across-the-board wage increases which disadvantage young people and apprentices particularly. Is that what it calls an improvement in labour market flexibility? Clearly, the outlook for the economy remains precarious. We remain highly susceptible to external shocks and those shocks could easily occur, given the task that the incoming President of the United States of America will face. Whoever is elected, his responsibility will be to address that economy's problems and, as a result, a subsequent recession cannot be discounted. The reality is that no matter who is elected in the United States, that person will have to move immediately with the degree of goodwill that will exist for him in those early stages. He will have to try to take Congress with him and take decisions to address the sorts of structural imbalances that the United States has in its economy. This will have its impact. We should be getting our own house in order before those actions are taken and the consequences impact upon us throughout 1989. Indeed, all the areas of commodity price rises that I mentioned earlier are the same old traditional staple exports. The rises in those prices are assisting us now. But the underlying realities remain bad. The Government has not even addressed the area of so-called micro-economic reform. The micro-economic reform agenda was to be the hallmark of the third Hawke Government and that is just not getting off the ground. Productivity remains despairingly low. This is directly related to the low level of investment, which means that Australian workers are working with a depleted and outmoded capital stock. Not only is this seen as detrimental in terms of foreign debt statistics, but it is also seen as such in human terms as well. There are two key reasons for Australia's current low standard of living and these are low productivity and high taxes. These are two factors which are entirely within the Government's control. Low productivity means low real wages. High taxes means that pay as you earn taxpayers take home less of their already low real wages. In short, the deterioration in our living standards is very much a direct result of the Government's mismanagement of the economy. Figures based on the work of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research suggest that more than 2 1/2 million people-one in every eight households-live in poverty. Of that total, more than 20 per cent are children. The number of people on public housing waiting lists has gone up by 35 per cent to 166,000 since Labor took office in 1983. It is now estimated that 100,000 people are on the Medicare waiting list. One of the most distressing figures comes from the Human Rights Commission which suggests that there could be as many as 40,000 people sleeping in refuges and emergency accommodation or in the open. The biggest cause of poverty is unemployment and according to the preliminary figures for March 1988 the number of unemployed still stands at 588,000 people. I have said before, but of course it needs to be said again, that the pace of economic adjustment in the face of our external imbalances is just too slow. In the past it has allowed these various indices of social distress to climb. For the future it lays Australia wide open to further body blows. The policy of the Liberal and National parties is directed towards reducing the size of government and hence the taxation burden on the community. A decrease in the tax burden increases the incentives to invest and, of course, the incentive to work. Along with micro-economic reforms to increase productivity, reduced taxes are the major avenue to raising standards of living for all Australians. There is a need to run a Budget surplus. We are going to have a surplus in the next Budget. We could well have included within the May statement an estimate by the Treasurer that we could have a surplus at the end of this financial year of approximately $1 billion. While I concede that there will be policy changes, if we project the flow of revenue to the current Government in the next financial year without policy changes to establish what is transpiring there will be a Budget surplus of $3 billion to $3.5 billion. When we take that figure in association with the demise of the Australian Labor Party throughout Australia and the cry that it is out of touch with its grassroots, the pressure is being put on the Treasurer already from members of the Left and others to use that money and to shovel more funds into the community by way of various programs that can be dreamt up. This will be entirely the wrong course of action. Might I say that it will jeopardise the Treasurer's own thrust at the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He has got the numbers to take over. If he succumbs to the pressure that is there at present he will lose credibility amongst those who want to see Australia's economic house put in order. What the Government must do in its budgeting is ensure that moderate surpluses remain. It must do that as a matter of paramount importance. It is important to run surpluses on the Commonwealth Budget for two reasons. First, there is a need to reduce the public sector debt rather than bequeath a huge debt to our children. The debt is massive now and we must take steps to reduce that debt. Secondly, the Commonwealth should run a surplus to offset the deficits run by the States for obvious macroeconomic and, hence, balance of payments reasons. On 27 October last year I drew the Treasurer's attention during Question Time to the net borrowings of public financial enterprises. I still have not received a reply to the question. The Treasury, as distinct from the Treasurer, undoubtedly shares my concern at the amount of debt these public financial enterprises in the States are running up. For reasons of brevity, I will not quote the statement in the last Budget papers, but the Treasury's concern is expressed at page 418 of the Budget Papers. Public financial enterprises, and in particular State government insurance offices, have become substantial net borrowers in recent years. According to the Treasury, between June 1983 and June 1987 net borrowings for these authorities rose rapidly from $200m to more than $2,000m. Mr Cleeland —I don't-- Mr PEACOCK —I do not know what is happening to the honourable member and his legal practice, but he calls into question a number of the members here. When I have established precisely what the Law Institute is doing to the honourable member and for what reasons-negligence, defalcation or whatever-this House will be acquainted with it. I am fed up with the sorts of remarks that the honourable member shovels across to this side of the House. The honourable member knows-if he is not able to practise law now, he would know from when he was taught about law-that if one came to a court such as the court of the parliament or a court of equity, one had to come with clean hands. While the honourable member's are dirtied, he should keep his trap shut. We will deal with him a little later on another occasion. We are not going to put up with rubbish from fellows who cannot look after other people's moneys. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —The honourable member for McEwen should not be interjecting from a place other than his proper seat. Mr PEACOCK —According to the Treasury, between June 1983 and June 1987 net borrowing for these authorities rose rapidly from $200m to more than $2,000m. However, the Treasurer has not seemed concerned. As I indicated a few minutes ago, he did not know anything about the issue when on 27 October last year I asked him why such a situation had been permitted to occur and what measures were being taken to place these organisations on a sound financial basis. Despite prompting on at least two other occasions, the Treasurer has not furnished a reply to my question. We were informed only yesterday by the Victorian Auditor-General that the Accident Compensation Commission in the State has lost $244.5m as a result of the stock market crash and that total stock market losses of Victorian authorities amount to almost $1 billion. The Victorian Workcare system is absolutely collapsing and, in the process, has accumulated a deficit of $1.71 billion. But that is not the end of the matter. Across in Perth the Labor Government has participated, through the State Government Insurance Office, in a rescue package. Not only is the debt escalating in Victoria, but also over in Western Australia we find that firms are in trouble, looking as if they are going to go under. Who comes to rescue them? I do not mind elements of the private sector getting together to prop up companies. That is all right. If fellow participants in the capitalist system want to rescue someone, that is fine; that is their choice. But when State authorities bob up and put taxpayers' money into propping up companies, one is forced to ask not only whether this is a wise thing to do but also whether it is correct. The State Government Insurance Office in Western Australia entered into a rescue package for at least two businesses-Rothwells Ltd and the Bell Group. The Treasurer was, of course, privy to these rescue packages. Indeed, he has offered both overt and covert encouragement to State authorities to participate in the financial restructuring of some businesses which suffered following the share market collapse. Rather than following up the concerns of the Treasury about rapid increases in the net borrowing of public financial enterprise, in effect the Treasurer has been encouraging the reverse. Maybe we will never know what deals were done by Premier Burke before his hasty retreat to the Emerald Isle. But to what extent did the large investment in Rothwells by the Catholic schools system cause the Premier to mount a rescue package for the firm? Is it correct that the authorities of those schools had invested money to obtain high interest rates and that they would have been unable to provide funds for education had not the State Government Insurance Office intervened? What were all the background negotiations to the State Government Insurance Office's bail-out of the Bell Group? The Treasury knows, the Treasurer knows, but he does not tell us. In circumstances where his own Department, the Treasury, is rightly warning us of the borrowings these authorities had entered into and the damage this could do, they start to use taxpayers' funds to prop up corporations, without any explanation of the macro-economic impact or the reasons for this. After all, the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the overall financial stability of the Australian economy. The net borrowing of the States is a key issue in terms of macro-economic management. The Treasurer should drag himself away from compiling lists of insulting epithets and address that responsibility. I ask the Treasurer what action he will be undertaking at the Premiers Conference in four weeks time on the matter I have raised-the matter of borrowings and the operation of State authorities? Will he be using the Government's influence, through the Loan Council, to get an even fuller disclosure from the States on the nature and extent of the build-up of debt by public financial enterprises? He certainly has a duty so to do. The Government must use the Premiers Conference and the mini-Budget to set the course to strengthen our economy against an uncertain future. I indicated at the outset of my remarks that the Opposition would not be opposing the Bills before the House. I have, however, moved an amendment which will be seconded by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). I urge honourable members to support that amendment when it is put to the vote in due course. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Aldred —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CLEELAND —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) took time off, during his speech, to make allegations concerning my professional conduct, which I suppose is usual in coward's castle particularly for people who have no knowledge of the events. I have been misrepresented. For the information of the House, a matter of disciplinary charges brought against me by the Law Institute of Victoria was dismissed as an abuse of process and with full costs against the Institute. The matter is sub judice and I have issued a writ against the Age newspaper in Victoria. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not debate the point. Mr PEACOCK —No. I was happy to listen to and I accept the explanation. It shows how one cannot always believe what one reads in newspapers. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.21) —I listened carefully to the speech of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and to the terms of his amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3). I am amazed that two people can look at the same economy and come to such different conclusions. At one point the honourable member talked about perceived improvements in the economy. He said that they were perceived and just that-not real. That was a quite astonishing assertion on his part. I want to go through the four points he made in his amendment and examine them with a bit more care because none of them stand up to careful analysis. The first point claims that Commonwealth Government outlays, at over a quarter of Australia's gross domestic product (GDP), are funded by the highest taxing government in Australia's post-war history. The first thing to be said about that is that during the last five years-the term of the present Government-taxation has been almost constant as a proportion of GDP. The Budget Papers that were tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he produced the Budget last year show that for each of the last four years revenue, as a proportion of GDP, has been almost constant. In 1984-85 taxation revenue was 24.4 per cent of GDP; in 1985-86 it was 24.3 per cent; in 1986-87 it was 24.8 per cent and in 1987-88 it was 24.5 per cent. During those four years it was almost constant. It fell slightly in the last year. Quite clearly, that is the direction in which the Government is moving. The question we must ask is: How does that compare with the situation in other countries? If one looks at the proportion of tax revenues to national income in other countries, one sees that Australia is one of the lowest tax countries in the Western world. I attended a lecture given by an economist from Sweden in Parliament House on Tuesday night. He said that in his country tax represented 55 per cent of GDP, which is more than twice the level in Australia. It is certainly true that Sweden is one of the higher tax countries in the world, but virtually every other major Western country collects tax at a higher rate than in Australia. We are one of the lowest tax countries in the world. The Opposition continually misrepresents that. It likes to pretend that this Government is a high taxing government. That is factually not true; nor is it true that in the last few years tax revenue has risen. The Opposition also neglects the question of what the appropriate level of tax should be. It simply asserts that tax should be lower and that would be a good thing. We would all like to pay less tax; there is no debate about that. The Opposition neglects the issue of the appropriate level of tax relative to the level of service that the community wants. It neglects to assess whether we should be increasing, for example, the level of investment in this country. One of the most important issues for the longer term growth of the economy and the structural adjustment that the previous speaker-the honourable member for Kooyong-asserted he wants and which this Government wants, must be the level of investment in which the Government and the private sector are involved. One of our real problems is that during the last couple of decades there has been a tendency for the level of public investment to decline with consequences for both the rate of economic growth in a direct sense and the capacity for economic growth in the future. It is absolutely essential that we build up the level of public investment in our roads, railways, ports, airports, water supply, sewerage, electricity, gas, power, telecommunications and so on. All of those networks of services that are essential to the efficient and effective functioning of the economy require that we increase investment in them and maintain them effectively. The real danger of a further rundown in public revenue is that we will not be able to afford to maintain them. Some of those networks are becoming quite old. We must build up the level of maintenance expenditure on them. The second point the honourable member for Kooyong made concerns what he called incentive sapping taxes such as fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. That was surprisingly inconsistent with his alleged concern about poverty. To relieve poverty, it is essential to tax every form of income. What the Government has done, by introducing fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, is to introduce, to the tax system, equitably and fairly, parts of income that were not subject to tax previously and which were used by the wealthy in the community to avoid paying tax. Unless fringe benefits are brought into the tax system, people have an incentive to receive a larger proportion of their personal income in forms of income that are not taxable; in other words in-kind-in cars, holidays, private school fees for their children and so on. Those are all ways of allowing people to avoid paying tax on their income. The Government has not only made an equitable change to the tax system but also it has closed off some of the most rampant abuses of the system by closing off tax minimisation loopholes through the fringe benefits tax. I am quite sure that those in the community who understand what the fringe benefits tax means would support that change overwhelmingly. It is a fair change. It is a change of which we can be proud because it makes Australia a fairer society. It is one of the symbols of this Government's commitment to fairness and equity. The same is true about the capital gains tax. They are taxes which all of us who are concerned about fairness, equity and justice can support wholeheartedly. They do nothing to discourage incentive because they were accompanied by some reductions in marginal tax rates which probably contributed in some way to increasing the incentive to earn income. Whether that is true or not, taxes within the rates that are used in Australia have not been shown in careful analyses to have much impact on incentives. What provides the incentive is the overall level of income, the overall level of work satisfaction and the overall level of other kinds of satisfaction that people can get from the work they do. The honourable member's third point concerns national productivity. He complained that national productivity is not growing fast enough. National productivity depends on a whole host of factors such as the level of investment, the level of education of the work force and the level of employment growth. Nowhere among the honourable member's comments did I notice any remark about this Government's remarkable achievement in stimulating the growth of employment. In fact, it must be regarded as the Government's most important achievement that during the last five years there has been a growth in the total level of employment of over one million jobs. Employment in Australia has grown during the last five years faster than in any other Western country. That is a remarkable achievement. Greater employment growth must be regarded by anyone concerned about the well-being of the whole community, about the elimination of poverty and about equity as the central criterion for good government in this country. When this Government came to office it promised to aim to create half a million jobs in its first three years. It overachieved that target and now, within five years, it has doubled it, which is superb. That trend is continuing at present. We have seen in the figures released only a week ago that employment has continued to grow during the early months of 1988. The statistics for the month of March show that during February there was a seasonally adjusted growth in employment of 49,000 jobs. That means that nearly 50,000 new jobs were created during February. So at present we are seeing a very rapid spurt in employment growth, maintaining the trend which has been evident throughout the last five years. The effect of that, of course, is substantially to reduce unemployment. When Labor won office in March 1983, unemployment represented about 10.2 per cent of the work force. It is now down to 7.4 per cent of the work force. It was at that level in both February and March. That shows that the level is being maintained. That represents a very striking fall of 3 per cent over the five years of this Government. It would be lovely if that figure were higher, but during that time the participation rate has also risen. If the participation rate-the proportion of the population that is in employment or wants to work-were now at the level it was at when Labor won government in March 1983, the unemployment rate would be less than 5 per cent. We have had not only a rapid employment growth but also an increase in the proportion of people who want employment, and that has made it more difficult to reduce the level of unemployment. But, despite that growth in the participation rate, there has been a real improvement in unemployment, which is now down to 7.4 per cent, well below the level of many of our trading partners. The fourth point made by the honourable member was about what he called the incentive to invest. He did not make this point with much conviction. Of course, he could not make it with much conviction because the fact of the matter is that during the last couple of years the level of investment has been growing rapidly. There are good reasons for that, which I will come to in a minute. The most recent figures show that in 1986-87 private new capital expenditure went up by about 19 per cent. Even if we take account of the implicit price deflator for private capital expenditure, 11 per cent in that year, that still represents an 8 per cent real increase in new capital expenditure by the private sector last year. Similarly, in 1987-88 private new capital expenditure is expected to rise by about 8 per cent-significantly faster than the expected price deflator for this year. The most recent statistics also include estimates for 1988-89. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, with its rigorous forecasting methods, estimates that the private sector will invest 15 per cent more than in the current financial year. That is a very striking expected improvement at a time when there is quite a deal of uncertainty. The impact of the crash on Wall Street and the associated decline in stock market prices throughout the Western world has created a lot of uncertainty and insecurity amongst investors. Investment stagnated everywhere for some months while people tried to sort out the consequences of that decline in share prices. But in Australia, despite that insecurity and uncertainty, we are seeing a renewed spurt in investment. I think that is an impressive affirmation of confidence in the State of the economy. The honourable member for Kooyong tried to say that the employers did not know what they were talking about when the Confederation of Australian Industry announced in a statement yesterday that Australia was going through a process of recovery. Surely employers are likely to have a fairly clear idea of the direction in which the economy is moving. Yesterday's statement is a striking affirmation that people who have no particular reason for wanting to support a Labor government ideologically recognise that we are well advanced in the process of recovery that everyone is seeking. It is not just the figures I have mentioned so far which confirm that. Any of the statistics which have come out recently show the same picture. This has not happened accidentally. One of the central points that I would like to emphasise is that Government policy has been one of the principal influences on the steady improvement that we are now experiencing. A letter published on Tuesday in the Australian Financial Review showed an estimate by two academics that the prices and incomes accord had led to an increase in employment of about 8 per cent. These scholars estimated that so far the accord alone had been the factor leading to the creation of 600,000 of the new jobs created. That is a very striking direct result of one of the Government's central policies. Similarly, as a direct result of the accord, industrial disputation has fallen to about one-third of the level it was at when we came to government. In 1982 the number of working days lost was just under four million. In 1986-87 the number of working days lost was 1.2 million, less than one-third of the level in the year before Labor won government. That must also be directly due to the greater level of consultation and the commitment to equitable policies and effective dispute settling procedures under the prices and incomes accord, which has been part of this Government's policies. One could go on for quite a while with these kinds of statistics but I would like in conclusion to mention two or three others which are very powerful indicators of the fact that the economy is going through a stage of steady recovery. One of the most important of those indicators is the growth in housing construction. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry released on the day before Easter its estimates for the March quarter and for the next financial year. They showed that housing commencements were likely to rise from fewer than 120,000 last year to about 150,000 in the coming year. That is a very striking growth, and it is not accidental. It is due partly to the fall in interest rates in the last 18 months. Housing interest rates have fallen from about 15 1/2 per cent 18 months ago to less than 14 per cent now. Other interest rates have fallen even more strikingly. The interest rates charged by banks to businesses for loans for over $100,000-the indicator rates-have fallen from 18 per cent in June 1986 to 13.5 per cent in February 1988. That is a major fall which is contributing not only to housing construction but also to investment. I believe I have given enough of an indication to demonstrate clearly that the economy is firmly launched on a process of rapid recovery, and that the picture painted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong, is misleading and improperly gloomy. There is no basis at all for the points he makes in his amendment. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and support the Bill. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(4.40) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate and to second the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Appropriation Bills present a financial picture of a government's policies. They are a window, if you like, through which we can view both the strengths and weaknesses of each individual policy objective. As I look through that particular window I can see many weaknesses. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his comments, addressed in particular many of the economic weaknesses that are evident in these Bills. However, I wish to deal with one weakness in particular, that is, the defence of Australia-or more correctly, the lack of defence that Australia now has. That fact is further demonstrated through what is provided in these appropriation Bills. Currently we are witnessing a major shift in the balance of power on our western flank. It is a shift that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his recent address to the Centre for Indian Ocean Regional Studies in Western Australia described as merely `intriguing'. Of course, the shift is the result of the huge Indian military expansion in the region. The Indian naval build-up is expected to eventually see India with a fleet of more than 100 ships of which approximately half will be of 3,000 tons or more in size. This shift in the balance of power is nothing less than dramatic. Considering the fact that this shift so adversely affects Australia, I should have expected a responsible government to reflect some concern through these appropriation Bills that are now before the House. This irresponsible Labor Government, however, does nothing. My concern about the Indian naval build-up are well known. Conversely, the lack of concern by the Minister for Defence is also well known. However, as the Minister should by now be aware, I am not alone in my concerns. Mr James Webb, the recently resigned United States Secretary of the Navy has also said that India's expansion is a major problem for Australia. I have previously spoken in this place about the two, and soon to be three, carrier battle group formations comprising the centrepiece of India's naval power projection. I have spoken of India's recent acquisition of a Soviet nuclear submarine, and on 22 March this year in this chamber I revealed the fact that India's follow-on Soviet nuclear submarines were to be of the advanced Victor III hunter-killer class. In earlier debates I have briefly referred to the substantial increase in India's surface combatants. However, to illustrate the fact that this Government has still not grasped the significance of the current developments on our western flank, as evidenced in these appropriation Bills, I will elaborate a little further. Current Indian naval philosophy believes that sea control, one of its objectives, can be applied by carefully amassed and concentrated forces, embodying massive firepower. This has prompted the Indian Navy to acquire surface combatants with considerable firepower. The core elements of this force are the Soviet supplied Kresta II class guided missile cruisers and the Kashin II class guided missile destroyers, which the Indians will soon have in abundant numbers. These powerful warships are supplemented by the Indian-built Godavari class frigates and will be further supplemented by the new Project-15 class of 12 indigenously-built frigates. These new frigates will be in the 5,000-ton range, and will carry two Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters, surface-to-surface missiles, and possibly an MK-6 dual purpose gun mount. This imposing selection from the Indians' inventory is apparently only enough to make our Defence Minister `intrigued'. Perhaps I can help him fully recognise the enormity of the problem now confronting us. I have recently been informed that the latest Soviet warship on the Indian shopping list is the Sovremenny class destroyer-a warship recognised for its enormous firepower. Indeed, such is the firepower of these ships that they are considered extremely useful and effective for supporting assault landings, which directly leads me to my next point. At the same time as I learned about India's interest in the Sovremenny class destroyers, India's rumoured interest in acquiring a substantial force of blue water assault landing craft was confirmed. Although it is not widely known, India purchased, from the United Kingdom, the plans for the Sir Lancelot class tank landing ship which it has since modified to meet its own particular needs. The result thus far of its acquisition of these plans has been the commissioning of the 5,000 ton Magyar in late 1987. I have it on very good authority that a class of at least eight of these tank landing ships will be produced. Eight of these vessels will give the Indians the extraordinary capacity to carry out a two-tank brigade lift-a feat beyond the capability of any other littoral state including Australia. Concurrently the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant, currently undergoing a refit, is expected to emerge as a multi-role carrier. The decision to make Vikrant a multi-role carrier, rather than a dedicated aircraft carrier in the true sense, fits into India's offensive power projection concept, which also encompasses the current program of building tank landing ships and its keen interest in acquiring Sovremenny class destroyers. As a multi-role carrier the task of the Vikrant will be to act as a specialised anti-submarine warfare vessel and commando carrier. Twenty MK-42B Sea King helicopters have been ordered from Britain and these will be fully convertible to commando use. The refitted Vikrant will then give the Indians the capability to project their power through a coordinated sea and air assault from its seaborne resources, thus embracing the total concept of modern sea assault doctrine. The Defence Minister, in his recent address to the Centre for Indian Ocean Regional Studies, to which I referred earlier, said: India's overall strategic context justifies a substantial navy. He went on to say: Any development of a force projection capability in our general region must interest us. When the Minister said this on 28 March he must have been aware, through intelligence sources, that India is close to achieving the ability to launch all-arms military operations throughout the entire Indian Ocean region. When India's naval expansion is complete she will have the ability to lift two tank brigades and a commando brigade, and be able to provide her assault forces with massive fire-support from warships such as the Sovremenny class destroyers and air support from her Harrier aircraft operating from aircraft carriers. The greatest obstacle facing the movement of such a force over great distances is the threat posed by enemy surface, sub-surface, and air elements. However, even this obstacle has been overcome through India's balanced carrier battle groups and submarines. In essence, the Indians will shortly have the ability to intervene anywhere in the Indian Ocean region. This is a stunning reality that the Defence Minister will ultimately will have to recognise fully. By comparison, Australia has one heavy lift amphibious ship, HMAS Tobruk, and three or four operational heavy landing craft, each able to carry two to three main battle tanks. Our mediocre amphibious capability is restricted to a one-squadron tank lift. We have no equivalent of a commando carrier to carry the infantry, artillery and other fighting arms required for an assault landing, and no naval airpower afloat to protect an amphibious force. The people of Australia really need to ask just how interested and concerned the Minister for Defence is. The disturbing developments on our western flank are certainly not reflected in these Appropriation Bills now before the House. The Minister's assurance that this Government `will watch diplomatic developments carefully' obviously implies that this Government does not believe India's military developments need watching. Despite the enormity of India's build-up there are some people who continually attempt to justify it, whilst at the same time saying that it in no way affects adversely Australia's future security. The Hawke Labor Government is doing just that, and that is reflected in these Bills. The most oft used justification for India's build-up is the need to counter the naval threats from its traditional enemies, Pakistan and China, together with the possible threats posed by the activities of extra-regional navies. In looking at this we need to ask whether the threat to the environment justifies such a naval expansion? Furthermore, will the expansion help to mitigate the threat? A reasoned and logical examination of the facts leads to a negative response on both questions. The situation in the Indian Ocean is certainly more complex than it has ever been before. Nevertheless, the military containment of India is not an objective pursued by any extra-regional navy operating in the Indian Ocean. Apart from Pakistan, no littoral power poses any naval threat of consequence to India, and that includes Australia. However, upon detailed analysis of Pakistan's minor naval resources it becomes quite apparent that it is beyond the capability of Pakistan to launch a sustained strategic naval offensive against India. Furthermore, Pakistan's naval vessels, which do not match the size and firepower of India's vessels, are maintained to keep India off balance and for their limited nuisance value as much as anything. The increased size of the Chinese navy and its ability strategically to project its naval power have been grossly overestimated. The most recent of the Navy's ships of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) could not be described as matching some of the older western and Soviet ships now afloat. Technologically the Chinese still have a great deal of ground to make up. Senior defence analysts believe that the PLA Navy will slowly continue to increase in size and, at best, will become a regional naval power able to deal with Soviet surface ships in the South China Sea. As is evident from what I have already said, there is a further pressing and disturbing development in India's military expansion that the Minister for Defence needs to address, namely India's ability to carry out opposed troop landings throughout the region. Madam Speaker, it would be remarkable if anybody were to suggest seriously that this beach assault capability is required to combat the threats India believes it faces from either Pakistan or China. The threats from these two countries have been and continue to be territorial in nature, requiring significant land and air forces rather than navies for their resolution. In any future confrontations India is geographically positioned to take full advantage of the hundreds of miles of land borders it shares with its traditional enemies. The large casualties that are inherent in beach assault operations make it ludicrous to suggest that India would need to launch such an operation against either country, but particularly China. These Bills we are debating give the Hawke Labor Government the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of Australia. It has failed to use this opportunity. It has sidestepped reality and failed to acknowledge that the domination of our western approaches by a single power has serious ramifications for Australia's future trade and security. These Appropriation Bills give little hope to Australians, who quite rightly expect their government to provide them with a credible defence against all possible future aggressors. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(4.55) —I am pleased to join the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and to take the opportunity to comment on some recent political events. We on the Government side could hardly be ignorant of a certain amount of glee in the Opposition ranks following the results of the by-elections in Adelaide and Port Adelaide and the results of the State election in New South Wales. I am pleased to note that that delight is rather less than universal on the Opposition side following the Groom result, which certainly brought a degree of gloom to the National Party ranks. Before the New South Wales election I was at some pains, both in this place and outside, to remind the people of that State just what life was like under a Liberal Party government. I attempted to remind people in my electorate and outside it of the ramshackle state of public transport in New South Wales before 1976, the neglected health services and the run down education system in that State under the Liberals. It is a matter of great regret that the people of New South Wales now have the opportunity to relearn what life is like under the State Liberal Government. I am a charitable person and I admit that it is early days. It is only 26 days since that election took place, but already there have been a number of major blunders. This afternoon I would like to cover in some detail the first four blunders of the new New South Wales Minister for Education, Dr Terry Metherell. In under a month in office Dr Metherell has been responsible for the dismissal of the incoming head of the New South Wales Department of Education for a shameful attack on the Chifley University, for the introduction of standardised testing in New South Wales public schools, and for the demolition of the New South Wales schools accreditation system. These four blunders, these four acts of ideological buffoonery from this naive Minister, have all been achieved in his first 26 days. He is a Minister whose only previous claim on public attention was his activities as a nocturnal skinny-dipper in the New South Wales parliamentary swimming pool. Let me turn to blunder No. 1, which concerned the dismissal of the New South Wales Director-General of Education. It was on March 28 that we learnt through the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald that the Greiner Government had sacked the heads of Education and Housing and demoted two other departmental heads in a shake-out of Labor appointees. The Sydney Morning Herald tells us: One of those removed, Dr Gregor Ramsey, had not yet started in his $83,000-a-year post as NSW Director-General of Education. He had been recruited from the Federal education sphere to replace Mr Bob Winder who retires this month. The Sydney Morning Herald continues: In an interview with the Herald yesterday, the Minister for Education, Dr Metherell, said he had sacked Dr Ramsey on Friday in person. His position had been `abolished' and would be re-advertised. As to Dr Ramsey's contractual rights, Dr Metherell said he did not know how this would work out. Those details were to be negotiated between Dr Ramsey and the Secretary of the Premier's Department. We learnt a little more of the circumstances of this matter two days later following an expression of support for Dr Ramsey from the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). I quote again from the Sydney Morning Herald: The Federal education Minister, Mr Dawkins, yesterday accused the Greiner Government of political motivation in sacking the incoming head of the NSW Department of Education. In a rare ministerial statement of support for a public servant, Mr Dawkins defended Dr Gregor Ramsey's record as a member of the now defunct Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Dr Ramsey was a first rate officer with distinguished service in both Canberra and South Australia, Mr Dawkins said. `He was a dedicated officer with no political prejudice who would serve any minister with imagination and loyalty.' Mr Dawkins also indicated that it would be the duty of the Greiner Government to compensate Dr Ramsey, who lost out on a seven-year contract worth $83,000 a year. Dr Ramsey was to become Director-General of Education . . . He was appointed late last year by the former Labor Minister for Education, Mr Cavalier. The article continues: Federal Government sources said Dr Ramsey met the New South Wales Minister for Education . . . where Dr Metherell told him he was ``looking forward to working with him''. On the Friday he was sacked. I concur fully with the Dawkins review. I know Dr Ramsey to be a distinguished educationalist, a skilled administrator, a man of wide experience and a person of great vision. His appointment would have been excellent but he was guilty of two sins in the eyes of Dr Metherell: first, he was appointed by a Labor government; and, secondly, he was an outside appointment to that position-the first ever person to be appointed to that position from outside the Department. We may never know what happened between the Tuesday when the new Minister told Dr Ramsey that he was looking forward to working with him and the Friday when he was given his marching orders. But it is my firm belief that Dr Metherell was well and truly Yes Ministered over that period; in other words, he was got at by the mandarins of the New South Wales Education Department who simply would not tolerate an outside appointment. Let me turn now to blunder No. 2: the Minister's attacks on the Chifley University college. I learnt yesterday that Chifley University college in my electorate, a college on which work is proceeding, is no longer to be Chifley college. Again I will quote from a newspaper report. In yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald it is stated: The Minister for Education, Dr Metherell, said last night the western university would not be called Chifley for much longer. It was not appropriate for universities to be named after ``long-dead Labor politicians, especially those with no connection with western Sydney''. He said Ben Chifley's only association with the university had been that he ``used to drive a steam train down the main western line past the Werrington site''. That Minister clearly is not aware of Chifley's long association with the west and is ignorant of the fact that for some years Chifley represented in this Parliament part of that region. He is also ignorant of Chifley's achievements in education, of his work in expanding opportunities in education and training in the postwar years, of his work in establishing university scholarships and of his achievement in founding the Australian National University. It was those achievements, together with Chifley's lifelong belief of providing greater opportunities for underprivileged and disadvantaged people, that led to the original decision to honour his memory in this way. Chifley's crime, at least in Dr Metherell's eyes, is that he was a Labor politician. In passing, I point out that with the establishment of the University of Technology in Sydney we now have 21 universities in Australia. Of those 21, 12 have geographical names and only nine are named after people. Of those nine people, two were explorers, two were colonial governors, one was a soldier, one was an academic and only three were politicians or statesmen. The difference, as someone suggested during the week, is that statesmen have the unanswerable advantage of being dead. However, of those 12 people only three were Australian born and of the three statesmen after whom universities are named-Deakin, Griffith and Curtin-only one came from the Labor side of politics. It is surely not unreasonable to expect, given those details, that the Chifley name should be retained for Australia's newest university. But we learnt today that a further decision from Dr Metherell's office may place the entire future of the development of that university in doubt, because in a release which appeared in the newspaper this morning Dr Metherell said that development of the university is now all in the melting pot pending the release of the Commonwealth's White Paper. I regard this as part of a massive confidence trick on the part of the Minister because the concept of the university college is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Green Paper as the university was to commence as part of a larger institution and, in addition, its capacity to grow rapidly in its own right as well as the avenues for amalgamation in the future clearly made it an ideal candidate for development under the discussion papers in the Green Paper. So I consider his decision to place this project effectively on hold for four months and the reasons for doing that basically as a dishonest decision. I will turn now to blunder No. 3: the introduction of standardised, multiple choice tests of basic skills at the end of years 3, 6 and 10 for all students in New South Wales state schools. The aim, according to the new Minister, is to test the system. The Minister, in making this decision, clearly ignored the fact that standardised tests were already in use in New South Wales public schools and they have been for many years. They have been used in a proper way to identify problems and to direct remedial assistance to the most important people in the system-the children. The idea of mass testing to monitor the system is both repugnant and wasteful. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has correctly pointed out that such tests could prove counterproductive by beginning and reinforcing a cycle of failure for those children who do not succeed. Apparently, the mass testing campaign will not apply in the independent school sector. I wonder whether this decision is based on the assumption that standards are uniformly high across the entire spectrum of independent schools or on the belief that what happens in those schools is of no concern to the New South Wales Government. If the former is true, the assumption of a uniformly high standard across that spectrum is not necessarily true. If the latter is true, the New South Wales Government, both as the registering authority and as a major source of funds, has a responsibility to be interested in the performance of the independent school sector. I turn now to Metherell blunder No. 4: the reintroduction of the School Certificate and the demolition of the new Certificate of Secondary Education in New South Wales. The old School Certificate, the end of year 10 award, has been tried for over 20 years and is found to be wanting. Students, teachers, parents and employers all wanted changes. The attitude of those working in schools is well illustrated by a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 April, written Sister Caroline Ryan of the Holy Cross College Woollahra. Sister Ryan says: Some of the education commitments of the new Minister for Education . . . give cause for concern. First, the education rationale for reintroducing the School Certificate seems neither convincing nor clear. It is assumed that the various factors contributing to the recent decision to abolish it are still operative. Why then this apparently politically opportunistic reaction? This is not to imply that the Certificate of Secondary Education which was to have replaced the School Certificate is the best and most comprehensive means of recognising a student's attainment. No practical evaluation could be made in that regard as the CSE remains yet untried. It seems obvious that the sundry and complex issues underlying the subject of credentialling students in such a way as to be congruent with their performance and also properly informative about an individual school's curriculum need more extensive exposure and discerning discussion. I believe such a need is urgent. Such a need certainly is urgent but I doubt that that need will be satisfied under the current New South Wales Minister for Education. Mr Braithwaite —Be a bit generous; he has not been there for very long. Mr FREE —He has not been there for very long but he has already made a number of major blunders. That new Certificate of Secondary Education to which I referred-that is, the one the Minister has just abolished-was designed to incorporate those positive features of the old School Certificate and designed after extensive consultation with parents, teachers and employers. That certificate would have provided a comprehensive profile of student achievement from year 9 through to year 12 and not just a basic grade in year 10, as provided by the School Certificate that the Minister is to bring back. That profile of achievement would have provided, as well as a certificate, school reports, references, records of work achievement, skills profiles, merit certificates and records of sporting achievements over the entire four years. That Certificate of Secondary Education was just what employers in New South Wales wanted. Let me quote briefly from a report entitled Documents for School Leavers: What Employers Want. This is a report of a joint research project conducted by the New South Wales Department of Education and the New South Wales Employers Education Consortium, published in December 1987. The summary and conclusions section of that report states: The main message to emerge from the study is that employers are eager to have a great deal of detailed and comprehensive documentation to aid them in employment selection processes. School leavers may enhance their employment chances if they present a folio of documents which contains both external certificates and school reports and which includes a variety of other documents such as evidence of work experience, involvement in school life as well as in extra-curricular activities. A particularly useful folio would contain both school produced and student assembled materials. That is from the report of the joint research project which consulted employers and asked them what they wanted in documents from schools to assist them in interviewing prospective employees. Given the dissatisfaction with the old School Certificate and the care and the effort which have gone into designing its replacement, one wonders exactly what motivation Dr Metherell has to turn the clock back at such huge public expense. Those are the four major blunders from the new New South Wales Minister for Education in his first 26 days in office; that is, blunders at a rate somewhat better than one a week since he has held office. There are others on the way to which I could refer in greater detail. The same Minister apparently proposes to re-introduce corporal punishment in New South Wales schools, and apparently plans to abolish school zoning and throw school organisation in that state into chaos. But as that Minister has not introduced those two matters, but has simply threatened to do so, I will leave debate on them until another time. I conclude by saying that on the record of his performance thus far, and on the record of the blunders that he has made to this point, it seems clear to me that Dr Metherell's career as a Minister will be even shorter and more inglorious than that of the Government of which he is a member. Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned. Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the House take note of the paper. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.13) —I have recently returned from a short visit to Norfolk Island; my visit was for five days from Saturday 3 April to Thursday 7 April. Norfolk Island is a self-governing Commonwealth territory, situated 1,676 kilometres north-east of Sydney. The island is governed by an elected assembly of nine, the assembly having a range of legislative powers as specified in the Norfolk Island Act 1979. During my visit to the island I had detailed talks with the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly on a number of important issues of concern to both the Commonwealth and the Norfolk Island Government. During these talks I signed three important memorandums of understanding with the Norfolk Island Government. The topics of the memorandums of understanding relate to education, the HMS Sirius artefacts, until recently a matter of some public dispute, and the island's water assurance scheme. The memorandum of understanding on education recognises the Norfolk Island Government's responsibility for education and records the intention to maintain educational standards comparable with those in Australia. Following the signing of the memorandum of understanding by the two governments on the HMS Sirius artefacts, Norfolk Island will now remain the home of these artefacts. The significance of this memorandum of understanding should not be understated. There is no doubting the historical and cultural significance of HMS Sirius, the flagship of the first fleet, to all Australians. The focus of this memorandum of understanding is on a management plan, which both governments agree is essential to preserve and protect the relics. The memorandum of understanding is designed to set the parameters within which the management plan will be prepared. The matters dealt with by the management plan will include: resolution proposals to borrow items from the Sirius collection for display outside Norfolk Island; methods of storage, preservation and conservation of the artefacts; and access to the artefacts for research purposes. The finalisation and signing of the memorandum of understanding on the Norfolk Island water assurance scheme will ensure the construction of a new sewerage scheme in the Burnt Pine-Middlegate area of the island. The importance of this scheme for the island's future is highlighted by the simple fact that there is no reticulated water on Norfolk Island. The island's population relies entirely on ground water and tank water. The building of the sewerage scheme will significantly help assure the quality of the island's groundwater. At the same time this will reduce any threat posed to health and the island's significant tourism industry. Under this memorandum of understanding the Commonwealth will provide a total of $2m, which will be in addition to approximately $1m to be contributed by the Norfolk Island Government. The Norfolk Island Government will bear the cost of all future stages of the water assurance scheme. Talks were also held between myself and the Norfolk Island Government and officials of the Commonwealth who accompanied me to Norfolk Island about the further transfer of power from the Commonwealth to the island's elected Government. While the Commonwealth recognises the spirit of the arrangements made between it and the Norfolk Island community in 1979, the Commonwealth continues to have identifiable interests in Norfolk Island. It must be in this light that all further proposals for transfer of authority to the Norfolk Island Government be examined. My trip to Norfolk Island was my first as Minister responsible for the Commonwealth's external territories. I went to the island with an open mind, to listen to the concerns of the island's population and to learn about the unique problems that face the people of one of Australia's more remote external territories. I believe my talks with the Norfolk Island Government to have been both productive and worthwhile. I look forward to a continuing close working relationship with the Norfolk Island community and its elected representatives. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.18) —In speaking to this report and also to the statement of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) I should say that within the time that he has entered into this portfolio he has certainly applied himself to many of the problems that were evident at the time that I first entered into my shadow responsibilities. Only as recently as last month, on another piece of legislation before this House on the transfer of power to appoint auditors, we had a discussion on what was then a most pressing problem, that is the relics from the flagship HMS Sirius. From reading what that memorandum of understanding applies itself to, if the Assembly itself has agreed to these terms I believe the memorandum lays down a reasonable working foundation. These relics are within their proper place in history, within the island itself, but they are also made available for purposes of research and viewing at other places by agreement. I think it was a shame that there was grave conflict and suspicions on all sides that those relics and artefacts may have been housed in Sydney and not on the island itself. It is important, particularly in our bicentennial year, that this matter has been straightened out because nobody should underestimate the importance of Norfolk Island to Australia and also the importance of the flagship HMS Sirius. I understand from listening to the Minister that his negotiations in every respect were taken at full and frank value. I feel sure he comes back with the good will of the Norfolk Islanders. That should be pleasing to all Australians. I have read the report tabled yesterday. It is not easy to compare the finances of a settlement or territory with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants who claim to be Norfolk Islanders with what we have here, but I think the goodwill that we have been able to extend has been justified in the manner in which they have been able to keep their accounts and in other aspects of management of the island. The Minister said that discussions were held about the transfer of some other powers. At some later time he might give me an indication of what these powers are and when the transfer might be proceeded with. I welcome the visit to the island by the Minister. I suggest that he also has other external responsibilities. I suggest to him that it is important that he visit Christmas Island because, as he understands, the problems associated with Norfolk Island are insignificant compared with the problems on Christmas Island at the moment. I would welcome a fuller debate in this House following such a visit by the Minister, which I think is imperative, because that territory is sitting right at the crossroads at the moment. Its future depends so much on the goodwill of this Government and this Parliament. I understand that the Minister is looking at the projects of the tenderers for the reopening of the mine on Christmas Island. From the representations that have been made to me, I know how imperative it is that there be no delay in making a decision on that. We do not have any truck whatsoever with any particular tenderer but I think it is important for the future of the island and the maintenance of a little bit of stability for the work force that a decision be made. In the meantime I thank the Minister for the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I am sure that his visit to Norfolk Island was in the interests of not only his Government but also the Parliament and the people of Australia. Mr PUNCH(Barton-Minister for the Arts and Territories) —by leave-I thank the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), for his support on the Norfolk Island matters. I am very aware of the problems related to Christmas Island which the honourable member and I have discussed on a couple of occasions. I am aware that the expressions of interest with regard to the mine are still being reviewed by the Department for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I am hopeful of receiving a report very shortly. For the information of the House I mention that within the last month there has been a fairly bad storm on Christmas Island. I am looking forward to seeing a full report on that and any impact it may have on any future mining as well. I say to the honourable member across the table that I am quite prepared at a later stage, as far as possible, to talk on a bipartisan basis with him on the issues involved there. Question resolved in the affirmative. Committee Act Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.23) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of new utility helicopter facilities, phase 2, at RAAF Base, Townsville and Oakey army airfield, Queensland. The proposed work is for the provision of operational, support and administrative facilities at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Townsville and Oakey Army airfield in support of the second phase of delivery of the new Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters. On 2 April 1987 the House approved the construction of new facilities at the RAAF base at Townsville to accommodate a squadron to be equipped with the first 14 of the Black Hawk helicopters. Since that time the purchase of 25 additional helicopters has been approved. These helicopters will be based at RAAF base Townsville and Oakey Army airfield. Over a five-year period the Army is to assume control of these battlefield helicopters. To this end the Army will raise a unit known as 5th Aviation Regiment at RAAF base Townsville which will provide tactical air support to combat elements of the operational deployment force. Once the Black Hawk helicopters become operational the Army proposes to conduct Black Hawk conversion training and Loadmaster courses at the School of Army Aviation at Oakey Army airfield 150 kilometres west of Brisbane. At both bases there is a need to upgrade and extend existing operational, technical and administrative facilities to accommodate both new personnel and equipment, and the relocation of existing operational units. The proposed work at RAAF base Townsville includes site preparation and upgrading of engineering services; the extension and overlay on an existing aircraft apron and provision of a link to the existing taxiway; and works associated with the army's new 5th Aviation Regiment and with the relocation of the existing No. 35 Squadron consisting of the extension and upgrading of buildings for headquarters facilities, flightline facilities, technical support and store facilities and the extension of hangars to accommodate Black Hawk helicopters and relocated Caribou aircraft and workshop facilities. There will be new single living-in accommodation for 248 persons, an extension of existing medical-dental facility and associated security measures. In addition a total of 135 additional married quarters are required to house the increased married personnel associated with the basing of the 5th Aviation Regiment at RAAF base Townsville. Action is being taken separately by the Defence Housing Authority for the provision of these houses. The estimated cost of the proposal at RAAF base Townsville is $19.2m at October 1987 prices. This cost is broken down into $13.1m for the operational facilities and $6.1m for the new live-in accommodation. No expenditure is anticipated this financial year. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended that construction commence in mid-1988 with a construction time of approximately 18 months. The proposed construction program is based on a completion date commensurate with the second phase of delivery of the Black Hawk helicopters, as advised by the Department of Defence. The proposed work at Oakey Army airfield includes site preparation and upgrading of engineering services; extension of the aircraft apron and provision of a new link taxiway; extension and upgrading of buildings to provide maintenance, technical support and storage facilities; extensions of buildings for aircrew training facilities and maintenance training facilities; an enclosed parking shelter for six Black Hawk helicopters and associated security measures. The existing living-in and married quarters accommodation at Oakey Army airfield is adequate for the increased personnel associated with the introduction of the Black Hawk helicopters. The estimated cost of the proposal at Oakey Army airfield is $5m at October 1987 prices. No expenditure is anticipated this financial year. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend that construction commence in mid-1988 with a construction time of approximately 14 months. This will allow the transfer of Black Hawk conversion training to Oakey in early 1990. Design and documentation of the facilities at both bases will be undertaken by my Department's construction group, with some assistance from private consultants. Construction will be contracted to private enterprise. During construction the on-site work forces are expected to peak at 100 at Townsville and 40 at Oakey by the end of 1988. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.29) —The Opposition welcomes this reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works of the $24m work proposal for the upgrading of facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Townsville and the Oakey Army airfield, both of which are located in Queensland. The works are required to provide accommodation and other facilities for the 39 Black Hawk helicopters which are in the process of being purchased by the Australian Government. These helicopters, which are troop carrying, will be a welcome addition to our Defence Force resources. Certainly, the Opposition agrees that there is a need at both bases to upgrade and extend the existing operational, technical and administrative facilities to accommodate both new personnel and equipment and for the relocation of existing operational units. The estimated cost of the proposal for the RAAF base at Townsville is, as the Minister outlined, $19.2m. It is work that is intended to be undertaken later this year. The proposed work at the Oakey Army airfield, which the Minister has outlined in detail, is estimated to cost about $5m and that work is proposed to start also later this year. It is intended that the construction phase will be completed in about 14 months. We are delighted that this proposal has at long last come to fruition and is being referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works for its review and-we hope-approval. We are pleased that the construction will be contracted out to the private sector. We support the proposed reference as a much needed upgrading of Defence Force facilities. We have seen a dramatic run-down in Defence Force personnel under this Government. The level of wastage is of very great concern, not only to the Opposition but also to the community. It is clear that more must be done to give our defence personnel appropriate facilities and equipment as one way of assisting in lifting morale. Defence as a portfolio has had a very low priority under this Government. The defence needs of this country are great and they have had a rough time under the Australian Labor Party. It is pleasing to see that, if only as a result of a few by-elections, at long last the Government has been shocked into taking action to provide decent facilities and resources for our Defence Force. It is action that should have been taken some time ago. We are pleased that at last it has been taken and we support this reference. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.33) —I congratulate the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) on this reference to the Standing Committee on Public Works. This is an important reference which represents stage 2 of the redevelopment of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base Garbutt, costing in excess of $50m. The Government has now approved the purchase of 39 Black Hawk helicopters to be based at RAAF base Townsville and at Oakey Army airfield. I expect the Government to proceed with the purchase of a total fleet of 75 Black Hawk helicopters to provide tactical air support to certain combat elements of the Australian Army. The requirement for tactical air support for the combat elements of the Operational Deployment Force (ODF) based at Lavarack Barracks at Townsville is fundamental to the fighting capacity. The Australian Army's Operational Deployment Force must have the capacity for rapid deployment of its combat elements and the acquisition of Black Hawk helicopters will ensure that the ODF in particular will have the capacity to deploy rapidly to areas where it may be required. That, in itself, is a major advance. That was not the case during the period of the Liberal-National Government from 1975 to March 1983. Also I recall that in the early 1970s the Commander of the First Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, was almost obliged to walk his battalion to a deployed area. That was as a result of 23 years of Liberal-National Party rule. But times have changed. The Hawke Government has now ordered 39 Black Hawks, which are state of the art helicopters, to provide tactical air mobility for the combat element of the ODF. That is a most important advance in the effectiveness of the Operational Deployment Force. As I said previously, I hope the Government will proceed with the acquisition of a total fleet of 75 Black Hawk helicopters. I am sure that will be welcomed by every member of the Australian Defence Force. Every time I stand in this place I join with other speakers on this side in announcing new Defence Force projects. Mr White —You would want to! Mr Porter —But there is no Defence Force left. Mr LINDSAY —Even now the Government is announcing a massive increase in new accommodation facilities at RAAF base Garbutt for 240 persons of all ranks. For the first time, these people will have air-conditioned, sound-proofed new accommodation facilities which they can enjoy. Enormous sums of money have already been spent at RAAF base Townsville for upgrading the existing accommodation facilities for ranks. In addition to the new single live-in accommodation for nearly 250 people of all ranks, the Minister has also announced that there will be 135 additional married quarters to provide accommodation for married personnel of the Fifth Aviation Regiment which is being raised to operate the Black Hawk helicopters at Townsville. Thirty-five homes are being purchased at present in Townsville and contracts will be let in the not too distant future for more than 60 homes. These works announced by the Minister-stage 1 and stage 2 of the redevelopment of RAAF base Garbutt-will have an important impact on the economy of Townsville and Thuringowa. I record the appreciation of the building industry in my electorate for these initiatives announced by the Government. Even the works just announced by the Minister will provide job opportunities for at least 100 people. I see the upgrading of RAAF base Garbutt as just one step in the expansion of the Australian Defence Force so that it will be able to succeed in any battle it may have to undertake in the defence of Australia. For it to gain the capacity of self-reliance, money is required to be spent on capital equipment programs. It is very disheartening to hear Opposition spokespersons criticise this Government for its policy of re-equipping the Australian Defence Force with modern weapon systems. The point was made earlier in interjections by the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), and the shadow Minister for Housing and Public Administration, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), that there has been wastage from the Defence Force. That is a matter of concern to this Government and also to the Australian community. The Australian Government is doing something to arrest the high separation rates from the Australian Defence Force. That is in stark contrast to the total inactivity in this regard during the years of the Fraser Government when there was wastage of 10 to 12 per cent from the three Services in the Australian Defence Force. The interjections from the two shadow Ministers are at best playful humour and at worst smack of hypocrisy. Finally, I assure the House and the people listening to my speech that this Government is determined to provide this country with the best possible Australian Defence Force, an Australian Defence Force that can fight and an Australian Defence Force that will win any battle it undertakes. The steps announced by the Minister are some of many to achieve that objective. I hope that the Opposition spokespersons will join with the Government and support the Australian defence forces and not try to demoralise them by putting them in the position of questioning the direction of our Defence Force policy, which is designed to protect Australia and its people. They should join with this Government in supporting the Australian Defence Force and supporting the expansion of our capacity to defend this country. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.42) —A couple of the remarks made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) cannot pass unchallenged. Nobody is deploring the money that is being spent on capital works and in particular we support the motion before the House. But it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about Opposition spokesmen making casual remarks about defence wastage. The Government spends all this money on equipment, but what does it have at the end of the day when there are no experienced, trained and qualified men and women to man the equipment? That is the situation that the Government is facing now. Month by month there are record enormous wastage rates in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the Army. Month by month we bring up this subject and month by month the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) entirely neglects to do anything about it at all. The honourable member for Herbert raised the subject and I want to respond. The neglect of Defence Force personnel is of enormous concern to me and to all members on this side of the House. The honourable member, who takes a genuine interest in defence matters, would know better than anyone else what members of the defence forces think about what the Government is doing in relation to looking after personnel. The Government does not care. The Minister has never given any indication that he is concerned about their conditions, their pay or their life in the defence forces. He has shuffled these matters off to an assistant Minister, who has now gone back into her box, having tried to make a bit of a splash initially. She realises that she knows nothing about this subject, that she does not have any authority to do anything and that the Minister for Defence will not take an interest anyway. Let us have no more criticism of the Opposition raising this subject. We will continue to raise the subject in this House until something is done about it. Honourable members opposite are in government and they are the ones who have to address the subject. Time and time again we have put forward things that have to be done but our suggestions have always been completely ignored. The Government will not have the problem in two years, but I would hope that in that two years the Government will go some way towards fixing it. On a subject related to the facilities for the Black Hawk helicopters, I take the opportunity to remind the House that tomorrow sees the withdrawal of the Mirage squadron from Butterworth. The squadron has represented Australia in the most exemplary fashion during the 20 years that it has been at Butterworth. It was deployed under a previous Government's forward defence policy at a time when I served in Malaya during the emergency. It would appear that, under the present Government, that forward defence policy is now somewhat discredited. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Herbert, mentioned that we now have Black Hawk helicopters, but the reality is they cannot be moved around the country. The Government has a defensive attitude to our defence posture. It says, `We will sit in Australia; we will let them come and get us if they want to; we will do nothing to develop a capacity to protect the offshore territories, to protect our sea routes or to assist our friends or allies, should the need arise'. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know very well, as do other members in the House, that last year we offered to assist if necessary in evacuating our nationals in Fiji. We could have put troops on some RAN frigates, we could have got them into the area, but we then had no capacity whatsoever to transport a reasonable number of troops or any helicopters to that area. So, while we agree that the Black Hawk helicopters-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! Mr Porter —It has been a wide-ranging debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I know it has been fairly wide ranging, but I would ask the honourable member for McPherson to get back to the subject matter quickly. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I bow to your decision. Nevertheless, I would like to finish the sentence. While we are very much in favour of the acquisition of the Black Hawk helicopters, the fact is that we still do not have any capacity to transport them or troops around this country or overseas if necessary. I want to say something about Hawker de Havilland Ltd, the company that was given the job of assembling the Black Hawk helicopters. I visited the company the other day and I was very impressed with the job it was doing. It is true that the assembly program has fallen behind somewhat. The first helicopter is due off the assembly line about now. The problems have been mainly caused not by Hawker de Havilland but by the supply system from the United States of America. I just want to put on record my appreciation of the job it is doing, not only with the new Black Hawk helicopters but with the new PC9 training aircraft to be used in the RAAF. The project for this excellent aircraft is right on time and, again, Hawker de Havilland is doing a great job. The problem with the PC9 is that it is not wanted by the RAAF. The aircraft was selected by the Minister against all professional advice. A third aircraft is now to be brought into the RAAF training system, and this complicates all of the problems that the RAAF has at present. So we have a third aircraft for which pilots will have to be trained. The RAAF will have all the problems of maintaining a third aircraft as well as eventually having to select an initial trainer at one end and a jet trainer at the other because it has a new aircraft in the middle. This was an appalling decision. We are now desperately trying to find out what to do with this excellent aircraft. A lot of the facilities proposed will go to the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey. I was at the centre recently and I can only say, without apportioning any blame, that it is high time the centre had these facilities, not only for the Black Hawk helicopters but also to support its other operations. The centre has temporary buildings which, I presume, were moved to the base 20 years ago. The Army Aviation Corps has done a magnificent job at the centre, working under difficult conditions. I am delighted to see it has been given these extra facilities, which will give Army aviation an enormous boost. The centre also has pilot problems-not so much in getting pilots to fly the Black Hawk helicopters but in trying to find qualified flying instructors for the whole range of programs that it runs. This is the same problem that is faced by the RAAF. The Defence Force cannot retain its pilots because, while conditions of service under this Government may not have deteriorated in comparison with civilian conditions, they have stayed still. As a result, the disparity between the two has increased. Until the Government addresses that fundamental problem and upgrades the conditions of service under which our service men and women operate, the record resignations will continue. Some of the other facilities are going to Townsville where they are needed. The honourable member for Herbert said, with some degree of pride, that new houses were to be built in Townsville. Where would the honourable member expect those people to live? If the Government is to acquire new helicopters and new facilities, what does it expect to do with the people? It is essential that, when a new facility is put in place, people are given decent married quarters in which to live. It is not a matter of great pride to say, `The Government is building all these married quarters'. It is part and parcel of the deal. Over recent years there has been some dispute as to whether these helicopters should remain with the RAAF. The decision was made to transfer them to the Army. I believe that that was the right decision. There are people who live in hope that when there is a change of government the decision will be reversed. I say now, as I have said before, that that decision will not be reversed by us and that the helicopters, when they are eventually transferred, will remain with the Army. I pay tribute to the RAAF for the job it is doing in handing over the helicopters to the Army in this long hand-over program. It places a strain on the RAAF at a time when it faces enormous personnel problems. It gets nothing out of it, so to speak, in the end for this service. But it has taken on that task and is doing it well and it should be complimented. The honourable member for Herbert said that the measure will give the Australian Defence Force (ADF) increased mobility in Townsville. It will certainly give it increased mobility around Townsville. I do not think that anyone would seriously think that the ADF is likely to be deployed only around Townsville. I ask the honourable member for Herbert and other honourable members opposite: How are we to transport these helicopters to the places they are needed? The honourable member referred to the time when I commanded a battalion in Townsville. I have probably told him the story myself. We were short of transport in those days, but at least-if my memory serves me correctly-we still had the Sydney and the Melbourne. At least we had some capacity to project power into our region and the capacity to move helicopters and troops. Where is that capacity now? We have new helicopters, which are very welcome, but no ability whatsoever to move them. The Government has done only half the job. Another matter which is relative to the motion moved by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) is the future of 7 Stores Depot in Toowoomba. 7 Stores Depot is a RAAF depot, but it provides a lot of the backup stores for the Aviation Centre at Oakey. There is some fear and trepidation in Toowoomba that that stores depot will be closed down. Of course, people would lose their jobs if that were to happen. I was there recently and I could see no reason at all why the stores depot should be closed down. It seems to be doing an excellent job. The introduction of these Black Hawk helicopters will add something like another 20,000 items to the inventory, many of which will be required to go to Oakey as well as Amberley. The Government is required to make a very early announcement on what is to happen to the 7 Stores Depot. We on this side of the House wish this project well, and all the associated projects, such as the Black Hawk project, which is very necessary. We wish it much better luck than some of the recent projects undertaken by the Government. The Australian submarine construction program has struck a brick wall in Adelaide. One of the reasons is that Ministers in this place will not support the Australian Submarine Corporation agreement. In Question Time today the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said that he would not support the three-union agreement; that it was a matter for the parties. Senator Button was not so equivocal. He knows where he stands. The Minister for Defence has had the guts to say that there is a three-union agreement and he stands by it. When real pressure is put on this project the Minister for Industrial Relations goes to water. He went to Adelaide yesterday and all he was required to say in answer to the question today was, `We stick by the agreement that we supported and helped to negotiate'. He did not do so. Again, the unions will probably win. Let us make no mistake about it; if the unions win, that project will go offshore because it will be the only way to get it done. We hope that the Black Hawk project will not go down the same track as the submarine project. Because the Government is trying to force consortiums to marry up with designs selected by the Government, the Anzac frigate project is falling apart. ANI pulled out of the AWS consortium the other day. At Williamstown, the AMEC consortium is struggling with the unions and trying to negotiate the same deal that was negotiated in Adelaide with three unions on site. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.57) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1988). The proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1988) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, a tariff alteration made by a notice published in the Gazette during the recent recess. The proposals, operative on and from 1 April 1988, increase the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $13.21 to $15.39 per kilolitre. This change was announced by the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) on 28 March 1988. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(5.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide, under an interim arrangement, lump sum superannuation benefits for Commonwealth civilian employees and employees of Commonwealth authorities and bodies who are eligible employees under the Superannuation Act 1976; and Commonwealth civilian employees and employees of certain Commonwealth authorities and bodies who have no employer sponsored superannuation. The major features of the interim arrangement are that it is an interim arrangement; it provides a benefit for those without any superannuation cover and an additional benefit for those with superannuation cover-existing superannuation arrangements are not affected by the interim arrangement; employees do not contribute; it is an `unfunded' arrangement-rather than pay contributions on an ongoing basis, employers will be required to pay benefits as they fall due; and the basis for calculation of the benefits simulates the benefits that would have accrued had the employer paid contributions to an invested accumulation fund earning interest. The rate of interest provided for in the calculation of the benefit is the long term bond rate at the start of each year. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's June 1986 national wage case decision made provision for employers and unions to negotiate new and/or additional superannuation agreements costing up to 3 per cent of ordinary time wages. The Government agreed to a 3 per cent overall superannuation benefit for Commonwealth sector employees generally, with 1.5 per cent commencing on 1 January 1988 and the balance no later than 1 January 1989. This Bill gives effect to that agreement from 1 January 1988. For the benefit of honourable members I highlight some of the major features of the arrangement. Time constraints and the Government's general review of superannuation precluded finalisation of the longer term form of the benefits for the 325,000 eligible employees under the Superannuation Act 1976 or the 75,000 Commonwealth sector employees with no superannuation cover. Accordingly, the Bill sets up an interim arrangement which can be operated without the need for a central administrator. The arrangement is a simple one because the administration of the arrangement, including record keeping and calculation of the benefit, has been devolved to each employer in respect of its employees. The simplicity of the arrangement and its factual nature have obviated the need for review powers. Longer term arrangements for the benefit will be negotiated in 1988. The Government has already announced a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme later this year. The benefit under the interim arrangement may be subsumed within any revised scheme. The Bill provides that certain regulations can be made with effect from 1 January 1988. One such power relates to the inclusion of certain groups of persons in the interim arrangement from 1 January 1988. This power has been provided so that authorities which provide superannuation benefits other than under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme can choose to cover their employees, particularly employees with no superannuation cover, under the interim arrangement until their separate longer term arrangements are finalised. Another power is to exclude certain groups of persons from the interim arrangement with effect from 1 January 1988. This power has been provided so that, where longer term arrangements with effect from 1 January 1988 are put in place for certain groups of employees initially covered by the interim arrangement, those groups can be excluded from the interim arrangement so that they do not become entitled to double benefits. The Government recognised that a substantial number of employees in the Commonwealth sector have no superannuation cover. In the main, these workers are at the lower end of the income scale. The Government considered it appropriate to arrange the benefit in a way that would favour these employees. The arrangement provides proportionately higher benefits for lower income earners than for higher income earners. This arrangement is a major step in the provision of superannuation for all Commonwealth employees. Lump sum benefits are payable on termination of employment with the Commonwealth or an authority that is an approved authority for the purpose of the Superannuation Act 1976. In accordance with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner's requirements applicable to 3 per cent benefits provided under prescribed agreements or awards made by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities. Benefits of $500 or more are required to be preserved in the approved fund of the person's choice until genuine retirement from the work force. Honourable members will note that this Bill refers to, or uses, the provisions of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 in several places. Where a benefit is less than $500, the benefit can be paid to the individual. The person has the option to roll over all or part of the benefit to an approved preservation fund. There is a qualifying period of three months service, or its equivalent in part time service, for eligibility for the benefit. If employers had to process very small amounts, the costs of doing so could exceed the amount of the benefit. Continuous service prior to 1 January 1988 counts towards this qualifying period but not for benefits. Once eligibility for the benefit is established, the calculation of the benefit takes into account service from 1 January 1988 or the date of commencement of service, whichever is the later. Finally, I would like to advise honourable members of the financial implications of the 3 per cent superannuation benefit. The Bill provides for regulations to specify the basis for calculation of the benefits in 1989 and later years. The rates of employer contribution used in the calculation will result in an overall cost of 3 per cent of salaries for superannuation purposes in those years. The interim arrangement implies an accruing financial commitment by employers of 1.5 per cent of the salaries for superannuation purposes of the persons covered in calendar year 1988 and 3 per cent in subsequent years. In 1987-88 prices. This accruing liability would be $130.5m in 1988 and $271m in later years. The benefits under the interim arrangement will not, however, be met by employers paying contributions to a fund or to a central body. Rather each employer will be required to finance only the benefits that become payable. This would be much less than the full accruing costs. Assuming the interim arrangement will continue unchanged. Costs, in 1987-88 prices, are estimated to be $1.6m in 1987-88, $14.4m in 1988-89, $37.5m in 1989-90 and $62.8m in 1990-91. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(6.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to establish the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government's decision to proceed with establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority was announced in a statement to the Parliament on 7 October 1987 by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). Senator Evans indicated at that time that it was hoped to see the Authority operational within 12 months or so, after appropriate consultation on implementation details and parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation. A commencement date for the Authority of 1 July 1988 has been adopted for planning purposes. The proposed Authority will have operational responsibility for air traffic control, flight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance systems, and rescue and fire fighting services at airports. The Authority will provide an aeronautical information service and will offer consultancy and management services in its fields of expertise. It will also be responsible for organising aviation search and rescue services. It is the Government's view, in the light of experience, that these functions would now be better performed through a statutory authority than by a department of state as in the past. It has been the policy of successive governments that the costs of services provided in support of the conduct of civil aviation operations should be recovered from the aviation industry. Given this policy, the body providing these services should be so structured as to make it adequately responsive to the industry's requirements and to industry's capacity and willingness to meet associated costs. Growth in both the volume and complexity of air traffic in recent years places increased demand on the air traffic services system in Australia. At the same time there is a need to reduce national transport infrastructure costs through increased productivity. Advances in technology, particularly in the communications field, offer the potential to develop a more cost efficient air traffic services system, but this will entail a major program of investment in modernisation and upgrading of the present system. Planning and implementation of such a program can be better undertaken through a self-funding body which directly recovers the costs of services it provides than through a budget dependent department. In the light of these considerations, it is proposed that the Civil Aviation Authority be established as a statutory body, under the control of a nine-member board appointed by the Minister. A group of this size will allow for an appropriate range and balance of expertise in the composition of the board's membership. There is provision for the board to establish advisory committees to assist it, which widens the scope to draw upon persons with experience in business, aviation operations, air safety regulation, trade unions, academia and other appropriate fields, for planning and conduct of the Authority's functions. Close consideration has been given to whether safety standard setting and day to day regulatory control should become the responsibility of the Authority, or whether these functions should remain with a department. A wide range of interested parties has been consulted and views differ on this important question. As Senator Evans indicated in his statement of 7 October 1987, there is considered to be strong logic in the view that the task of regulating aviation safety must be regarded as an integrated system in which all elements are coordinated to achieve maximum reliability and effectiveness. The operation of air traffic control and the flight advisory service is as much a part of safety regulation as the regulation of an aircraft and its crew. The two areas complement each other. Safety regulation has been successfully combined with the operation of the airways system for many years in Australia and in a number of other countries. In the United Kingdom, that country's Civil Aviation Authority has very successfully combined the two functions, although they were initially separated into two different agencies. The United Kingdom decision to bring the functions into a Civil Aviation Authority was taken after a formal review, and on the basis that the setting of standards, regulatory control and the day to day operation of the airways system should be under single control in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, because of the close interrelationship involved. A concern expressed from a number of quarters is that safety standards may become degraded if the body responsible for safety regulation is required to operate on a commercial basis and is therefore subject to cost pressures. The commercial nature of the Authority needs to be clearly understood. It will be the Government's requirement that the Authority adopt a businesslike approach to its affairs, including the ongoing pursuit of cost efficiency and productivity improvement. The Authority will operate commercially in this sense. However, it will not, because of the nature of its activities, be subject to the full range of pressures that apply to business enterprises operating in a free market situation. Whilst the legitimacy of the concern that safety considerations should not take second place to commercial aspects of the Authority's operations is accepted, the latter aspects should be kept in a proper perspective. It also needs to be recognised that aviation safety is not solely dependent on regulation by Government authority. Australia's outstanding aviation safety record was not achieved, nor could it be maintained, by official fiat alone. Departmental officers have made a splendid contribution to our aviation safety in the context of integrated safety and operational functions, and the Government is confident they will continue to do so in the new Authority. Their past contribution was essential, but was not sufficient in itself. Australia's airlines and other operators have made their own essential contribution to the safety record by their professionalism and concern for safety in air operations. This concern is deeply ingrained in our aviation industry and that situation would not be expected to change readily. Nonetheless, the Government recognises the concern that various parties have voiced and has decided to adopt a number of measures in recognition of this. It is the Government's intention that the Australian Civil Aviation Authority will be required to give primacy to safety considerations over commercial ones. The Bill reflects this intention and makes provision for the Minister to give broad directions in relation to the Authority's safety regulatory role to ensure that occurs. As previously announced, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation will remain in the Department of Transport and Communications, separate from the Civil Aviation Authority, and directly responsible to the Minister. This will ensure that the authority responsible for improving and enforcing safety standards will not be left to be the judge of its own performance. The Bureau's resources will be augmented to equip it to advise the Minister on safety trends and on any emerging issues on which the giving of directions to the Authority may be desirable. The Bureau will not duplicate the safety regulatory functions of the Authority, but will have the role of independently assessing and advising the Minister on trends and significant broad issues relating to maintenance of appropriate safety standards. As a direct measure to meet concern about commercial influences adversely impacting on safety regulation, it is the Government's intention that costs of standard setting and ensuring compliance with standards be funded from the Budget and that the Authority perform these functions under contract. Finally, the legislative framework for safety regulation will remain under the control of the Minister. It is considered that these various measures will provide adequate safeguards in relation to the concerns expressed about the possible adverse influence of commercial factors on the maintenance of our outstanding safety record. The function of aviation security also will remain with the Department of Transport and Communications. However, this Bill does provide for the Authority to participate in arrangements to prevent or deal with hijacking or other acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation. Where appropriate, the Bill reflects the Government's announced guidelines in regard to legislation for statutory authorities. In broad terms these guidelines seek to provide a proper balance between the need to remove detailed controls over the operations of statutory authorities on the one hand, and accountability to the Government on the other. With this in mind the general thrust of this legislation is directed towards involving the Government in long term planning and strategic decisions of the Authority. As previously mentioned, the operation of the Authority will be the responsibility of a nine-member board which includes a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. Staffing of the new Authority will involve transferring officers of the Department of Transport and Communications who currently carry out tasks associated with the functions being transferred. These officers, about 7,000 in number, will continue to be employed under the Public Service Act. Their terms and conditions of employment will therefore remain unchanged upon transfer. The headquarters of the Authority will be located in Canberra. As a significant number of officers who will be transferring to the Authority are already employed at this location there would be major costs entailed in locating the headquarters elsewhere in Australia. This is not considered to be justified. Turning to the broad question of financial arrangements which will apply to the Authority: the Bill provides that the Authority will be required to draw up a corporate plan for a three-year period, defining its objectives and identifying its strategies and policies to achieve these objectives. The Authority will be required also to prepare a financial plan covering the same period. Both plans are to be submitted to the Minister. Provision is made in the Bill for the Minister to give directions to the Authority to vary certain parameters in the financial plan. In this event, the direction must be made public, in common with other directions given to the Authority under provisions of the Bill. As already mentioned, costs of setting safety standards and ensuring compliance with those standards will be met from the Budget. Costs of implementing the standards are to be met by the aviation industry through charges levied by the Authority. However, full recovery of implementation costs is to be phased in over a period of seven years, and during that period the shortfall in revenue will also be met from the Budget. The Government will continue to meet the costs of search and rescue. So far as the airways system and the rescue and fire fighting service are concerned, the Authority will be expected to recover fully associated costs from the industry. Provision is made in the Bill for the Authority to determine charges for its services, but proposals for such determinations will be subject to disapproval by the Minister within 60 days of receipt. Provision has been made in the Bill for the transfer of assets to enable the Authority to perform its functions. A valuation for these will be determined, together with the loan and capital components, by the Government. The Authority will be required to earn a reasonable return on its assets and to pay to the Commonwealth a reasonable dividend. It will be able to borrow to meet its capital requirements, if necessary with a Commonwealth guarantee. Subject to certain safeguards, the Authority will be able to participate in partnerships and companies and will be given freedom to provide consultancy and management services, particularly to overseas aeronautical bodies seeking to use the expertise or services of the Authority. The legislation provides for regulations to be made, consistent with this Bill. The existing air Navigation Regulations will need to be divided into regulations under the Air Navigation Act, which has been amended to allow the transfer of functions to the new Authority, and into regulations under the Civil Aviation Bill. This is an interim step. As previously announced, the Government has established a task force to review the legislative framework for safety regulation. The outcome of this review may well have implications for the regulations under the Air Navigation Act, and, more importantly, for the regulations under this Bill. Steps can then be taken to revise the regulations to the extent necessary. However, this important revision should not be allowed to delay the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority. Financial Impact Statement There are no implications in the Bill for additional costs in the public sector. To the extent that greater efficiency is achieved, costs can be expected to reduce in real terms over time. To the extent that the Authority funds its capital investment program from commercial borrowings rather than Budget appropriations, the financial impact of the Bill will be to reduce Commonwealth budgetary outlays. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duncan, and read a first time. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(6.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Much of the Bill is devoted to improving the requirements of the taxation law that deal with the registration of tax agents. A substantial number of other matters are also dealt with. The income tax law will be amended as foreshadowed to restrict eligibility for the special depreciation allowance available for Australian trading ships. Tax deductability is being extended to payments made under cash bidding systems for off-shore petroleum exploration permits and production licences. Practical aspects of application of the foreign tax credit system are being modified and some unintended consequences and technical deficiencies corrected. Anti-avoidance provisions of the thin capitalisation rules are to be strengthened to ensure that foreign investments in Australia maintain an appropriate balance between debt and equity funding. The Bill also includes changes to the taxing arrangements for certain educational allowances and similar allowances and for the carer's pension. Registration of Tax Agents In the interests of both the revenue and the taxpayer, it is important that a person who charges a fee for conducting income tax business on behalf of a taxpayer has the appropriate knowledge of Australian income tax law and of accounting principles and is otherwise a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the responsibility of conducting a person's income tax business. The income tax law, therefore, prohibits a person, partnership or company from charging a fee for preparing an income tax return, or transacting any business relating to income tax matters unless registered as a tax agent, or exempted from registration, by a tax agents board. The provisions that deal with the registration of tax agents have remained relatively unchanged since they were first enacted in 1943. The amendments being made by this Bill will substantially modernise and improve the provisions and give effect to a number of recommendations made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Council, accounting firms and the boards themselves. Interested parties were consulted as part of the drafting process and have indicated general support for the proposed measures. In response to criticisms of the existing provisions by the Administration Review Council and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Bill will extend the range of decisions of a tax agents board in respect of which a person may make application to the Tribunal for review. In order to achieve a desirable degree of uniformity between decisions of the six State boards and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Bill will provide a more objective test as to who is a suitable person to be registered as a tax agent or as a nominee, and will enable eligibility criteria to be prescribed. Also in response to a recommendation of the Tribunal, the Bill will give the boards a general power to suspend the registration of a tax agent in addition to the power of cancellation. Under the existing law, company tax agents may register suitably qualified employees as nominees. Partnership tax agents, however, may only register partners as nominees while sole practitioners may not register nominees at all. Partnership and sole practitioner tax agents have expressed concern that the inability to register employees as nominees increases the workload of the principals and can impede the timely lodgment of returns. To overcome these concerns partnership and individual tax agents are to be permitted to register suitably qualified employees as nominees. The ability of a company to gain registration as a tax agent on the basis of the qualifications of an employee-who need not be a director, shareholder or even a full time employee of the company-has led to exploitation by some unqualified persons. The Bill will therefore tighten the rules for registration as a company tax agent by requiring that shares carrying at least 25 per cent of the voting power in a company applying for registration be beneficially owned by a director or directors having the necessary qualifications to be registered as a tax agent. The $2 fee payable on lodgment of an application for registration as a tax agent or as a nominee of a registered tax agent has not changed since 1943 and is considerably less than those payable for broadly comparable professional registrations. The Bill will increase the fee to $80. The existing law requires tax agents to notify the Board by 1 April each year if they wish to remain registered. The Bill replaces the annual notification requirement with a requirement to re-register each three years and introduce a re-registration fee of $40 plus $5 per nominee. The fees have been set at a level that will recover the costs of operating the tax agents boards and will be subject to regular review. Other amendments will provide for continuation of a partnership registration following a change in constitution of the partnership, effect changes in the composition of the tax agents boards and make a number of minor technical and drafting amendments to the tax agents provisions. Special Depreciation for Australian Trading Ships As announced on 2 April 1987, the Government has decided to restrict eligibility for the special accelerated depreciation concession for Australian trading ships to new ships that qualify under the Federal Government's scheme of capital grants for such ships. Under the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987 the Federal Government pays a taxable grant of 7 per cent of the purchase price of eligible Australian trading ships as an incentive to ship operators to purchase modern, efficient and technologically advanced ships. The Bill will restrict eligibility for special depreciation, from 22 December 1986-the date from which the capital grants scheme applies-to new ships that both satisfy the present eligibility criteria in the income tax law and qualify for a capital grant. Ships which do not qualify for a grant but which, on 22 December 1986, had either been given a manning notice under section 57am of the Income Tax Assessment Act or were the subject of an application for such a notice, will continue to be eligible for special depreciation. The amendments will also disallow the special depreciation if a grant becomes repayable. Cash Bids As announced on 17 September 1986, the Bill will extend the scope of the income tax deductions allowable for cash bids paid for the grant of off-shore petroleum exploration permits. The income tax law was amended in 1987 to allow deductions for cash bids paid to the Commonwealth, under its cash bidding system introduced in 1985, for the grant of petroleum exploration permits in highly prospective areas. This ensured that Australian companies would not be disadvantaged in the bidding process in competing with foreign companies that could obtain deductions under their domestic law for their cash bids. When the amendments were introduced, the Government announced that it also proposed further amendments of the income tax law to allow deductions under other Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory cash bidding systems. The amendments to be made by this Bill will allow deductions for cash bids paid for exploration permits and production licences under the Commonwealth's combined cash bidding and work program system which was included in the off-shore petroleum legislation in 1967. This combined cash bidding-work program system can apply only in circumstances where a previous production licence is discontinued or where a production licence application for a permit is not finalised and the relevant permit lapses. Deductibility will also be extended to cash bids paid under State and Northern Territory cash bidding systems that are equivalent to the Commonwealth's systems. Consistent with the existing tax law, cash bid payments will be written off on a straight line basis over the lesser of 10 years or the life of the producing field to which the permit or licence relates. Write-off for cash bids will commence in the income year in which a production licence is first acquired in respect of the relevant permit area or at the time cash bid payments are made, whichever is the later. This should not have any cost to revenue over the next three years and revenue effects beyond that are dependent on when production licences are granted under cash bidding arrangements. The amendments will apply in respect of cash bids paid on or after 15 January 1986, the date of the original announcement to allow tax deductibility for cash bids paid under the Commonwealth cash bidding system introduced in 1985. Foreign Tax Credit System Amendments are being made to the foreign tax credit provisions to modify the practical operation of the system in relation to creditable foreign taxes and the treatment of overseas employment income of Australian resident individuals. The Bill will also correct some technical deficiencies in the law relating to the quarantining of foreign losses, the treatment of certain dividends as interest income as part of the interest quarantining measures, the amendment of credit determinations and the transfer of excess credits within wholly-owned company groups. Those amendments to the foreign tax credit system which are of a concessional nature are to apply from the commencement of the 1987-88 year of income. Other amendments will apply prospectively from the commencement of the 1988-89 year of income. The changes will have negligible effect on revenue in 1987-88 but may produce some unquantifiable revenue savings in subsequent years. The Government has under consideration a number of other foreign tax credit matters which if requiring legislative action will be the subject of a further Bill. Thin Capitalisation The thin capitalisation rules applying to foreign investments in Australia are to be varied in two particular areas. An amendment to the definition of foreign debt in relation to partnerships and trusts will close off an avenue for avoidance otherwise available to overseas investors who are not themselves partners or beneficiaries. The amendment will ensure that these investors are subject to the rules. The second amendment will modify the effect of an equity maintenance requirement that has a potentially broader application than intended. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr DUNCAN —The redrafted provision will affect a much smaller group of investors than the present law. Under the thin capitalisation rules the level of foreign equity in an Australian investment is generally measured annually. An equity maintenance requirement ensures that equity that is introduced in a year of income to comply with a debt-equity ratio rule is not removed in either of the two years of income following its introduction. Where the equity is prematurely removed the anti-avoidance measure treats that equity as if it had never been introduced. The present rule could apply wherever equity is removed, regardless of how long it has been in place. For resident companies the modified rule will apply to shares introduced in a year of income to ensure that they are maintained for the two subsequent years of income. For other forms of foreign investment the equity maintenance rule will apply where the level of equity is increased in a year of income and will operate to ensure that that level is maintained for the two succeeding years of income. Where the newly introduced equity is not maintained for the required period a lower level of equity will be substituted in debt-equity ratio calculations and may be reflected in an adjustment to related deductions for interest payments. The amended provisions, which will operate from the commencement of the 1989 year of income, should have negligible impact on the revenue. Educational Allowances As part of the Government's strategy to increase young people's access to employment, education and training, the Government has made a number of changes over the past three years to rationalise and improve youth income support programs. One of the changes has been to the education assistance available under the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme and the Aboriginal study assistance scheme to bring the assistance more into line with that provided under Austudy, the main Commonwealth scheme for community-wide educational assistance. Consistent with the taxation treatment of Austudy payments, this Bill will make taxable from 1 January 1988 payments for students aged 16 years or more under the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme and payments under the Aboriginal study assistance scheme. The Bill will also extend the availability of the beneficiary rebates to affected students for the 1988-89 and subsequent income years. The purpose of the beneficiary rebate is to ensure that persons wholly or mainly dependent on certain social security benefits or education allowances do not have to pay income tax. The availability of the beneficiary rebates is also being extended to formal training allowance recipients for the 1987-88 and subsequent income years. The changes relating to the Aboriginal study assistance scheme and the Aboriginal secondary assistance scheme are expected to result in a gain of $0.5m in a full year while the formal training allowance change is expected to cost $2.5m in 1988-89. Carer's Pension Before 1 February 1988 a carer's pension was payable to a relative of a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner where the relative provided constant care and attention to the handicapped pensioner in the home of the relative and the pensioner. The pension was exempt from income tax where both the carer and the handicapped pensioner were below age pension age; if either were of age pension age, the carer's pension was taxable. From 1 February, the carer's pension has also been available to a person caring for a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner but who is not a relative. The effect has been to exempt the carer's pension from income tax where a person who is not a relative and is below age pension age cares for a handicapped pensioner of age pension age. As this is inconsistent with the treatment of the carer's pension when paid to a carer who is a relative, that particular exemption is to be removed, with effect from the date of enactment of the Bill. This will ensure that the tax treatment of the carer's pension is determined without regard to whether the carer is related to the person cared for. The revenue gain is expected to be negligible. Technical Amendments The Bill will also make a substantial number of minor technical amendments to the income tax law and certain other laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. These amendments will have no effect on revenue. An explanatory memorandum which comprehensively explains the measures contained in this Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received the following message from the Senate: The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives of the following Resolution agreed to by the Senate this day: (1) That the paper entitled The Canberra Leasehold System prepared by Professor Max Neutze at the request of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for investigation and report. (2) That the Standing Committee when considering this matter be empowered to sit as a joint committee with the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives when that Committee is considering this matter, under the same provisions as the joint committee empowered by Resolution of the Senate of 3 November 1987, concurred in by the House of Representatives on 5 November 1987, to examine proposed variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra. (3) That nothing in paragraph (2) be taken to affect the power of the Senate Committee to consider the matter referred to in paragraph (1) or its duty to report to the Senate on this matter. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in paragraph (2) of this Resolution. Copies of the message have been circulated in the chamber. Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.06) —The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1988 is described in the explanatory memorandum in the following terms: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to increase the limit on the annual sum appropriated from the Commonwealth Consolidated Fund in respect of the salaries of Ministers; consequent upon the increase to the number of Ministers from 27 to 30 and the 3.8% increase, effective 1 July 1987, recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal in Report Number 3 of 1987. The memorandum goes on to say in the financial impact statement: The combined effect of these changes is to increase the total sum paid in ministerial salaries by $65,000 this financial year. Of course, Ministers are much more expensive to the Parliament than that. After a recent calculation, just taking account of their immediate office, not the services provided by the Department or even the cost of their travel, it is not unreasonable to say that the cost to the Parliament of a Minister is of the order of $500,000 per annum. Nevertheless, this in itself is not necessarily worthy of criticism. I believe that the extra cost of Ministers is justified, provided of course that they are Ministers who are delivering on behalf of the community. I do not think that anybody in this place would deny that Ministers work hard. The main reason they are paid more than backbenchers is the responsibility they are given under the Westminster system. They have a responsibility for the activities of their department. When the Westminster system was operating correctly, many of them were called upon, or felt it incumbent upon them, to resign when departmental mess-ups occurred. They also swear to uphold the law and, in particular, the laws associated with their portfolio. They are expected at all times to inform the Parliament of activities within their department and to ensure that the information they give to the Parliament is truthful. Yesterday I put two questions to one of these Ministers, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), seeking information. The first question sought information as to his knowledge of the changed operating instructions of the Health Insurance Commission (HIC), better known as Medicare in common terminology. I asked him whether there was any inference or concern to him that the Health Insurance Commission, which was once known to be reasonably lax in the way it disseminated information regarding individuals associated with its operations, would have any effect on his future in this Parliament. I called upon him to restate his claimed innocence in regard to the matter of certain confidential information being published in certain newspapers on the advice to journalists from the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). The inference to which I was referring, the changed rules that now exist in the HIC, mean that doctors wishing to use the hot line and communicate with the HIC in a legal fashion, must now ring up, give their names and telephone numbers, provider numbers and any other identifying information that is requested, hang up the phone and wait to be rung back. The HIC now realises that its responsibilities are such that it must be able to establish beyond doubt that it is communicating with the person with whom the law allows it to communicate. More importantly, of course, as my office discovered recently, when one phones Medicare on constituent matters asking any questions relating to the affairs of a constituent, the HIC will refuse to answer those questions. I give the example of what occurred in my office. We simply rang up on behalf of a constituent, to find out when the constituent might receive a cheque. We were told that under the new rules the HIC had decided it could not give us even that information. That is all, of course, because section 130 of the Act forbids the commission from providing anybody with information regarding the affairs of any individual. This is something that will no doubt be argued out in the near future when Mr Temby's report eventually arrives with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). That was the second question I asked. I was pleased to receive, as he had promised, a phone call from the Attorney-General in which he advised me that the Director of Public Prosecutions has in fact received a report from the Federal Police, is processing it and proposes that next week he will be giving to the Attorney- General his advice on whether two members of this Parliament, namely the Minister and the honourable member for Canning have in fact breached the law in any way in regard to their responsibilities. I want to recap quickly what that was all about. Back on 10 November 1987 articles appeared in a number of newspapers but particularly the Sydney Morning Herald. The information published had been provided by the honourable member for Canning in his role as Chairman of the national prices network. In fact that information included some of the following detail. It said that, for instance, a surgeon had conducted open heart surgery and charged $3,000 for that particular operation, when the Medicare fee was $1,050; that a dermatologist had charged $169 for a particular service, when the schedule fee was $22.50; and that an anaesthetist had charged $120 when in fact the schedule fee was $53. Mr Kerr —Outrageous behaviour. Mr TUCKEY —I am not sure whether the honourable member for Denison is referring to the outrageous charge or the outrageous behaviour of providing that information to a newspaper. Mr Scott —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member has strayed far from the Bill before the House. I ask that the honourable member be called back to the essence of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I uphold the point of order. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to return to the terms of the amending Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will read to you again that we are dealing with the remuneration of Ministers. I point out to you that I am stating certain facts relevant to the activities of a Minister and his responsibility. Furthermore, I refer you to the remarks already made in this debate by members of the Government and the Opposition. There was a broad ranging debate on this issue. Clearly, the remuneration of Ministers is commensurate with their added responsibilities. If honourable members are denied debate on similar legislation when presented each year, and are not able to debate the responsibilities of Ministers and give examples of how Ministers might be failing in their tasks, I would think that most unfortunate. I submit that it would be a restriction on my responsibilities and rights as a member of Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor is the second member to speak in this debate. Mr TUCKEY —I am the third. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have read the second reading speech of the Minister and the amending Bill, which is short and precise. The Bill does not allow for too wide a debate. So I suggest to the honourable member that he come back to the terms of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I would suggest to you, sir, that you are even incorrect in your counting. The honourable member for Capricorn (Mr Wright) has taken part in debate on the Bill, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) delivered the second reading speech, and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has addressed himself to the Bill. I was in the House during those contributions. I think it would be grossly unfair and a restriction on me were you, sir, to restrict me in any way provided I continue to comment on the activities of Ministers. The sensitivities of the Government should not be sufficient to stop me. The Bill relates to remuneration of Ministers, and clearly their remuneration is linked with their responsibilities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have given a ruling. I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I will continue. But I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have the right to contest your ruling. If I have to do that in writing, it will be the subject of a further motion. The point I make is that these examples were given because the Minister authorised their provision, by his own admission in this Parliament. I am not dealing with anything new; I am drawing the attention of the Parliament to the fact that the Minister has admitted in this Parliament authorising the provision of this information. Of course, the honourable member for Canning has not denied that he provided that information to a newspaper. I suggest that the Minister acted in concert with the honourable member for Canning because he had an ambition to introduce a participating doctors scheme, which is a scheme by which the doctors of Australia will be signed up to work for Medicare; and if they do not sign up, their patients will be unable to receive Medicare rebates, which, of course, would be a blow to everyone. Mr Scott —Get back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I am. I am talking about the Minister's actions in this regard. Mr Scott —You are not; you are talking about the honourable member for Canning. Mr TUCKEY —I am not. I am talking about the Minister authorising information to be provided to the honourable member for Canning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that I have given a ruling. If the honourable member cannot come to the terms of the Bill, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —I think we might as well have that out now. Debate interrupted. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.18) —I move: That the Deputy Speaker's ruling be dissented from. Mr Scott —You won't get a seconder. Mr TUCKEY —I bet I will. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) will support me. I will write out my motion. Mr Milton —Why don't you get on with your speech and stop wasting the time of the House? Mr TUCKEY —We have a new speech now. Mr Milton —You are just wasting the time of the House. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am not. Honourable members opposite started wasting the time of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now address the terms of my motion which I have written on a document the best I am able. I dissent from your ruling. Mr Deputy Speaker, you are new to the responsibility you hold at the moment as Deputy Speaker. It is outrageous that you have shown-- Mr Kerr —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —There is no point of order; you had better get it right this time. Mr Kerr —Mr Deputy Speaker, in moving dissent from your ruling it is not appropriate that the honourable member should make derogatory remarks about the term for which you have held your office or direct derogatory remarks towards the Chair. He is plainly out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am listening carefully to the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor who is moving dissent from the ruling of the Chair, not against me in particular. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am now moving dissent from your ruling and I am saying you are biased in your ruling and that you must suffer the consequence of your actions. There is absolutely no reason why you have so ruled, other than to try to stop me embarrassing the Government. It is a shame and a disgrace. Of course, it has denigrated absolutely the Chair that you represent. You have dragged it to the lowest possible level. In fact, I am entitled to dissent from your ruling in these circumstances. It is an absolute disgrace, and you know it. You are working for the Australian Labor Party, not this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is reflecting upon the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am moving dissent from your ruling. I am telling you why you are wrong. As such, I am telling you that it is a disgrace. I repeat that it is a disgrace that you as an individual have lowered the role of the Chair to this disgraceful point where you have denied an elected member of this Parliament the opportunity to speak properly on matters which are well known to this Parliament and which are relevant to the legislation before us-namely, the financial payments to Ministers and why it might be that they are paid more than other people. They are paid more than other people because they have responsibilities. I was exposing their responsibilities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Under the Standing Orders the honourable member for O'Connor must point out in his motion of dissent the reasons why he is dissenting from the ruling of the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Let me tell you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am dissenting from your ruling because you are a disgrace to the Chair in what you are doing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member. Mr TUCKEY —I doubt that you have got that right in the circumstances. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member that he should not continue in that vein. Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the point of order. There is a requirement under the Standing Orders that, regardless of whether dissent is being moved or we are engaged in any other form of debate, the Chair be addressed respectfully. The issues should be debated on their merits, in accordance with the Standing Orders and not in terms of the personality of the person occupying the chair. I submit that the current comments are out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —They are out of order. I have already pointed that out to the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —Let us continue. In my opening remarks I read out the purpose of this Bill. I point out to you: The purpose of this Bill is to . . . amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to increase the limit on the annual sum appropriated from the Commonwealth Consolidated Fund . . . I made opening remarks as to why Ministers were paid more. I pointed out that it was clearly as a result of the extra work and extra responsibility. To me responsibility means that one is honest in this Parliament, that one gives a proper account of oneself and that one is, in fact, as a member, required to do the right thing. I then set out to give some examples of a Minister who, in my opinion has failed in recent times. Quite obviously that is relevant to his remuneration and his position. I am entitled to make that point. I say to you, sir, that I am entitled to proceed with that until such time as I am totally irrelevant to the legislation. Furthermore, I put it to you, as I have already, that this was in fact allowed during the earlier debate. I suggest to you, sir, that prior to having made your ruling you probably came in under instructions to watch Tuckey as in fact other people-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order in making those assumptions and assertions. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, had you bothered to listen to the words of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) you would realise that they ranged quite broadly on this matter and that I am equally entitled to do so. When members are elected to parliament they are elected as individuals, strangely enough. Their responsibility to the electorate survives whether or not they are elected to the Chair. They are entitled to ensure that the people-- Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance. The Standing Orders are quite specific in regard to dissent from a ruling of the Chair. It does not in any way relate-- Mr Tuckey —What are you frightened of, Kim? Are you worried about my saying something about Blewett because he is going to get rolled? Mr Beazley —I am just a bit sick of you, you idiot. Mr Deputy Speaker, the reflection on you persistently in the tone of the honourable member's remarks and then his very wide canvassing of what is a limited area of debate are, under Standing Orders, totally inappropriate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to stick strictly within the terms of the dissent motion. Mr TUCKEY —The purpose of my standing was to criticise a Minister. I believe that was entirely relevant to the debate. I wonder about the nervousness of the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). He is nervous about the circumstances of what will happen to the Minister for Community Services and Health because he is going to be charged by Temby. Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, these comments are totally out of order in the context of the debate which is proceeding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is correct. Mr TUCKEY —Let us return to the situation in regard to my dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been told not to insult either you or the Chair. But I have then been told not to give examples of why I dissent. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might therefore suggest to me what is left for me in this particular circumstance when in fact the major concern of the Leader of the House is to ensure that I do not say anything about the Minister for Community Services and Health and his impending prosecution. Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Again under a strict interpretation of Standing Orders the honourable member is proceeding outside the area of debate. He is obliged to stay within the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is certainly upheld. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to stay within the Standing Orders. Mr TUCKEY —I will comment on the remarks just made about my use of the Standing Orders by saying that it is another demonstration of the concern of the Leader of the House as to what I might have to say. As a member of parliament I have some rights in this place. As I said, there are rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities are to ensure that people are entitled to raise matters in this place that are in the interests of the community. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that the activities of Ministers who are paid under this legislation should be undertaken in the interests of the community. People in the community want to know if Ministers are cheating. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Corio on a point of order. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Standing Orders are quite specific. The practices of this Parliament are even more specific in respect of dissent motions. The honourable member for O'Connor is now continuing the speech he was making when he was ruled against in regard to relevance. I realise that his dissent motion is only a cheap device to make a speech. In a matter of dissent one must remain relevant to the disagreement with the Chair and must observe the Standing Orders and practices of the Parliament. The honourable member is making no attempt to stay within the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is again upheld. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that he must stay within the terms of the Standing Orders in speaking to his motion of dissent; otherwise I will be forced to ask him to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am moving dissent from your ruling. I would be able to get some coherent debate on this if I were not so frequently interrupted by members of the Government, who seem to be extremely sensitive about the situation. I am dissenting on the grounds that this is not the commencement of the debate on the Bill and I am not the first speaker in the debate. The House has already accepted a substantial degree of tolerance-tolerance that I believe was quite appropriate in the circumstances. In fact, the matter is about ministerial salaries. I point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker-I do not know how a court would rule on this or whether we are entitled to go down that road-that the matter of relevance is quite clear. If one is talking about ministerial action, one is talking about what Ministers get paid for. This Bill is about increasing Ministers' salaries. When one proposes to increase their salaries surely it is the right of an elected member of this Parliament to raise issues regarding that matter. I am sure that, if Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice is considered in its full, we will see that it identifies that these sorts of speeches have been considered before. In a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to some of the remarks that have been passed already in this debate. That is why I believe I have the right to object to the type of interference to my speech and my democratic rights as a member of parliament. The Chair is to be above these things. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is fairly clear evidence which, I put it to you, I argued with you prior to your ruling that I was irrelevant. I gave you reasons why my comments were relevant. I argued that you should have accepted them because you should at least have considered my democratic rights and the responsibility I have to the people who elected me to raise issues in this Parliament to protect the taxes that they pay. They pay taxes and they charge me with protecting those taxes. So when I raised the question of how the extra money is paid to Ministers and how those Ministers are earning that money-remembering that it came from the taxes of Australians-I argue quite clearly that I am totally relevant and that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should not have ruled against me. That is the reason for my lodging my dissent from your ruling. I guess you are about to rule now, and I expect that justice will reside in the numbers if there is a vote on this matter. Let me draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to some of the remarks of the honourable member for Capricornia who spoke earlier in this debate. This is what the honourable member said when he spoke on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill yesterday: The honourable member spoke about what I believe is simply a list of falsehoods when he talked about the record of this Government. One falsehood that the Liberals keep touting around the nation is that the overseas debt we have is a debt owed by the Commonwealth Government. What members, such as the honourable member for Tangney, do not bother to say is that 60 per cent of our foreign debt is in fact owed by private enterprise. You might tell me in your response, Mr Deputy Speaker, what the overseas debt, to which the honourable member for Capricornia refers, has to do with ministerial salaries. Of course, in my view it does have something to do with ministerial salaries because it relates to the management of government and what Ministers get paid for. It relates to the reason why they get a salary in excess of that of every backbencher. The honourable member for Capricornia goes on to say: It is private enterprise that owes $6m out of every $10m. Twenty per cent of that debt is owed by the States and statutory authorities. I suggest that the honourable member go to Queensland, where the electricity authority owes something like $4 billion. The honourable member was allowed to venture into State areas of expenditure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I bring the honourable member back again to this motion of dissent. Mr TUCKEY —My motion of dissent is to read to you the remarks of a Labor backbencher in this debate to show the total inconsistency. Mr Beazley —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A dissent from the Chair's ruling relates to whether the Chair was proper in having given that ruling. In these areas it is quite clear that when you have determined that a matter is outside the framework of the strict interpretation of the debate, you are entitled to make that sort of ruling. What must be argued here is whether you are entitled to make that sort of ruling if dissent is to be moved. This sort of analogy is not appropriate to the debate. Mr TUCKEY —That is a very interesting remark, which, of course, is not supported by any precedent whatsoever. Mr Beazley —Only all the debates on dissents. Mr TUCKEY —Then perhaps the honourable member would like to produce some of those precedents and quote them. As Leader of the House he can come up with those sorts of remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call on the honourable member for O'Connor to stick within the terms of his motion of dissent. Mr TUCKEY —I think it would be a good idea if that sort of precedent was quoted in this debate. I put it to you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is totally wrong for you to rule that my remarks are out of order when in fact the remarks I made relating to the activities of a Minister were such that I had done no more at this stage than repeat history and act upon my right to criticise the increase in remuneration to a Minister because in my view he has acted improperly and not within his responsibilities. That is what you stopped me from doing. We can go through precedent until we are blue in the face but the realities of the matter are that if we are to have honourable members throttled off in this way on a matter of relevance because they are criticising a Minister, this Parliament has reached a sorry state. Therefore, I believe that you should reconsider on that matter. I believe it is relevant that the debate has ranged broadly in this regard. It has been said-and I am well aware of this precedent-that in this House previous Speakers have ruled very clearly that they have allowed a wide ranging debate and that it would be unfair on an individual member if he or she were suddenly throttled off when he or she was being quite relevant on the point of an individual Minister. At no time have my remarks strayed from the point about a Minister and his activities-- Mr Donald Cameron —Which Minister? Mr TUCKEY —The Minister for Community Services and Health who, as I was pointing out, has quite clearly been involved in a release of confidential information and as such is now the subject of a police inquiry. Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: once again the honourable member is straying very far from the very strict terms in which a debate on a dissent from the Speaker's ruling can be conducted. The honourable member has repeatedly been in breach of this element of the Standing Orders relating to dissent debates and he should be brought to order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I again ask the honourable member for O'Connor to stick to the terms of his motion. Mr TUCKEY —The motion is that I dissent from your ruling, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have not yet heard the reasons why you are moving dissent. Mr TUCKEY —I will tell you again. I have a right and it is a right that transcends any other right in this place. As an elected member I have the right to speak to legislation and be relevant. The relevance is that at no time in my discussions have I in any way moved away from the point of the activities of a Minister for which he is paid and for which this legislation provides. If you can tell me that that is not relevant, I do not know where we go because the point is relevant and I am moving dissent from your ruling that it is irrelevant. Mr Beazley —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dissent from your interpretation of the Standing Orders must centre on whether you have a right to rule on relevance. If the Standing Orders say that you do not have a right to rule on relevance, then it is legitimate to move dissent from your ruling. If the Standing Orders say that you do have a right to rule on the matter of relevance, the point cannot stand. The debate on dissent from your ruling must centre on whether you have a right to rule on the point of relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is upheld again, and once again I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to stick within the Standing Orders on his motion of dissent. Mr TUCKEY —I was reading a list of Rhodes scholars today; there are a few surprises in it and I have just come across another one, but thank goodness the Leader of the House has never had to take a shilling for giving legal advice because one would have to go to the consumer affairs body about it. That was the most ridiculous argument that has ever been put-- Mr Beazley —It is about to be upheld too. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, the Government has the numbers. Justice will reside in the numbers. The Leader of the House is getting a bit more like Mick Young, but he lacks his skills and brilliance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will come back to the motion of dissent. Mr TUCKEY —With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might order the Leader of the House not to interject and encourage my response. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has been quite correctly taking his points of order, which I have been upholding. Mr TUCKEY —We have a situation where a Minister of this House is under police investigation and I want to raise the matter in the appropriate forum; and I believe your ruling is wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Burr —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(8.39) —This motion will not be agreed to. The point about a motion of dissent from the Chair's ruling must be whether the Chair has conducted a ruling within his entitlement under the Standing Orders. Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure we all witnessed the Minister at the table telling one of his own backbenchers to sit down by waving at him. I believe that that is a display of intimidation and I wonder what standing order protects members of the Government side from such coercive actions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for La Trobe stood to speak in the debate, not to second the motion. Mr BEAZLEY —We are not going to discuss the actions of frontbenchers here because that would be irrelevant. The point is: when a Speaker or Chairman makes a ruling on a matter and dissent is moved, the debate on dissent must centre on whether, within the framework of Standing Orders, there is a right to make that sort of ruling. After that, any judgment about whether the power exists simply becomes a reflection on the Chair or an argument about interpretation. As far as the Standing Orders are concerned, it is quite clear that on any matter of legislation there is an obligation on the Chair to ensure that debate is relevant to the matters before the House. It is quite conceivable that the Chair could make, in a God's eye or bird's eye view, a judgment about relevance that would be incorrect by a reasonable interpretation of whether or not a particular speech is relevant to the matter before the Chair. The fact is that the Standing Orders protect absolutely the Chair's right to be immune from such a God's eye view of whether or not the Chair has correctly interpreted relevance. The Chair is in a position where, under the Standing Orders, virtually anything is relevant that he determines relevant and anything is irrelevant that he determines irrelevant. There is no definition of `relevance' anywhere in the Standing Orders that stands outside the Chair's interpretation. Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) had decided to get up in this place and argue that Standing Orders say that relevance is not to be determined by the Chair but is to be determined by the man making the speech, he would have a case for dissent from your ruling. But the honourable member did not stand up in this place and argue that he or some independent arbiter around the House had the right to determine what is relevant. He did not argue that the Government or the Opposition had the right to determine what is relevant. He ignored all of that in his speech. He would have a case for dissent from your ruling only if he had concentrated on this line of argument or if he had discovered some aspect of Standing Orders which challenged your ruling. As it was, the remarks he was making were the sorts of remarks that require consideration of whether or not there is a reflection on a particular member of the House. That can be argued only by way of a substantive motion; it quite clearly cannot be argued from within the framework of legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, in pointing this out to you I am being irrelevant because that is not a matter that should be debated at the moment. It is irrelevant to debate whether or not the honourable member for O'Connor has the right to reflect on a member of parliament other than by way of a substantive motion. The only thing that is relevant to this debate is whether or not you have a power to determine in a debate here in this place what is relevant. If you do not have that power, it is quite obvious that the Parliament must proceed on the basis of a shambles. Authority has to be centred in the Chair. If there is going to be order in debate, if people are going to be held to the points on which debate can take place and if relevance is to be established, clearly there has to be an arbiter of relevance. Standing Orders leave the Chair as the sole arbiter of relevance. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been subject to the most unjustified vilification for 20 minutes from the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member did not have the decency to confront Standing Orders. He is contemptible and he deserves no further consideration in this place. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Hewson, J. R.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Porter, J. R.Cadman, A. G. Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Donald Reith, P. K.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Sharp, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Sinclair, I. McCDobie, J. D. M. Smith, W. L.Downer, A. J. G. Spender, J. M.Edwards, Harry Tuckey, C. W.Fife, W. C. Webster, A. P.Fischer, Tim White, P. N. D.Fisher, Peter Wilson, I. B. C.Hall, Steele Woods, R. L.Halverson, R. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Courtice, B. W. Lindsay, E. J.Crawford, M. C. McHugh, J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. SDuncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Ruddock, P. M. McLeay, LeoShipton, R. F. Uren, T.Katter, R. C. Lavarch, M. H.Brown, N. A. Grace, E. L.Andrew, J. N. Morris, AllanProsser, G. D. Morris, PeterCowan, D. B. Hayden. W. G.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr KERR(Denison)(8.52) —I am delighted that the division was resolved in such a sweeping manner, vindicating your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do my best, in addressing the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, to remain relevant to the Bill at all stages. It is a most simple and logical piece of legislation which, notwithstanding the theatrics that have been displayed in this debate so far, actually has the support of both sides of the House. One of the most surprising elements to those who may be listening to this debate over the radio is that this debate is about a piece of legislation which is supported not merely by the Government but by the Opposition parties in this House. One would not think so from the way in which this debate has been conducted. It has been conducted in a way which can only bring some discredit on those of us who seek to place the proper running of this Parliament at the forefront of our thinking. The provision which we are debating is a very simple one. It effects two things: firstly, it provides for the payment of salaries which follow the expansion of the Ministry from 27 to 30 members under the new organisational arrangements which were announced in the restructuring following the last Federal election and, secondly, it accommodates the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendations following recent adjustments through the remuneration process. Turning to the first point-that is, the accommodation of salaries for the expansion of the Ministry-the legislation is necessary because section 66 of the Constitution provides that ministerial salaries are to be provided by an Act of Parliament if they are to exceed the original provisions which were included in the constitutional framework in 1901. It is always the case now that arrangements to meet appropriations for ministerial salaries are so provided-that is, by specific statute. When the Government was re-elected at the last general election, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced a very significant and sweeping reorganisation in ministerial responsibility. That arrangement made quite dramatic changes to the previous arrangement. In the past there was a large Ministry with each Minister conducting the administration of a specific and particular department. With the growth of administration and the increasing ambit of Commonwealth responsibilities over the years, it became clear to a number of governments, not merely the present Government, that there needed to be some mechanism for streamlining the process of government and making it more efficient. As a result, on the re-election of the Government, the Prime Minister put forward proposals, which have been accepted in the Parliament and implemented through an Act of Parliament, to restructure the arrangements. Instead of having 27 separate portfolios there are now 16 portfolio areas which have been dubbed megaministries by the popular Press. Cabinet Ministers are responsible for one of 16 large portfolios. They are supported, in turn, by 14 non-Cabinet Ministers who are responsible for specific parts of the Cabinet Ministers' portfolios or assist in some part of their range of functions. That releases portfolio Ministers from detailed administrative work and permits them to focus on the strategic direction of the portfolio and its contribution to Government priorities. That is a very significant advance, particularly in areas where coordination at a macro-level is required. It permits greater efficiencies-not just in terms of cost saving, although cost savings which run in excess of $100m have been identified, but also in terms of simple decision making procedures. A good area to instance in that respect would be the Department of Employment, Education and Training. In the past, the different functions of education, employment and training were held by different portfolio Ministers. Often that led to a lack of coordination in the design of programs. There was an overlapping of programs and a lack of sophistication in terms of response to the overall global difficulties which we as a government faced. Putting all those responsibilities under the one broad portfolio head, but giving assistance to the Cabinet Minister in his discharge of that responsibility by allowing him to draw on the support of another Minister-I suppose one could call him a junior Minister-has enabled there to be coordination, integration of planning and a sophistication of service delivery which has been undreamt of in the past. We are beginning to see the effectiveness of the process come through as the Government refines and streamlines its programs and develops a most sophisticated way of approaching the difficulties with which it has to cope. The arrangement removes overlap and duplication of functions and enhances ministerial control because it allows Ministers to deal with particular areas of their portfolio responsibility. Also, it gives the portfolio Minister, at the highest level, the time to look at the global priorities of his portfolio area. It is true that, by increasing the number of Ministers from 27 to 30, there was a small increase in direct costs. It has been estimated that the figure for this financial year will be in the order of $1.1m. Two things need to be said about that. Indirect benefits are derived from that direct cost. In terms of indirect benefits, the estimated savings are about $105m in a full year. The evolution of this system will make for a more efficient, better coordinated and more streamlined administration. One might ask, if it has such obvious benefits, why it has not happened before. Perhaps the real reason is that in the past there has been a lack of courage in confronting what was thought to be a constitutional difficulty standing in the way of having junior Ministers and senior Ministers administering the same portfolio. The uncertainty in that area arose because of an opinion given by Sir Garfield Barwick, QC, as he then was, in 1958 when he advised the then Government that `in the nature of things . . . the office of administering a Department is a single office', and concluded that it is `insusceptible'-a very difficult word even perhaps for a great judge-`of sub-division whether by joint occupancy or by way of appointment of Assistant Ministers'. That opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick, QC, was in the face of the majority opinion of lawyers and of those who have held the office of Solicitor-General, the second law office of this nation. For example, Sir Kenneth Bailey, the then Solicitor-General, said in his 1958 opinion: . . . there seems to me nothing in the Constitution to prevent the appointment of Associate or Assistant Ministers in the Department of Defence. He then proceeded to explain some qualifications to his opinion and the way in which departments would have to be administered. Similarly, academic commentators also held different views from those expressed by Barwick, QC. For example, Professor Sawer, in 1956, in Public Law at page 110 and in a passage at page 124, said of the constitutional provisions: Even if interpreted with the greatest strictness, section 64 of the Constitution does not require that only one person be appointed to administer a Department of State . . . Perhaps because of the eminence that is accorded the views of that strong-minded judge, Sir Garfield Barwick, it seems that conservative governments in the past have been rather reluctant to take the issue in hand and to proceed to do the logical thing, that is, to create the kind of structure that the Government has now created. The present Government's decision to proceed in the way it has was arrived at only after a very detailed opinion was sought and solicited from Dr Gavan Griffith, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, who, after a review of the authorities, said at page 5 of his opinion, `I find myself in disagreement with Barwick's conclusion', and then set out the reasons. He found the opinion did not enjoy any textual support from the Constitution itself and that, secondly, looking beyond the textual context, it drew no support whatsoever from the practice of the Commonwealth parliaments, the British Parliament and other parliaments, prior to Federation, which would have been the models on which the Australian Constitution was drawn. So we find that the only view which would stand in the way of the appointment of two or more Ministers to administer a department jointly is the view of Sir Garfield Barwick. Quite properly, the Government, after the opinions not only of past but also of present Solicitors-General, can clearly be confident that the balance of legal opinion is strongly in favour of the position it has adopted and that the present arrangements are perfectly proper and legitimate. It is some mark of the role of Sir Garfield Barwick, in perhaps yet another instance of his having stood in the way of rational decision making, that his influence lingered so long. It is perhaps one of the small tragedies of our public life that so great an intellect was put to such small purposes. I digress briefly to mention the book by David Marr on Barwick in which he says: In 14 years on the bench, Barwick had managed to end Privy Council supervision of the High Court, but the London court remained entangled in the Australian court system. His work had had only a limited success. Tax was Barwick's only triumph. The tax avoidance industry boomed in Australia in the 1970s as a direct result of the work of the Barwick High Court. Under Barwick's guidance the court approved tax schemes with great precision and learning, dissecting them and taking little interest in their overall shape and the purposes for which they were put into operation. Sadly, that is Barwick's legacy-a great mind capable of great things but put to such little application. As with much of his legacy, his rather narrow and pedantic opinion has been overthrown and the Government has seen its way clear to implement a proposal which is rational and sensible and which successive governments had sought to implement before but had drawn back from because of the baneful influence of the lasting doctrine that Barwick had put forward. The legal basis for the scheme is well established but, once we move along this course and appoint additional Ministers to implement the scheme, arrangements will clearly need to be made to pay those Ministers and to put the new operations into effect. The first part of this Bill provides for the appropriation of moneys to pay the additional three salaries, as I have indicated before, at a direct on-cost of some small sum but with the indirect saving of over $100m of Commonwealth funds through consequential savings. As well as the administrative efficiencies that derive from this streamlining of Commonwealth administration, ministerial salaries have had to be added to by an appropriation to accommodate the increased salary component which has flowed from the Remuneration Tribunal. The Remuneration Tribunal is the body which has been established to determine the salaries of members of parliament and Ministers. In 1987 it recommended that ministerial salaries be increased by 3.8 per cent with effect from 1 July as a first step towards the resolution of the agreed anomaly which the Tribunal found had existed since 1984. The Tribunal has also recommended that parliamentary salaries be increased by a further 2.2 per cent from 1 July 1988. It may sound as if this is an instance of Ministers doing other than as they preach, but it should be pointed out clearly that this anomalous situation arose as a result of the Government's consistent demonstration of wage restraint. The legislation brings ministerial salaries back to where they would be if they had followed ordinary wage movements which have been granted to every other member of the working community in Australia. This measure does not include the 4 per cent claim currently under negotiation. It is merely an anomaly arrangement to bring salaries back to where they might otherwise be expected to be had the Government not, in an effort to lead by example, contained salaries way behind those of which other Australian workers have had the benefit. It is important to put that in context. Again to put things in context, I draw very briefly on a paper prepared by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in which he compared wage movements for average weekly earnings, different price movements and salaries. The honourable member points out that for the years 1974 through to 1987 average weekly earnings increased by 278.6 per cent whereas the remuneration received by members of parliament increased by only 130 per cent for the same period. In other words, there has been a significant falling behind when one compares the remuneration paid to those who serve in the Parliament with that paid to the general community. I wish to place in context that this is not a wage grab by Ministers. It is simply the resolution of an anomaly, which is being properly addressed. Finally, I do not wish to appear pious or canting, but it is sad that we should fall into the gutter in these types of debate. We are our own worst enemies if we take cheap shots at one another in the course of such deliberations. Euphemistically one might call a debate, such as we heard in this House earlier this evening, vigorous. Perhaps those listening on the radio might choose a less kind word. Those of us who do value and honour the privilege of serving in this Parliament do ourselves no great good by descending to the levels that were demonstrated earlier this evening. Mr PORTER(Barker)(9.12) —The purpose of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill is to increase the limit of appropriations to pay for, first, three new Ministers of State and, second, for the 3.8 per cent increase in pay for all Ministers. The latter increase was recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. Last July the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced a two-part government strategy to reorganise the machinery of government and of public administration. First, the Prime Minister announced an expansion of the Ministry with the appointment of three additional Ministers of State. Second, he proposed to amalgamate the 27 government departments into 16 or 17, depending on how one counts the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, with supposed staff savings being made additional to those already predicted in the streamlining process that was begun in 1986. In fact, the staff savings have yet to materialise, but I shall refer to that in a moment. I shall deal first with the Prime Minister's contradictory public administration policy of promoting, on the one hand, an expansion of the size of the Ministry while on the other hand pretending to be interested in smaller government. The Prime Minister never misses an opportunity to talk of the talent and efficiency of his Ministry. But under his leadership there has been an unprecedented decline in ministerial standards and an unprecedented increase in examples of ministerial incompetence. Now we have had thrust on us even more Ministers, and if anything the result is worse, with the added problem of confusion of demarcation of areas of responsibility. I shall give a couple of examples of the performance of this talented Ministry! Last year, no fewer than four Ministers-Senator Gareth Evans, Peter Duncan, Peter Morris and Gordon Scholes-all played a role in awarding a contract for the surveillance of our northern coastline to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, a company with no aeroplanes, no experience, and, as subsequently became clear, no hope of meeting the contract. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Barker that, as has been pointed out already, the Bill before the House is extremely narrow in its terms. It is an unusual Bill in that it has no related matters attaching to it. I suggest that the honourable member stay within the confines of the Bill. Mr PORTER —With due respect, Madam Speaker, surely we are allowed to discuss ministerial performance-within reasonable bounds. The question as to whether we are getting value for money is relevant in this debate. Without wishing to cast any aspersions on you, Madam Speaker, I took notice that you sat silent while the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) ranged far and wide talking about Sir Garfield Barwick and a book by David Marr on him, which had absolutely nothing to do with this Bill. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will listen carefully to what the honourable member for Barker has to say but I warn him that he should stick within the scope of this very narrow Bill. I suggest also that the honourable member not argue with the Chair. Mr PORTER —I do not wish to argue at all, Madam Speaker. This debate has been wide-ranging and certainly the honourable member for Denison ranged far and wide. He did not even talk about Ministers; he was talking about a justice of the High Court of Australia and the fact that he disagreed with that justice's ruling on tax avoidance. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I listened carefully to the contribution of the honourable member for Denison and I found that what he said was, on the whole, relevant to the Bill. I suggest that the honourable member for Barker stay the same way. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, when we flushed out the Minister responsible for this particular chaotic situation of awarding a contract to a company to undertake the surveillance of our northern coastline, which company had little hope of successfully fulfilling that contract-in this case the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans-he claimed, `It is unfair to describe Amann as a bungle; there was a systems failure'. As it turned out, Amann was but a drop in the bucket compared with subsequent examples of gross ministerial incompetence by this so-called talented Ministry. Late last year the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), misled the Parliament over a tendering process and was forced to resign. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is straying well outside the framework of relevance to this Bill. He is canvassing a wide variety of matters, some of which ought to be raised on specific resolution, particularly an accusation that a member has misled the House. Such matters must be raised by way of specific resolution. In this case that could not happen because the matter has already been dealt with by the House. On three or four counts the honourable member is proceeding in an irrelevant fashion. Madam SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order. I have already warned the honourable member for Barker to keep within the confines of this very narrow Bill. I again suggest that he do so. The Chair would not like to ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Porter —Madam Speaker, first, in relation to the point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has ruled on the point of order. Mr Porter —May I raise a point of order in relation to that point of order? I said that former Minister Brown had misled the Parliament. He admitted having misled the Parliament and he resigned. How can the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) say that I must say that by way of substantive motion. Minister Brown admitted that he had misled the Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker should read the Bill that is before the House. It specifically refers to two matters-Ministerial salaries and an increase in the number of Ministers. I suggest that his ranging over matters that have been debated in this House on numerous occasions when speaking to one of the narrowest Bills that has come before this House for some time is not the correct approach. The honourable member has been a member of this House for a long time and I would not expect him to be arguing with the Chair. I now expect him to stay within the confines of the Bill. Mr PORTER —Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling. I do not accept it willingly but I accept it, especially in relation to previous speakers who have spoken far and wide in this debate. Certainly one of the matters under debate is the increase in pay as a result of the appointment of additional Ministers. The point I am making is that the Government is seeking to justify the appointment of more Ministers at a time when I believe that the existing Ministers are not competently administering the affairs of Government. As I have said, former Minister Brown ran into trouble in this place and resigned. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker may be assisted if I read to him from page 322 of the House of Representatives Practice: When a Bill has a restricted title and a limited subject matter, the application of the relevancy rule for second reading debate is relatively simple to interpret. It then provides examples. The honourable member for Barker is once again ranging away from the very restricted topic of the Bill. Mr PORTER —Madam Speaker, how on earth can a discussion of David Marr's book on Barwick be considered relevant? No-one took a point of order about it and you did not pull up the honourable member for Denison yet my talking about Ministers does not seem to be relevant. Mr Beazley —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Even though the honourable member for Barker is talking in modulated tones, this is about the fourth occasion on which he has effectively debated your ruling. Madam SPEAKER —When the honourable member for Denison was reading from a ruling from Barwick he was reading a ruling on whether or not the Government was able to create more Ministries. I consider that fairly relevant to the Bill that is before the House. I listened very carefully to the honourable member for Denison. The honourable member for Barker will now cease arguing with the Chair. Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the substance of the comments you have read from the House of Representatives Practice specifically includes matters relating to the title of the legislation. The legislation is entitled `Ministers of State Amendment Bill'. Surely matters which are within ministerial responsibility and the conduct and code of behaviour of Ministers must be related to that title. Madam SPEAKER —This Bill has a very restricted title. It has a very limited subject matter. The Chair has ruled on this several times. I am reluctant to ask the honourable member for Barker to resume his seat, but I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Denison and I found his comments on Sir Garfield Barwick quite relevant to the topic before the Chair. Mr PORTER —Given that half of my time has expired, I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker, and I will continue. Obviously, I will not be allowed to give examples of why we oppose the increase in the size of this Ministry from 27 to 30. We do not believe that the Government was properly administering the business of Government and there was no justification for the increase from 27 to 30 Ministers. Their pay, of course, is the subject of this legislation. No reasons were given at the time by the Prime Minister for an increase in the size of the Ministry and it became clear to the community that the action was taken to placate the warring factions within the Labor Party. It is now clear that that decision alone has cost the Australian community $1m in extra salaries and $1.4m for the extra accommodation that has to be provided in the new Parliament House. So we have an expanded Ministry and an extra three Ministers, at a cost this year to the Australian public of some $2.4m. No reason was given for the expansion other than to placate the warring factions within the Australian Labor Party. Again, the concern we have often expressed is that the Labor Party in government seems to forget its motto of `Power to the people', which is so often expressed on the way to government, and it soon becomes `Power to the Party'. At the same time as the Prime Minister was trying to justify the increase in the size of his Ministry he was promoting new administrative arrangements which were supposed to save money and reduce the size of the Public Service. In September 1986 the Prime Minister promised to cut 6,000 from the Public Service by July 1988. Given that the Public Service has grown by 30,000 during the first four years of the Labor Government, which is four times the rate of growth during the last four years of the Fraser Government, the reversal of the previously irresponsible expansionary policy was not before time. Last July the Prime Minister announced that further administrative changes would result in staff savings in a full year of some 3,000 positions, which the Government has directed should be achieved through a process of attrition or voluntary action on the part of employees. The Prime Minister's commitment to smaller government was soon swept away with the revelation in the Budget of the provision of 3,077 new positions: for example, in the Attorney-General's Department, 263; in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 378; in the Department of Social Security, 1,000, and so on. These new positions wipe out the staff savings from the Prime Minister's new administrative arrangements. In the Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated that the restructuring of Commonwealth departments was estimated to produce savings of $107m in a full year and to cut 3,100 off staffing levels by 1988-89. What he did not tell us was that at the same time they were going to make 3,077 new appointments. Savings in staff from the amalgamations of departments should accrue through the elimination of the duplicated administrative functions such as personnel offices and payroll offices, as well as library and security services, and from efficiencies gained in the number of upper management staff. Instead of those affected by the amalgamation being retrained and redeployed or paid out as redundant so they can get on with their lives, we have seen the creation of a new class of public servant-the redeployed. They live in the twilight zone of the Public Service. These employees are kept on the Federal Government payroll but are shunted from position to position. They are never given any real job responsibility and they are unable to find other positions within the Public Service or move out to a new career in the private sector. The Public Service claims that there are as many as 4,500 redeployees in the Australian Capital Territory alone. A recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation report claimed that there were up to 15,000 Public Service redeployees awaiting redeployment nationwide. Based on the average annual Public Service staffing costs, the 4,500 redeployees awaiting meaningful placement in the Australian Capital Territory are costing $180m annually, and nationally over $600m a year is being wasted. The spectre of the redeployed worker haunts the Prime Minister's much vaunted reform of the Public Service system. For two years now the Prime Minister has been promising cuts in the size of the Public Service, but department heads to whom the responsibility of reducing the Public Service has been devolved are finding out that it is less costly, in any given Budget year, to keep redundant employees on the payroll than to make redundancy payments under the redundancy awards. Under normal circumstances the cost to the Government of a redundancy payment in a case of voluntary retrenchment reaches the cost of one year's salary of the retrenched employee after only five years of employment. No wonder the Government finds administrative excuses to keep shuffling these employees from department to department. In other words, looking only at annual expenditure, it is cheaper to keep employees who have served more than five years than to pay them out. Of course, in the longer term it is much cheaper to pay them out. At the end of last year there were 46,000 Public Service employees in the Australian Capital Territory. Only 38 of these had been given redundancy packages and all of them were in the Senior Executive Service. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has offered a fair amount of latitude on that area. I suggest that the honourable member return to the Bill. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am saying that the Prime Minister, in claiming that staff savings can be made from the new ministerial arrangements-an increase in the size of the ministry-is saying that amalgamations under these new ministerial arrangements will actually save money in the Public Service. What I am putting to the House is that no money has been saved because the commitment to reduce the Public Service has not been met. For two years the Prime Minister has promised staff cuts of 6,000 by 30 June this year and so far only 700 have been identified. The Prime Minister promised redeployment, yet some 15,000 are sitting around at an annual cost to the taxpayer of some $600m. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member for Barker intend to return to the Bill? The Bill has nothing in it about redeployment or the Public Service. It is a very narrow Bill. I have pointed that out on a number of occasions. I have given the honourable member a fair go. I suggest he returns to the Bill or resume his seat. Mr PORTER —Certainly, Madam Speaker. In relation to the Bill, as I said a moment ago, the Prime Minister has claimed that the reason the public should accept this legislation, accept the increased payment to an increased number of Ministers, is that staff savings will be made. I am putting to the House that that is not the case. One of the reasons we have expressed concern about the increase in the number of Ministers, which results in Bills such as this, is that staff savings will not be made. There are other concerns, of course, about substantial changes in administrative arrangements such as those which have been made subsequent to the appointment of these three Ministers. There is concern in the Public Service about its underhand politicisation. The concern is that the Government is using the change in administrative arrangements to install its own people instead of abiding by the provisions requiring appointment or promotion to be based on merit. This Ministry, that we are going to pay more money to as a result of this legislation tonight, has a responsibility to abide by the provisions of the Public Service Act. The concern of the Public Service about politicisation is, I guess, highlighted by recent appointments in the Department of Aviation, for example, where new appointments have been made at the senior level of branch head-and three branch heads appointed over existing staff were all ex-Labor ministerial assistants. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat. He has no intention of heeding the Chair. I ask him to resume his seat. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.31) —I know the House is looking forward with anticipation to the next lot of legislation but the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, that is before the House, has this title: An Act to amend section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952. The Bill is consequential on the increase in the number of Ministers from 27 to 30 and the 3.8 per cent increase in salaries effective from 1 July, as recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal in report No. 3 of 1987. In the work practice area some sort of productivity claims ought to be entered into by Ministers and some sort of grading take place on the productive effort of Ministers. It would be possible in the time I have to go through the processes of nominating my appraisal of the productive effort of each of the Ministers. I could start with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and see whether the 3.8 per cent claim that has been awarded by the Remuneration Tribunal in its report No. 3 of 1987 is justified in his case. All Prime Ministers work extremely hard. This one does. Whether he is effective in his work would be a matter for the Tribunal to judge. Scales could easily be established to see whether Ministers had a work practice that produced effective legislation that was conducive to the well-being of the community and whether their role and attitudes in the carrying out of their tasks were such that they would be eligible to receive the increase in salary. The task of being Deputy Prime Minister is far less demanding and one would have to ask whether in those circumstances the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) warranted the 3.8 per cent increase. Maybe if we see the advent of citizens initiative voting-referendums-we may see some change in the processes by which ministerial salaries are increased. Ministers, after all, are like managers and directors of large organisations. It is on performance that they should achieve greater remuneration, rather than on the blanket class award that is typical of so much of the Public Service. The productivity claims of various Ministers in the Hawke Government will vary. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) all could be claimants under productivity claims. It would be interesting to see Ministers go through the processes that those in the union movement or those on fixed incomes have to go through to see whether they deliver the management-type process that warrants salary increases. The American system is one whereby Ministers are awarded a lump sum and they allocate totally those funds as they see fit-the number of officers, type of staff, hardware and office set up. The Australian approach is too restrictive and Ministers and members ought to be able to exercise more fully their managerial skills. This should be considered by the Remuneration Tribunal in assessing the needs of Ministers. If much of the allocation that Ministers currently receive in the form of salary and, linked with that, rent paid for offices and the assistance they receive in the form of postage, stationery and all the rest lumped in together were totalled, those Ministers could then make an assessment of their real needs. It could well be that many Ministers would prefer to have additional personal staff. Others, on the other hand, may wish to go into a greater range of computer hardware and software, thereby increasing the output of a smaller staff. Ministers may wish to disperse their ministerial staff around the country. They may feel that that is a more effective way of servicing the community. Those factors are not open under the current arrangements. It would be good if members and Ministers were to go forward with the proposal that managerial skill be encouraged in the effective use of the funds currently allocated for their use. Linked with that new approach we would see a diversity of service to the community. Madam Speaker, you and I have both served electorates that are demanding and we have often wished that we were not restricted in quite the way we are in the use of the attachments to our office and that the total sum provided by the community could be more effectively spent. The same thing applies even more significantly to Ministers. It is time that the Remuneration Tribunal broke away from such a structured approach to ministerial salaries. The 3.8 per cent increase across the board was negotiated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in some long, complicated process to decide what were acceptable salary rises. That was completely inappropriate but maybe politically wise. However, if there were greater flexibility those increases would not be linked necessarily just to salary rises. They would also be linked to other costs such as rent and to other managerial costs such as wages of staff and so on. So the budget for the Minister, which would include his salary, would be liable to a more realistic fluctuation in line with costs and community standards. The Minister has a right to take the total of his budget and put it in his own pocket and say, `That is mine. I am worth it and I will not have any staff'. The Minister could be as radical as that but no Minister would be so foolish. A Minister would have to make the judgment of whether he paid himself a little or a lot, whether he paid his staff highly or poorly and whether he had part time or full time employees. So instead of the processes that have been gone through and outlined in this legislation it is time for new and more imaginative thinking and a better opportunity for Ministers to make their decisions. We have spoken about the prospect of making productivity awards for Ministers. That is frivolous and foolish but the prospect of greater flexibility and capacity for Ministers to ease their administrative loads by having greater flexibility in their decision-making would be to the benefit of Australia. The same thing should apply to members and senators. We are not debating that tonight; we are debating Ministers. Managerial expertise, expressed at that higher level, would show quickly which Ministers had ability and those that would fail. If they failed it would be by their own decisions, their own staff and their own support system. It is easy for a department to prop up a Minister, but a Minister's own decisions should be seen clearly by the community. I trust that the Ministers in the House and those in the extended Hawke Government will see that there is opportunity for them to show more imagination and flair than they are showing at the moment. The increase in the number of Ministers has not been beneficial to this Parliament or to Australia. It has caused great confusion, and conflict in some instances. The overlapping of responsibilities has been confusing for the whole community. There are too many people doing too few things. A Minister should be in charge and should have the staff to acquit himself well. With those remarks I draw my comments to a conclusion and trust that the Ministers can see their way clear to moderate the current restrictive and uniform way in which decisions are made at the moment. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.42) —in reply-I have listened to this debate, either in the House or in my office, for the past several hours and yesterday. Though I do not say I agree with him, the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), was the only member of the Opposition who made a sensible effort to address the concepts attached to ministerial responsibility and who did not adopt the hypocritical line that some others on the Opposition benches did. Their transgression of the rules of parliamentary debate was quite frivolous and surreptitious. The way in which dissent was moved against the Deputy Speaker's ruling by a front bench member on the Opposition side was quite scandalous. This has been a much wider ranging debate than the Ministers of State Amendment Bill was entitled to receive. The Bill is narrow. Basically, it seeks to allow appropriation of finances to accommodate the 3.8 per cent increase awarded to Ministers by the Remuneration Tribunal from 1 July 1987. That is in line with an increase already allowed to members of the House and to senators. The Bill also provides for the appropriation of a small amount of finance for the salaries of three extra Ministers and their staffs. From what I have heard there has not been criticism of the first element of the Bill, so I pass that over. Not even members of the Opposition have attempted to argue that the appropriation of finance to cover the 3.8 per cent increase for Ministers granted by the Remuneration Tribunal as from July last, which I believe has been awarded to members of this House and senators, is not warranted. Basically, members of the Opposition centred their criticism on the decision of the Government under the machinery of government changes to increase the number of Ministers from 27 to 30. I want to answer some of those charges very briefly by examining what actually occurred and, I hope, showing very quickly that there have been efficiency gains through the reduction in the number of departments. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is seeking to discuss savings through administrative arrangements within the Public Service. I have been warned by Madam Speaker on three or four occasions that I was not allowed to do that within the context of this debate. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to draw the Minister's attention to the title of the Bill and ensure that he remains relevant in order to maintain consistency in this debate, at least tonight, even if the debate has not been consistent throughout. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I shall hear the Minister a little further on the point he wants to make. It would help the proceedings of the House if the Minister could draw his comments closer to the Bill. Mr WEST —I find the point of order quite strange because the whole thrust of the contribution from virtually every speaker from the Opposition benches-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister, who has an interest in getting the legislation through, is not really helping matters. Mr WEST —With respect, I just want to point out-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has done that. Mr WEST —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am supposed to be answering points that have been raised during the debate and which have been allowed by various occupants of the chair. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This highlights the difficulty that this House now faces, because the Minister is seeking to respond to points made last night in this debate when the debate was wide ranging. Unfortunately, tonight the debate has not been allowed to be wide ranging and comments such as those in relation to the Public Service and ministerial performance have been ruled out of order. How on earth can the Minister respond to comments made on ministerial performance, the Public Service, and administrative arrangements if those matters have been declared out of order tonight by those who have held the position of Speaker and Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to make his comments on the matters he has been pursuing as quickly as possible and bring them to conclusion. Mr WEST —As has been referred to in debate, the Bill provides for the salaries of an extra three Ministers and their staff. That is what I am addressing. The Ministry was increased by three to amalgamate certain Ministries and produce 16 super-Ministries covered by 16 Ministers and 14 assisting Ministers; and 16 and 14 makes 30, which is three more than the existing 27. The Government is seeking to legislate to provide salaries for the extra three Ministers and their staff. I am saying that it made perfectly good sense for the Government to make these machinery changes resulting in an extra three Ministers. From consideration of them, one sees that these are sensible decisions. Indeed, one of them affects my own Department. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister would be advised to read the Bill for he keeps referring to Ministers and their staff. One would think that as this is the Minister's Bill he would know what is in it. There is no reference in the legislation to staff. I repeat: if consistency is to be maintained, the Minister's attention should be drawn to relevance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order in respect of the most recent remarks made by the honourable member for Barker. Mr WEST —Exactly, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for your ruling. I want to reiterate what has been said legitimately by speakers from the Government side, and that is that the decision to seek an appropriation to cover the three extra Ministers-much of which has been made by the shadow Minister in his contribution-has been good value. In a full year only $102,000 will be required to pay the salaries and allowances of the Ministers. In return, $105m in savings and 3,000 staff savings will have been achieved. In my Department alone, the Department of Administrative Services, there will be a saving of $23m for the appointment of one extra Minister. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Normally, I would not be so pedantic but, given the firm rulings from the Chair tonight that discussions on the Public Service and savings will not be allowed because this Bill deals only with Ministers of State, I ask that you ask the Minister to be relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I listened carefully to Madam Speaker's rulings, and I do not uphold the point of order of the honourable member for Barker. Mr WEST —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have virtually made the points that I want to make. I thank you for your indulgence and your ruling. Obviously there is a connection between the savings and the efficiency achieved as a result of the increase in the Ministry from 27 to 30 and the outlays contained in the Bill. Surely even the honourable member for Barker should be able to understand that. I conclude my remarks by saying that the Australian public has had very good value indeed as a result of the ministerial arrangements effected by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after the July election. As far as this Government is concerned, those changes and the appointment of three extra Ministers will effect a much more efficient and tighter organisation as Ministries have been reduced from 27 to 16. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(9.53) —Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 and cognate Bills afford us the opportunity to scrutinise the stewardship of the Government and the handling of the economy by the Government. The Bills enable us to assess the integrity of the Government's Budget and the reliability of its projections. They enable us to see how much it is in control of the management of the nation. These appropriation Bills are in themselves an indictment of the Government. When people vote for a government they look for leadership, but in this case they get vacillation. They look for decision making, but they get kite flying. This type of leadership and this type of positive decision making have not been the hallmark of this Government. We have seen a remarkable saga of quite amazing actions constantly undertaken in the guise of government. We see Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talking about the privatisation of Qantas Airways Ltd, the Commonwealth Bank and Australian Airlines. We hear Ministers saying that this ought to be done because there needs to be an injection of capital. We read in the Press about proposals partly to privatise and merge Qantas, Air New Zealand Ltd and Australian. We think we hear responsible statements by Ministers of this Government. But then the waffle starts. We then have all sorts of statements from backbenchers, by the factional committees, by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and by everybody else associated with the Australian Labor Party. We then see some sort of reversal. We are not seeing government. We are seeing manoeuvring for positions in the National Conference later in the year. There is never any debate in this Parliament on these very important issues. We have the spectacle of a government which cannot make decisions, let alone vital decisions, because it is divided, under threat from factionalisation and, from time to time, caves in to the most vociferous of the vocal groups. This can be very easily illustrated. We saw no less a person than the Prime Minister, who should be speaking for the Government, saying things such as there will be no capital gains tax, no assets test and no new tax on superannuation. Then the waffle starts and we get all of those taxes. We get all of those imposts. I ask the question that the people of Australia are asking. How can this Government govern with such division and such indecision? How can it give attention to the vital tasks of cutting government expenditure when Caucus committees not only oppose those cuts but demand a substantial extension of a social welfare system which it is already beyond our capacity to pay for. We have people such as Senator Walsh and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying that the economy is extremely fragile. We even hear talk of progress to a banana republic. We hear Senator Button saying that there were threats of International Monetary Fund intervention in 1986. Yet the demands seem to come from the Caucus for more and more expenditure. The Government lurches from one crisis to another. How can a government give attention to the reduction of our disgraceful and crippling indebtedness when it has these sorts of problems in its ranks? Our massive debt has already been alluded to in this debate. Of course, the problem is that we are borrowing, and have borrowed, not for expansion, not to attain any greater competitiveness, not to give industry an incentive to provide jobs but we are borrowing to pay our housekeeping bills. We are borrowing to pay for our social welfare program. There are cries for more and more increases. There is no way in the world we can attack our indebtedness with a system such as that. The Government talks about its record of taxation reduction. It talks about its nominal cuts in income tax. But every time Australia gets a tax cut under this Government the total tax revenue rises. I refer to not only the Government's new exotic taxes but also the indexation of sales tax and excise which surreptitiously and substantially increases. With these sorts of increases in indirect tax we have an increased cost burden on industry and business. We have continued inflationary pressures. We have been provided with politics, not with government. The Prime Minister and the Government have one hand tied behind their backs because they are unable to make and sustain decisions. They are second guessed in all of their proposed programs by the left wing, by the factions, by the Caucus committees and by the ACTU. I ask: Is that not the worst of all worlds? When we call on the Government to account for its stewardship-when it is questioned-we get no answers. It is a sad thing to say-I say it with 15 1/2 years experience in this House-that very often Question Time deteriorates into a comedy. We do not get answers, we get grandstanding and giggles about the Opposition. More and more the Prime Minister and Ministers seem to be inclined to act more as comics than as Ministers. Mr Millar —Not so much a comedy as a farce. Mr ADERMANN —Yes, a farce. Instead of answering questions, they make references to Mr Elliott, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and John Stone. They want to paint caricatures, not answer questions. Let the cartoonists stick to that-they get paid for it and they do it pretty well. What this Parliament wants is an account of the stewardship of the Government. The Government should govern. It should not be diagnosing and carping about everybody else's problems-not the Opposition's or anybody else's. Because the Government has no worthwhile policy we see Government asking the Opposition to chart out its policies. Perhaps it is looking for a sensible policy course along which to steer this nation. The Government is too busy playing politics and has neglected completely the task of responsible government. What is the Government's plan for the taxation of superannuation funds? Plenty of kites have been flown. We have had statements from Ministers, backbenchers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and everybody else about what might or might not be done about new taxation of superannuation funds. Nothing definitive, no answers, evasion. But there is a vague threat that something will be done. The Government tells us to wait until the May statement. That is fine, but the people of Australia cannot wait. There are people everywhere who are retiring prematurely in droves because they are concerned about the taxation of superannuation. People come to my office and, I guarantee, the offices of every member of this Parliament and they ask about superannuation. They ask me what the Government will do. What can I tell them? The Government has not made up its own mind and certainly it has not given any definitive statement on this matter. There is a state of desperation and panic out there among people who are worried about questions such as this. What is the Government's plan for taxation review? It talks of tax cuts, but all the time we have the undertones of other tax increases and new taxes. The Government is in a dilemma about indirect tax. In that dilemma it is trying to point the finger at the Opposition about its policies on indirect taxation, what the Opposition is going to do about consumption tax and everything else. The Government will not resolve its own problems by speculating on what the Opposition might do. Remember, it was the Treasurer who first raised and promoted consumption tax at the Taxation Summit. He was forced to withdraw that option, but I believe it is still his favoured position. As a private member, I can give my comments and views on such matters as consumption tax and I intend to do so-for the Government and for anyone else who looks in this direction. My recommendation is that there be no forays into additional and new consumption taxes. Indirect taxes and taxes on consumption-and we have plenty now-are already too high. We want tax relief, but it is not tax relief to cut income tax and then bring in new taxes and increase indirect taxes-that is sleight of hand. Consumption tax would be a growth tax, insidious and feeding on itself. As we all know, sooner or later its tentacles would extend into food, clothing and essentials. In all these sorts of taxes, especially indirect taxes, the burden falls more heavily on those who can least bear it. I would like to give the case of a member of my own family-my son. I am sure that other members can mirror this situation. My son is married and he has three children. He is totally deaf and therefore he has only a modest income. He is not able, because of his impediment, to have a very highly paid occupation. He is paying off his house. He buys shoes for the children for school. What is the price of them? It costs $40 or $50 for the cheapest pair of shoes and they last about five minutes. The cost of clothing is frightening. He wants to send another child to kindergarten, but the fees are $6 or $8 a day. How can he afford it? My son is worried about his job. With the Federal Government cutting State funds-he works for a State Government department-he knows that there will be retrenchments and he just hopes that it is not him because with his impediment it would be very difficult for him to find work in private enterprise or elsewhere. He goes to the supermarket and finds that the prices are up every week. There are people all over Australia just like my son. Add consumption tax to their burdens and these people will go to the wall. If they lost their job, their income is slashed. They do not get as much money, yet the cost of the things they buy keeps going up and up. Prices are escalated by all these indirect taxes such as consumption tax. Those facts should be contemplated when we think of this sleight of hand of shifting taxation around instead of cutting it. There is another reason why I oppose such taxes as consumption tax. No government will give serious attention to cutting the size of government or government expenditure if it can simply bring in new taxes. If it can bring taxes in from somewhere it will not make any endeavour to cut taxation. Any intention of cutting taxation or of responsible economic management is diluted because there is an insurance policy there-the government can always get more and it has got something on which it can build, something which it can escalate. History of government-all governments-shows that while it can generate new tax revenue and increase existing tax revenue it is not interested in getting down to the job of cutting government size or expenditure. That is a cosmetic operation. Every government of every complexion that I have ever known fits that mould and earns that criticism. This Government, which talks about redistribution of incomes and boasts of tax cuts, has done no such thing. It has created the revenue grabbing monsters of fringe benefits, capital gains, the assets test, and automatic indexation of indirect tax. It has been completely diverted from a real attack on spending, on the deficit, on economic management. Why should it worry? Today the Prime Minister proudly announced the quite massive revenue that is generated by those very taxes. I stand to be corrected, but I think he was talking of the order of $1.5 billion without any reference at all to increases in sales tax and excise. Unfortunately, the last conservative Government, with parity pricing, fuel taxes and other taxes, had the same effect. These were taxes which increased all the time. It was great revenue; it grew splendidly year by year. Thus government spending continued to escalate and the Public Service continued to grow. Government expansion was just as noticeable then as it is now. There were no real cuts of any magnitude or significance then either. That is why I am saying that we should not be looking at new taxes; we should be looking at cutting expenditure and the size of the government and really getting down to the business of cutting taxes. We must cut duplication and waste. This provides incentive, jobs, and the growth in national product. This restores competitiveness, revives exports, and brings us towards solvency. It also creates stable and permanent employment, helps to cut interest rates and gives a better standard of living. Is that not what we want? Is that not what we are all dedicated to doing? Our present course cannot support the standard of living that the people of this nation enjoy today. As a nation and a people we are living far beyond our means. As we look at these appropriation Bills, we find a claim that there are great savings included in them. That escapes me. For instance, as I look at the savings, I find that $8.434m savings is claimed for expenditure under the Australia Card Act 1987. Savings! The Government did not even get the legislation through. It could not spend that money, it did not have it to spend because it did not get the legislation through. Yet it claims to have saved that money. That is how spurious this whole statement of savings is. It talks about savings made in transfers of services and payments to the States. I'll say! The States balance their budgets so the Federal Government offloads the problems to the States. It cuts their funds so that there must be new State taxes. It does absolutely nothing to cut its own prodigal spending so its whole boast on that count is hollow. Let us have a look at what comes out of the May statement. Probably more of the same. Honourable members will remember the last May statement-more off the States, more off the roads and a garage sale! That is the way the Government was supposed to be cutting its expenditure. It did nothing about its own prodigality. It visited its problems on someone else. Hopefully this time we will see some real cuts and not a sleight of hand. This Government talks about help for the disadvantaged, yet I have pensioners who come into my office every day of the week saying that they pay tax and provisional tax. This is because the threshold is so low. We have problems with the Department of Social Security. I do not say this as a criticism because the Department is generally helpful; but some of its officers are giving advice which they should not give. Pensioners go to the Department and say they are worried about their tax. The officers reply, `You do not have to worry about tax, you can earn $30 a week on top of your pension'. Of course they can earn $30 a week and it will not affect their pension, but they will pay tax. They will pay provisional tax. This is the sort of problem we have. These people are confused and suffering traumas. I hope the Government can get down to the business of doing something about provisional tax for pensioners. What is happening is a tragedy, it is sad, and is not right. These people have borne the heat of the day, they have built for us a nation, and I think we can treat them better than that. Pensioners have also been affected by a problem in the Queensland branch of the Tax Office. Once again, my remarks are not by way of criticism. From time to time I have had plenty to say in this House about the Tax Office, and quite justifiably so. Because of a computer problem, assessments in which the age rebate was not allowed were sent to some pensioners who pay provisional tax. They were getting bills for $500 and $600 instead of about $100. I got in touch with the Tax Office, which quickly got onto this matter. They found out what had happened and tried to rectify the problem. I understand the situation, but this was just another trauma for pensioners. It was just another worry for people who ought not to be worried. We on this side of the House are worried about the average working man. We care about the one-income family man with two or three children who is paying off a home. We are worried about the completely unacceptable tax burden he has to bear. This causes debt, marriage breakdown and mental and physical stress. The Government seems to want to go on avariciously reaping more and more. It is not using the money it reaps to help these people. The Waste Watch Committee came up with some quite horrifying and interesting examples of what the Government does with the revenue it collects. I will not go through the list at any length. We have heard before of the translation of the biography of the Prime Minister into Japanese and the murals that are commissioned by the trade unions-I do not know what they do with them. We see funding going to all sorts of off-beat organisations. That is reprehensible; it is not helping the people who need help. Instead of helping people, the Government seems to be intent on destroying jobs. I will not go too far into this, but what about the way it is destroying responsible timber and logging industries? What about the way it is giving overseas aid to totalitarian regimes? The Government wonders why there is a backlash at the polls. It need not wonder very much longer. The reasons are very evident. These appropriation Bills, with their alleged savings and their camouflage and their smokescreen, are simply an alibi for incompetence and betrayal. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who incisively and very accurately pinpointed the continuing failure of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.13) —I want to make it clear that I support Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and reject the Opposition's amendment. Tonight I want to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House details of the clear breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 which is presently being undertaken by the nuclear industry in Europe with the active connivance of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). One example of the breach has been revealed in recent reports in national newspapers and also in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation World Today program, which described how Australian uranium has been relabelled in West Germany and illegally enriched for nuclear weapons grade use in a research reactor in France. Unfortunately, the Government so far does not appear to be taking the reports very seriously. Questions were asked in the Senate on 22 March about the original source of the reports in the German magazine Der Spiegel, but Senator Cook, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, was rather dismissive of the report on the grounds that Der Spiegel was not necessarily a reputable magazine. Suspecting that the reports may not be treated with the seriousness they deserve and bearing in mind the devious and clever methods used by the nuclear industry to maximise its profits and hide the dangerous effect of nuclear products, I and two senators wrote to Der Spiegel and asked for copies of the source material upon which the reports were based. We now have the source documents comprising the written proceedings of two meeting of the Euratom supply agency and details of the actual case of flag swapping by Nukem, a West German nuclear company. The case material is in the form of letters and telexes in German, but I also have a tape which translates the material into English. The important point I wish to make to the House is that previously we were dealing with secondhand reports, but now I have before me source documents which show conclusively that Euratom is, quite clearly, conniving with European nuclear companies to transgress Australia's nuclear safeguard provisions. Those safeguards were set out in detail by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill on 4 June 1986. It states: The Government permits exports of Australian uranium only to countries with which Australia has a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement. These agreements provide a detailed set of safeguards arrangements designed to provide assurance that Australian origin nuclear material not only remains in the civil nuclear fuel cycle but that Australia can at all times account for it. This is achieved by ensuring that Australia's safeguards requirements apply to all transfers, processing and use of Australian uranium or derived material equivalent to the amount of uranium supplied by Australia. On 27 and 28 April an official delegation from the European Parliament will be visiting Canberra and will have discussions with a number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). One member of the delegation will be Mrs Undine von Blottnitz, a West German member of the European Parliament who will be drawing attention to the matters I am presently talking about. I note that a report in Melbourne's Herald newspaper of 12 April quotes the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy as denying that any breach of Australia's nuclear non-proliferation policy has occurred. I leave honourable members to draw their own conclusions from my speech. But I hope that the Minister will take account of my comments because I believe in particular that the involvement of Euratom needs serious investigation by our Government. The first document I wish to refer to contains official notes of a meeting of the Euratom Supply Agency from 27 May 1986, which was called to discuss the single topic of international flag swaps. The notes described the existing situation regarding obligated material, and I quote: Within Euratom the concept of a flag swap-namely, the exchange of safeguards obligations between two quantities of material in order to arrive at a situation which would otherwise be achieved by the physical transfer of those quantities-was understood and accepted, and the economic and safeguards advantages thereof were recognised. This concept when put to those supplier countries requiring obligations on material supplied by them had given rise to certain problems. These had included acceptance of the basic concept and difficulties concerning the validity of such an operation under the supplier state's agreement with Euratom. Particular concerns which have been expressed were: to avoid publicly traceable `laundering' of material to prevent down-grading either in form or quantity of obligated material to foster NPT safeguards. The current situation with Canada, the United States of America and Australia was detailed and a description of the situation in relation to Australia is worth quoting: Three cases of flag swaps had been presented to Australia and on each occasion the Australian authorities had refused to take a decision. The concept of flag swaps had not yet been accepted; considerable education effort had been made by the Commission and the Supply Agency, as a result of which a policy decision by Ministers was pending and expected in the near future. There was discussion about how some loosening of the stance of both Canada and the United States of America against certain types of flag swap might be achieved. Let me give another revealing quote: Information on the international flag swaps which had already occurred was requested and brief details were given by the Commission and the Supply Agency. Additional information on one case involving Canadian origin material was given by the representative from Cogema. A request was made for other companies who had successfully undertaken international flag swaps to provide further details in due course. It is very clear that these flag swaps are taking place. There is another quote I would like to give, too: The prevailing sentiment was that in future cases of flag swaps requests by supplier states for disclosure or origin should be resisted, if possible, on the grounds that the essential feature of a flag swap is that it is an exchange of obligations, not an exchange of origin, and that in any case after processing uranium atoms are mixed together and their origin cannot be identified. Difficulties for industry to determine origin were pointed out. The suggestion was made that the term ``flag swap'' might have connotations of nationality and origin for outsiders, in which case the term ``exchange of obligations'' might be preferable. It should be appreciated that, whilst the meeting notes basically dealt with problems with the Canadian flag swap, the general comments and conclusions were also relevant to Australia. The final conclusion of the meeting was: The strong interest of Community industry in being able to exchange obligations between different quantities of material by means of flag swaps was confirmed. The second document consists of notes of a meeting of the Euratom supply agency held in Brussels on 18 November 1987. So this is very much up to date. It amounts to a continuation of the discussion of at least 18 months previously. The introduction to the meeting stated: During approximately the last two years increasing importance has been attached to the origin of nuclear material which is the subject of a supply contract or a physical transfer. The Supply Agency has seen the emergence of certain problems and the potential for others to arise. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to these observations, to invite discussion within the Advisory Committee with a view to establishing, if possible, a common attitude within the Community. The current situation in Canada, the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Australia was detailed. The Australian situation was noted as follows: In discussions held so far between Euratom and Australia on international flag swaps, Australian officials made it clear that under present Australia policies towards South Africa international flag swaps (assuming agreement is reached on this question between Euratom and Australia) involving South African material would not be acceptable. The notes then covered a detailed discussion on how to define the origin of uranium supplies, followed by the observation: Many exchanges concerning nuclear material take place as ownership swaps and/or obligation swaps. Ownership swaps provide two organisations with the opportunity to acquire, by means of exchange, title to a quantity of material, including the safeguards obligation (if applicable) and the origin. Obligation swaps, whether as code swaps within the Community or as international flag swaps between the Community and another country, enable the owners of material to exchange the safeguards obligations attaching to the two different quantities of material. The following final quote from the meeting notes makes it very clear that Euratom is not honouring the nuclear safeguards agreements which it has concluded with uranium suppliers, including Australia: In the view of the Commission Services the concepts of obligation and origin should be kept separate, i.e. an exchange of a safeguarding obligation (intra-Community code swap or international flag swap) does not affect the origin of the material involved. This would mean the possibility of (1) the US obligation attaching to say South African material and (2) the US obligation disappearing entirely from material mined in that country. But this would be consistent with the concept that code and/or flag swaps are foremost a mechanism whereby changes of a supplier country's non-proliferation rights attaching to nuclear material are exchanged. It is for consideration whether holders and owners of nuclear material would wish, in addition to the exchange of safeguarding obligations (for which the mechanisms exist), to have mechanisms for the exchange of origin. It appears, though, that irrespective of the eventual attitudes of importing countries, the systematic tracing of the pedigree of nuclear material through the nuclear fuel cycle-in addition to that of safeguarding obligations-would require a considerable accounting effort by industry. The third set of papers is one of many cases of how the actual breaches of the agreement are occurring. The papers comprise copies of letters and telexes between the West German nuclear company, Nukem, and Euratom. The background to the flag swapping operation was that Nukem contracted to supply 93 per cent enriched uranium 235 fuel rods for a research reactor in Grenoble, France. The resultant flag swapping operation is extremely complex. It is a pity that I do not have the time to detail the tortuous steps which Nukem underwent through two of its subsidiary companies-Nulux and RBU-and with the collaboration of GKT, an Austrian nuclear reactor company, and RWE, a West German energy company, to complete its contract with the French nuclear reactor company by the flag swapping process. We now need to set out some facts. Fact one: RWE, the West German energy company, possessed in store with Nukem approximately 1.3 tonnes of Australian uranium, which must not be enriched to more than 20 per cent to ensure that it does not become weapons grade material in accordance with our nuclear safeguards requirements. Fact two: Nulux, a Nukem subsidiary, bought from GKT, the Austrian nuclear reactor company, four tonnes of undrilnitrate, a uranium by-product of fuel rods produced from American uranium actually produced by a Nukem subsidiary, RBU. The material was not in a physically transportable form. Nevertheless, it was listed, as recorded on the books of the Euratom supply agency, as American nuclear material. Fact three: With the approval of Euratom Nukem exchanged the American nuclear material its subsidiary had purchased from GKT with the Australian uranium owned by RWE. At that stage Nukem owned the Australian uranium and RWE owned the American uranium by-products, so far everything is legal. But then Nukem sought approval of Euratom to also exchange the obligations. After a protracted communication by letter and telex Euratom agreed to the exchange of obligations and on its books the Australian uranium obtained by Nukem as a result of the obligations swap became American uranium without Australian safeguards and the RWE American uranium became Australian uranium with all the safeguards. Why, honourable members ask, is the whole process so devious? Well may they ask, but as far as I can ascertain the operation is even more complicated than I have described because it involves swaps of varying grades of nuclear material. Suffice to say that Nukem ends up with Australian uranium which, contrary to our nuclear safeguards, is enriched to weapons grade material by the United States Department of Energy and finally delivered to the experimental research reactor in Grenoble, France. Nobody actually knows exactly what is produced at the Grenoble reactor, but there is a strong suspicion that, if not production, at least research into nuclear weapons is undertaken at the reactor. It is interesting to note that the case documents indicate that the Euratom safeguards inspectors were warned of the transaction in advance so that they would be alerted to the fact that the American uranium was not available for physical inspection as it was part of the manufacturing process. How can the Euratom inspectors be trusted when they are alerted by a company which has deliberately broken the Australian nuclear safeguards agreement? The truth is that the European nuclear industry was deliberately transgressing the safeguard provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1986. The Government must treat this matter with importance and investigate the serious breach of our nuclear safeguards which has been aided and encouraged by Euratom. These dishonest actions totally compromise Australia's uranium export program and should put its continuation into doubt. Mr Scott —Hear, hear! Mr MILTON —I know that the honourable member for Hindmarsh has the same concern that I have about these matters. I have just received a copy of the 1986-87 annual report of the Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) and, frankly, the documents that I have in my possession show that one of the main objectives of that office is being transgressed. I shall quote two of the objectives set out in the report of the Australian Safeguards Office: To maintain inventories of and account for Australian origin nuclear material (AONM) and other nuclear items of Australian origin located in overseas countries and which are subject to the terms of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements. That is one of the objectives of ASO. The Australian Safeguards Office has obviously been kept in the dark about the clandestine operations of the European nuclear fuel industry. Another of the objectives of the ASO is this: To keep the effectiveness of international safeguards under continuing review, in order to advise the Government on this matter, particularly with reference to AONM in the international nuclear fuel cycle. I think at the very least that uranium exports to all of those European countries that have been involved in flag swapping should be immediately halted. Flag swapping is deliberately undertaken, in the case of Australia, to overcome our requirement that Australian uranium will not be enriched and used in the production of nuclear weapons or even in experimentation leading to the development of nuclear weapons. The report of the ASO sets out the responsibilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in relation to the application of safeguards. One has to ask: Is the International Atomic Agency aware of the discussions by Euratom on flag swapping as a means of exchanging the safeguard obligations attaching to nuclear material? I find it difficult not to believe that the IAEA is aware of these activities. If so, the quotation in the ASO report from the IAEA 1986 report is misleading at the best and inaccurate at the worst. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.30) —I wish to raise a number of matters related to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that on Monday week this nation will commemorate Anzac Day in our bicentennial year. In many ways it was the events of the landing at Gallipoli which did so much to create the spirit of Anzac and to create this nation as a whole. That contribution was further developed by the contributions made by so many Australians fighting for their country in conflicts after World War I. I believe that as all honourable members and honourable senators and the nation as a whole commemorate Anzac Day in various ways around Australia in our bicentennial year, we should acknowledge freely the massive contribution made by those who fought for their country in times of war. In the light of that point I refer to the situation which is now unfolding with regard to our repatriation hospitals. There have been on again, off again threats of massive industrial disruption and resignations of key staff at the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord in Sydney. Should the ultimate resignations proceed, they will cause enormous disruptions and hardship from next Monday. The issue at Concord is the matter of parity with equivalent positions in the State public hospital system. It is a fairly clear-cut and straightforward issue. It has been before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on more than one occasion, yet it is still unresolved. I put before the House and the Parliament a plea that the situation of our repatriation general hospitals, in particular Concord, be elevated in profile and addressed by those responsible for seeing that a proper solution is reached and reached rapidly. The second and final area that I would like to deal with relates to a veteran from Balranald who is currently a patient in the Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital in Melbourne. This man, whom I know well and who is a very dedicated and loyal Australian who served his country in a time of war, has been referred to the Peter MacCallum clinic on a daily basis for radium treatment. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) has come into the House. I am pleased to be able to say that this problem does not relate specifically to veterans' affairs but to some horrific ambulance arrangements which saw this Balranald veteran left on a stretcher at the Peter MacCallum clinic after receiving his treatment in some cases for hours on end before being taken back to the Heidelberg hospital. The reason I did not alert the Minister fully about my comments tonight was partly that I did not know that I would get the call. The problem is a very serious one. It relates to an area of ambulance administration, dispatch clerk administration. Somewhere in the Melbourne ambulance administration is a dispatch clerk or clerks who are simply not doing their job. So it was that on 1 March my Balranald veteran had to wait 7 hours 25 minutes after the completion of his treatment at the Peter MacCallum clinic, which is in the central business district, before he could get back to the relative comfort of the Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital. On another occasion he waited in excess of four hours and on another in excess of five hours. That is a disgraceful way to treat a cancer patient who is going through the suffering of special therapy, who is on a drip and who cannot be transferred by a vehicle other than an ambulance. He has hours upon hours of waiting time at the Peter MacCallum institute before being transferred back to the Heidelberg hospital. The matter has become to some extent a celebrated cause in the media in Melbourne, and the Melbourne Sun in particular, as well it might. I draw the attention of the House to this matter in the hope that the dispatch clerks and the others in authority who may well be responsible for this disgraceful situation might take action to eliminate the problem. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.35) —The decision of the incoming Greiner Liberal-National Party Government in New South Wales to scrub the name of Chifley from the new university in the western suburbs of Sydney is a very spiteful and churlish decision. I am amazed also, quite frankly, at the attitude of the new Liberal member for Bathurst in supporting the denigration of the Chifley memory and ideal in this very churlish way. I believe that the Liberal Government has shown its absolute contempt and disregard for the history of the area and the substantial reasons for the naming of the university in the first place. Mr Bury, the Liberal member for Bathurst, is absolutely wrong in his assertion in yesterday's local media that Ben Chifley is not associated with the western suburbs of Sydney. If Mr Bury had attempted in any way at all to research the matter he would have discovered that Ben Chifley's electorate of Macquarie, for all but three of the 14 years that he was the Federal member of parliament for that area, encompassed the area around Penrith where the university will be located. Mr Chifley, a great Australian, and Bathurst's most famous son, was the member for Macquarie from 1928 to 1931, and again from 1940 until his passing in 1951. Until the electoral redistribution of 1948, the Penrith and Windsor areas were part of the Macquarie electorate. That was obviously one substantial association that Mr Chifley had with the area. The whole idea of siting the university in the western suburbs of Sydney in the first place was to give the working class young Australians living in the area greater access to the advantages of higher education. What better example than Ben Chifley could there be for young, ordinary working Australians following a dream to make something great of themselves and others? The New South Wales Liberal-National Party Government has chosen to ignore the many valuable contributions that Ben Chifley made to education. He helped found the Australian National University. He established training programs for returned servicemen and women after the war. In 1946 he began assisting civilian students at tertiary level. No-one could justly say that Ben Chifley did not make an outstanding contribution to education, not only in New South Wales but also, indeed, throughout Australia, both in deed and example. Although Ben Chifley did not have much of an opportunity for formal education in his younger days, he promoted the importance of education and himself spent some 15 years at night school after starting work. For the new Liberal Minister for Education in New South Wales, Dr Terry Metherell, to say that the only association that Ben Chifley had with the university was that he `used to drive a steam train down the main western line past the Werrington site' is not only a slight of a great man and of his works, but also an arrogant and shameful disregard of the facts. I was pleased to read today in the Sydney media comments by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), who has also joined in this condemnation of the blatant political act of the new Liberal-National Party Government in New South Wales of dropping the Chifley name. The honourable member for Lindsay, whose electorate now covers the area in which the proposed university is to be sited, along with some of his colleagues in the western suburbs of Sydney instigated efforts to have the university named in honour of Ben Chifley. The new New South Wales Government has not yet been in power for one month, but I believe people already are getting tired of its slash and burn mentality when it comes to anything done by the previous Government. The renaming of the Chifley University is just another example of this mindless practice. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.40) —Few Australians could fail to feel a great sense of pride and achievement when they first see the amazing new edifice that is destined to be the landmark of this nation's capital. I refer, of course, to the new Parliament House, which is to be opened by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth next month. I am only too aware of the enormous escalation in the cost of the project, and many honourable members have deplored the enormous blow-out in costs to a massive sum of $1.056 billion. I remind the House that in May 1978, when the project began, the original budget was $220m. Inflation, approved additions, industrial disputes and an increase in the size of Parliament, have all been responsible for the enormous increase in cost. I do not defend the Parliament House Construction Authority for allowing this to happen, but I am assured that the new Parliament House has achieved world ranking in architectural design. In 200 years time these costs will be completely forgotten, but the craftsmanship and the quality of materials will endure. However, in spite of the massive burden such blow-outs have placed on the Australian taxpayer, I do not propose to dwell on that aspect of the project tonight. Like most, and I might even say all of my parliamentary colleagues, I am looking forward to the luxury of working in a space exceeding the nine square feet that I and my staff currently `enjoy' as an office. More important than my own relative comfort, however, is the fact that several of my constituents in the division of Corangamite have an opportunity to share in the nation's pride as the new Parliament House nears completion. Mr Bruce Highett and his team of skilled craftsmen at Wycombe Industries Pty Ltd in Geelong will take their place in history when they deliver to Canberra this month furniture they have made specially for the new building. Wycombe Industries, an excellent example of a small business producing quality products, were awarded the contract to furnish the Prime Minister's Press conference table; the upholstered bench seating for the Parliamentary Library; eight Senate meeting tables; storage units for the Library; and various other items. Mr Highett gave the constituents of Corangamite and neighbouring Corio an opportunity to see their taxes at work before the furniture left Geelong. All items were placed on public display for a day, and many local residents took the opportunity to view their local craftsmen's skills. I commend Mr Highett and his team for their gesture. From now on, the nearest most Australians will get to the Prime Minister's Press conference table is through their television sets as successive Prime Ministers face members of the Fourth Estate. Other items will be placed in restricted areas and will be rarely seen by the ordinary taxpayer, with the exception, of course, of those who successfully stand for Parliament. Wycombe Industries spent about a year developing an Australian standards level of competence with documentation, forms, and control systems, so that with a small grant from the Victorian State Government it was able to achieve the standard of workmanship required. The standard of manufacture is the highest ever demanded of the company. Its tradesmen and apprentices who have worked on the new Parliament House project, have shown great care and excellent craftsmanship, working to the finely detailed design drawing produced by the new Parliament House architects, Mitchell/Giurgola and Thorp. More than 100 pages of specifications were scrupulously followed. This meant procuring special hardware fittings, selecting timber in Western Australia and veneers in Queensland, and special brass finishes that can be produced only in Sydney. I have had the privilege of examining the furniture and assure you, Madam Speaker, of its superb quality. Wycombe Industries is the classic example of a successful small business with good management-worker relationships. Mr Highett and his team at Wycombe Industries deserve the highest accolade for their excellent craftsmanship, and I applaud them for answering the challenge issued by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Senator Button, to Australia's manufacturing sector, to upgrade its standards and quality. They have produced items of which not only they, but the whole country, can well be proud. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.44) —Back in 1960 my young brother and I were involved in opening up the Nullarbor Plain for pastoral industry. It will be the last great pastoral development that Australia will ever see. In those days there was no television or radio on the Nullarbor and we had to entertain ourselves. Incidentally, television and radio broadcasts cannot be received there today either unless one has a satellite dish, which makes me very resentful of the extraordinary expenditure on the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) for the benefit of middle class Australian cities situated around the coast. Poetry has played a big part in my life and Peter Hogg, a colleague of mine, wrote a poem which goes: Tho' I wondered as I listened To the tales they told of yore, Was it really any better than . . . Did life give any more? Or is it just an old man's way Of polishing the truth As with sadness in heart, he says, `Farewell to parted youth'. As I ponder on those words I feel that they are words that Clyde Cameron, the former member for Hindmarsh, ought to take to heart. Clyde Cameron was one of the first people to call for Bob Hawke to replace Bill Hayden as Leader of the Australian Labor Party. I remember challenging Clyde Cameron about this at the launching of his book Unions in Crisis at the National Press Club. But, of course, Clyde Cameron is a guru and deeply honoured in Labor Party circles and I but a mere backbencher holding a marginal seat. Clyde, it will be recalled, was the man who turned the Commonwealth Public Service into pacesetters in pay and conditions-a role usurped in recent times by Victorian governments of both parties. It is true that he realised what he had done and repented in later years, and even took to carte blanche bludgeoning of public servants. A recent speech made by Mr Cameron and published widely in several union journals and in the Melbourne Age deserves comment, not for its content but for its omissions and lack of objectivity. His defence of the public ownership of Australian Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd was predictable and calculated to appeal to knee-jerk Labor Party sentimentality. Yes, of course they could be funded by loans guaranteed by the Government. This begs the question. Why be in the airline business at all? Our voters seldom use planes, and when they do I can assure Mr Cameron that their part ownership is not recognised by the staff at the front counter who, like so many other large organisations in the private and public sector, believe that the organisation is run for the benefit of staff and management. He should also consider that if the original capital had been invested in Commonwealth bonds, we the owners would have got a better return on our money. If Mr Cameron really believes what he is saying, then I suggest he study the courteous service, punctuality, safety and comfort of Aeroflot as a model. If we were genuinely concerned about our social objectives, we would be funding the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC). This people-owned merchant bank has probably the best record of any merchant bank in terms of return on capital, and while providing part ownership of many businesses from Australia it is simultaneously creating productive jobs at a rate which no other organisation can match for the dollar invested. The Government's response to capitalising the AIDC has been very tardy, something Mr Cameron could have usefully chided us for. Instead, he prefers to resort to the old sophist ploy of trotting out every cliche, shibboleth, myth and time-worn platitude of Labor folklore. Mr Cameron talks of previous Labor governments-`real Labor governments', he calls them. Why, may we ask, did these heroes of yesteryear not introduce a capital gains tax, which is fundamental to tax equity? Why did they not act to close off the rorts in the tax system that were so detrimental to the interests of our pay as you earn taxpayers? Why did they not introduce substantiation and remove entertainment from tax deductibility? Unlike Mr Cameron, I did not support the Hawke ascendancy, but I am prepared to give credit where it is due. No government has ever given assistance to low income earners on the scale of the family assistance plan devised by this Government-a plan that increases the income of some workers with children by up to 40 per cent, an achievement that no union could ever hope to match. It is an initiative that completely overshadows the middle class welfare of the Whitlam era. The program has not been sold well and, as a consequence, the take-up is not as high as we would have liked. Mr Cameron would be serving the cause of Labor well if he had bothered to publicise this single initiative rather than pandering to perceptions. For politics is about perceptions. and fostering these perceptions is all too easy, and in doing so the truth is often the first casualty. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.48) —I wish to speak tonight following the excellent contribution made earlier by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), our shadow spokesman on veterans affairs, who drew attention to the serious situation that faced a veteran living in his electorate. That stirred me to recall a letter I recently received from a veteran in my electorate of Gilmore, a man who resides in one of the loveliest parts of Australia, Kangaroo Valley. He wrote me a letter which, to his mind, explained the reasons why the Australian defence forces are currently suffering from what is now recognised as the most alarming resignation rate it has ever experienced. The record high resignation level in all three Services continues to rise and to disturb not only active service personnel and veterans but the broad cross-section of the Australian community who at varying stages in our history have depended, and will depend in future, on an effective defence force to protect the Australian nation. I would like to read some excerpts from the letter that this gentleman wrote to me as to why he believes we have a problem with our Defence Force today. He said: I would like to inform you of some of the reasons responsible for the current manpower crisis in the Australian Defence Force (ADF). I am a returned serviceman now living on my DFRDB pension who is very much in touch with service organisations and still serving personnel. First of all it is the Government's responsibility to protect the service conditions of members of the ADF. If the Government is seen to be hostile (and it is seen to be hostile) to the conditions of service then the only retaliation open to service members is to resign. so far during the life of this Government the following attacks on the conditions of service have been made: (1) the theft of 2 per cent of member-contributed pensions (2) the taxing of lump sum superannuation payments (3) changes to the Veterans Entitlement Act (4) changes proposed to the Defence Home Loan (plenty of statements made but no one is sure what those changes will be) (5) the promised two yearly pay review quietly forgotten (6) loss of resettlement loans and I could go on and on. government as well as public attitude has contributed a great deal to the dissatisfaction of servicemen . . . No one wants to know a serviceman in peace-time but let the country be threatened and the screams will be deafening. Many servicemen have vivid memories of a former Deputy Prime Minister kissing his North Vietnamese mates in Australia while Australian servicemen were still fighting in Vietnam. They remember the collection of money and medicines (by now prominent members of the Labor Party) being sent to North Vietnam. The famous draft dodgers, conscientious objectors and straight out traitors who have been promoted to top Government jobs, while the serviceman who was willing to give his life is struggling and still fighting for compensation for his war-caused injury. The stolen 2 per cent taken from his pension has not been forgotten either. Servicemen will only take so much. You do not have to look very far to find other reasons for dissatisfaction: the seemingly unlimited money spent on the Reserve at the expense of permanently serving personnel Reserves actively being encouraged to come back in on full pay plus pension preventing regulars from being promoted. the loss of the Fleet Air Arm to enable a private firm to engage in surveillance the complete mishandling of the disposal of fixed wing aircraft incompetence in handling last wage case . . . . and the continuing interference, job stealing and general running of the Services by civilian personnel (public servants) who are not required to risk their lives. Also of significance: a serviceman with two children is only about $2 better off per week than his counterpart (also with two children) living on social services and obtaining all the free benefits. For this $2 the serviceman is required to work more than 50 hours per week and risk his life if called upon to do so. Loyalty is very much a two-way thing and a country has to be worth fighting for in order that men and women are willing to sacrifice their lives. Knowing the way servicemen are regarded by this Government and having witnessed the continual attacks being made on service conditions I sometimes wonder if this country is worth it. Do not dismiss these reasons as being unrelated to the personnel wastage in the ADF. We are rapidly approaching a part-time Defence Force and until proper recognition is given to the contribution made by servicemen who may be called upon to risk their lives for their country, morale will continue to be a problem. Unless promises are kept by each and every Government (now and in the future) wastage (resignations) will accelerate. That, I think, expresses the genuine concerns of active personnel as well as those ex-servicemen and veterans that our nation has, a concern which is, as I said earlier, expressed right across this country. This Government, this Parliament, has a responsibility of ensuring that we have an effective Defence Force. If we boil it down, the most responsible task this Government has is to defend the nation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.54) —In recent weeks several Opposition members have taken the opportunity in the adjournment debate to attack Medibank Private. They have called upon a study done on Medibank Private. The Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia commissioned a firm called Touche Ross and Co. to carry out the study. I recall that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) quoted the Touche Ross report, which argues that Medibank Private `does enjoy a very substantial advantage' over the other private health funds, mainly because of the fact that it is a conjoint operation with the much larger Medicare operation, which bears the major share of the infrastructure costs necessary to operate a health insurance organisation. It is odd to recall also that the very object of that study's destructive remarks, Medibank Private, was a child of the Fraser Government. Perhaps that shows further strains in coalition thinking. However, the Health Insurance Commission quite rightly responded in kind by approaching another company to carry out a survey of the industry and Medibank. That study, carried out by Price Waterhouse, said that Medibank is gaining a bigger share of the health insurance market because it performs better than other private health funds. While one may be a bit sceptical about consultants' reports, the terms of reference for which are written to give the answers one wants, one can at least compare those two consultants' reports before one accepts one and rejects the so-called advantages of Medibank Private as outlined in the other. But Touche Ross wanted to equalise the two bit competitors. It wanted to have an even playing field. It recommended that Medibank Private should be required to pay to Consolidated Revenue the accumulated advantage in respect of the establishment loan-$25.9m at June 1986-and the accumulated advantage in respect of the capital grant-$18.8m-and that it charge and be charged with asset utilisation charges calculated on a commercial basis with Medicare. I suspect that the motive of the Opposition's attack on Medibank Private is simply that it wants it to be totally private, it wants it left to the longer serving private funds and because it says that competition is good for competition's sake, without really examining the extra benefits given to the subscribers, of which I admit to the House I am one, by Medibank Private at lower premiums. In fact it is a market leader, as it should be, as it has a social role as well as a commercial, competitive role. Price Waterhouse examined what Touche Ross demanded it examine, to give some equality of competition, and its report said that, on the basis of its study, the advantages perceived for Medibank Private did not appear to exist. The study stated: The disadvantaged perceived for Medibank Private as a result of its association with Medicare may offset any perceived advantages. Medibank Private contribution rates are lower than the majority of private funds because of its investment performance, low claims member profile, pricing policy, aggressive marketing strategy and effective management infrastructure. Price Waterhouse expressed its satisfaction at the apportionment of operating costs between Medibank Private and Medicare. The Price Waterhouse report said: Apart from the $10 million provided in 1976, which was repaid in 1984, Medibank Private has not received public funds in any form. Federal guarantees that additional funds would be made available if they are needed were withdrawn in November 1978. These guarantees were never exercised. I point out that we have seen the advantages of the child of the Fraser Government and have maintained Medibank Private, and in association with Medicare, a child of the Hawke Government, we have now made sure that all people in Australia are covered by medical insurance whereas when the previous Government left office it left two million people in the community without health insurance and subject to the vagaries of misfortune that afflict ordinary people. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 35) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How many service or civilian positions in his Department are designated to be (a) 1 star, (b) 2 star, (c) 3 star and (d) above 3 star positions. (2) For each position identified in part (1), (a) on how many committees is it represented and (b) what proportion of the incumbents' time has been spent attending or preparing for committee meetings since 1984-85. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the Department of Defence, including Headquarters Australian Defence Force and the three Service Offices, there are: (a) 77 one star military positions (b) 28 two star military positions (c) 4 three star military positions, and (d) one four star military position of Chief of the Defence Force. There are currently 34 Senior Executive Level 1 Public Service positions, 62 Level 2, 27 Level 3, 21 Level 4, 2 Level 5, 6 Level 6 and there is one position of Secretary to the Department of Defence. These figures include senior executives in outrider organisations and DSTO research laboratories. As a result of an extensive program of rationalisation and review the number of Senior Executive positions has been reduced by 16 over the last couple of years, including three Deputy Secretary positions at Senior Executive Level 5. (2) My answer to Question on Notice No. 34 provided details on the membership of committees in the Defence Department and of the Defence Force in Canberra. The information sought on the time each senior officer from 1984 spent in attendance at, and preparation for, committees cannot be compiled to provide a meaningful answer. Senior officers do not keep records of the time spent in preparation for meetings and in any case for many members items on committee agenda are inseparable from the work they carry out on a day to day basis. A response to the honourable member's question would be reliant on the recollections and estimates of past and present incumbents. Also, many of the Defence Force positions and some Departmental positions have changed several times over the period from 1984 to the present. I am not prepared in the circumstances to authorise the diversion from priority tasks of the considerable resources that would be necessary to assemble information of dubious precision. (Question No. 298) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 October, 1987: (1) Is the Minister able to provide details concerning the classified advertisements appearing on page 70 of the February 1987 issue of Overseas Trading relating to (a) CIA recruitment and (b) a weapons training base. (2) Did either advertisement originate through Austrade's overseas offices; if not, how were they received, and what action has Austrade taken in relation to them. (3) Was a draft response to this question prepared for the former Minister for Trade; if so, when was it prepared. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The two classified advertisements were received by the commercial publisher of Overseas Trading, TVW Enterprises Ltd, and published without reference to AUSTRADE. (2) Under the agreement between AUSTRADE and TVW Enterprises Ltd, TVW has the right to solicit and receive advertising copy. As the agreement indemnifies AUSTRADE from any claim or action relating to copy material provided by TVW, the publisher did not consider it necessary to refer the advertisements to AUSTRADE for vetting. The Publisher has subsequently been instructed to refer all advertising copy to AUSTRADE for vetting. (3) No. (Question No. 502) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 November 1987: (1) How many public telephones were there in each State and Territory at 30 June (a) 1985, (b) 1986 and (c), 1987. (2) During 1986-87, in each State and Territory, what was the total cost of maintaining public telephones and what was the estimated proportion of that cost attributable to vandalism and other malicious damage. (3) Has Telecom commenced trials of an improved coin safe for public telephones which is expected to withstand all known forms of attack; if so, (a) how many are being trialled, (b) what are the general locations of the trials and (c) how many have been successfully burgled or vandalised to an extent requiring replacement. (4) What is the estimated cost of (a) manufacturing a public telephone of the improved vandal-proof design and (b) installing a public telephone and associated call-box in a typical suburban location. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Public telephones in operation: (a) 1985-N.S.W. (incl A.C.T.) 11,085, Vic. 6,839, Qld 5,562, W.A. 2,971, S.A. (incl N.T.) 3,103, Tas. 1,111, National 30,671. (b) 1986-N.S.W. (incl A.C.T.) 11,050, Vic. 6,826, Qld 5,660, W.A. 2,980, S.A. (incl N.T.) 3,106, Tas. 1,111, National 30,733. (c) 1987-N.S.W. (incl A.C.T.) 11,006, Vic. 6,873, Qld 5,724, W.A. 3,038, S.A. (incl N.T.) 3,107, Tas. 1,095, National 30,843. (2) Total cost of maintaining public telephones 1986-87: $m N.S.W. (incl A.C.T.)... 12.359 Vic.... 6.798 Qld... 4.177 W.A.... 2.168 S.A. (incl N.T.)... 2.193 Tas.... .706 National... 28.401 It is estimated that approximately 60 per cent of the total maintenance cost is attributed to vandalism and other malicious damage. (3) Successful field trials have now been completed. (a) Approximately 600 have been trialled. (b) The Sydney metropolitan area. (c) None. (4) (a) Telecom has not had a requirement to purchase public telephones for a number of years. However, the value of the present Green Phone in use is approximately $3,000 and the cost of manufacturing and installing the new safe is approximately $500. (b) $2,200. This figure includes the supply and installation of the telephones cabinet. (Question No. 535) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 232 (Hansard, 26 November, page 2841), on what basis does Australia Post assess which commercial items it will lend its name to for promotional purposes. (2) What fees are received by Australia Post for such promotions. (3) Does the Minister approve of Australia Post lending its name to the promotion of a product which is generally considered to be exorbitantly priced, without first obtaining basic information such as the actual precious metal content of the stamp replicas. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Australia Post: (1) Australia Post's licensing agents assess the commercial viability of participation in promotional campaigns for particular products. Australia Post seeks to be associated only with items of the highest quality. (2) The fees received by Australia Post are a negotiated commission on sales and vary depending on the total sales revenue. The specific amounts are commercially confidential. (3) Australia Post's decision in this matter was within its authority to operate commercially on the basis of its own judgment. It did not require Ministerial approval. (Question No. 537) Dr Wooldridge asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 7 December 1987: (1) What are the names of the persons appointed to the boards of (a) Qantas and (b) Australian Airlines since 1 January 1978. (2) What were the dates of (a) appointment and (b) cessation of the appointment in each instance. (3) What experience did each appointee have prior to the appointment which was relevant to the aviation industry. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Qantas (1) and (2) Appointee Date of Appointment Cessation of Appointment Resigned or Died in Office* Retired Mr J. B. Leslie, A.O., M.C. ... 15.10.79 Sir Tristan Antico, A.C. ... 15.10.79 Mr K. R. Hamilton, C.B.E. ... 26.06.80 15.12.84* Sir William Allen ... 01.05.81 30.04.85 Mr J. N. Davenport, A.O., D.S.O. with bar, D.F.C., G.M. ... 01.05.81 Sir Garrick Agnew, C.B.E. ... 01.07.81 03.08.87* Ms M. C. Beasley ... 26.08.83 17.10.85 Mr J. F. Ducker, A.O. ... 26.08.83 Mr R. Gietzelt, A.O. ... 01.07.84 Mr W. Bolitho, A.M. ... 03.01.86 Mr S. Same, A.M. ... 03.01.86 Mr J. W. Utz, A.O. ... 01.05.86 Mr J. L. Menadue, A.O. ... 11.09.87 Mrs J. R. Broadbent ... 15.09.87 Mr S. Crean ... 15.09.87 Mr J. S. Horgan, A.A.S.A., C.P.A. ... 15.09.87 (3) Qantas Directors are appointed because of a wide range of skills which they can bring to bear in guiding the affairs of the Company. These skills cover managerial, financial, and organisational aspects and represent a number of different backgrounds, all of which are relevant to the running of a modern airline. (b) Australian National Airlines Commission (ANAC) (1) and (2) Appointee Date of Appointment Cessation of Appointment Resigned or Died in Office* Retired Mr D. Buchanan, C.B.E. ... 15.06.78 14.06.83 Mr R. W. Brack, A.O. ... 26.10.78 25.10.83 Mr A. E. Blanckensee ... 10.10.79 09.10.84 B. W. Lithgow ... 14.10.80 13.10.85 Mr F. E. Peterson, O.A.M. ... 14.10.80 29.04.87 Sir L. T. Froggatt ... 23.02.81 22.02.87 Mr N. A. Smith, A.C., C.M.G. ... 22.06.83 31.10.87 Mr W. B. Pritchett, A.O. ... 21.12.83 Mr D. Hill ... 16.07.84 29.09.86 Mr G. Polites, A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E. ... 11.10.84 Ms D. Bryant ... 18.10.84 Mr F. J. Ball, A.F.C. ... 11.10.85 10.10.87 Mr B. Cogan ... 19.12.85 Mr M. W. Moore-Wilton ... 20.11.86 Mr A. E. Harris, A.O. ... 30.04.87 Mr J. MacBean, A.M. ... 05.06.87 Mr C. Carter ... 01.11.87 Mr G. M. Pemberton ... 01.11.87 (3) Australian National Airlines Commissioners are appointed because of a wide range of skills which they can bring to bear in guiding the affairs of the Commission. These skills cover managerial, financial, and organisational aspects and represent a number of different backgrounds, all of which are relevant to the running of a modern airline. (Question No. 595) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Did the Minister for Defence issue a press release (137/870) on 15 September 1987 indicating that (a) 100 houses would be built at Rockingham, 85 at Watsonia, 53 at Darwin, 28 at Sydney, 26 at Point Cook and 20 at Puckapunyal and (b) $50m is being set aside for upgrading Army live-in accommodation. (2) Does the Supplementary Information volume to Budget related paper 8.5 state at page 37 that 18 houses are to be built at Liverpool and list no other houses for Sydney; if so, what is the reason for the discrepancy between this figure and the 28 mentioned in the press release. (3) Does the volume also state at page 38 that 80 houses are to be built at Rockingham; if so, what is the reason for the discrepancy between this figure and the 100 houses mentioned in the press release. (4) Do pages 60-62 of the volume identify a series of projects under the heading ``Various Upgrade Army living accommodation'' and indicate in each case that no funds are to be spent on these items in 1987-88; if not, what is the position with the projects. (5) Did the $50m project referred to in the press release result in any expenditure being appropriated in 1987-88; if not, will she give an assurance that funds will be appropriated in 1988-89 for the Army live-in upgrade project. (6) If she is unable to give any assurance, why. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1a) The press release refers to ``the purchase and building of 378 new and replacement houses''. The location numbers of houses referred to in the question are included in that program. (1b) Yes. (2) Yes. The information the honourable member has quoted concerning 18 houses to be built at Liverpool relates only to the new construction element of the Defence housing program. This qualification appears at page 34 of the volume from which the quote was extracted. It is planned that the remainder be purchased from the private housing market. (3) Yes. Again, the 80 houses to which the honour- able member refers were houses on the new construction element of the Defence housing program. It was planned that the remaining 20 houses would be purchased. Subsequently, the program has been reviewed by the new Defence Housing Authority which commenced operations on 1 January 1988. The Authority has now decided that all 100 houses will be provided by new construction. (4) Yes. The series of projects listed in the volume refers to a major Army project ``Upgrade Rank and File Living In Accommodation Australia Wide''. Funds are not to be expended in the financial year 1987-88. Proposed expenditure is as follows: $ 1988-89... 11.6m 1989-90... 20.0m 1990-91... 10.9m 1991-92... 8.6m 1992-93... 6.5m This proposed expenditure amounts to $57.6m; the excess from the $50m mentioned in the press release has arisen from refinements to project costings. The project was considered by the Public Works Committee at Enoggera on 12 February 1988 and a report which recommended the construction was tabled in Parliament on 25 February 1988. (5) No. Funds for the project are not to be appropriated in financial year 1987-88. Funds will be appropriated in 1988-89 having regard to the normal processes for development of the Defence budget. (6) See part (5). (Question No. 597) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Has he fully considered the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in its Report No. 39 entitled ``Matrimonial Property''; if not, when will he or his Department do so. (2) Has a bill been prepared to implement any of the recommendations contained in the report; if so, which recommendations will be acted upon. (3) Will he introduce this legislation; if so, when. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Report was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1987. The Government has not yet considered the Report. The Report recommended a number of important changes which could have significant social consequences. There has been little public comment on these proposals. I have asked my Department to prepare a preliminary assessment and to consult appropriate persons and organisations. (2) and (3) The Law Reform Commission included draft legislation in its Report. As to the Government's position in relation to implementation, this will depend upon the results of the consultation process referred to in (1) above and Government consideration of the Report. (Question No. 624) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) Is any Government factory manufacturing Birdfrite; if so, (a) in which plant is it manufactured and (b) what other products does the factory produce. (2) Is Birdfrite in, or planned to go into, commercial production. (3) What is the capital cost involved in establishing the manufacture of Birdfrite. (4) What is the expected annual return after deducting all costs, including capital costs. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys, N.S.W. (MFF) (b) The factory provides a range of ammunition from 20mm through to 105mm. It also produces pyrotechnics such as coloured smoke canisters, photo flash items of which ``Birdfrite'' is a part and initiators for a range of ammunition from 5.56mm. (2) ``Birdfrite'' has been produced at MFF for commercial sale for approximately 15 years. It has been sold to airports in countries such as Canada and Hong Kong as well as in Europe, to facilitate avoidance of bird strikes on aircraft. (3) The facility was established in an existing building at MFF some 15 years ago. The cost was less than $5,000. (4) The MFF applies commercial pricing practices to this item. As the product competes with other products including imports, returns and costs are ``commercial-in-confidence''. However, the prices charged ensure a positive return to the factory. The important aspect of this product is that it continually exercises the factory's pyrotechnic capability in peace time. (Question No. 647) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) What was the cost of producing the ABC Pamphlet entitled ``Time for Action'' and the booklet entitled ``Tough Options'', concerning funding cutbacks to the ABC. (2) How many copies of each publication were printed. (3) To whom have copies been supplied. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has informed me that: (1) The cost of producing the pamphlet ``Time for Action'' and the booklet entitled ``Tough Options'' concerning impending additional cutbacks to the ABC's Budget are as follows:- ``Time for Action''-$5,911.40 ``Tough Options''-$6,789.30 (2) ``Time for action''-100,000 copies. ``Tough Options''-14,000 copies. (3) Copies of ``Tough Options'' have been supplied to ABC National and State Advisory Councils, Parliamentarians, community organisations and opinion leaders. ``Time for Action'' pamphlets have received general distribution. (Question No. 657) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: Further to the answer to question No. 109 (Hansard, 18 November 1987, page 2358), is the Minister able to say which International Maritime Organisation conventions and protocols have been ratified by members of the South Pacific Forum other than Australia. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following list indicates which members of the South Pacific Forum are parties to particular International Maritime Organisation conventions and protocols: (a) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960: Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (b) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu (c) Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974: Vanuatu (d) Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972: Fiji, Kiribati (applies provisionally: where, by virtue of its ratification, the United Kingdom extended the application of the convention to the territory before independence and where the International Maritime Organization Secretariat is satisfied that the convention is still being applied), New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (e) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954: Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (f) Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973: Tuvalu. (g) Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965: Fiji, New Zealand. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (h) International Convention on Load Lines, 1966: Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (i) International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969: Fiji, New Zealand, Tonga, Tuvalu. (j) International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969: Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea. The convention is extended to the Federated States of Micronesia and to the Marshall Islands by the United States. (k) International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969: Fiji, Kiribati (applies provisionally), New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands (applies provisionally), Tuvalu, Vanuatu. (l) International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu. (m) International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972: New Zealand. (n) Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974: Tonga. (o) Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization: New Zealand. (p) Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organization: New Zealand. (q) International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978: Kiribati, New Zealand (ratification also declared to extend to the Cook Islands and Niue), Tuvalu. (r) International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979: New Zealand (accession also declared to extend to the Cook Islands and Niue). (Question No. 659) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) How does the Government approve advertising campaigns. (2) Does the Ministerial Committee on Government Advertising still exist; if so, (a) who have been members of this committee since 1 July 1986, (b) what provisions have been made for its secretariat, (c) what new projects has it considered, (d) what was the cost of each project, (e) which agency undertook each project and (f) what was the basis of the committee's decision in respect of each project. (3) If the Ministerial Committee on Government Advertising no longer exists, what administrative arrangements has the Government in place. (4) If the administrative arrangements have changed, will he provide details of the changes. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) When Ministers decide advertising campaigns may be necessary, proposals are considered by the Ministerial Committee on Government Information and Advertising in conjunction with the Minister concerned. (2) The Ministerial Committee on Government Information and Advertising is still operating. (a) As at 24 February 1988, Senators Ray, Richardson and Walsh and Messrs J Brown and M Young had been members of the Committee since 1 July 1986. (b) The Information Coordination Branch of the Department of Administrative Services provides secretariat services to the Committee. (c)-(f) The details of the Committee's considerations are not released. However, in response to Questions 676-692 asked by the Honourable Member, details have been provided of current advertising campaigns. (3) and (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 676-91) Mr Blunt asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which agency was responsible for the development of advertising campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department, other than general advertising of job vacancies. (2) How was the agency appointed. (3) How many agencies submitted tenders. Mr West —As indicated above, the honourable member asked identical questions of all Ministers. The following answer is provided on behalf of all Ministers by the Minister for Home Affairs: (1) and (3) The following table lists departments which were, at 15 March, currently employing creative advertising agencies, the agencies concerned, the campaigns/projects involved and, where applicable, the number of submissions called for before selection of the agency. (2) The standard procedure for appointing creative agencies is that a number of agencies are invited to submit competitive proposals for a campaign and are assessed on the basis of their submissions. On some occasions an agency may be directly appointed to an assignment on its known performance where (i) the deadline to produce a short term campaign does not allow sufficient time to call for competitive submissions (ii) the proposed advertising budget is very small or (iii) where the required expertise is possessed by a particular agency. Department Creative agency Campaign/Project Submissions sought Administrative Services... John Singleton Advertising... Australian Made Campaign... 5 Electoral Commission... Doorley Buchanan... 1987 National electoral campaign &by-elections 6 Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism &Territories Fountain Huie Fish... Canberra Tourist Bureau... 3 Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism &Territories DDB Needham... North Queensland Rainforests... 1 Attorney-General's... Charlton &Charlton... ASIO recruitment... 4 Attorney-General's... Creative Oasis... Federal Police recruitment... 1 Community Services &Health... Forbes Macfie Hansen... National Campaign Against Drug Abuse 5 Community Services &Health... Mackay Dalziel Harper &Grey National Campaign Against Measles 1 Community Services &Health... Magnus Nankervis &Curl... National Campaign Against AIDS 9 Defence... Ball Partnership... RMC Duntroon, officer recruitment 4 Defence... Connaghan and May Ayer... Air Force recruitment... 3 Defence... Creative Oasis... Army reserve/army recruitment 5 Defence... John Clemenger... Australian Defence Force Academy recruitment 4 Defence... Eddelbuttel Osborne... Tri-service recruitment ad hoc assignments 1 Defence... Silver Partnership... Navy recruitment... 4 Employment, Education &Training Baker Robson Marygold Ayer... Aboriginal Employment... 1 Employment, Education &Training Chandler Hambleton Delbridge Otton Australian Traineeships Systems (national) 4 Employment, Education &Training Clifton Court Smith Victorian Regional campaigns 3 Employment, Education &Training Doorley Buchanan Austudy... 3 Employment, Education &Training IHJ Advertising... Department of Employment, Education &Training NSW Regional campaigns 3 Employment, Education &Training Mojo MDA (Brisbane)... Department of Employment, Education &Training Queensland campaigns 2 Immigration, Local Government &Ethnic Affairs P &S Communications... Business Migration Program... 1 Industrial Relations... Award Advertising/Campaign Pacific Industrial Relations Bill... 1 Primary Industries &Energy... Fountain Huie Fish... Department of Primary Industries &Energy campaigns 3 Social Security... IHJ Advertising... Child Support Scheme... 5 Social Security... P &S Communications... Family Assistance Scheme... 1 Treasury... Mackay Dalziel Harper &Grey Royal Australian Mint... 1 Treasury... Silver Partnership... Aussie Bonds, Treasury Bonds, Index Bonds 4 (Question No. 747) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Did he issue a directive prohibiting military bands from playing in RSL clubs, or on any commercial premises. (2) Did this directive follow a direct request to him from the Musicians' Trade Union of Australia; if so, what was the rationale behind this decisions. (3) Has his attention been drawn to one of the clubs which wanted to have a military band playing on its premises which had offered to donate $1500 to any Army-associated charity, including legacy. (4) Will he reconsider his directive and revoke his decision. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. A directive was issued in May 1986 to restrict the performance of military bands on commercial premises to occasional circumstances which do not interfere with Service commitments and which are suitable occasions for their performance. (2) The Musicians' Trade Union of Australia, among others, made representations in March 1986 concerning Service Bands participating at performances, at which an admission was charged, to the potential detriment of employment opportunities of other musicians. I did not believe it appropriate for regular performances to be arranged for Defence Force bands, or, except in occasional circumstances, military bands to perform on commercial premises. (3) My attention was drawn to the $1500 performance fee offer to an Army-associated charity by the Secretary/Manager of the Kingsgrove RSL Club in his letter dated 7 August 1987. He was seeking a reversal of my decision of 20 July 1987 which denied the performance of a 2MD band at a concert being held on 12 September 1987. (4) The Defence Force policy on the participation of Service bands has not changed since May 1986. All requests for Service bands are considered on their merits consistent with the guidelines. In reaching a decision on each request, account is taken of both Service and non-Service factors. Bands may continue to perform at RSL clubs on special and ceremonial occasions such as Anzac Day. (Question No. 753) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) Why was Westfarmers Pty Ltd awarded a public interest grant to develop a natural food colouring agent betacarotene. (2) What decision was reached in an out-of-court settlement between Westfarmers Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth as to who owned the intellectual property. (3) What provisions were in the contract with Westfarmers Pty Ltd to prevent the company and the intellectual property being sold to other interests. (4) What were the findings of the Bureau of Industry Economics evaluation of the original grant. (5) Who signed, on behalf of the Government, the agreement between the Government and Westfarmers. (6) What were the terms of the agreement. (7) Have the terms of this agreement been fully met; if not, what matters have not been satisfied. (8) What are the arrangements between the Commonwealth and Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd for the payment of plant, office and laboratory equipment due to the Commonwealth. (9) Have all payments been made; if not, what steps is the Commonwealth taking to obtain full and complete payment. (10) What arrangements have been made between the Commonwealth and Hoffman La Roche Ltd consequent upon the take-over by Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd to ensure the Commonwealth has control of the intellectual property. (11) Was advice received from the Attorney-General's Department on the agreement between Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd and Westfarmers Ltd; if so, what was that advice. (12) What are the terms of the deed signed between the Commonwealth and Hoffman La Roche concerning the intellectual property. (13) What undertakings were given to the Commonwealth by Hoffman La Roche in connection with the subsequent take-over of Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd. (14) Is the Minister able to say when the results of the research by Westfarmers Pty Ltd will be made available to Australian industry. (15) What is the estimated benefit to Australian industry of the $4.6m invested in the betacarotene research of Westfarmers Pty Ltd. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. Westfarmers (sic) Pty Ltd was not awarded a public interest grant to perform research into algal products. In 1983 research staff employed by Roche Products Pty Ltd at their Hutt Lagoon, Western Australia, research facility applied for public interest project funding under the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme administered by the then Department of Science and Technology. They sought on-going funding following the Roche decision to retain their traditional chemical synthetic process in factories in Europe, rather than develop the natural method of producing beta-carotene. The location of the facility and the research personnel required that a prime contractor would need significant infrastructure support in Western Australia, be operating in a related area of activity or be a future user of the products. Only the Westfarmers organisation met these criteria and indicated interest in becoming prime contractor. One of its subsidiaries, Westralian Farmers Cooperative Ltd, submitted in December 1983 an application to the Department. After consideration, the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Advisory Committee, an independent committee of experts, recommended to the then Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Jones) that the proposal be supported under Section 39 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. Mr Jones approved the proposal on 27 February 1984. The form of the funding was by contract to perform the research on behalf of the Commonwealth. The contract specified that the ownership of any developed intellectual property would be the property of the Commonwealth. (2) The question of ownership of the intellectual property has never been in dispute. However, CSBP (a Westfarmers associated company appointed to handle staffing and sub-contractual matters), obtained an injunction against T. D. Meagher and Associates (a sub-contractor) to prevent the transfer of patents to the Commonwealth. CSBP withdrew from the case before the hearing and offered $5000 as costs. As T. D. Meagher and Associates' legal costs associated with the court action were being met by the Commonwealth, the offer was referred to the Australian Government Solicitor for advice. The Commonwealth accepted its recommendation to accept the $5,000. 3. There was no specific provision in the contract between the Commonwealth and Westralian Farmers Cooperative Limited to prevent sale of the company. However, a confidentiality clause prevented the contractor or any sub-contractor from disclosing any information arising from the project to third parties other than as required by the agreement. The contract also provided that the ``Agreement shall not be assigned nor sub-contracted in whole or in part by the Contractor otherwise than to Westfarmers Algal Biotechnology Pty Ltd without prior written explicit consent of the Board.'' The Board (Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board) was the Commonwealth contractual authority established to administer the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. The intellectual property remained the Commonwealth's. 4. The Bureau of Industry Economics did not evaluate the original proposal, this having been done by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Advisory Committee. The BIE, however, in a later review of the Section 39 Public Interest Program of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme, commented on the early stages of the Algal project. A copy of the report is available from the office of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. 5. The contract with Westralian Farmers Cooperative Limited (later assigned to Westfarmers Algal Biotechnology Pty Ltd) was signed by the then Executive Member of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board for and on behalf of the Commonwealth. 6. The first contract contains a number of clauses. In essence it includes two research phases. A third phase required a second contract. Pending negotiation of a second contract a letter of intent was forwarded to the company and it was agreed that the terms of the first contract would apply in the interim. Copies of the relevant documents are available from the office of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. 7. Westfarmers Algal Biotechnology Pty Ltd satisfied the terms of the first contract. Satisfactory terms could not be negotiated for a second contract. 8. The arrangement between the Commonwealth and Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd for the payment for physical assets was by way of payments by instalments. 9. All payments have now been made. 10. The Commonwealth has been and will continue to remain owner of the intellectual property. 11. No. 12. There is no deed signed between the Commonwealth and Hoffman La Roche (or Roche Products Pty Ltd) concerning the intellectual property. 13. In the context of the takeover of Western Biotechnology Pty Ltd by Roche Products Pty Ltd, I am advised that Roche gave an undertaking to pay any outstanding amounts for the physical assets (see 8. above) and to cause Western Biotechnology to release the Commonwealth from an obligation to first offer use of the intellectual property for commercial development to the company before it could be offered to other companies. 14. A call to Australian industry for expressions on interest in being licensed to use the results of the project is expected in the near future. 15. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the benefit of the project to Australian industry, especially in the light of 14. above. (Question No. 807) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) Who administers the Australian Science and Technology Counsellor Network (ASTCON) (2) Who are the members of the Council of ASTCON and what is the term of their appointment Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. ASTCON is administered by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. 2. ASTCON is not administered by a Council. The present Counsellors are: Dr J. Hlubucek (Washington); Mr B. Bryant (London); Dr S. Pearce (Bonn); Mr G. McAlpine (Paris OECD); and Mr M. Hyman (Tokyo). The normal period of appointment is 3 years. (Question No. 832) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 March 1988: Who were the successful (a) private developer and (b) financial institutions chosen by the previous Department of Local Government and Administrative Services for each of the Instalment Purchase Projects completed or in progress in 1986-87. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Devonport Commonwealth Offices: (a) Jennings Industries (Jilpac) Pty Ltd. (b) Partnership Pacific Limited. Port Pirie Commonwealth Offices: (a) Arthur Lloyd Pty Ltd (b) National Mutual Royal Bank Ltd. Rockhampton Commonwealth Offices: (a) J. M. Kelly (Builders) Pty Ltd (b) Macquarie Bank Limited. Mackay Commonwealth Offices: (a) Handawn Pty Ltd (b) Macquarie Bank Limited. Cairns Commonwealth Offices: (a) The Fletcher Organisation Pty Ltd (b) State Bank of Victoria. Fremantle Commonwealth Offices: (a) Interstruct Pty Ltd (b) Commonwealth Bank Limited. Parramatta Commonwealth Offices: (a) Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (b) Commonwealth Bank/AMP Society. Wollongong Commonwealth Offices: (a) The Fletcher Organisation Pty Ltd (b) Capel Court Corporation Ltd. Dubbo Commonwealth Offices: (a) E. E. Lahey Constructions Pty Ltd (b) State Bank of New South Wales. Phillip Street Ministerial &General Parliamentary Offices: (a) National Management Services (AUST) Pty Ltd (b) State Bank of New South Wales. The financial institutions were chosen by the private developers, not the previous Department of Local Government and Administrative Services.