Wednesday, 20 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 19 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.00) —We commenced debate yesterday evening on this important Bill, the Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988. I take the opportunity this morning to resume my contribution to the debate. To very briefly recap, this Bill will enable Australia to ratify the United Nations torture convention. The Bill provides that an offence is committed if an act of torture, as defined, done outside Australia by a public official would also constitute an offence if done in a part of Australia and the punishment is that prescribed for the relevant Australian offence. This formula avoids references to specific offences. It could be argued that this lack of particularity could lead to confusion. However, I would be very surprised if any torturer intending to travel to Australia would have any doubt that he or she would be at risk under the provisions of this Bill. In any event, this drafting approach parallels section 45 of the Extradition Act which facilitates, as an alternative to extradition, trial in Australia of offences committed overseas by Australian citizens and residents. Another salient feature of the Bill is that only Australian citizens or other persons present in Australia are liable to prosecution. This provision accords with the specific requirements of the convention. An offence occurs only in relation to acts of torture committed after the commencement of the legislation and, in so doing, complies with the long established common law principle against retrospectivity. However, I do harbour some concern that the practical consequence of this limitation is that persons who have committed torture prior to that date may come to Australia with impunity. There would therefore need to be-and we stress the need for it-a particular caution at the visa issue stage to ensure that this does not occur. Realistically, it is probable that the only persons who would be likely to commit torture post- commencement of the Act, and subsequently come to Australia, would be representatives of totalitarian countries who have been assigned to embassies and thereby are vested with diplomatic immunity. Even if this were not so, which is possible in the case of some minor officials, it is unlikely that the relevant foreign countries would seek extradition of their own officials or look kindly upon prosecution action by Australia in this jurisdiction, let alone produce evidentiary material for any such prosecution. It will, therefore, be necessary again for the Government to vet carefully diplomats before they are accredited to Australia. Persons who slip through the screening process and are subsequently exposed could, of course, be declared persona non grata and be required to leave the country. The effectiveness of the treaty is a matter which ought to be drawn to the attention of honourable members, but that does not detract in any way from the support the Opposition is happy to give the Bill. I refer to an article in the journal Forum of October 1987 by Mr Francois de Vargas, who is the General Secretary of the Swiss Committee against Torture. He said: However, let us not delude ourselves: as far as torture is concerned, international control machinery is still weak. Indeed, a careful reading of the text of the UN convention reveals that the states are entitled to reject most of the committee's areas of competence. For example, only six of the first twenty states parties have agreed to allow the committee to examine complaints by individuals or other states, and six others have not accepted the competence of the committee to make its own inquiries. Moreover, these inquiries may only be held when the committee receives `reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a state party'. This means that the committee can scarcely take any effective action until the torture has already been going on for several years. In attempting to place some emphasis on the extent of torture, to which I referred in my opening remarks, I looked to the world human rights guide of the Economist which was put out in 1986. It is eye-opening to look down the list of countries and at the human rights ratings they have been given. Under the heading `Torture-Coercion', the seven countries listed at the bottom were Libya, South Africa, Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Iraq, North Korea and Ethiopia. There are many other countries listed in that guide put out by the Economist. Whilst those references illuminate both the extent of the problem and the difficulties the international community faces in attempting to come to grips with and see some diminution in the extent of the practice of torture, I say to members of the Australian community, particularly those very active members of groups such as Amnesty International, that there is always light at the end of the tunnel and the extent of the problems should only encourage those people to continue their efforts. The Mornington Peninsula, which is in my electorate of Flinders and is south-east of Melbourne, has seen the formation of a local Amnesty group in recent years. I want to give such groups some encouragement, even though they do not really need much encouragement. Last year, at the initiative of Amnesty, the local group took up the cause of a Mr Belov, who had been imprisoned in a psychiatric ward in Soviet Russia for many years. The group had a number of people write off to seek the release of Mr Belov from his imprisonment. Following that correspondence from myself and other people, in March this year we received advice from the Soviet Embassy that Mr Belov had finally been released from the institution in which he was being kept. According to the Soviet authorities, he had been suffering from mental disease in the form of paranoia since 1977. They claimed that he had committed a criminal offence in 1982 but, taking into account his mental disease, the court brought down a verdict that he was not answerable for his actions and he was discharged in October 1987. It might be mere coincidence, but some months after the local group's efforts this man was released. So no great claims are made for the cause and effect, but it has given our local group a sense that its voice can be heard. One thing one learns about politics is that decision making is often a cumulative process where the voices of many can be heard. No one individual can often affect the course of events. In this case I am sure, and I hope, that the work of the local Amnesty group, as the work of other Amnesty groups such as the Amnesty group in this Parliament, will be heard and will have an effect over time. That brings me to say that this legislative measure and the convention are but two means by which Australia can voice its concern about torture, whereby Australia can bring to bear the influence that we have in the affairs of the international community. It is the Opposition's hope that this measure will have that effect. It will assist those who work very hard on this very important and vital issue. It is a reflection on the kind of society that we are that we should be signatories and that we should give our fullest possible support to this measure. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.12) —I commend the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), for his contribution to the Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988. It demonstrates the bipartisan approach that the Parliament has on this important issue and, taking it further, on international human rights questions generally. This area of international law has been one of the most rapidly evolving areas of law. Prior to World War II there was virtually no international law of human rights. Only with the preamble to the charter of the United Nations adopted on 26 June 1945 were the first seeds sown. That charter began by saying: We, the people of the United Nations, determine to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm our faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and the work of the human person. The preamble continued with other important matters. That wording reflects the wording three years later in the preamble to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which states that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalienable rights of all member so the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Just as it was not possible to look at any significant body of international human rights in the period prior to the Second World War so too it was not possible, even 10 years ago, to look at any significant body of human rights with any particular relevance to the treatment of prisoners. It just simply did not exist as recently as 13 years ago. The important instruments in this field that I will refer to briefly include the International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the optional protocol. These are all important initiatives in the international arena which recognise, as I have said, the inherent dignity of human kind. It then falls to national governments to give effect to these important international principles. In relation to the Bill before the House we are establishing an Australian jurisdiction over acts of torture committed outside Australia where the offender is found within Australian territory. The intention of this Bill is to enable Australia to ratify the convention against torture in other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which was signed by Australia on 10 December 1985. That convention is generally known as the torture convention. It came into force on 26 June 1987, as I have indicated. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), to his credit, has engaged in a fairly exhaustive process of consultation with the States in relation to this matter and of course it is always our approach, as a Federal Labor government, to work cooperatively with the States wherever that is possible. This has been done in this case. In accordance with the provisions of the convention, the main purpose of the Bill is to deny a safe haven in Australia to any person who, while acting officially or at the instigation or behest of a person so acting, is involved in the torture of a person in another country. There are at the moment 28 parties to that convention. I refer specifically to article 7 of the covenant, which provides that no-one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no-one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. One important approach of this Bill is reflected in the view of the Government that the laws of the States and Territories are already adequate to fulfil this obligation and the obligations of the torture convention in so far as acts committed within Australia are concerned. Therefore the Bill does not apply to acts committed within Australia. I might make my own personal observation that this may not always be the case. I hope with all my heart that it is, but of course I make the obvious point that, should the States in some way violate those accepted international principles to which I have referred, it would fall morally, ethically and politically to this Parliament to act, in order to preserve those international standards. As I said, I hope with all my heart that that never happens. Mr Kerr —Hear, hear! Mr TICKNER —I thank the honourable member for Denison for his enthusiastic support. It is also important, I think, to refer to clause 13, which recognises the obligation under article 6 of the convention to allow an alleged offender who is not an Australian citizen access to his or her country's diplomatic or consular representatives. I might say also that obligations under article 16, in relation to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which does not amount to torture, are in the Government's view-as I have said-fulfilled by State and Territory criminal law and the obligation under article 14 to provide for fair and adequate compensation for the victim of an act of torture is met by State criminal injuries compensation legislation and by common law rights. I do not propose to deal exhaustively with the terms of the Bill, because they have been in part covered by other speakers and by the Attorney himself. I do want to raise some of the broader issues concerning this torture Bill, some of which have been referred to by the shadow Attorney-General. It is extremely difficult for us-standing here in the comfortable surroundings of the House of Representatives and living in a very affluent society and in a country that has, by all international standards, comparable standards, a great regard for human life and for human dignity-to understand what torture is about. The forms of torture are of course many and varied and I do not refer to these matters in order to make some throw-away line to simply fill in time, but I think it is extremely important that the House understand the kinds of actions that we are talking about. Torture, as I said, can take many forms. Among the most widely used are sensory and sleep deprivation; isolation; the use of drugs; making people watch their children or loved ones being raped, killed or brutalised; beatings; electric shocks; rape and sexual molestation; burning; starvation; mutilation; sham executions; debilitating psychological abuse; near-fatal immersion or suffocation; forcing victims to maintain crippling positions for long periods; and many other forms of violent abuse which are of course often used with great unpredictability. The aim of torture is to foster dependency, debility and dread which together will destabilise and dehumanise the victims, render them vulnerable to further manipulation and violence and entrap them in a situation which destroys psychological and physical resistance. Torture may not always or even often end when the so-called victim confesses. Its primary objective is not to obtain information but to instil terror in individuals and societies and eliminate any spark of political dissent. I commend to the House a book which is called Torture in the Eighties. It is published by Amnesty International and it does not make pleasant reading. It details and chronicles the sort of action I have been talking about, regrettably not just in one or two countries but in some 64 countries. In Africa some 23 countries are listed as being of concern to Amnesty International for committing the sorts of acts against their citizens that I have been talking about in the last few minutes. In the Americas, some 15 countries are listed as being of concern to Amnesty. Some 10 countries are listed in Asia and even in Europe there are eight countries. Finally, in the Middle East and North Africa there are 10 more. It is a terrifying story to understand the extent of torture in the world today. At this stage I will refer to what the shadow Attorney-General had to say because I agree that we in Australia have a role to play. We can do something about what is happening in other parts of the world. The honourable member referred to the role of Amnesty International and the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. I would like to reiterate some of the things that have been happening in this area and commend the Government-and I hope any future government-because of the way it has taken up the concerns of Amnesty International. This is not a party-political issue; it is a parliamentary issue par excellence. It stands out as being far more important than any one of us or any one of the parties we represent. The parliamentary group of Amnesty International has begun to take up every single case of an urgent action appeal issued by Amnesty International, including cases relating to torture. That means in practice that the secretary of the parliamentary group, Senator Chris Puplick, and I, as chairman of that group, immediately upon receipt of an urgent action appeal, write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden). I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), has come into the House to participate in this debate. I invite him, as the shadow Minister, to respond to my remarks, as I am sure and confident he will, in a bipartisan way and to give a commitment on the part of his Party and the Opposition that they will continue the practice to which I am referring. The parliamentary group of Amnesty International draws the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to these urgent action cases. I am not just talking about issues that may be of passing interest. These are crisis cases, concerning people who are about to be executed or brutally tortured, people whose only hope is the voice of the rest of the world. What the Government has begun and what I believe the Opposition strongly supports is the practice that as soon as that urgent action appeal is received in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Australian foreign affairs representatives around the world go knocking on doors and asking questions. They stand up for the international principles and covenants to which I have referred. They actively intervene to try to prevent torture and the violation of human rights. That is incredibly important, and I believe that it provides a model for the world. What we as the Australian Parliament should be doing is putting this approach on the agendas of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union and encouraging other parliaments that share our conviction and belief in the importance of defending human rights to take up the same model. If it is not just Australia making an approach in these cases, if it is also Canada, New Zealand and other countries that share our concerns, together we can make an impact. Even at present, with Australia's own isolated contribution, we are truly achieving a response. If we talk to people who have been the subject of repression contrary to the principles of Amnesty, we find that what we are doing is unique in the world, something that they want other governments to follow. I invite the Opposition in this debate to re-echo what has been stated continually by senior members of the Opposition, that is, that if there is a change of government this bipartisan practice, which transcends any one of us and transcends parties, will be continued. My time is drawing to a close, but I want to refer briefly to an important meeting that was held in the Parliament the other night relating directly to the issue of torture. I do not know how many honourable members present in the House today were able to attend that meeting-the Alan Missen Memorial Lecture held by the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. I know that a number of honourable members attended. On that occasion the speaker was a Chilean woman, Carmen Gloria Quintana. I find it difficult to talk about what happened at that meeting because it is almost presumptuous of any of us even to attempt to put ourselves in the position of someone such as Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was brutally tortured by the Chilean regime. I find it almost impossible to put myself in her position. I refer briefly to her evidence before the United Nations Human Rights Commission when she recounted what happened to her. As she was walking towards a demonstration in Chile a patrol of heavily armed soldiers in combat gear with their faces painted black followed her in a civilian truck. They detained her colleague and friend, Rodrigo, and her, and they were insulted with obscenities, physically searched and brutally beaten. Two other vehicles carrying soldiers and two people in civilian dress arrived on the scene, bringing the number of assailants to about 30. One of them carried a can of gasoline. Rodrigo was already semi-conscious and on the ground, bleeding profusely from the brutal kicks, punches and blows from the butt end of rifles. They continued to beat Carmen Gloria Quintana. The leader of the patrol doused her from head to foot with gasoline, despite her pleas that they stop because the gasoline was going into her mouth. The soldiers laughed at her. As she was wiping her mouth with her hand, they threw something which exploded between her and Rodrigo, and they began to burn like human torches. She states: I began to jump and roll on the ground to put out the flames when a soldier hit me with the butt of his rifle in the mouth and I lost several teeth. She continued to talk about what happened to her. What were almost just bodies were dumped. In a tribute to the resilience of the human spirit, Carmen Gloria survived that ordeal and now travels the world talking about what happened to her as a victim of torture. Anyone who was at that meeting could not help but be moved to action. I will not use this opportunity to bash the Chilean Government or to raise the issue of one country, because the problem extends beyond one country. As I indicated when referring to the Amnesty International publication, some 64 countries are listed as engaging in the same sort of practice. My message is this: Carmen Gloria's story ought to motivate us as a parliament and as individual parliamentarians who share the values of the United Nations and who are committed to those international human rights principles. It should spur us to action. I end on the really important point that I have sought to make in the course of this debate. As a result of the decision by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who will not be the Minister forever-surely even he acknowledges that-an important principle or practice of Australia leading the world in taking up international human rights cases has been established. There can be no better opportunity for the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs to give his full backing to that bipartisan principle. I am sure that he will, and I invite him to do so. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.31) —Other speakers in this debate have dealt with the detail of this Bill and I will say little about it, save to remind the House that we are here to ratify the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty to which Australia is already a signatory. Members of the House would have heard that the main operative provision as to the definition of an act of torture is to be found in clause 3, which defines that term to mean any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted to obtain information or a confession, as punishment to intimidate or coerce or for any reason based on discrimination. It will be known that, under clause 6, the Bill is to apply against a person who is a public official or is acting with the consent of a public official and who commits an act that falls within the definition of torture. If that act had been committed in Australia and that person was an Australian citizen, that person would be liable for conviction on the basis that is laid out in the Bill. As I say, I do not wish to examine the detail of the Bill any further; rather I will confine myself to some general observations about the Bill and about torture itself. The first thing that must be said is that the Bill is concerned only with public officials whereas, in fact, torture takes place throughout the world not simply at the hands of public officials or with the consent of public officials but by people who are members of organisations which have no public or official status. Let me say immediately that I am not critical of the Government because of the way in which `public official' is defined. We are dealing with an international treaty and it is very much a question for the Government to take it or leave it. I commend the Government and the Ministers who have been involved in the negotiations leading up to the ratification of this treaty for the work that they have done. So far, the countries that have ratified the convention have been France, Norway, Sweden, Uruguay, Canada and Denmark. It is certain that other countries, whose own records in human rights are perfectly appalling, will ratify this convention. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), referred to what Amnesty International has said and pointed out that 64 countries are listed by that group as engaging in practices proscribed by this Bill. We can be certain as we stand here today that many of those 64 countries will ultimately become signatories to the treaty and that some of them will ratify the treaty. It is one of the great cynicisms of international diplomacy that so may countries pay lip service to treaties designed to achieve civilised objectives, as this treaty is designed to do. Those very same countries proclaim their capacity to lecture others on human rights. One of the great ironies is to be found in the number of countries which have become parties to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. If one looks at the list of signatories to that convention, one will find that many are countries which specifically, and as an act of policy, deny their citizens the very rights set out in that convention. This is a reality of the modern world, just as war has been a reality of the modern world which we must face and do as much about as we can. As the honourable member for Hughes has pointed out, we must raise the level of consciousness throughout the world of the need to avoid abuses of human rights. In a sense it is very much like the word `democracy'. Every country wants to be called democratic. Thus there are countries throughout this world which, as part of their title, proclaim themselves to be the democratic republic of wherever it may be. In fact, they are neither a republic nor democratic. The Duc de la Rochefoucauld said: Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue. Countries which proclaim themselves to be democratic also proclaim themselves to be countries with concerns about rights and matters such as torture. So I suppose there is at least some advantage in their becoming signatories because this provides a mechanism for criticism when they violate what is laid down in this treaty. It is sometimes said that the world has progressed a long distance since the Dark Ages and that in the last two or three centuries we have seen a great flowering of rights throughout the world. That is true in some ways and wrong in others. It is true that in the civilised democracies there has been a far higher appreciation of rights. It is true that the notions that individuals have rights which should not be violated, that they are entitled to fair treatment and that democracy is something which is important, whatever interpretation one gives to it, have advanced. These concepts have been developed. Yet are we really better off overall? If we could go back to the seventeenth century we would find that in England it was permissible and a practice to employ torture to extract confessions. In England in the sixteenth century there was the practice-I forget when it was abolished-of hanging, drawing and quartering which was one of the most unpleasant ways to come to an end. The rack, as a means of extracting confessions, extracting truth or extracting information, was regarded not as something extreme or wrong but as a necessary incidental to the powers of the state. That was the case throughout Europe in those days. We have now moved a long way. None of us in this House would say that torture, intimidation and physical abuse of any kind should be condoned. Yet we find that, with the apparatus of the modern state, some states are able to violate the rights and the lives of their citizens, racial groups and other groups in a way undreamt of before the emergence of the modern state. Look at some of the examples: the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in 1915; the Jews, the gypsies and other proscribed races at the hands of the nazis in the late 1930s and throughout the Second World War. One million or two million Cambodians-one does not know how many-at the hands of their own people, have been killed under the most vile and extraordinary of circumstances. It is almost as if a nightmare had taken possession of the country. Look at the Soviet Union. I am glad to say that some changes have been made there, and I welcome any improvements in the position of Soviet citizens. But how free are they? How strongly are their rights protected? It is notorious-and I believe that it has recently been acknowledged by the Soviet Government-that psychiatric institutions have been used for the purposes of the incarceration and torture of dissidents. The proposition was very simple: the Soviet Union is a country whose citizens must believe in what the state is doing; if one does not believe in what the state is doing, there is something wrong with one's mind; if there is something wrong with one's mind, one must go to an institution, and the authorities will treat one there. Mr Reith —Solzhenitsyn. Mr SPENDER —Yes, as my learned colleague says-Solzhenitsyn's The First Circle and Cancer Ward. What has happened, as we all know-and this is an example of the development about which I was talking, of how the modern state can bring to bear means which the disorganised states of old could not-is that in those institutions individuals would be subjected to mind-damaging, to soul-destroying drugs. Is there any more foul use of the wonders of modern medicine than that kind of use? The honourable member for Hughes referred to Chile. There are many countries, as he said, in which citizens are abused, tortured and denied their rights. The record of this century has been worse than the record of almost any other century when it comes to the acts that governments employ against their own citizens. The honourable member for Hughes asked me to affirm on behalf of the Opposition our bipartisan approach to these matters, and I most certainly do so. The work which the parliamentary group of Amnesty International does is itself important. The work which our country can do overseas, knocking on the doors of other countries, is of great importance. It is a subject in which I have taken great interest. Whilst the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and I do not always see eye to eye about means and about certain issues, I think that there is a common view shared in this House that all of us are opposed to the abuse of the rights of people wherever they may be found. I am, therefore, glad to have had the opportunity of intervening in this debate. I commend the Government for its work, and I commend my colleague the shadow Attorney-General for his work in dealing with this Bill. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.43) —It is pleasing but not unexpected that both sides of this House support the Crimes (Torture) Bill. It is not unexpected because in this country, as all speakers in the debate thus far have acknowledged, we are fortunate to live within a society in which we not only express moral repugnance about torture but also carry it through in practice by condemning and punishing any instances of brutality or wrong treatment of those in custody or under official protection. That sets us aside from some countries where support for international condemnation of torture is strong in terms of rhetoric but less so in terms of practical application. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has pointed out, it is a tragedy that there are instances in which one cannot take the assertions of other nations entirely at face value. All that being said, we have to acknowledge that over the last 50 years the world has changed its attitude dramatically in terms of its perspective on human rights. I do not think we can accept the point made by the honourable member for North Sydney that in some way new opportunities have been opened up in the twentieth century for torture that were undreamt of previously. His own recitation of the conduct in England, for example, with reluctant prisoners being crushed almost to death to force them to plead either guilty or not guilty to charges brought against them, which persisted into the seventeenth century, indicates that there was at that time a very different attitude towards human rights. Only in the twentieth century has the concession slowly and begrudgingly been made throughout the world that individuals carry an inherent human dignity which warrants protection and that international measures are necessary to make sure that nations protect individuals within their boundaries. It is naive to say that man in this way has not progressed. Humankind is slowly learning to respond in very different ways. The first instance of the international community beginning to express repugnance at crimes committed against humanity occurred at the conclusion of World War II. The world was faced with the need to respond to the atrocities of the nazi regime. In responding to those atrocities, through the Nuremburg process and through the creation of the United Nations mechanisms, the international community set down principles which are now accepted as a backdrop to any discussion on human rights-principles which acknowledge the fundamental value of human rights; principles which acknowledge that civilised states which belong to the association of nations must not act in barbarous and inhuman ways. Of course, the most barbarous and inhuman treatment that it is possible to mete out to another human being is to abuse that person physically or mentally through processes of torture. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) set out a rather grim list of mechanisms that are used to force those unwilling to confess or cooperate with a regime into doing so. Against that background, against a growing international revulsion against those practices, we are asked to act through this Parliament. How are we asked to act? We are asked to act in a way that recognises our place in the international community. It is no longer enough simply to say that Australians within their own country are determinedly going to resist the processes of torture, that we have a system where the innocent are dealt with as if they are innocent until proven guilty according to the processes of law. It is no longer enough to have just a fair system in Australia. We have a responsibility within the international community. There are now such things as international crimes which merit international revulsion. One of the important elements of this process is to say that no- one can have refuge anywhere in the world if he is guilty of one of these monstrous international crimes. We are therefore looking at a provision which is quite exceptional but which I believe is at the forefront of the new way in which we think about human rights. It is exceptional because what it does is to say that anyone anywhere in the world who comes to Australia and who has been a torturer is not safe in this country. Such a person is not safe to come here even as a tourist or a visitor but will have to answer for the crimes he has committed internationally. That very important step is introducing into the domestic law of Australia a recognition that we live in a world which is now ordered by international perceptions of legal responsibilities and rights and where there can be no refuge for those who will flout those established principles. The Government has acted in line with these objectives. This Bill applies to any act of torture committed anywhere outside Australia. It does not apply to acts committed before the Bill comes into force, but any act of torture committed from the time this Bill becomes law will trigger off mechanisms which will ensure that any person responsible for such acts who comes to this country will be charged and punished for this international offence of torture. It must be conceded, as the honourable member for North Sydney has said, that the focus of this Bill is on those who, in committing the act of torture, were public officials or acting in an official capacity. I concede that there are instances of torture conducted on individuals which are not carried out by people in an official capacity. Of course, the constitutional reach of the Commonwealth is limited by its capacity to implement treaty mechanisms. The treaty we are implementing in this case and which is scheduled to the Bill is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the Australian Government has signed. Article 1 of the convention defines `torture' very specifically: For the purposes of this Convention, the term ``torture'' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. The convention is reflected by the Bill, which picks up its language and operates to give effect within Australia to the treaty provisions to which Australia has agreed. The definition of `torture' in clause 3 of the Bill includes all of those provisions which are set out in the definition of `torture' under article 1 and excludes only such `lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights', articles which are also adopted under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. The legislation thus permits lawful acts which do not amount to torture. For example, one perhaps could imagine a situation in which police confront a suspect with evidence of his wrongdoing. That no doubt would cause the suspect severe mental distress. This situation could arise because of lawful processes properly carried out by a police force acting in accordance with the powers available to it and that, by no conceivable measure, could be considered to be torture. Those kinds of actions are provided for and are legitimately included as lawful acts within the meaning of the definition in clause 3. There is one further point that needs to be made in relation to the definition and it is picked up in clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 gives a very strong warning to those who would treat these provisions lightly. It provides that it is no defence in a proceeding on a charge of torture that a person charged with torture was acting under the orders of a superior officer or public authority, nor is it a defence that the action was done out of necessity arising from the existence of a state of war or civil emergency although, as is quite proper, the Bill does provide that the circumstances of necessity, or the circumstances of a person saying, `I carried out that act of torture only because I was ordered to do so and feared for my life', or some such statement, would be taken into account in determining a proper sentence for somebody who was charged and convicted of such a crime. The provisions of this Bill thus recognise a changed world perception towards international human rights. It is a changed world perception which has arisen only in the twentieth century and it is one which we need to cherish and hold on to. It is easy to be cynical about the commitment of other nations to these processes, and it is only by Australia, among all nations, being firm and resolute and pressing ahead to make sure that its complete opposition and distaste for such practices not only is seen rhetorically but also is brought into practice-some practical display-that we will continue to build on the base that has already been established. I take the point that has been raised in these debates that we should not be too glib about our response to torture and we should not be too comfortable in the way we see ourselves in the world. There is no magic about our English legal traditions that would immunise us from the temptation, under stress, to carry out wrong and improper acts. For example, only recently Britain suffered the condemnation of the European Court of Justice which criticised the detention and interrogation procedures of British troops holding suspects in Northern Ireland. Britain has a far better human rights record than most countries, but there is nothing that exempts it or any other country from the temptation, under stress, to use torture. That is why it is so important for us to be strong and vigilant always and to express our distaste and abhorrence at those practices, no matter which nation is responsible. Apparently, many nations have fallen for the temptation of using torture. The Amnesty International report, from which the honourable member for Hughes quoted in this debate, showed that torture has occurred in 64 countries in the last seven years. That list was disturbing. Amnesty continues to publish lists of those whose lives and physical well being are under threat. Those appalling lists move all of us in Australia to be concerned. I join with the honourable member for Hughes, whose contribution in this area has been one of consistency, long standing and complete commitment, in saying that this is not an issue on which we see ourselves divided as parties. Rather, it is an issue on which we on both sides of the House have become joined in our condemnation for those who do practice torture. Picking up the point that I have just made-that we do not want to treat ourselves as exempt from the temptation, sometimes, to abuse human rights-I believe that it would be appropriate to look at the possibility of including in our constitutional framework appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the civil and political rights of our citizens are protected by constitutional mechanisms, not merely by the good will of us as members of parliament. There are countries which have adopted such procedures. For example, section 36 of Papua New Guinea's constitution provides: No person shall be submitted to torture (whether physical or mental), or to treatment or punishment that is cruel or otherwise inhuman, or is inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Those are provisions which can be implemented, drawn on and enforced by the courts in Papua New Guinea, and they have done so. For example, in the case Amaiu v. the Commissioner of Corrective Institutions and the state-an unreported decision of the National Court of Justice, reference N417-Mr Justice Bredmeyer of that court enforced human rights provisions against the Papua New Guinea prison authorities. In that instance, a prisoner in Bomana gaol in Port Moresby had been abused by procedures requiring him to drink from an `asian toilet', amongst various other incidents, which included physical and psychological abuse. In that case the judge was able to make orders that had the effect of changing the entire regulatory system of the Bomana prison. What the judge did in that instance was to order that a whole series of regulations, including regulations for the detention of maximum security prisoners, be revised and brought into accordance with civilised norms. It may be said that such provisions are appropriate only for countries such as Papua New Guinea, countries which cynics might think are less well settled in their acceptance of these fundamental norms. But there is always a temptation for those of us who share and exercise power to go too far. Our Constitution needs to recognise that fact and be a bulwark for the individual against the state. I congratulate the Government on the proposals before the House. They recognise an important step forward in the international community and implement our proper and considered response to it. I commend the Bill to the House and ask honourable members to reflect on our domestic response and whether we need perhaps also amend our Constitution to ensure that the provisions are entrenched for all time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.04) —Along with the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), and the spokesman for foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I do not oppose the Crimes (Torture) Bill. Yet, I do wish to make some points. The first is that I suspect that, should the carriage of this legislation have been in the hands of any Labor Attorney-General other than in the hands of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Crimes (Torture) Bill would have received star billing. For instance, under Senator Evans-the present Attorney-General's predecessor-it would have received a great build-up, proclaiming it to be a major initiative and evidence of the Labor Government's commitment to human rights. In other words, a great deal more fanfare would have accompanied its introduction in this House. Instead, the present Attorney-General was quite modest in stating the Bill's objectives. He concluded his second reading speech by saying: Whether or not the occasion ever arises for the legislation to be invoked, its existence will be a clear indication to the international community that Australia will never become a safe haven for those who breach fundamental human rights. So the Attorney-General concedes that this legislation may never be invoked to prosecute a torturer and, moreover, that its limitations are, therefore, very restricted. Why is that so? It is because offences under this Bill come into play only after its commencement. In plain language, it means that Ivan the Terrible could come to this country and sleep easily at night because of the Government's desire to avoid retrospectivity. Naturally, I have to agree with that; it is a fundamental plank of our legal system that crimes that occurred yesterday and were legal are not declared illegal at a future date, so as to introduce certainty into our law. That principle is compromised or abandoned in the case of war crimes as is evidenced by this Government's own war crimes legislation. Mr Hand —Don't you support the war crimes legislation? Mr McGAURAN —I support the war crimes legislation. There is, of course, a higher law above man in regard to war crimes that overcomes retrospectivity, but it is something that is rarely invoked. Because the legislation is not retrospective there is an element of ridiculousness about it. It means that whoever was a torturer yesterday can be a respectable citizen of Australia today. I do not think there is any way around that problem but I point it out so that nobody gets carried away with this legislation. It is extremely limited in its effects and it is even more limited by the evidentiary requirements. Firstly, as defined by the legislation public officials who come to Australia, having engaged in torture, are likely to come to this country as accredited diplomats and, therefore, will hide under the umbrella of diplomatic immunity. Secondly, if public officials do come to this country, say, on a tourist visa-they may slip through the vetting process and receive such a visa to come to this country-for a holiday and are arrested and tried under Australian law, as this legislation sets out, do we expect the country which has sanctioned that torture via that public official to provide the evidence? Certainly not. Even some of the minor officials, who are attached to missions in this country and who do not attract diplomatic immunity, are likely to get off scot free because the country again will not provide the evidence for prosecution. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would be as aware as anybody else that in Australia the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that without the necessary written or verbal evidence the prosecution is certain to fail. Why then should the Parliament agree to pass the Crimes (Torture) Bill which is mostly a motherhood statement of our distaste, even hatred, of torture? On balance, it is worth having mostly because of our international obligations, but nobody should delude himself that this legislation will be effective. I have a nagging suspicion that a great deal of time, money and effort have been invested in it for very little return other than-- Mr Sciacca —What is the alternative? Do we do nothing? Mr McGAURAN —That is why I say on balance that I do not oppose the legislation. I do not see why anybody should have a warm inner glow at the passing of this legislation. It will not, if ever, be invoked, but it signals to the international community, of which we are a part and in which we play a very significant role, our absolute and total opposition to torture of any kind. In all our domestic legislation emanating from international treaties in which we seek to fulfil our international obligations there is an element of hypocrisy and outright treachery. This is evident when we look at some of the signatories to some of the international conventions that lead to the introduction of our domestic legislation. There were 58 signatories to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as at December 1986. It has been ratified by countries such as France, Norway, Sweden, Canada and Denmark, all of which have excellent records in the field of human rights. There have been a number of Eastern Bloc and African signatories which quite defy belief. One such country is Uganda which has used torture and genocide as an instrument of state control. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also is one of the ratifying nations. Its use of the gulags and psychiatric hospitals to repress any dissension in that country, however much Mr Gorbachev is improving the situation or tries to put a better light on it, is notorious. One always feels distrust, even dismay, at the outright hypocrisy of those who join us in an international convention. That is why there is argument in the community to abandon the practice of invoking domestic legislation to reflect these international conventions. Those who work towards the drafting and implementation of the conventions are themselves in total breach of the provisions. There is no doubt that on balance we support the Bill and even welcome it. I certainly do not agree with any government members who sing from the highest tree tops that this is evidence of the Government's support of the international movements to eradicate torture. It certainly cannot hurt that movement which Opposition members enthusiastically support and it just may help it. For that reason I support the legislation. It will be quite fascinating over the years to observe whether it is ever utilised, and should it be utilised whether or not it will be done so successfully. Mr Hand —That would have to be the worst speech you have ever made in here. You are just filling in time. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.13) —I concur with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). It seemed to me that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was at the very strongest damning the Crimes (Torture) Bill with faint praise. He raised a couple of issues. He was quite repetitive in his argument about supporting the legislation on balance. Suffice it to say that those who have been the victims of torture would in my view embrace the legislation with a greater degree of vigour than that evidenced by the honourable member for Gippsland. Be that as it may, I wish to go to a couple of points he raised in terms of threshold arguments before going into the substantive legislation. The honourable member for Gippsland used the example of Ivan the Terrible. He said that he could `sleep easily in Australia'. That is obviously and clearly just not the case. The war crimes legislation, which is another significant piece of legislation in this field brought in by this Government, would have adequately covered his circumstances and in my view would have inevitably, on the evidence that I have seen, led to his being held in judgment for those crimes that he has now been convicted of. In the context of that issue there is of course the argument about non-retrospectivity. As the honourable member for Gippsland properly put to the House, retrospectivity in the context of criminal acts is an area in which we ought to tread very warily indeed. It goes against many years of development of parliamentary responses to particular criminal acts and to the extent that it can apply to individuals or limited numbers of people, obviously this Parliament should-so far as practicable-keep away from that sort of initiative. I think we are of one mind in our attitude to retrospectivity. I do not take the honourable member for Gippsland to account for that in any substantive way, but I repeat in respect of his example of Ivan the Terrible that it is not an issue in this case, for we have other legislation that would adequately encompass his crimes against humanity. I might add that prior to the Labor Government bringing that in there were no legislative provisions whereby we could have done that. I think we would both agree that the substance of that corollary legislation is very important and well deserves the support of this House, which it has obtained. The War Crimes Bill is not, in any event, truly retrospective, for it merely details those offences against humanity that already existed at the time they were committed. There is nothing new in that. One of the important things about both these arms of legislation-that is, war crimes, a different category of offence, and torture-is that the Parliament is in a position where it has to come up with some sort of creative response. Clearly the existing legislative framework in most countries simply will not suffice, not so much to bring people to judgment on these issues as to offer a very powerful signal that, unlike the position in the past, when people now engage in war crimes or torture, the long arm of the international law has a possibility-I put it no higher than that-of bringing them to judgment one day. In the last few years I have had the dubious distinction of visiting a number of prisons around the world. For example, I have spent some time in Iraq, looking at the treatment of Iranian prisoners of war. I have visited gaols in Asia and other parts of the world. That sort of experience really brings into sharp relief the enormity of the power of the state where it is misused in the types of cases we are talking about. I remind honourable members of a tape that they may have heard on news bulletins in the last couple of days, on which a member of the Kuwait royal family, incarcerated in a jumbo jet and speaking over the microphones, pleaded for intervention to ensure the safety of himself and the other passengers on the aircraft. He was properly described as being petrified. I think the psychological torture and possibly physical torture that he was undergoing are a stark example of the type of thing we are talking about here. He was clearly in great and imminent fear of loss of his own life, and that of other members of his family and a large number of other people on that aircraft. I only raise that issue, sad as it is, to indicate that these are not matters for idle debate. In a contemporary sense, these things are happening every day of the week. For my own part, meeting people on death row in two countries brought home very heavily to me the responsibilities of this Party and this Parliament to try to respond, even if we cannot solve all the problems, in a coherent and internationally coordinated way. In the final analysis that is the only way we can bring pressure to bear on these people who would abuse the basic human instincts that are a problem all around the world and have been throughout history. The honourable member for Gippsland talked about diplomats. It is possible to go through any piece of legislation and isolate problem areas in it and use those as a sort of peg on which to hang the coat of opposing the legislation. There are obviously compelling reasons for not dragging diplomats into this area. The most obvious one is the status of diplomatic immunity throughout international law and the key part it plays in accommodating differences among nations in trying to finesse a problem to a non-violent outcome. The principle of diplomatic immunity has a long history and one that must be weighed very carefully when one looks at this category of legislation. For my own part-and I think this view would be shared by most members of this House-I would not be going very confidently into restricting diplomatic immunity, even though there have been numerous examples, including one recently in Australia, of diplomats being alleged to be the carriers of very large amounts of heroin coming into the country. There are abuses of diplomatic immunity, but on balance it is an area that we ought to be very wary about in seeking to limit the application of the doctrine, for the reasons that I have stated. The final point I want to make about the contribution of the member for Gippsland concerns his description of the Bill as a motherhood statement. I do not embrace that view. I think it is a rather shallow critique of the legislation. In my view, any step in this complex area that could have an impact in reducing the incidence of torture ought to be lauded and not, as I said at the outset, damned with faint praise. The honourable member for Gippsland kept on saying that on balance he would support the Bill. I go much further than that, and I think most members of this House would agree that this legislation is very important in the community of nations. Though it will not solve the problem, it is a significant step in what has to be a long term and globally coordinated fight against the abuse of civil rights. To the extent that that abuse has been mainly directed towards political dissidents in one way or another, members of this House ought to be, as a corollary, even more concerned about ensuring the safe passage of the legislation and its enactment as soon as possible. There are a number of issues that I would like to have raised, but most of them have been canvassed by previous speakers so I shall not go into them in too much detail, but I make the obvious point that the passage of this type of legislation is difficult. I was almost going to say `tortuous', but that would be an unfortunate pun which I shall not pursue. This legislation has had a difficult birth, but I think it offers an opportunity for this House to pay tribute to those who have been involved with the numerous discussions that took place over a very long period, both in Australia and in various international forums, to try to work through this legislation in a way that is consistent with its effective application by coordinating its passage with the passage of similar legislation in other countries. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) talked at length about a number of unfortunate incidents, some of them recently highlighted by victims of torture visiting this Parliament in the last couple of weeks. I have seen people who suffered extensive torture, both physical and psychological, and, to that extent, as I said earlier, it simply brings an air of reality to this type of legislation. I think most Australians are somewhat removed from it. They hear about torture happening. They hear about the sorts of things that the shadow Attorney-General was talking about-massive war crimes and so on-but often we are a little removed from the immediate impact of this type of legislation and we cannot really focus on what it is about. I suspect that the best way for one to draw an analogy is to invite Australians to contemplate circumstances that happen every day of the week all around the world. That is, at three o'clock in the morning there is not a knock on the door but the door is kicked down. People come into the home, arrest and beat not only the person involved but also the spouse. In many cases these people have been involved in the arbitrary execution of the children. In some cases, that person can be described as being lucky. The worst scenarios are those where, as has often been the case, and it has been recorded ad nauseam in numerous reports, most specifically in this context in investigations by agencies such as Amnesty International-and I have the honour of being on its parliamentary executive-there are instances of immediate physical torture and psychological torture, for example by using such avenues as torturing or threatening the lives of children or loved ones. It is really very difficult for Australians to contemplate the enormity of the suffering this brings about. It is difficult for Australians to contemplate the enormous political impact that the threat of torture or bureaucratic intervention has on the political health and life of a nation. A number of countries are going downhill in terms of arbitrary arrests, torture and so on. Other countries are coming out at the other end of very black periods in their recent history. We see it on a regular basis via Press reports and so on. This legislation is very important. The message really has to be brought home to Australians. It is viewed as something of a cliche, but the price of democracy is eternal vigilance, and it is precisely for that reason that this legislation seeks to address a very great problem and an ongoing issue. It is a sensible step for this Parliament to take. It constitutes one part of the mosaic of that eternal vigilance and it indicates to the international community that, in so far as there are some areas of Australian political life that we have looked at, such as corporal punishment in schools, solitary confinement for prisoners and so on, whilst we have a very good record we are not saying that we are unable to be constructively criticised. We are certainly not saying that we will fail to take steps to ensure that we are totally without criticism in the context of these basic civil and political rights. A number of other speakers are waiting to address these issues. I conclude by once again congratulating all members of this House for, in substance, a bipartisan approach to what is by any definition a most important issue. Legislation of this type, whilst not regarded by most Australians as having an immediate effect, goes to the heart of what democracy is about. There ought to be no coercion or intimidation and, to the extent that torture most manifestly presents itself in the context of political intimidation, this matter ought to be, as it is in this debate, at the very forefront of this Parliament's mind. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr SMITH(Bass)(11.29) —I rise as the last speaker from the Opposition side in this debate. As previous speakers from the Opposition have done, I support the Government, particularly the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his introduction of the Crimes (Torture) Bill and we wish the Bill a speedy passage. It will enable Australia to ratify the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by Australia on 10 December 1985. The convention, generally known as the Torture Convention, came into force on 26 June 1987. As a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights we have the obligation to proceed with this legislation. As I said, all members of this House will join to vote in favour of it. Article 7 of the International Covenant is the covenant that I think this convention flows from, and it is worth quoting. It states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. They are ideal sentiments which I am sure we would all applaud. The main purpose of this Bill is to deny a safe haven in Australia to any person who, while acting officially or at the instigation or behest of a person so acting, is involved in the torture of a person in another country. I am sure we would also agree with that. The interesting thing about the Attorney-General's second reading speech is that he recognises that there is a need to consult the States. Indeed, this legislation comes to this place after having been to the joint committee of Attorneys-General and having received the unanimous support of all the States. I might just say tangentially that it is important always, when dealing with international conventions and treaties, regardless of their merits, wherever they are contemplated by a national government, whether Liberal, Labor or something else, that the States be taken into account, that their views be acknowledged and that consultation take place at all times. Where we have a federation and where we want to have a continuing federation that will work, the need for broad consultation to take into account those views is paramount. It is interesting to see that the Attorney-General has sought the views of the States and has acknowledged them. One has to make the observation that that has not always been the case with this Government, and that is to be regretted. I refer to environmental issues; but before you pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will go no further on that matter except to make the very basic point that the Attorney-General has acknowledged in his second reading speech that consultation with the States is extremely important. I go back to the reference in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to scientific experimentation. As the spokesman in this place for the Opposition on science and energy, I spend some time thinking and talking about matters of science. It always intrigues me that the best and brightest brains throughout human history seem to be able to be diverted to pursue activities that can be described only as vile and inhumane. The perversion of science for despicable inhuman motives has, I believe, always to be given the greatest attention by the broader community. Where it is used in bizarre forms of activities for the pursuit of torture by individuals or governments, all of us would deplore that. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) said with some eloquence that the covenant and this Bill are but another piece in the mosaic of an overview of what is happening with regard to human behaviour throughout the world. Certainly any diversion of scientific talent to experimentation which is any way linked with torture ought to be abhorred by all of us. We know that throughout history torture has been the refuge of scoundrels and of those who seek to force their will by other than democratic means. Wherever it occurs, it generally marks a falling down of the broad codes of human behaviour which one would expect to find in civilised communities. When we listen to the comments of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), and also the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who related in some detail anecdotal information about torture where it has occurred throughout the world, we can see the merits of this legislation and the reason why every person in this Parliament, both in this chamber and in the other place, will support it. In anecdotal information we heard about what has happened in Chile and Armenia. We all know of examples of what has happened in the past in Africa, Russia and other areas and we deplore it. I am sure that each of us is the product of our own experiences, and recently I had an experience that had a salutary effect on me. I spent some time in Israel earlier this year, the first time I have been to Israel. Certainly, that was an interesting time to be there, but I will comment on the situation in Israel on another occasion. I believe that every person should visit the Holocaust Museum because, if ever we were in any doubt about the need for legislation such as this, that experience would remove our doubt. When one is made aware of the scientific experimentation that occurred in this very sorry chapter of human history, that is, nazi experiments with the Jews, one is totally appalled at what took place. As a younger member of this place I hope that neither I nor my children will ever see anything of that scale. Certainly, one should be prepared to dedicate oneself to ensuring that that sort of thing does not happen, regardless of where one stands politically. I believe that everyone would be well advised to visit that Museum and contemplate the experience from time to time, because that is something we must ensure never happens again. We must always reject such behaviour, such debasement of the human spirit. It is interesting that in history national boundaries have not been of great relevance; we are talking about people, as individuals, wherever they may live. It is their needs and rights we seek to protect. I recall that when I was at university in Tasmania-and I also attended the Australian National University here-the law school offered a special unit in human rights law prior to human rights becoming trendy and the captive topic of some of the social engineers who now reside in the Human Rights Commission. In saying that, I am not being political. I believe there should be no doubt about the commitment certainly of honourable members on this side of the House and, I know, of honourable members opposite to uphold the fundamental rights of the individual. A party such as the Liberal Party of Australia, founded as it is on a basic human right, that is, respect of the individual, believes it is paramount that there be an emphasis on protecting individuals from the coercion and interference of the state which, at its very worst, sees the state at times resort to, and indeed sanction, torture. Australia must be free of the stain of any association whatsoever with anyone connected with acts of torture. The Bill is designed to protect the individuals who live here from individuals who, acting in an official capacity, have been involved with torture and who come to Australia. This Bill triggers the mechanism whereby, if those people are in the country but are not subject to extradition, proceedings can be taken against them. That is a concept that Australia certainly supported, as did France, Norway, Sweden, Uruguay, Canada and Denmark, and that is to be applauded. It is interesting that an article I was reading before I rose to speak written by Mr de Vargas, General Secretary of the Swiss Committee Against Torture, in the first paragraph states: The United Nations Convention against torture which was adopted on 10 December 1984 and came into force on 26 June 1987 is a great step forward compared with other conventions to prevent torture. It will now be possible to try people guilty of acts of torture in any state which is a party to the convention, if they are not extradited. He goes on in some detail, but the observation he makes that is important in the broader context of this debate is that torture is still a common practice throughout the world. That is a sobering point for all of us to contemplate. We in this country are lucky. Australia is an island, and we are insulated in part from some of the more terrible things that occur in this world, and one would hope that that will always be the case. However, as the previous speaker said, vigilance is what is most important and, if this Bill is the price of vigilance, we ought to be prepared to pay it and support it. Torture is something that reflects the lowest depths of human behaviour. Through our history we have seen the levels of human behaviour go up and down, but there are examples where people have gone down much further than most of us would want. Vigilance is important, and one of the manifestations of that vigilance has been the establishment of Amnesty International. Like some other members in this place, I am a member of Amnesty International and have been for some time. Indeed, my stepfather who was involved with Amnesty International for many years, being a German Jew, witnessed many things that he was able to relate to me that would, I hope, encourage not only me but also other people to consider joining Amnesty International. Whilst that body does not always reflect exactly what we would want it to do, in the broadest sense it embraces the principle of trying to establish a code of human behaviour regardless of national boundaries. Each and every one of us as citizens of the world ought to be prepared to adopt and embrace that principle to make this world a better place. High flown words though they may be, there comes a time when one must nail one's colours to the mast and speak in such terms, embracing these concepts, because total pragmatism and cynicism has led to the emergence of torture in the world. That is something that I think all of us would want to try to put behind us at all times. I make just one other point about Amnesty International and it relates to the parliamentary group. An interesting article by Senator Christopher Puplick, who has been associated with Amnesty International in this place for some time, states: There is no other Parliament in the world which has an Amnesty group formerly organised within it, although of course thousands of Parliamentarians are individually members of Amnesty International. However, the unique status of the Australian Parliamentary Group has proved to be most valuable . . . Indeed it has. The first Alan Missen lecture, in honour of Senator Alan Missen, a long time proponent of the protection of the individual and support for democratic ideals, given that we on this side of the chamber approach democratic ideals slightly differently from political points of view, was held recently. It was a tribute to his time in this place and members of the parliamentary group also embraced those ideals, and we applaud them. We also applaud the work that has been undertaken in this place and we recognise that the parliamentary group of Amnesty International is unique. I applaud the Attorney-General, who is at the table, for the work that has gone into preparing this Bill and bringing it before the House. As the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders, said, we support the Bill wholeheartedly. Even though it has some holes in it, as all legislation does, especially legislation introduced by the Attorney-General from time to time, it is a concept that we embrace and support, and we wish the Bill a speedy passage. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Attorney-General)(11.44) —in reply-I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. It has been one of the best debates in this Parliament and one in which honourable members considered issues without the difficulty of political prejudice. In addition, I welcome the recognition of the value of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International and the work it does. I believe it makes a great contribution to democracy and it has added to this debate. So I congratulate all honourable members who take a keen interest in matters relating to a better world and who recognise that democracy has something to offer. In that context, let me refer to Australia in its bicentennial year. We experienced some difficulties at the start and many of the offences that occurred then would today come under the definition of `torture'. Because of the intelligence of the Australian people, they could see that democracy was the way to go. My own Party recognised that everybody was entitled to equal opportunities and it mattered little whether you were a boss or a servant. A person had dignity as a human being and that attitude has helped make this nation as great as it is. If I may say so-I suppose it is skiting-I do not know of any nation in the world that is ahead of Australia from the point of view of what we are talking about. In that context, I praise the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), for his contribution. It was well thought out and well researched and shows his capacity to deal with the issues that often come before parliament on which we are obliged to indicate to the world that not only are we talking about matters but we are doing something about them. This particular piece of legislation ratifies the torture convention, which is really a step forward. I note from what previous speakers have said that it is good to be able to cooperate with the States, and I must congratulate them, also. The States are informed at all times of all draft conventions, and we welcome their cooperation. In this particular case, I am able to say that the United Nations Human Rights Committee met in New York on 5 and 6 April and was informed that the Government had introduced this measure into the Parliament and it was expected to be ratified unanimously. The Human Rights Committee expressed its appreciation of that development. I turn to some of the specific questions that were raised. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) wanted to know which countries had ratified the convention. I seek leave to table some information showing that at least 50 countries have signed the convention and almost half of those have ratified it. That information will be of interest to the honourable member. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Gippsland also wanted to know why the War Crimes Amendment Bill was retrospective and this Bill is not. In simple terms, the War Crimes Amendment Bill related to the period of the war and this Bill seeks to ratify the torture convention as from this date. I do not think that it is a question of window-dressing. The Government considers it to be a commitment by Australia to an international convention. Australians would not tolerate any of these practices in Australia. Basically, this convention deals with people from other countries who have committed such acts so that they can be dealt with in Australia. It is not a matter of window-dressing, and the honourable member's comment does not add anything to the debate. I thank my own colleagues who have supported this measure. Some other matters were mentioned. Diplomatic immunity is often recognised as relating to people representing their country and one would expect that they come into Australia without any stain of their previous conduct. If allegations had some substance in respect of any appointment, the Government could refuse to accept that appointment. If an appointment is accepted, the Government could terminate it if it were subsequently discovered that the allegations had substance. There would never be any difficulty about that matter. If somebody is deemed to be not welcome in the country, that person usually does not stay. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was concerned about the limitation of liability with respect to public officials. That point must be acknowledged, but this happens to be the description of the international convention and the Government is almost obliged to use that formula in the Bill. It would not stop the Government looking at other issues if they related to mass murder or activities of that nature. In other words, the Government would look at who was responsible for the act and would not be so confined by the definition of `public official'. The Government would deplore any action that was carried out in accordance with some official attitude. Whilst I acknowledge the point about the language, I must say that it is in accordance with the torture convention itself. Another matter that was mentioned related to the problems that the world faces. It is always difficult. A number of migrants have come from countries in which allegations of torture are made. I have no doubt that their complaints have substance and that might well be the reason that they have come to this country. All of them are very pleased that they are here and they are anxious that Australia makes its voice heard in the forums of the world in respect of those injustices and inhuman acts. Australia never fails to do that. Irrespective of which party is in government, Australia always speaks up on these matters across the world. It must be recognised that, although some countries sign a convention, they do not practice all its terms, so Australia is not backward in criticising those countries which act in a way contrary to the convention. Because of interdependence between people and greater communication and movement, the world is making some progress. We learn from each other and people who come to Australia are impressed by what we have to offer from the point of view of human rights. I hope that some of those rights will be enshrined in our Constitution in the not too distant future because that will be further tangible evidence of what our democracy is all about. I thank honourable members for their contribution and I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage, which I will not deter. I hope the same can be said of the other place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.53) —The purpose of the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill is to make a technical amendment to the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979. The amendment will clarify the power of the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) to make directions to its divisions. As honourable members would be aware, the Commission has the power to establish divisions to which it refers items to be considered. This is done in the interests of expediency. The divisions are set up under section 21 of the Act and are of frequent occurrence. The Bill will retrospectively validate any past directions to the division under section 21. However, it will not operate retrospectively where a past direction under section 21 is subject to court proceedings in progress when the amendment commences operation. The amendment came about as a consequence of the judges' comments in the case of NCSC v Sim in the Victorian Full Court. We express concern as to the validity of directions given by the NCSC to its divisions to perform and exercise all of its functions and powers. An immediate clarification of the NCSC's powers was deemed necessary to avoid further challenges to NCSC directive based on this perceived technical defect. The Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council and, following consultation with various business groups and the NCSC, there appears to be general support for the proposals. The business groups in particular argue that on grounds of efficiency the NCSC must be able to give a general direction to a division so it can bestow all its functions and powers on that division. However, there is concern that by retrospectively validating past directions to divisions under section 21 of the Act, companies, for example, may be denied the future opportunity of pursuing legal action in relation to such directions. In this context the Opposition has opposed such a provision as it appears to deny a right which would otherwise be available. Apart from this qualification, the general thrust of the amendment is supported by the Opposition. As a consequence, I will move the Opposition amendment which has been circulated in my name. As this is a rather short and technical amendment, I thought I would take this opportunity to address some other matters relating to the NCSC and this Act. For some time now I have noted that there has been talk in the papers and some Press comments and releases about the future of company law in Australia, and the future of the NCSC in particular. As a consequence, it is probably worth while to note the chain of events that led us to where we are today in relation to company law and the NCSC. This chain of events has not come about through any public position; it has come about through a series of Press releases and truck drivers delivering documents over the back fence and so on. This is total anathema to corporate law in Australia. Company law should be seen, discussed and viewed in public. It is not a matter for secrecy. Company law is best seen when it is exposed so that those who practice in that area can make a judgment on it. We should take the politics out of company law. I remind the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that when this cooperative scheme was brought in-I was the Minister responsible at the time-the exposure period ran from three to six months in various items. There is no great rush in company law. It is not a matter of roaring in and changing the Act tomorrow morning. It is more important that the corporate world know and understand what is at hand. Because of that it is worth looking at what has happened in this case-the change of company law by Press statement. On 2 July 1986 the Attorney-General submitted his proposal to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and promoted the idea that the Commonwealth should assume responsibilities for takeovers and the securities and futures industries. On 18 February 1987 the opinion of the former Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, was released advising on the capacity of the Commonwealth to legislate in respect of companies and security law. In April 1987 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-on which there has been some comment made, but it should be pointed out that the Committee investigated the question of parliamentary accountability, no more; it did not go into company law-stated in its parliamentary report: The object is not to review the efficiency or desirability of any particular provision enacted under the cooperative scheme. It is to examine the constitutionality in the broadest sense of that term of the scheme itself; to examine the structure of the scheme and to determine whether or not the operation of such a co-operative scheme is compatible with the notion of parliamentary control, ministerial responsibilities and ministerial accountability to the Parliament. It is not, as I have heard some people say, a question of damning the system itself at all. And so we move on. On 15 September 1987, the Attorney-General informed the Ministerial Council that he was considering a proposal in which the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the area currently regulated in the cooperative scheme. On 17 September the Attorney-General outlined details for a new Commonwealth companies and securities scheme. On 18 September the Attorney-General declared that the Commonwealth was to assume total responsibilities for the regulation of companies and the securities and futures industries to take effect from 1 January 1989. He beat his chest and we were into it. At that stage it was the total takeover. On 13 October the Attorney-General attacked the Opposition for not backing his proposal. But there was no proposal, except by Press release. There was no proposal out in the open which could be discussed. He beat his chest and said, `We are going to take it over'. A few weeks later in the House he said, `Well, the Opposition's not playing the game. They're not backing me'. We did not even know his proposal. We still do not know his proposal. For a start, 36 faceless men were asked to advise the Attorney-General on the basis of whether they supported him; they were not asked for a general view. They only got on the advisory committee if they said yes. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is not true. Mr MOORE —That is different from what I have been told. Mr Lionel Bowen —You want to get better advice. Mr MOORE —I got pretty good leaks from them because most of them do not want to go back. Mr Lionel Bowen —You do not get much from your Leader either. Mr MOORE —I get more than you do. On 15 November the Attorney-General announced the composition of the consultative group. I am led to believe that its members were asked to participate in this particular area of support only. There are no representatives of general commerce in that group-most of them are technical lawyers associated with takeovers. The general area of commerce is not represented. There are no small business representatives, only a small group of self-appointed-- Mr Kerr —That is hardly self-appointed. Mr MOORE —Certain people who would be inclined towards this scheme were asked. They were the ones who got the nod to be on the consultative committee. As a consequence of that, this group was set up. It has only had one full meeting-on 3 December last year. Since then it has gone in small groups around the countryside with a variety of schemes. Not one proposal has come into the public area from this group. But its own scheme has been changed almost weekly. As honourable members know, there are changes everywhere in relation to it. In 1988 the Attorney-General went to a Ministerial Council in Brisbane where the Victorians put up a proposal that was rejected. At that stage of the game it appeared that the Attorney-General decided to change course again. At that stage he was going to put up another proposal to the States, I understand, in April. Only this month, the State Attorneys-General for the first time were given a copy of a proposed Act-not the administration of it, just the Act. Also, for the first time, the NCSC, which has some knowledge as it has administered the scheme for ages, was delivered of some documents-about 3 1/2 inches thick-in relation to this particular Bill but it was not consulted. The NCSC does know something about the matter; it has operated in the field. But it was totally put to one side. Now this shambles goes on around the countryside as to what we will do about it. It is probably worth addressing one or two other areas. The Maroochydore agreement of 1979 brought about the cooperative scheme. It was a major and significant step forward. It brought about uniform company law for Australia for the first time. It gave to the States the ability to continue the State Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) offices and gave to commerce in Australia-not only Pitt Street and Collins Street but also the whole of Australia-an ability to act on common law and on decisions that are of particular concern. I have no doubt that problems of management have arisen in naming rights. There have been problems in relation to varying standards of management. There is no doubt about that. But these matters can and should be addressed within the scheme. To talk about massive changes in company law is misleading. No-one wants it. I have been around every State capital in Australia and have spoken to all the interest groups. I have not found anywhere, even in the New South Wales Law Society, support for the scheme proposed by the Federal Attorney-General. Mr Kerr —A bastion of Labor left wing socialism-the New South Wales Law Society. Mr MOORE —The comment implies that there is some social engineering background to all these moves, otherwise the honourable member would not have made it. I am fascinated by the approach to this matter, because there is no demand for it in the States of this country-every State is opposed to it; not one State supports the Government's position-and if the Government does not get their support, it could be very difficult to implement. As a consequence of that, I would be inclined to try to see where the management problems are and sort them out within the existing scheme. There is a way of doing that, which can be achieved with the cooperation of the business community. But it can be done only if the Attorney-General comes out into the open and puts his proposals on the table, instead of having 36 faceless men running around the countryside passing bits of paper there and volumes here, saying `change all this' and `amend all that'. The Attorney-General must come out into the open and say what his proposals are. Let the business world, which must act within those laws, make a decision. There is no more conservative group of people than the Australian business community. If the Attorney-General wants them to go along with this, he should take them into his confidence and talk to them. By doing that he would take politics out of it and get a far better result. I am fascinated also by some of the goings on. Beside the question of exposure, I find that there is talk now that by taking over the matter federally we shall increase efficiency. Does the honourable gentleman mean to tell me that the Federal Attorney-General's Department is to be the font of wisdom for company law, coming from a territory in which there is in essence no basic commercial structure, only a minor one? The basic ones are in the capital cities of the mainland States, particularly Sydney and Melbourne. Nobody out there wants the Federal Attorney-General's office to be the font of policy decision-making on company law, because they are not related. The Attorney-General says, `We can overcome that; we have this consultative committee'-the consultative committee whose members have written themselves into the proposed Bill, the secret Bill. They will be appointed for a fixed term. They will have a secretariat-they are not having a secretariat? Mr Lionel Bowen —No. I put them in the Bill; they did not write themselves into the Bill. Mr MOORE —Of course they did. Mr Lionel Bowen —That was my initiative. Mr MOORE —They have written themselves into it because they are advising the Minister on it. Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! That is nonsense. Mr MOORE —Well, they are in the Bill. Mr Lionel Bowen —They are in the Bill because I put them in it. Mr MOORE —And they have a secretariat now. Mr Lionel Bowen —Do you think they would work without it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Ryan will address the Chair. The Attorney-General will have an opportunity to respond. Mr Lionel Bowen —I do not know what this has got to do with this amendment. Mr MOORE —This is the first time that the House has had an opportunity-- Mr Lionel Bowen —It is the first time you have ever said a word. Mr MOORE —Well, it is the first time that the honourable gentleman has ever said a word. He has never put any proposals on it anywhere. Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! Mr MOORE —That is rubbish. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ryan will address the Chair. Mr MOORE —In relation to this matter, this consultative group has been written into the Bill, by the Attorney or by itself, whatever it is. Mr Lionel Bowen —By the Attorney; let us get it clear. Mr MOORE —It has its own secretariat, and this is to be the safeguard to the business community against the Federal Attorney-General's office. Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! Mr MOORE —Well, that is what its members are saying around the place. They are saying to the business world, `This consultative group will save you from the Attorney-General's office'. Let us be realistic. The Attorney-General knows as well as I do that, when the Government appoints a consultative group, its members come to town three or four times a year. They are met at the airport and driven here. They assemble in Senate Committee Room 1. Morning tea is served. The Minister makes a statement. They discuss the agenda. Lunch is served. In the afternoon there are some weighty problems on the agenda that are discussed-and the 5.15 p.m. plane is caught and they are gone. The first person through the Minister's door the next morning is the department head. The honourable gentleman knows that as well as I do. The head says to the Minister, `Well, Minister, that meeting of the consultative group yesterday was very interesting'. The Minister says, `Yes, Mr Secretary'. The secretary says, `There were a couple of points, Minister, that I think you ought to look at. One point was raised about X. We can really look after that because we have a program going in that area at the moment, and I suggest that we handle it this way'. The Minister says, `Yes, Mr Secretary'. The secretary says, `Mr Minister, they raised a second point, and that is not so good, because that is not possible'-for whatever reason. The Minister says, `And what is the third point, Mr Secretary?'. The secretary says, `Well, I think it was a very useful meeting and we ought to keep them going'. And that is the end of it. After three or four meetings of this consultative group, the department's secretary has got them-game, set and match; no trouble at all. There is no greater defender of his territorial boundaries than the department secretary, and he is not going to let some consultative group come to town and advise the Minister about company law, without him having a say so. It is ultimately the department secretary who has to write the legislation and is responsible to the Minister for it. So, what a lot of nonsense. I have seen it. I have been there. There is no person who knows it better than one of the members of this committee, Mr M. A. Besley, who was Secretary to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and who introduced the cooperative scheme. Tim Besley would tell the Minister that exactly what I am saying is true. So much for all that nonsense about the group of advisers who are to defend the business world against the Attorney-General's office. It is a fascinating concept. I am all for having advice from the business community, but people ought to be aware that when they set these things up, the department secretaries have all the cards in relation to these matters. There is no doubt about it. There are other points that are worth looking at. Suppose the Commonwealth takeover goes ahead. One of the words I hear is `efficiency': `We are going to improve efficiency'. I invite honourable members to look at the Australian Taxation Office. When the States were taken out of taxation in Australia, that was done in the name of efficiency. What Department in Australia is roundly regarded by the business community as one of the most inefficient? It is the Taxation Office. There are parliamentary reports on its inefficiency. This is being held up as the way we are going to go: `We will take it over to Canberra and it will be infinitely more efficient'. What nonsense. Look at the practice. A time when the financial areas of Australia and the world are unstable and there is a lot of uncertainty is certainly not a time to be dismantling a successful scheme. Albeit there are faults within it, the scheme itself has worked very well for the Australian public. There is no reason to dismantle it and throw it out of the window in the name of perceived efficiency. If there are problems in relation to management or in relation to standards, they can be fixed within the current system. There is a need, throughout the States of Australia, for an infrastructure of commercial ability-not just in Sydney and Melbourne but in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. If the Government centralises the scheme, within five years that basic domestic infrastructure of lawyers and accountants who work in these fields will be centralised, without any doubt. Just look at any other operation. The movement to a major centre, the concentration of power-for example, in sport; in rugby league or rugby union-results in those centres in which they operate becoming the most efficient and dominant, and people gravitate to them. So, five years down the track, a centralised company scheme based on the Attorney-General's office here will destroy the infrastructure in the States. The general standards will not be maintained because the professionals in this area will not be practising. The work will be whittled away and carried out in a central location, primarily in Melbourne and Canberra. As a consequence, all practitioners who live outside these centres will be considerably disadvantaged. People want access to a local corporate affairs office with which they can discuss their problems and get a decision. This applies whether one happens to live in Sydney or Darwin. The General Manager of the Sydney Stock Exchange expressed the view to me that he would far rather talk to the New South Wales corporate affairs office than have to fly to Melbourne and talk to Bosch at the National Companies and Securities Commission. He would rather deal with a local organisation with which he has some affinity. If the Sydney Stock Exchange feels that way, one must wonder how the Brisbane commercial community feels. How do the people in Perth feel? They already feel shut out. All of a sudden this new arrangement has been proposed. The Attorney says, `No, that is not right. We are going to continue to run the local office which is going to have some autonomy'. Mr Blunt —It will be a branch office. Mr MOORE —There will be a branch office structure. We all know how much power branch managers have around Australia. They have none. They refer matters to head office. The Attorney-General then proposed in a secret paper that local commissioners or local advisers with autonomy should be appointed. It is a funny sort of law. There can only be one Act that is going to be administered from Canberra and people are going to be appointed in the bush and in the provincial cities to act as some sort of arbitrator. They can act only within one law; they can act only under the direction of the head of the Securities Commission who is, presumably, ultimately responsible to the Attorney-General. So the Attorney must know that the proposal to have branch offices around the place with some sort of local autonomy is a lot of nonsense. Mr Kerr —You are not suggesting that there be a multiplicity of laws, are you? Mr MOORE —If the honourable member can read that in my thoughts, he is doing very well. I happen to have been responsible for having brought about the elimination of a multiplicity of laws. I am not advocating that this should happen. It seems to me that the approach to unify the system under the new scheme without the input of the Securities Commission is irrational. The attempt to change the system purely through the Attorney-General's office and through this consultative group is narrow and blind in its ambition to take over the scheme from its current working base. This approach does not recognise the needs of the States, it does not recognise the needs of the corporate world and it does not recognise what benefits have been achieved under the scheme. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the current scheme served the whole of Australia well. The faults that lie in it can be fixed. If the States are not contributing enough by way of funding CACs, I am quite convinced, having at one stage been a member of the Ministerial Council, that an agreement could be reached with the States to contribute a certain amount of the take that they commit every year to the running of local CACs. There is no doubt that the NCSC will have to have increased funds. Presumably this will have to come from the Federal Government which, under the original agreement, already funds 50 per cent of its operation. On top of that, it seems to me that the NCSC has not sufficiently dealt with some of the actions of the share market. I am utterly convinced that insider trading is rampant in Australia. More money needs to be spent on, and more people need to be appointed to, the Securities Commission if this practice is to be stopped. The Commonwealth will have to take a lead if these sorts of problems are to be dealt with. It might be that the States will have to accept that takeover law is a national responsibility which can be administered by the Securities Commission which is responsible to the Attorney-General in Canberra. This would give the Commonwealth Government a real role to play. By doing this, most of the problems would be overcome. Surely the Commonwealth can talk to the States and iron out the problems associated with naming. Surely this is not an insurmountable problem. It is not good enough to come here, beat one's breast and say, `All of these computers are non-compatible'. So what? The Attorney can fix that. That is neither here nor there. It is not an argument to destroy the cooperative scheme by saying the computers are non-compatible. That is rubbish, and the Attorney knows it as well as I do. Mr Lionel Bowen —I do not fix it. Mr MOORE —Well, it is up to the Ministerial Council to fix it. Mr Lionel Bowen —One vote. Mr MOORE —The Attorney is part of it. Mr Lionel Bowen —I have one vote. Mr MOORE —Actually, the Attorney used to have two votes. Mr Lionel Bowen —They want their say. Mr MOORE —That is right. The Attorney get two votes, not one. It is just rubbish to talk that way. Therefore two of these problems-the naming rights and the computers-can be fixed. We are told that management decisions within State CACs are inconsistent. That is not an impossible problem to overcome. I concede that some of the cases that have been taken to the State supreme courts have been contradictory. In my view, one spectacular case in Queensland was totally against the spirit of the law. Nevertheless, time has gone by and I believe that corporate lawyers and judges in Australia now see the code as a great step forward and will address it. Management decision inconsistencies can be addressed in the current system by the NCSC setting down a code to be followed by all of the State CACs and presented to the Ministerial Council. I would be surprised if the Ministerial Council did not endorse the code. So three faults can be fixed. Other areas which probably need to be addressed include fund raising, shareholder disclosure, transfer of securities-which is a very big item at the moment-licensing of representatives, memorandum and articles of association, hearings and investigative powers, and the old acorn of share buybacks. We have not heard much about share buybacks-I thought that issue was dead. For a considerable time the business world wanted some action to be taken on this matter. The Attorney shakes his head. Every stock exchange in Australia has written to him and said that it wants something to be done in this area. Mr Lionel Bowen —When? Mr MOORE —I do not have the letters with me but they have told me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member propose to move his foreshadowed amendment? Mr MOORE —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to provide retrospective validation to certain directions by the National Companies and Securities Commission generally bestowing its powers and functions to be exercised by its Divisions which might otherwise be found to be invalid'. Share buybacks are wanted by the business world but they are opposed by the Attorney. The Attorney opposed them at the Ministerial Council. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is not true. Mr MOORE —That is different from what the State Attorneys-General say. Mr Lionel Bowen —I have already told you. Mr MOORE —That is what they were saying around the place. Mr Lionel Bowen —You are the greatest hearsay man I have ever heard in my life. Mr MOORE —I do not know about hearsay. Perhaps I have to rely on hearsay because the Attorney does not tell anybody anything. Mr Lionel Bowen —You have not asked me one question. Mr MOORE —It is the greatest mushroom show in Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen —You are the most silent shadow Minister I have ever met. Mr MOORE —The Attorney is the biggest mushroom operator in town. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable gentlemen will be free to continue their private discussion in another place. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Blunt —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr KERR(Denison)(12.24) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief and direct my remarks principally to the Bill before the House-the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill 1988. I take this opportunity to commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on his capacity to move quickly in an area in which the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) says that there is never any great rush or roaring hurry to do things. But, of course, sometimes there is necessity for speed and haste and this is exactly one such instance. Where some remarks of a judge create uncertainty in the regulatory system, obviously it is important to put the matter right, to resolve the situation so that anybody who wishes to deal with the National Companies and Securities Commission is secure in his mind that the appropriate framework is in place. The background to this matter is that, for some time, the National Companies and Securities Commission has adopted a practice of establishing committees or divisions to which it passes aspects of its work. That is a quite legitimate and a very proper way of performing its functions. Until some remarks were made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of the National Companies and Securities Commission v. Sim, it was not questioned that that was an effective mechanism of discharging the Commission's broad responsibilities. However in Sim's case some remarks were made as to how powers could be conferred and how they could be exercised if they were conferred. As a result, it was thought that perhaps some of the procedures that had been adopted in the past, although quite properly and within the then understanding of the legal framework, might be subject to questioning and might be invalid. Rather than allowing the matter to fester and perhaps, eventually, trap an unwary person, the Government has acted very responsibly. The Attorney has moved promptly to bring this provision before the House. What the provision does, essentially, is clear up the situation. It validates acts that have been done by the Commission in proceeding in the manner it has and it validates retrospectively all those proceedings unless court proceedings have already been initiated. That is a very sensible exception because it preserves the rights of a person who has had the foresight or the wish to challenge any proceeding and has commenced legal proceedings. It does not retrospectively damage any rights, but it does make sure that in the future there will not be any traps or uncertainties or a circumstance whereby an unwary member of the investing community is caught because of some technical incident that might have arisen in the past when the Commission was conducting its affairs. I congratulate the Attorney on his prompt response. It shows the Government's attention to the detail of the scheme and its willingness to move quickly in the Parliament to make sure that the corporate arena is not one where delay leads to confusion and to circumstances where there are doubts about the validity of processes that are taking place. The honourable member for Ryan has moved an amendment which in part states: . . . whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to provide retrospective validation to certain directions by the National Companies and Securities Commission generally bestowing its powers and functions to be exercised by its Divisions which might otherwise be found to be invalid'. The honourable member is trying to have it both ways. The whole purpose of the Bill-it is a very short and specific Bill-is to make sure that, henceforth, there is no uncertainty about these resolutions, directions and actions taken by the Commission which were exposed to some doubt by the obiter remarks of the judges in the case to which I referred previously. It is simply a nonsense to support the second reading of the Bill but to cavil at what the Bill intends to do. It is a contradiction and a nonsense and it does no credit to the mover of the amendment to say, `I support the proposal but I object to it at the same time'. It does not seem to make sense. One wonders whether strictly it could be properly categorised as an amendment at all or whether it is simply an exercise in rhetoric. I respond briefly to some of the matters that the honourable member for Ryan raised more generally in the securities regulatory environment. I do not want to speak for long on that point because I am quite sure that the Attorney, in his own way, will have ample opportunity to respond. It is not correct to say that the issues before the Government and the announcements of intention by the Attorney have not been subject to public scrutiny. They have been on the table for some considerable period. I will try not to be too partisan in my remarks. It is very important to recognise the work that the honourable member for Ryan did, when he was responsible for this area, in bringing into effect a cooperative national scheme. It was a marked improvement on the arrangements that existed prior to the implementation of that uniform scheme. It was a step that was well regarded by the Australian Labor Party at the time and it has proved to be beneficial in the broad arena in making sure that, in most areas, the application of corporate law does not vary between the States. The step is to be commended. I do not wish to be ungenerous in my praise of it, but ultimately it is only a halfway house. For various reasons, such as differing administration, differing interpretations and differing office mechanisms-different ordering procedures for computers and the like-the system is starting to show cracks and flaws and it is appropriate to look at how we can respond to make sure that a cooperative national scheme actually performs as a national scheme. That is what the intention of the exercise ought to be. It seems that the honourable member for Ryan does not want to go back in any way to a system whereby different sets of laws or different interpretations would apply. In his response to an interjection that I made during his remarks, he rejected that entirely. But, on the other hand, he draws short of endorsing the logical extension to what is now a cooperative scheme. He draws short of endorsing its implementation within a national framework covered by the Australian Parliament. Ultimately that will come. Ultimately it must arise that the national Parliament will exercise its undoubted constitutional powers to ensure that there is overall uniformity in the corporate legal structure that operates throughout Australia. We now operate, fortunately, or unfortunately-depending on how one sees it-as a national market. We operate in an environment in which it makes no sense to have differential applications of laws in the differing States in the areas of corporations and securities. I commend the Attorney for his willingness to put forward a bold scheme to make sure that the system works well, effectively, cooperatively and uniformly. Any new proposal needs explanation and bedding down. No doubt there will be concerns to which the Attorney will respond in the evolution of the proposals he has put forward. The proposals are not put forward in a crude, unthinking way. The Attorney has established a mechanism involving consultative procedures whereby those who are affected directly were able to input into the deliberations leading to the scheme. That ensures that any serious objections to the manner in which the scheme is to be developed will get to the Attorney's ear and be acted on. I am sure that even the honourable member for Ryan would concede that this Attorney is an Attorney who is not inflexible in his mind, an Attorney who is willing to listen to a good argument and, if persuaded to act, to review his stance on issues and to accommodate the criticisms he judges to be appropriate and apt. It was rather sad that the debate on this measure appeared, at the end of the remarks of the honourable member for Ryan, to degenerate into a small discussion about whether the Attorney was keeping members of this House or others in the dark. That is one thing this Attorney has not done. He has been very pleased to announce both to the House and publicly his intentions in regard to this legislation. He has established mechanisms whereby those affected by his proposals have ample opportunity to respond, to express their concerns and criticisms. It gives him the opportunity to look at appropriate mechanisms to modify the proposals if he thinks fit. I entirely reject, and I believe all those who are fair minded in this debate will reject, the suggestion that this Attorney has acted in such a way as to try to disguise his intentions in this matter. I conclude by again congratulating the Attorney-General on his prompt response to this technical matter. It is in keeping with the manner in which he administers his portfolio generally. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.37) —I welcome the opportunity to reply to the remarks made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). It is impossible for me to accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member because of the very scheme that he is anxious to see continue. The whole point of this amendment is to say that what the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) has done for a long time, now deemed to be invalid, ought to be corrected. The honourable member does not think it ought to be corrected in the way that we propose. I can imagine what the business community would think if I withdrew the Bill now and went back to the Ministerial Council, which is what I would have to do to get his approval. I can imagine what the National Companies and Securities Commission will do in respect of all the decisions that have been made, not with any lack of bona fides but apparently with some legal defect. Is that not the problem with the scheme? I do not have much time to develop the argument, but this is the only scheme in the history of the world, I would say, that guarantees that no Parliament, State or Federal, can do anything about a proposal put in front of it. The only people who get any insight into what is proposed are members of the Ministerial Council. With the greatest respect-I welcome all of them; I am friendly with all of them-they have to listen to what is put to them by the NCSC and nobody else. The secretariat which was originally established was disbanded because there were no funds for it. The Queensland Minister used to say quite effectively, `Where does the Ministerial Council get any independent advice?'. We might as well get the NCSC to say, `This is what we want', because in fact that is what happens. There is no input from business and no Parliament, State or Federal, can do anything about it. Mr Moore —That is not true. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is true. That is the way it works now. Let me make it very clear. The position at present is what is put by way of amendment. The administration-and this is a valid point-is in a mess. Let me make the point to the honourable member that it was a Senate committee that took evidence from business that suggested that there be at least some reasonably democratic format, that we have a law that can be amended by some Parliament. The present position with the agreement the honourable member drew up is that no amendments can be accepted-none. It is decided by the Ministerial Council. Mr Moore —But they put it out where someone can see what is going on. It is not the mushroom show you are running. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not the issue. There is no mushroom show. Let me come to the point about the Ministerial Council. The honourable member cannot deny the fact that the States could certainly pass these laws simultaneously. They cannot do it because it has to be simultaneous. So the honourable member developed a scheme whereby the Commonwealth Government would make the law but it is not to amend it. Not one member of the Opposition, either here or in the Senate, could amend that law, even though he might have the most valid and rational argument. I have never seen anything like it. All I am trying to say is that the Constitution provides that we have some responsibility in this matter. The honourable member himself today said, `You ought to be into takeovers. You ought to take a look at that. Insider trading is rampant'. What does that say for the present scheme, and it is the present scheme the honourable member is talking about? The position is that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended that there be a Federal law. I told the Ministerial Council that I thought there ought to be a Federal law. There should be an opportunity for any member of parliament to say, `I don't agree with the proposal. I want to move an amendment'. That is normal democracy. A senator or a member should be entitled to say, `I reject the law', and he can do it. If that happened the scheme would collapse; it could not work. It is utter nonsense to be coming in here talking about the validity of something when, unless we cooperate, it cannot work. We cooperate by being silent. Not one honourable member opposite has any information as to what the position is. By the way, Mr Besley happened to chair the last consultative committee. Is that to his detriment? I do not think so. It is most unfair to be accusing the advisory committee. The members of the committee which I set up are certainly lawyers. They happen to act for all the businesses in Australia that are of any major significance. Mr Moore —They do not represent all businesses. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman might like to have a discussion later but he should let me finish the point. They represent businesses both in terms of legal advice and in terms of their business activities. I would be amazed if anybody would say that they were second grade or did not count if we took them out of the business community's legal activities. The point is this: I wanted to do something about what the Senate had said. I wanted to give the Opposition a chance to talk about the law in the normal way. I also wanted the States to have a part to play and I put it to them. The first thing the States said was, `What about the revenue? There is $72m profit in this. We are not going to give it away'. I have not got $72m to give them and I said that I could not do that. We then had another discussion on the basis that I thought we ought to be pursuing Federal law and that I wanted them to administer the law through the State corporate affairs commissions. They said, `That's not such a good idea, but we'll tell you what we'll do, Mr Attorney. You can bring in anything you like providing two of us agree with it'. I said, `That's ridiculous. Why should I be subject to a veto of two States?', but they still put that proposition. The honourable gentleman is worried about the law. Naturally, the law has not been put in the Parliament because we have not drafted it completely. We have been waiting to look at the instructions that are coming through. My own Party has not seen the law but, naturally, I am giving it to the people who are interested to have an input. The honourable gentleman has made it very clear that he opposes the concept. If that is so, it is not what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said here. Mr Moore —It is exactly the same. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. In Question Time, when the honourable member was absent, I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition whether I would foreshadow legislation that gave the small proprietary companies trading within one State an opportunity not to be involved in the scheme. I said that I would do that. I asked, `Do you support the scheme otherwise?', and he said, `Yes'. That applies to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). It is in Hansard. Yet the honourable member is worried about it. No wonder I said in October, `What's going on with the Opposition?'. The Leader of the Opposition was telling me across the table that he favoured a national securities scheme but that he wanted to allow small proprietary companies to stay out of it. I had no objection to that. It was married to the issue the Queensland Attorney-General said he was worried about-the 96,000 small companies operating within the boundaries of Queensland. I have no interest in them. When I put up the proposition, the honourable member for Ryan, as he is entitled to do, said, `That is not the policy of the Party'. I do not know what the policy is, but I make it very clear that that is what the Leader of the Opposition said. I sent the proposal to the States, saying that I did not want to be worried about small proprietary companies. Every one of them said, `We don't want that sort of split scheme'. The proposition was that the small companies could opt into a Federal scheme, but the States were not prepared to accept that. The present position, as I understand it, and we can report this to the business community, is that it is Liberal Party policy not to have a national companies and securities commission. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the Attorney-General will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Employment and Education Services, Mr Duncan, will be absent from Question Time today on government business and questions which would normally be addressed to Mr Duncan should be directed to the portfolio Minister, Mr Dawkins. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the possible referendum for changes to the Australian Constitution. I preface my question by confirming Liberal-National Party support for the principle of non-fixed, four-year parliamentary terms, subject to any proposed change not reducing the powers of the Senate, nor current terms for senators. I ask the Prime Minister: Given the high fatality rate in this country of referenda proposals which do not have bipartisan support, would he be willing to have discussions with me regarding a mutually acceptable question on four-year terms to be submitted to the Australian people at an appropriate time? Mr HAWKE —Yes. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of his words, expressed to me in the Parliament on 15 March 1988, regarding the removal from an unidentified medical practice of a patient debtor list, when he said: I call on the Opposition to drop its double standards on this issue and join with us in calling on the AMA to have the police investigate what appears to be a serious breach of patient confidentiality. Further, in his answer he said: He- that is, I, the member for O'Connor- should either say that he will or he should admit to the hypocrisy of his position. I also remind the Prime Minister that on the following day, in response to that, I sent him a signed letter, prepared for his joint signature, that requested of the Australian Federal Police the inquiry he had suggested. I ask the Prime Minister: Why, after more than five weeks delay, has he still failed to sign and dispatch this letter to the Australian Federal Police, and who is the hypocrite now? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for O'Connor remains the hypocrite. Mrs HARVEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Could the Minister inform the House of the progress made in compensating Australian veterans illegally interned in nazi concentration camps during World War II? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for her question. The Government announced in the 1987-88 Budget a one-off lump sum compensation payment of $10,000 to eligible Australian veterans who were illegally interned in nazi concentration camps during World War II. As a result of the advertisements placed by my Department and with assistance from the ex-service community, some 163 applications have been received. A committee headed by the Services member of the Repatriation Commission has been investigating these applications. To date, 10 internees have been approved for payment; nine cheques have gone out-two to South Australia, three to New South Wales, two to Victoria, one to Queensland and one to Western Australia, and the tenth is being sorted out overseas. Nine of these men originally enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force and one in the Army. They spent periods of 60 days upwards in nazi concentration camps, after having escaped from prisoner of war camps. One applicant made many escapes and was ultimately interned in a concentration camp for six months. Many claims received have been based solely on the applicants being held in prisoner of war camps. This of itself does not satisfy the compensation requirements. To be eligible for compensation payment the claimants must have been an Australian veteran or an Australian serving in a Commonwealth or allied force and have been interned in a camp defined by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and run by the criminal nazi organisation for a protracted period. This is not to denigrate the suffering of the prisoners of war generally, but this compensation is to recognise both the illegality and the harshness of nazi concentration camps. If there are still people in the community who believe themselves to be eligible-that is, Australian veterans who were interned in nazi concentration camps for a protracted period-they should contact my Department, their Federal member, the Returned Services League of Australia, or other veterans organisations without delay. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the abolition of the accelerated depreciation allowance be tantamount to moving towards a gross receipts taxation base rather than to a comprehensive net income base? In this case, should the existing depreciation provisions be abolished without an adjustment for the impact of inflation on the value of plant and equipment? Mr KEATING —Our friends on the other side had their opportunities to do all of these things, to fully inflation adjust the tax system, but they never did. They never even had a capital gains tax. Mr Tuckey —Answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —There was an enormous conceptual hole in the tax system, while income taken as capital was not taxed. In the White Paper in 1985 we discussed the implications of fully inflation adjusting the tax system in relation to interest rates in terms of capital profits and in terms of depreciation rates. The honourable gentleman is begging the question as to a comment from me about the Government's intention as to 5/3 depreciation. That is something the Government has to consider in the context of the business tax review and that of course will be considered and our judgment about these matters-- Mr Tuckey —You don't know what you are talking about. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not interject. Mr KEATING —In May the honourable gentleman will find where we think the balance of those judgments lies. May I just make this final point: His former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the former Treasurer introduced5/3 depreciation with enormous out-year costs, running to the order of $2 billion per annum, knowing full well that the likelihood was they would never be around to pay for it. That broad brush depreciation scheduling is not making any allowances for the real or effective life of assets; it was simply a measure trowelled on by the former Government, without any sense of responsibility about the impact on fiscal policy over time. This Government recognised those commitments and that responsibility when it legislated 5/3 depreciation back in 1983, but that is not to say the matter will not come under judgment. It will. It will come under judgment and review for the May statement. Mr LANGMORE —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. What were the more important outcomes of the International Monetary Fund and Group of Seven meetings held in Washington last week? In view of the undertaking by the seven major industrial countries `to consider ways of further improving the functioning of the international monetary system', was any progress made towards a new issue of special drawing rights as recommended by the managing director of the private Institute for International Finance? Was consideration given to the establishment of a debt management authority to buy up Third World debt at a discount, so benefiting debtor nations and releasing liquidity to creditor banks? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I had the pleasure of attending the interim committee meeting of the International Monetary Fund, held in Washington last week, on behalf of the Treasurer. At that meeting there was general agreement that the prospects were for a continuation of steady, moderate economic growth. The observation was made that global inflation was low and that progress has been made in reducing balance of payment imbalances. The ratio of debts to exports has declined in a number of developing countries. Overall, there was also the observation that there has been a growing and strengthening of commodity prices. Notwithstanding these observations, the committee observed that there are important challenges ahead. In the industrialised countries there are still large external payment imbalances and continuing high unemployment in Europe. The committee was of the view that the United States should continue to strengthen its fiscal position and to improve conditions for private sector savings, that Europe and Japan should liberalise their economies and that the newly industrialised economies in Asia were running large surpluses and also make their contribution to rectifying global imbalances. The committee suggested several ways to strengthen growth to deal with the outlook in indebted countries. There is a need for appropriate policies to strengthen domestic investment, discourage the outflow of capital and maintain trade competitiveness. Requirements for reforms in the public sector investment and education and training were suggested, as was the fact that strong and sustained domestic policies were necessary to attract external financial support. Committee members recognised the importance of strong policy coordination to strengthen economic growth. The committee recognised the need also to ensure strong program support that is backed by adequate and timely concessional assistance for debt distressed low income countries. On the specific question raised by the honourable member for Fraser of drawing rights, the committee decided that there should not be a new issue of special drawing rights. However, it requested the Executive Board to monitor developments in international liquidity and to keep under consideration the question of special drawing rights allocations. Finally, the committee did not consider the establishment of a debt management authority but agreed that several initiatives be taken to benefit debtor nations. Mr HAWKER —I refer the Treasurer to the dividend imputation system and ask whether it is a fact that individuals who receive franked dividends pay the Medicare tax at the effective rate of 2.45 per cent on that income. Will the Treasurer undertake to remove this anomaly so that the Medicare tax is 1.25 per cent on franked dividends, as it is with other forms of income? Mr KEATING —The former Government had 40 years to remove the double taxation of dividends. I know that those opposite are perpetually smarting under the fact that a tax rate of 78c in the dollar on company income, on the top marginal rate, was the rate under the coalition and it has been reduced to 49c in the dollar under this Labor Government. That is, the tax on distributed income has gone from 78c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. That means that we have the lowest rate of tax on distributed income of any country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It hurts the coalition a great deal. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 says that the answer shall be relevant to the question. The question is about the Medicare levy. We are getting something about tax rates. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I understand that the Treasurer has finished his answer. Mr TICKNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I ask it in my capacity as a member of the government members defence force action committee. What action has this Government taken to improve the conditions of single members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for his question and also for the support that he and his committee give the defence forces in Australia. I wish the Opposition would give them as much support. Next Tuesday, I will be making a statement in this House detailing improvements that the Government has made in implementing conditions for Defence Force families. I am happy today to outline some of the things that the Government is doing for singles. Over the years there has been a lot of emphasis on families. I want to assure those people in the Defence Force who are single that they are not being neglected by this Government. After all, 45 per cent of the Australian Defence Force-or roughly 31,500 service men and women-are single. Housing is a key area. Mr Tim Fischer —I take a point of order. Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 144. The last part of that says, `Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter'. The Minister has told the House that she is making a statement next Tuesday. She is anticipating debate by referring-- Madam SPEAKER —It is not an order of the day for this day. The Minister is quite in order. Mrs KELLY —Those opposite obviously do not want to hear about the improvements made by this Government to Defence Force conditions. This Government, unlike the Opposition, cares about the defence forces of this country. I am now outlining some of the things we are doing for the singles. We will spend $57.6m on upgrading singles accommodation for the Army. Yesterday, I also outlined to the House an additional $46m that is going into providing accommodation for marrieds. We are also concentrating on singles. This will involve 118 buildings and provide 4,568 bedrooms. Also, through this, we will probably bring most singles accommodation up to a reasonable standard. Recently I visited the new Tindal air base near Katherine in the Northern Territory. I was most impressed at the level of amenities offered for the singles. In places where there is a shortage of living accommodation-and Sydney is one of those-new initiatives are being taken to provide alternative forms of housing. This includes the transfer of Endeavour Hostel to the Department of Defence for Royal Australian Navy and Army singles accommodation. We are also looking at possible purchases of motel-type housing in places where the private rental market is very tight. On 31 March this year I also announced a major improvement in the removals entitlement of single members of the ADF. Single members who live off base and receive living out allowance will now have their furniture and effects moved and stored at government expense. If they are required to live off base at their new posting, their furniture and effects will continue to be stored at government expense. This new condition of service removes an anomaly that has existed for a very long time in the treatment of single personnel as opposed to families. This Government is committed to improving the conditions of all defence service personnel, including singles. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In March 1987, did the Government appoint Bob Hogg, now the Federal Secretary of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), as a consultant to report on the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam? Was Mr Hogg given an extension to produce his report in order to allow him to participate in the ALP Federal election campaign in June-July 1987? Did Mr Hogg eventually produce a 54-page report at a cost in excess of $500 a page? Has the Government had this report since last October? Why has there been no announced action on the Hogg report since its presentation? Why has there been no real action on the report of the agent orange royal commission that was tabled more than three years ago? Why the long delays? Mr HUMPHREYS —Once again we hear Opposition members pretending that they are interested in the veterans community. They ignored veterans for years and years. We have a great record in veterans affairs. The shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs last night talked about Anzac Day and said how concerned he was about Anzac Day. I wonder what the veterans will say about how concerned they are with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition regarding the recommendation of the report of the Business Council of Australia that we should do away with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Opposition would do away with the Department-no more department. The Prime Minister has promised that we will retain the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I have a say in that. He keeps his promises. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much noise in the chamber. The House will come to order. Mr HUMPHREYS —I challenge the shadow spokesman for veterans' affairs and I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to stand up and deny that the Opposition, in government, will do away with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They will not do that; they have had plenty of time to do it, and they have not done it. Now honourable members opposite are asking us about our treatment of veterans. Just let me say that the accusations about Mr Hogg are totally incorrect. They are false. We will report when we are ready to report to this Parliament and not before. Ms McHUGH —I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. What is the Government's attitude to the Law Reform Commission report on acquisition of land by the Commonwealth? Mr WEST —The Government will accept many of the significant and major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report on the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth and I expect soon to introduce major legislation to amend the Lands Acquisition Act to that effect. Governments of both conservative and Labor denomination over some years have basically grappled with the complex issues that this matter raises. It involves balancing the rights and needs of the state, in this case the Commonwealth Government, and the rights of the individual. Sometimes achieving the correct balance can be quite complex. Accordingly, we will introduce legislation soon to pick up the major matters under the Law Reform Commission report and, after its introduction, I will allow the Bill to lie on the table for, say, three months to allow examination of our intentions. That will allow time for individuals, land reform lobby groups, the Administrative Review Council and perhaps even the Opposition to examine what we intend and to come forward with a point of view. I intend to provide added protection to land owners. At present, as honourable members would probably know, the existing Act does not contain any appeal process except on the grounds of whether compensation is adequate. Significantly, we intend to liberalise the appeal process. Of course, this issue has been around for quite a long time. The present Opposition was in government for a long time after the war and did nothing about this matter. We will pick it up and take action, because we are greatly concerned for the rights of individuals in this country. Therefore, I will allow the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on several grounds. First, the Tribunal will consider the primary decision to acquire. No such appeal right regarding that matter is in place at present. We will also allow appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the amount of compensation payable. That issue will go before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal instead of there being the necessity to take a case to the Federal Court. Other matters that we will look at include the requirement for the Commonwealth to advance to owners 90 per cent of the compensation offered pending the outcome of an appeal where the price of land was at issue, and we will consider the inclusion of provisions for extra compensation above and beyond the market value of the property where the Commonwealth acquires the principal place of residence. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but I draw your attention to standing order 144, which specifically provides that questioners should not ask Ministers to announce government policy. I believe that what the Minister is doing is setting down the provisions of a policy, which he claims is new but is on a matter that has been around for a long time. On the basis that the Minister is announcing government policy, I believe that his reply is now totally out of order. The Minister should be asked to conclude his remarks forthwith. Madam SPEAKER —I understood that the Minister was detailing part of a paper which he intends to table and which will become part of a Bill. I ask the Minister to draw his reply to a conclusion. Mr WEST —I was indicating what our response to the Law Reform Commission report might well be. I point out to the House that it was the Opposition when in government that commissioned the report, so I would have thought that honourable members opposite would have some interest in this matter. Furthermore, ancillary to our response to the Law Reform Commission report, I intend that the legislation I am flagging will allow for the imposition of regulations covering a regime to allow mineral exploration and mining on Commonwealth land other than national parks and Antarctica. I believe that the Government's intentions regarding the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report pay a great deal of attention to the rights of individuals as against the needs and rights of the State. As such, I believe they will be welcomed by individual Australians, particularly individual Australian landowners, and by land reform organisations in this country. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. I refer the Minister to a minute from Mr J. V. Townsend, Executive Director of the Canberra Development Board, to Mr K. T. Lyon, a deputy secretary in the Minister's Department, dated 27 November 1987, the day after both men had attended a meeting with the former Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta, to discuss the proposed social impact study for the Canberra casino development. Will the Minister explain why, despite the fact that four research companies were recommended in Mr Townsend's minute, Dr Geoff Caldwell was appointed to head the social impact study when Mr Townsend also said that Dr Caldwell's appointment `could become an issue . . . because of past or present associations and perceived bias'? Furthermore, what are Dr Caldwell's past and present associations with the gambling industry? Mr PUNCH —I am not aware of the alleged associations of this gentleman with any gambling organisations or hotels, or any other involvement in that regard. The advice I received on the gentleman's suitability for appointment was strictly on the basis of his being academically qualified for the job, and that would be the case with the other people who have been asked to involve themselves in the social impact statement. The honourable member having drawn my attention to that note, I will call for it and make some further investigations. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. Following the restructuring of the institutes and divisions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is there reduced emphasis on and reduced funding for agricultural research? How is CSIRO assisting rural industry in the development of improved quality products for export markets? Mr BARRY JONES —Despite sharp reductions in CSIRO's appropriation funding since 1983, the share of rural and rural related research has held up very well. Total staffing in rural production and processing has been maintained because of increased industry funding. There have been significant increases in biotechnology and some very important developments of international significance will be announced in the next few weeks, I hope while the House is still sitting. Heavy emphasis is being given to research on water and soil, and this has barely changed over the past five years. The importance of such research does not need to be emphasised. A good example of CSIRO's recent rural research is the development of new cotton varieties at its Division of Plant Industry cotton research establishment at Narrabri. They are not only outperforming the American bred varieties in yield and quality, but also combining pest and disease resistance, reducing the need for chemical sprays. This new cotton variety has an okra shaped leaf not unlike a marijuana leaf, hence its name Siokra. It has rapidly become the dominant variety grown by Australian farmers over the past two years and now accounts for 72 per cent of the national crop. It is probable but not certain that the novel leaf shape is the critical factor. The heliothis moth, which we showed with great acclaim to President Ceaucescu last week, is the worst cotton pest. It does not like the topography of the Siokra leaves. The small thin leaves around the boll do not provide a moist environment for grubs. The leaves and branches generally provide a changing surface area, which is highly lobed instead of having the normal flat leaves. It has a long coastline relative to the surface area. Siokra requires four fewer sprayings per season. The new variety alone has increased export earnings by $45m a year and it alone is one of the great achievements of CSIRO and of John Kerin's administration of his portfolio, contributing substantially to the $500m or $600m export income that Australia derives from the cotton industry. CSIRO and the Australian company Cotton Seed Distributors are in partnership to produce and distribute the new varieties in Australia and overseas, with prospects for sales and royalties from seed in the United States, southern Europe and Africa. Mr NEHL —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Mr Chynoweth —What about the assets test? Mr NEHL —The honourable member need not worry about the assets test. We will fix that later when we get back into government. Is the Minister aware of reports emanating from the Republic of Korea concerning a significant change in the availability of markets for Australian beef? I have heard these reports, although I have not seen anything in Australia. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Government of the Republic of Korea has made a significant decision to open the higher end of the market to Australian beef and, if so, what impact it will have on our beef sales to Korea. Mr KERIN —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Trade Negotiations and I have been working to open up the South Korean beef market. The United States has also been putting pressure on that country and discussions are under way in both cases under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The question would be better directed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations. However, I can say that we have been taking the same steps. We have had consultations with the South Koreans and we expect the market to open up over time. We also expect the Japanese market to open up. Action is being taken under GATT and the Government is intent on opening up both markets. Mr SCHOLES —My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of the log of claims served on the Government by the Business Council of Australia calling for greater wage restraint and reductions in incomes for persons and families, many of whom have gross incomes below $300 a week, can the Minister indicate whether the Business Council and its constituent units have agreed to the application of national wage guidelines to executive salaries? Mr WILLIS —There have been discussions between the Government, the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) on this matter. The House will recall that I have previously indicated the evidence, which in the Government's view is unambiguous, shows that in the past couple of years executive remuneration, even after one takes into account the cashing out of fringe benefits as a result of the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, has increased at a faster rate than wages and salaries generally. The Government regards that as a matter of some concern, particularly as at the summit in 1983 business representatives agreed to the statement that, if restraint was to be exercised, it should be exercised universally. As such, it was important that non-wage incomes did not increase faster than movements in wages. In view of that commitment, the Government is concerned that the evidence shows that it is not being honoured. The view of the Business Council, particularly, in our discussions was that it did not accept the evidence and that, whatever the evidence showed, business should not be subject to restraint on executive remuneration in the way that wages and salaries and salaries were because executive remuneration was set totally in the marketplace. The Government found that view unacceptable. We disagreed at that meeting. There was no capacity on the part of the parties to reach agreement. However, the Business Council and the CAI agreed to consider the matter further and discuss it with the Government subsequently. We have not had a discussion since that time but I expect that there will be discussion on this issue in the near future in the context of discussions on wages policy. With respect to the question asked by the honourable member for Corio, the point he makes about the inequity of the position taken by the Business Council is quite stark. In our view, it is unacceptable in the extreme for the business community to take the view that the rest of the community can suffer cuts in living standards, that people on low incomes can have services cut and incomes reduced, that wage and salary earners can suffer reduced real wages, but that business executives can continue to have their incomes determined without regard to the national restraints imposed in every other sector. That is a totally unacceptable position. I hope that it will be considered and that we can reach agreement on a more acceptable basis for executive remuneration to be contained in future. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. The Minister will be aware of the many protests from Brisbane's southern suburbs concerning aircraft noise following the opening of Brisbane's new international airport. Is it a fact that, on its design, Brisbane was to be a curfew free airport and that take-offs to the south would affect only 50 homes in the Cannon Hill area? Why do aircraft on take-off to the south now dogleg over the high population areas? Is the Federal Airports Corporation statement true that it is due to freak weather conditions or is the real cause a campaign by air traffic controllers? Does the Minister believe that all the problems would be solved if ground radar for air traffic movements were provided? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member will recall that, when the decision was made on the airport itself, he was sitting over here. It is all very well, hearing the comments coming from that side of the House, to refer to-- Mr Porter —Big deal! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —Yes, it is quite a big deal because those principal decisions were made at the time of the Fraser Government. Let us get the issue in its right perspective. Mr Porter —Have you done anything in the last five years? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Barker hard of hearing? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member raised the question of noise intrusion. I am not in a position to say that at that time 50 homes would have been affected in the area that he has referred to. I can check but I doubt whether that is true. I do not recall seeing that kind of information. However it is true to say that there is concern about this on both sides of the House; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Bowman, the honourable member for Brisbane, the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Moreton, who is absent at the moment, have all raised the question of noise levels. This has been partly due to the fact that when the airport was opened it was at a time when the weather was coming from the south. That meant that aircraft were taking off into the south. That meant that substantial numbers of new residents were subjected to aircraft noise. That was part of the problem that arose-- Mr Jull —Rubbish! Mr PETER MORRIS —We do not regard it as rubbish. I understand that the complaints from people are genuine and that there is genuine concern. If the honourable member chooses to regard them as rubbish then he can stand on the record as doing so. The point is that with the movement of aircraft over new flight paths parts of Brisbane are being subjected to aircraft noise when they previously did not have that problem. There are other large areas of Brisbane and large numbers of residents who are no longer subject to aircraft noise as a result of the new flight path and the new runway 19. At the same time, in the standard instrument departures which were set for the use of runway 19-almost due south-heights and distances were set for the aircraft to make their turns. It appears that some aircraft may have been making those turns, whether to the south or the north, at distances that were not in accordance with those limits set. That could well be part of the problem. Also, aircraft could have been taking off from part way along the runway rather than at its northern extremity. Had these aircraft set off from the northern extremity of the runway they would have been at a greater altitude when they reached the areas to which the honourable member referred. There are a number of factors contributing to these problems. I reiterate that honourable members on this side of the House and the honourable member for Moreton have spoken to me in private about this matter. It is being reviewed at the moment and we are looking at proposals to alter those standard instrument departures. At the same time noise sensors are being set up in the areas affected so that we can obtain definitive information on the altitude, level of noise, times and hopefully also the identification of aircraft. We are concerned about the matter and we are taking steps to remedy it. If the honourable member is genuinely concerned I will be happy to keep him advised about it. Mr BALDWIN —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of reports that Dr Tony Adams, a world renowned expert on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), has been sacked by the New South Wales Government? Can he inform the House whether the Federal Government can retain the outstanding services of Dr Adams for the Australian community? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware that the services of Dr Tony Adams, Chief Health Officer of New South Wales, have been ended by the new Greiner Government. I have to say that this decision has stunned health experts not only in this country but also around the world. Dr Adams is nationally and internationally renowned as a public health expert and is seen as a man with great skill, accomplishment and vision in the public health field. He has played a major role in New South Wales-the State most affected by AIDS-in the fight against AIDS. His work in relation to AIDS has been recognised again not only in Australia but also throughout the world. Dr Adams is certainly one of the leading authorities on AIDS and public health in the Southern Hemisphere. It is not surprising that the World Health Organisation itself has been interested for some time in obtaining his services on a permanent basis. It has certainly used him on a temporary basis, which is a reflection of the recognition by the World Health Organisation of his qualities. We are told that the reason Dr Adams has had his position terminated is that he appeared in certain Healthline advertisements of the Department of Health in New South Wales. It is very strange that he should be penalised for this reason-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —It is surprising that he should be penalised for these advertisements because the advertisements were very much designed to improve the public's access to hospitals in New South Wales. It is even stranger that, having criticised Healthline and Dr Adams's involvement in its promotion, the new Minister for Health in New South Wales wrote me a letter. The evidence he produced for his case was drawn from this very same Healthline; so he, at least, appears to attribute some value to it. Mr Peacock —If he was so good, why did you not put him on the AIDS Council? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am glad to say that Dr Adams has been placed on the new AIDS forum that we have set up. While the Opposition may perform in this way about extremely able civil servants in this country, the rest of the House will be relieved to know that the services of a man with these abilities have not been lost to this country. I am delighted to inform the House that Dr Adams has in fact been appointed to a leading role in dealing with AIDS at the national level. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will wait until the House comes to order. The House has been extraordinarily noisy today. I now ask honourable members to come to order. Mr Sinclair —Do you blame us? Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party knows the orders of this House. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr Cadman —The Government should set the example. Madam SPEAKER —That applies to the honourable member for Mitchell as well. Dr BLEWETT —I know that throughout the health community in this country the jeers of the Opposition will not be echoed. In fact, there will be a deep appreciation that this man is being used in this field. I am sure that the rest of the nation outside this mean Opposition will rejoice that New South Wales loss is Australia's gain. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —During Question Time the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) made a reference to my not having given a commitment with regard to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I inform the House that I have given such a commitment. The coalition created the modern Department of Veterans' Affairs and there is no variation-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is quite out of order. He does not have a personal explanation. He is now abusing the forms of the House. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —by leave-The West German magazine Der Spiegel alleged, in its editions of 18 January and 15 and 22 February 1988, that the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, had circumvented conditions placed on Australian origin nuclear material by the Australia/Euratom Safeguards Agreement. Similar allegations were made concerning Canadian and United States origin nuclear material. These allegations were repeated by two members of the European Parliament, Mrs von Blottnitz and Mr Staes. Mrs von Blottnitz has written a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the allegations. The allegations have also been echoed by Senator Sanders, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and other Australian parliamentarians and have appeared in the Australian media. The Government takes a serious view of any allegation concerning possible breaches of Australia's nuclear safeguards agreements. Consequently we have conducted a thorough examination of the allegations which have been made. When the first Der Spiegel articles appeared initial inquiries were directed to Euratom through our embassy in Brussels. These were followed up by a number of specific questions relating to the allegations. The Government has sought the views of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has also consulted the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Canada and the United States of America. The Australian Safeguards Office (ASO), which is the Australian Government body responsible for accounting for Australian nuclear material overseas, has been closely involved in the investigations. The Government has obtained from Der Spiegel and the European Parliament copies of the exchanges of correspondence between Euratom and the German nuclear firm, Nukem, on which the allegations of mishandling of Australian uranium are based. More recently Senator Sanders has provided copies of two documents on which Der Spiegel based some of its allegations. These are internal working documents from the Euratom Supply Agency, which is Euratom's uranium buying agency. The Supply Agency should not be confused with the Euratom Safeguards Directorate, which is the body responsible for safeguards within the European Community. In essence the allegations which have been made, in so far as they relate to Australian uranium, are as follows: * First, Euratom has `swapped flags', denoting exchange of nuclear safeguards obligations, between quantities of Australian nuclear material and material of different national origin. * Secondly, Euratom set out with Nukem, the German nuclear firm, to circumvent safeguards controls on Australian nuclear material, in particular the need to obtain Australian consent for enrichment above 20 per cent. * Thirdly, the Australian Government is opposed to the concept of `changing labels' and has a system of `special approvals' which has not been complied with. * Fourthly, Euratom is `laundering' South African uranium by swapping labels. * Finally, Euratom has swapped Australian nuclear material with `phantom' material-that is material which no longer existed-or with nuclear `waste'. In part, these allegations appear to flow from a lack of understanding of the complexities of international trade in nuclear material, confusion between internal and international flag swaps and, in particular, failure to understand the equivalence principle used in nuclear materials accounting. The equivalence principle ensures that at all times there is a known quantity of nuclear material identified as being subject to Australian safeguards obligations. This principle is integral to the operation of both Australia's network of bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements and the system of international safeguards applied by the IAEA. Australia's safeguards agreements are the strictest in the world. They provide for the most stringent controls to ensure that Australian obligated uranium is used only for peaceful-that is, non-weapons-and non-explosive purposes. Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, 11 of which are in force-with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Finland, Sweden, Euratom and the IAEA-are binding international treaties and have been tabled in the Parliament. They are public documents. The dates on which these agreements entered into force are set out in the table contained in the document which I shall table in the House. The physical and chemical processes involved in making nuclear reactor fuel on a commercial scale involve very large plants and necessitate the commingling of material from several sources. In the first stage uranium oxide or yellowcake, which is a dense powder, is converted to a gaseous form known as uranium hexafluoride. In the next stage-enrichment-the content of the isotope U235, which is the isotope of uranium which enables nuclear fission to take place, is increased from its naturally occurring level of 0.7 per cent to about 3 per cent. This process typically involves cycling the gas several thousand times through centrifuges or diffusion barriers. In the third stage, the gas is chemically processed to produce uranium dioxide, a powder which is compacted into fuel pellets which are loaded into tubes. A collection of tubes is then assembled into a fuel element. Nuclear material can undergo these various processing operations at plants in a number of different countries subject to the safeguards obligations which are attached to the material involved. These processes are described schematically in the diagram contained in the document which I table. Continued identification of individual atoms is not possible in commercial operations of this type. Consequently, at the conclusion of each processing stage, it becomes necessary to allocate safeguards obligations to the product material in strict proportion to the input from each source. The basis of the measure of equivalence is the number of atoms of U235. In this way material is assigned as being of particular national origin and the safeguards obligations that each exporting country requires are applied to that material. In Australia's case this material becomes known as Australian origin nuclear material, or AONM. In other words, AONM is the label attached to nuclear material which is subject to Australian safeguards obligations. From the point of view of international safeguards, the important thing is that a quantity of nuclear material equivalent to the amount originating in an exporting country remains subject to the safeguards obligations imposed by that country. As the nuclear material passes through the nuclear fuel cycle an amount equivalent to the quantity of material originally exported will remain subject to the safeguards of the exporting country. That remains the situation even though the volume of the material and its chemical composition will change according to the type of process to which the material is subjected. So, for every 50 tonnes of Australian material that enters the European system the equivalent of that 50 tonnes always carries safeguards obligations to Australia. These safeguards obligations ensure that the AONM is locked into the civil program and cannot be diverted from peaceful use without being detected. The equivalence principle recognises that the individual atoms are indistinguishable from each other. A simple analogy would be that of a bank depositor who maintains control over a given sum of money. The depositor does not expect to withdraw precisely the same banknotes that were deposited with the bank but only a sum of money equivalent to the amount deposited. In the same way Australia does not seek to identify the individual atoms in uranium which is exported to a given country. This is consistent with international practice. But Australia does require, and obtain, an accounting for a quantity of nuclear material which is equivalent to the amount of uranium exported. At each stage of the processing chain an equivalent amount is identified as being subject to Australian safeguards obligations. No uranium exporting country applies safeguards on the basis of tracking individual atoms of material, nor could it. Neither does the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, all of which provide for the use of the principle of equivalence, our bilateral partners enter into international legal commitments concerning the use of AONM subject to the agreements. The agreements provide that such AONM shall not be used for, or diverted to, the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives devices, for research on or development of such weapons or devices, or for any military purpose. Compliance with these provisions is ensured by a system of safeguards administered by the Australian Safeguards Office, the safeguards office of the country or group of countries concerned, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency through its inspections. Under the administrative arrangements pursuant to Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, a system of accounting and reporting has been established through which the Australian Safeguards Office is informed by bilateral treaty partner countries of the amounts of AONM in its various forms. This information provides the basis for reconciliation of accounts kept by the ASO with those kept by its counterpart organisations. The ASO conducts regular visits to our bilateral partner countries for this purpose and includes in its annual reports the results of these visits. These accounting procedures provide assurance that nuclear material subject to the agreement remains in exclusively peaceful use. Further assurances are provided by the safeguards which the IAEA applies. The IAEA carries out inspections, takes samples, makes measurements and carries out camera surveillance to detect any diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses. The results of the IAEA inspections are reported each year to member states. They indicate that, in a quarter of a century of Agency operations, there has been no diversion of safeguard nuclear material from peaceful use. In the case of the Australia/Euratom safeguards agreement, to which the above-mentioned allegations refer, our bilateral partner is, of course, a group of countries: the members of the European Community. The agreement treats the Community as a single entity and the Community's safeguards office, the Euratom Safeguards Directorate, accounts for all Australian origin nuclear material within the Community's boundaries. The Australia/Euratom agreement permits safeguards obligations to be exchanged between one quantity of nuclear material and another subject to the following conditions: the two quantities involved must be equivalent; there must be operational reasons for the exchange; both quantities must be located within Euratom's jurisdiction-that is, the European Community; the exchange must not result in reducing the quality of the material subject to Australian safeguards-for example, an exchange of high enriched uranium for an equivalent quantity of low enriched uranium or of low enriched uranium for natural uranium would constitute a reduction in quality. The approval of the Australian Safeguards Office would be required for any exception to this and no such approval has ever been either sought or given. The practice of exchanging safeguards obligations on equivalent quantities of low enriched uranium, to which the first allegation refers, does not, therefore, constitute a breach of the Australia/Euratom Safeguards Agreement, provided the above conditions are met. In the example of an obligation exchange which has been brought to our attention by Der Spiegel and others, there was no breach because these conditions were met. The second allegation, that Euratom set out with Nukem to circumvent safeguards controls on Australian uranium, in particular the need for prior consent for enrichment beyond 20 per cent, is based on the particular transaction which is documented in correspondence between Nukem and Euratom. The evidence available to the Government indicates that Euratom's approval of this transaction was consistent with the terms of the Australia/Euratom Safeguards Agreement. Indeed, the correspondence between Euratom and Nukem indicates that the Euratom Safeguards Directorate, by insisting on Nukem submitting a full and formal application before an exchange of obligations could be considered for approval, was concerned to ensure that Euratom's safeguards obligations to its treaty partners were observed. The net result of the exchange was that, while an amount of nuclear material became subject to United States obligations and, therefore did not require the consent of Australia for enrichment beyond 20 per cent, an equivalent amount of nuclear material remained subject to Australian safeguards obligations. Clearly, the Euratom Safeguards Directorate adopted a rigorous approach in dealing with the Nukem request. This contrasts with the reported attitude of the apparently ill-informed officer in the Euratom Supply Agency-that is, the Community's uranium buying agency-who, having no responsibility or authority for safeguard implementation, is nevertheless quoted in one of the internal Nukem documents as having advised Nukem on how obligation exchanges could take place. The third allegation-Der Spiegel's mention of Australia refusing to accept the concept of changing labels-refers not to obligation exchanges within the European Community that is Euratom's jurisdiction, but to exchanges of obligations on equivalent quantities of nuclear material located in different countries with different safeguards jurisdictions. If Australian obligated uranium were to be involved in what are known as international flag swaps, this would amount to a transfer of Australian origin nuclear material from Euratom's jurisdiction to another country. Australian consent would then be required. Australia has not given its consent for any international flag swaps and no Australian origin nuclear material has been involved in any international flag swaps. The conditions under which Australian consent could be given are still the subject of discussion between Australia and Euratom. In relation to the fourth allegation, South African-Namibian uranium is not under embargo in the European Community. Euratom can thus buy, process and use South African and Namibian uranium and, within its jurisdiction, it can exchange South African or Namibian obligations with other national obligations, provided this is done in accordance with the terms of the relevant bilateral safeguards agreements. It cannot, however, as I have said, approve an exchange of obligations between jurisdictions-that is, an international flag swap-involving Australian origin nuclear material without the consent of the Australian Government. The Government has long suspected, and the two Euratom Supply Agency documents lend credence to this view, that the promoters of international flag swapping are partly driven by a desire to circumvent restrictions on South African and Namibian uranium. This is not to deny that there can be sound commercial and non-proliferation reasons for an international flag swap. The Government has made it very clear to Euratom in discussions which have taken place on this issue that its consent would not be given to any international flag swap involving South African or Namibian nuclear material. The final allegation that Euratom has swapped Australian nuclear material with phantom material has not been substantiated. We have raised this allegation with Nukem and have checked it with the Austrian authorities, who have assured us that the material in question was in no way fictitious. It was in the form of pieces of fuel pellets remaining after the fabrication of fuel for an Austrian reactor. This material was physically located in Hanau in the Federal Republic of Germany and was available for Austrian use until its sale to Nukem in 1986. It is misleading to describe this material as nuclear waste, as some have done, because it was valuable nuclear material fully available for reuse as feed material for fuel fabrication and was equivalent to the other quantity of material involved in the obligation exchange. In conclusion, on the basis of the investigations that have been made and the information available to the Government, there is no evidence that any material subject to Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements has been diverted from peaceful use, or that Australia's safeguards requirements have been breached. The Government will of course continue to monitor the operation of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, in light of commercial and international developments in the nuclear fuel cycle, to ensure that Australian obligated nuclear material remains in peaceful use and Australian safeguards conditions continue to be observed. I table my statement. Mr SMITH(Bass) —by leave-This matter is important and I thank the House for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We have watched this matter with keen interest and the outcome of the investigation by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is one that we would welcome. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to have a look at his statement prior to Question Time. Uranium is, as we know, a very special metal in that it contains fissile atoms and this fact makes its use demanding of the most stringent safeguards. Mr Justice Fox, in his very first report back in 1976, considered submissions relating to the risks and disadvantages associated with the various operations of the nuclear power industry and the possible diversion of enriched uranium-plutonium-for weapons. This report, of course, was initiated by the Fraser Government. That first report canvassed extensively such things as the basics of nuclear power, world energy requirements, safeguards against diversion to weapons making and the weaknesses of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and safeguards systems. The recommendations were, in total, to proceed with mining upon the assurance of a properly regulated and controlled industry. The commissioners said: Export should be subject to the fullest and most effective safeguards agreements, and be supported by fully adequate back-up agreements applying to the entire civil nuclear industry in the country supplied. On safeguards particularly, Mr Justice Fox had two interesting and important things to say, keeping in mind, of course, that these things were said in 1976. I again quote: Australian uranium should not be retransferred by a recipient state to a third state under conditions less stringent than those imposed by Australia on the first recipient state. Means are available for imposing safeguards on retransfers. The Commission believes that a clause in the treaty with the original recipient state prohibiting retransfer without Australian approval would be the most satisfactory solution. He went on: Accounting procedures are the principal means of determining whether nuclear material has been diverted from safeguarded facilities. Existing accounting procedures are not sufficiently accurate to provide adequate assurance that diversion of fissile material would be detected. The technical and administrative procedures for detection and confirmation are so involved that they would not provide a warning in time for the international community to do anything about a violation. We must bear in mind that that was in 1976. With that in mind, the Australian Government proceeded to put in place Australia's commitment to safeguards. Again, that was an initiative of the Fraser Government. It was recognised in the Government's response to the Fox report by the then Minister, Minister Newman-the former member for Bass-when he said in the House of Representatives on 11 November 1976: In particular the Government strongly supports the inquiry's view on the need for the fullest and most effective safeguards on uranium exports and the strict regulation and control of uranium mining and milling. . . . The Government believes that a strong national safeguards policy for uranium exports should be complemented, at the international level, by Australia continuing to contribute actively to constructive multilateral efforts to strengthen safeguards and restraints on nuclear weapons proliferation. . . . The Government will now be carrying forward more detailed consideration of safeguards in order to further develop Australia's national policy on the safeguards to apply to any future contracts for uranium exports. Subsequent to the Government taking that decision, those negotiations were entered into, led by the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). They were the genesis, if you like, of Australia's present system of safeguards, administered, as it is, through the Australian Safeguards Office. The Australian Safeguards Office grew out of those commitments. It is interesting to look even further back to the 1950s when the Australian Government was one of the eight parties that drew up the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I have detailed our history because I think it is important to keep in mind that there has been a very strong bipartisan support for the development of comprehensive safeguards and that has been the case for some considerable time. It needs to be kept in mind in the context of these allegations. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 saw the development of the NPT safeguards system. As I have said, Australia has embraced strongly all activities of the Agency and its vital safeguard role. Indeed, we were there at the start and are one of its strongest supporters. History shows that. Again today the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has committed this Government to that course of action. Safeguards application and development are a complex and crucial activity. It requires continuing innovation in systems, structures and hardware. It is an ever-changing mosaic. However, it was interesting to hear the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in a major speech on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He said: . . . the IAEA has proved equal to the task and has provided the assurance required of it by the international community: that nuclear materials have not been diverted to military or explosive use. Indeed, the Foreign Minister's speech was most instructive. He also said: Uranium production has continued to expand and Australia values its reputation as a responsible, reliable supplier under long-term contracts. There was no hint in his speech of September last year of wanting to stop uranium exports. There was no `leave it in the ground' injunction. In September he was clearly of the view that the safeguards system was working. These allegations raise questions as to whether or not they were working. Also of some importance to the current allegations as they involve South Africa and international flag swapping (IFS) is the Minister's comment on that point. Whilst he condemned South Africa for apartheid, he also said: . . . it does not serve the common interests which brought us together as members of this institution, to allow political views to disrupt its activities. We could not agree more. One suspects that the allegations which, rightly, have been investigated thoroughly have more to do with politics-the politics of an anti-uranium clique in the Australian Labor Party (ALP), combined with a `hit South Africa at any price' mentality. The debate has, in a sense, been hijacked by the less rational elements of our Parliament-those who come to the issue with very fixed views, no doubt genuinely held but predicated on the very basic desired outcome of `no more mining'. Cynicism leads me to wonder whether or not this whole matter is not a skirmish before the ALP National conference, where uranium is to be the hot topic for debate. The safeguards regime is not at fault. Like any complex system it can always be improved, but if there is a problem it is in the administration of the system. Clearly, that is the Government's responsibility. We did not let uranium mining proceed without adopting the most stringent application of safeguards. The Labor Party confusion has no doubt led to a major disorientation of the whole nuclear industry. What does the Government really want? Who are we to listen to? Many conflicting views have been put forward. Senator Cook, not long after he was appointed Minister for Resources, indicated his personal aversion to any uranium mining. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who has been making some of these allegations, is also on the record. Then we have the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, who has just spoken, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who only last September endorsed the safeguards procedure and did not have any objection to the continuation of uranium mining. Then, of course, we have the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Slatyer review in 1983 by the Australian Science and Technology Council of Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle re-endorsed the Fox recommendations and gave the go-ahead for Australia to proceed provided safeguards were adopted. This side of the House wants any problems to be fixed. Let there be no doubt about that. It is a fundamental precondition to a continuation of our uranium industry. Anything less means a cover-up by this Government to put to bed any controversy prior to the National Conference. If we see, after the conference, any move to improve or vary safeguards we will have something very strong to say about it, for it will then be obvious that the Labor Party is but playing politics with safeguards. If there is anything wrong, if there can be improvements, they must happen now. The Minister's statement was an opportunity to identify and address them. Safeguards issues ought to be above politics. The political debate is about whether to mine or not to mine. That is not what we are here to debate or discuss today. We are discussing safeguards and particular allegations which have proved to be unfounded. This issue is about safeguards. What is important now is that the stringent adherence we adopted in the past for safeguards is being administered in the best possible way. I now turn to the Minister's response. All honourable members would have expected nothing less than a full and thorough examination of these allegations. From the statement and the detailed treatment it gives to each allegation, in my view, this has been done as far as we are able to ascertain. This examination has found that the allegations are not able to be substantiated. Indeed, the Minister said: These allegations appear to flow from a lack of understanding of the complexities of international trade in nuclear material, confusion between internal and international flag swaps and in particular failure to understand the equivalence principle used in nuclear materials accounting. That may be a charitable statement. As I said earlier, some cynicism ought to be permitted. In the allegations some embellishment to sensationalise the issue has taken place and that is to be regretted. These issues are too important to be treated in such a cavalier fashion. The Minister's statement concludes that no Australian uranium or AONM-that is, Australian origin nuclear material-has been diverted from peaceful use. That has been the position for 25 years. One would expect that, as a basic minimum, a continued monitoring will take place to ensure that Australian safeguards conditions continue to be observed. Perhaps the Minister ought to be more specific. Does this episode require any new initiatives? What are the views of Dr Blix of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is in Canberra today? A strong endorsement from the IAEA about the findings of the Minister's examination would be of interest to us all. I am sure that the Agency has followed this issue and these allegations extremely carefully. The allegation regarding South African uranium-that there is an international flag swap to launder that country's product-is not proved so far as it relates to Australian uranium. Indeed, such an exchange requires the consent of the Australian Government. No such consent has been given. However, the Government does acknowledge that the conditions under which Australian consent could be given to an IFS are still the subject of discussion between Australia and Euratom. As this issue is, I believe, the subject of such scrutiny, the Minister should keep the Parliament apprised of developments on this point. I seek his undertaking and that of the Government to so do. Australia has a proud record of safeguards compliance. We want that record to continue. As I said, we wish for the continuance of a stringent adherence to safeguards and for it to be administered in the best way possible. I think the Australian Safeguards Office is doing a good job, but perhaps the Minister ought to be looking more carefully at the need for more inspectors. These allegations, now found to be unsubstantiated, have done nothing to further sensible debate on uranium issues. The Government has problems with uranium; we all know that. The confusion and controversy generated by the Government's internal debates is in no small part the cause for these allegations receiving such widespread currency. One hopes that this is now the end of the matter and that we can get on with developing our uranium industry in the knowledge that our safeguards system works as well as it is possibly able to do, given the continuing necessity for review and assessment. We ought not forget that uranium as an energy source is here to stay. Its use will grow as oil declines and also as other energy sources such as coal become environmentally less attractive due to factors such as the greenhouse effect. We simply must learn to live with the reality and to do so in a sensible and rational manner. It is really now up to the Government to develop within its own areas some sensible and rational debate on uranium matters because these allegations are totally unfounded, as we have been advised by the Government, and we have no reason whatsoever to find any want with the report that has been given by the Minister today. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Dr Klugman be appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Leo McLeay be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Publications and that in his place Mr Sawford be appointed a member of the Committee. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Ian Robinson be appointed a member of the Library Committee. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and I would like to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Please proceed. Mr MILTON —Unfortunately I was not able to make a statement about the safeguards statement made by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) but the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) made some remarks about me. He mentioned me by name. He said, `This is an internal matter, a problem in the Australian Labor Party'. He said that the allegations-and I was one of the people who made the allegations-were made in a cavalier fashion. He also talked about embellishments. I point out to the House that those claims are entirely untrue. I made the allegations because I was worried that Australian uranium was being diverted from nuclear energy purposes to nuclear weapons purposes. I hope that I will have the chance at some stage in this House to explain my reasons and my continuing concern. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Wright to be a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in place of Mr Johns, and Mr Price to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in place of Mr Leo McLeay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a message from the Senate concurring in subparagraph 2 (b) of the resolution of the House relating to the powers of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure and agreeing that the provisions of the resolution have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Madam Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, Madam Speaker has selected the matter which is the more urgent and important, that is, that proposal by the honourable member for Mackellar, namely: The damage being caused to Australia's higher education system by the Hawke Government's corporate state approach to our universities and colleges. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.25) —I draw the attention of honourable members to the very grave concerns being expressed within the higher education community about the proposals being put forward by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) regarding changes in the funding and organisational structure of higher education in Australia. I want to make it perfectly clear from the outset that the Opposition shares with the Minister a desire to bring about a much more effective, efficient and flexible institutional structure within higher education to produce a system of higher education which will meet Australia's economic, social and cultural needs better than the current system. In that we are in agreement with the Minister. We welcome his Green Paper and the fact that he is promoting quite substantial discussion within the higher education community and beyond on these issues. The real concerns to which I draw the House's attention relate more to some of the methods that the Minister is using in approaching this subject, and also some concern that he and his advisers do not fully understand in many respects the true role of higher education in Australia. I would like to go through some of the concerns of people in higher education as expressed directly to me in countless meetings, visits and interviews, and also by examining the various submissions that have been made to the Minister in response to his Green Paper. Most of the submissions the Minister has received begin with the kind of welcoming statement I made at the beginning of my speech. In other words, they quite correctly welcome the fact that the Minister has put this subject on the table. They also draw attention to what they see as the good points in the Minister's Green Paper, but they all, pretty well without exception, go on to raise very serious reservations about quite fundamental aspects of the Green Paper and of the Minister's basic intentions. It seems that the Minister or his advisers have seen each of these responses come in one by one. The Minister has seen the congratulatory remarks in the first paragraph and has duly issued Press statements in response to each, welcoming the great support given by this body or that to the Minister's proposals. I am sure he and his advisers have read beyond the first paragraph, or at least his Department, having been overwhelmed by these responses, will be getting around to it. But if we look at the underbelly of each of these submissions and take into account the polite academic language in which many of them are written, we will see the very deep concerns about the underlying basis of the Minister's proposals. The first concern to which I draw attention is the proposed change in the method of funding higher education. We have had over recent years-this goes back starting with the Menzies Government and beyond when the Federal Government took an interest in the funding of higher education, through successive governments-a situation where the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, or its predecessor bodies, has looked closely at the needs of the various institutions, listened to all their submissions and listened to a great deal of public argument and has finally put up a public report to the Government giving its recommendations for the forthcoming triennium of higher education funding. The Government has been obliged to respond to that report from the Tertiary Education Commission and if it deviates from any of its recommendations if it disagrees with them, it has been obliged to give its reasons publicly, so that at least those who receive Government funds will understand why the people responsible for giving out taxpayers money have made the decisions that they have. Of course, the Government is perfectly entitled to have views about the way in which public funds are expended in these matters. It must also have due regard for the true role of universities, institutes and colleges in our society. If its reasons are made public and given in response to a publicly argued case, most people can, if not satisfied, at least realise the reasons for what has been done. What the Minister is proposing in the Green Paper is a major departure from that process. What he is suggesting is that each of the 65 institutions in higher education in Australia-if as many as that remain after amalgamations-will be asked by the Department to draw up what it calls an educational profile. Each institution will be obliged to negotiate, not with any publicly set up body or in any public argument, but with departmental officers, for the funding it is to receive on the basis of an educational profile to be approved by the Department. So there is to be a change in procedure and, instead of a public process, each institution will be competing behind closed doors with each other institution essentially for departmental favours, and that is a very worrying prospect. The whole proposal is clothed in language designed to give the institutions the impression that they will have a great deal more flexibility and a great deal more control over their own affairs. The institutions at all levels-universities, colleges-are expressing to me very great concerns as to whether the educational profile itself will emerge in a way that is totally satisfactory to them. After all-I remind the House-all the cards in this negotiation will be held by the departmental officers and the Minister. They hold the funds, and the institutions are reliant on them under our present system for pretty well 100 per cent of their funds. They do not get much from anywhere else. They are frightened also that in the negotiating process the Minister or his officers could have an agenda that is slightly different from the obvious agenda in the written documentation. In other words, if a vice-chancellor, director or principal of a college goes in with a draft educational profile to meet with the Minister's officers, how will he know how he is going to fare vis-a-vis other people negotiating, again behind closed doors, without his knowledge? How will he be certain that what is written on the piece of paper will be the real profile, the real basis of judgment of those officials? Also, will those who are in the institutions themselves have real confidence that their own negotiators, their own vice-chancellors, their own directors and principals, will represent their interests and the interests of their institutions, when engaged in those behind closed doors negotiations? So people are very concerned about this proposed change. They are also very concerned about the mention in the Green Paper of the use of performance indicators as a basis for giving out funding for higher education. The Green Paper mentions, for example, the number of graduates processed by an institution as a performance indicator. Again, only a moment's consideration will make people very concerned that some institutions could quite easily increase the percentage of students graduating merely by lowering standards. That can be done very subtly. It does not have to be done in any obvious way. It only needs to be shaded by one or two per cent. Some institutions could be meeting these performance indicators better than others, yet the performance indicator would have absolutely no relationship to the thing everybody is worried about, which is the true quality of education. That is a matter of real concern, though the Green Paper has a number of admirable objectives. It canvasses a whole lot of alternatives, many of which should have been considered by the institutions themselves, but when it gets down to the heart of the negotiating process-as to how the funds for each institution will be determined-there is the danger that that will be determined on a basis that is not in the true long term interests of those institutions. Also, the discussion forums that people could go to previously-the Tertiary Education Commission and its various councils-had a capacity to initiate inquiries and to publish the results of those inquiries, without obtaining the Minister's approval. Here we come to the umbrella view put forward by the Minister in the Green Paper, which is essentially another version of the Labor Party corporate state. In the Minister's proposals we are replacing open inquiries and open discussion with a new body called a National Board of Employment, Education and Training, which will report directly to the Minister. One would normally assume that such a body would have on it a majority of people who were directly involved day by day with the educational process. But when one examines the structure that has already been put up by the Minister, which he is already beginning to implement, one sees that the National Board has on it a majority of people who will spend most of their time in Canberra-trade union representatives and business representatives. I have no quarrel with having public service or Canberra representatives and business and trade union representatives on such a body, but I totally disagree with those people being the majority of those who will advise the Minister. Admittedly there will be reporting to the National Board some advisory councils in each of the various sectors, but those advisory councils-unlike the bodies they replace-will have no independent capacity to carry on research into the areas of concern to them, nor will they have a right to publish independently results of inquiries. They may only look into matters referred to them by the national board or the Minister and they will not be able to publish anything except through the National Board and the Minister. It is understandable that people in higher education-and also, I might say, in schools, though they are not the subject of this debate-are concerned that their access to an open forum has been denied, and their capacity to raise subjects of which the Minister or the National Board might disapprove has been taken away. I wish to express considerable concern about the fact that the Minister has proceeded with this corporatist approach. In fact, he has gone out through his Department and other helpers to approach 50 or so people in the community to fill the positions on this National Board and its advisory bodies before any legislation has been seen by this Parliament. The Minister made an announcement before Christmas as to the structure of this body and announced interim appointments, but I tell the House that the Minister is taking a grave risk in approaching some 50 high level people to fill positions on a body that does not exist. In his haste to abolish the independent advisory councils in education and to replace them with what I call his tame cat structure he is approaching people to join his National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its advisory councils before the enabling legislation has even reached the Parliament. Potential appointees should be warned that it is most unlikely that this legislation will pass through this Parliaments without significant amendment. There is widespread concern throughout the education community over the proposed composition of the board, and over the gagging of its advisory councils. The Opposition will closely examine the legislation and, if it does not measure up, we will seek to amend it. Given the nature of the concerns expressed by countless interest groups, it is unlikely that the Senate as a whole will pass the legislation without substantial amendment. So I believe it is reckless of the Minister and unfair to the potential appointees for him to proceed as far as he has without parliamentary sanction. In my view, it also demonstrates a contempt for the role of this Parliament. There are many other areas where the Minister is proceeding in a way that is quite unnecessarily causing concern to the institutions. May I refer in the remaining moments to just one area, and that is amalgamation. The Green Paper has proposals for amalgamation of institutions which are not based on any agreed principles of organisation, and I claim to know something about the principles and practice of large-scale organisation from previous work I have undertaken. There are very good institutions currently threatened with amalgamation in a way that would destroy their basic role and purpose. The other day I visited the Ballarat College of Advanced Education, which is threatened with amalgamation with other universities and colleges. The very links that that excellent body has built up with its own community are threatened by that proposal, for no good purpose other than a cold formula in the Minister's Green Paper. That is a corporatist approach as it applies out at the grass roots. It is ignoring people. The Green Paper, overall, is rightly attracting criticism because at heart it is a paper about structures and mechanisms but not ultimately about the people who have to be served by the higher education system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(3.40) —I perhaps should forbear from any savage criticism of the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), but I will just make a few comments in passing. In the time he has been the shadow Minister, which is some nine months, he has asked one question in this Parliament and, from what I can gather, has issued four Press statements on matters of concern to this portfolio. At a time when there is one of the most intense debates going on, certainly within higher education policy and in other areas of education policy, not only does the Opposition not have a policy but, until very recently, it did not even intend to review the ramshackle policy with which it went to the last election. It is only as a result of the intrusion of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia that this shadow Minister has discovered, on the instructions of that outside body, that it is time for him to engage in some policy review. I welcome that, but I suspect that this flurry of activity has more to do with the tenuous nature of his hold on the front bench of the Opposition. If we look at the letterhead on which he wrote to the Speaker, suggesting this matter of public importance, we will see that he has not reprinted it since he was shadow Treasurer. There was just a line drawn through shadow Treasurer-- Mr Carlton —Saving taxpayers' money. Mr DAWKINS —There are two possible explanations for this. Mr Porter —Is this the best you can do? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! Mr Porter —You are supposed to be responsible for education. Get on with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr DAWKINS —One is that he has delusions about returning to the position of shadow Treasurer and wants to be able to save this paper for later use. Alternatively, I suspect that it is because he realises that he will be dumped from the front bench and therefore is awaiting any reprint until that process has taken place. Mr Carlton —Is this the best you can do? It is pathetic. Get on with it. Mr DAWKINS —No, I am just saying that this is the first time there has been any substantial contribution to this debate by the Opposition. That is a great shame. But I welcome this contribution and I am perfectly happy to respond to many of the points which the shadow Minister has raised. It is important to understand that what lies at the basis of our proposals is substantial growth within the higher education system. That is a bit of a novelty to anyone in the Liberal Party because if we look at the last four years of the Fraser Government and compare that with the first four years of our Government we find that in relation to higher education expenditure there was a reduction of $66m during the last four years of the Liberal Government, whereas during our period there was an increase of $194m in the equivalent four-year period. If we look at enrolments in higher education we find that during that Government's last four years there was an increase of some 15,000 while during our first four years there has been an increase of some 46,000. We are concerned about ensuring that there are more opportunities for young people particularly, but for people of all age groups, to enter our higher education system. We cannot sustain the position of queues outside our universities and colleges of anywhere between 30 and 20,000 people, people who are qualified to enter but for whom at the moment there is no room. In trying to support a program of very substantial growth, it is necessary for me not just to respond to the concerns of the people in the institutions-which I am doing, have done systematically and will continue to do-but to other constituencies which have interests in this whole matter. If we are to have substantial growth, more money will be needed to be raised and expended on higher education. The people who contribute through their taxes and contributions have a legitimate right to be informed and convinced that the money that is being spent in the higher education system is being well spent, as well spent as possible. There is also a need for the people who are going to employ the graduates to be convinced that what is happening within those higher education institutions is appropriate to the nation's circumstances, in relation not only to fiscal policy but also to providing the kinds of well educated people that the economy, industry and other employers need within the system. There are the parents and students as well who have a clear interest. So this is not just a matter of trying to bring about a policy change which will be totally approved by those people who work within the institutions. In fact, overwhelmingly of the people I have spoken to, there is a very great appreciation of the fact that the Government is tackling some of the many serious issues which have bedevilled their lives for a long time. They want to have a greater say in the way their institution is run. That is what we are intending to give them. Although the shadow Minister attempts to say that this is just a wild cover-up for greater political interference in the affairs of institutions, nothing could be further from the truth. That will become increasingly clear as we move towards the production of the White Paper, our definite policy statement. It is important to remember that this Green Paper is just that; it is some proposals from the Government, proposals which are to be taken seriously but which we want to be the foundation of a widespread debate. The point I have been making to contributors within that debate is that it is not enough simply to welcome the broad thrust of the Green Paper and then pick and choose bits and pieces out of it. I am not saying that the whole lot must be accepted but if there are areas of difficulty and objection I would like to have some alternative proposals to put in their place, not just an approach which leaves the overall policy somewhat potholed as a result of people wanting to exclude certain parts of it. I will come to some of the specific points the honourable member has made. Before addressing these questions let me say that not all the submissions are in. We invited submissions until about the end of this month. There obviously needs to be a process of examining those submissions before the Government moves to a final position on some of these questions. I will be having very many more discussions with representatives of the institutions and others in the community as well. Concerning funding and profiles, those profiles will be prepared and constructed by the institutions. In a broad sense, they will describe in the first instance what institutions are doing now and what they would like to be doing in the future. Of course, they would like to be funded for those activities now and in the future. This proposal did not come out of the top of my head. It has been discussed for some time around the system. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) was moving towards a process of developing educational profiles. With that in mind I have invited Professor Karmel-and he has accepted-to give us some greater detail about what might be in those profiles and how they might be negotiated. I want to make it perfectly clear to the honourable member that it is not proposed that those profiles would simply be a tool for negotiations between the institutions and faceless bureaucrats in the Department, but rather the Higher Education Council and certainly its chairperson, who will be drawn from the system, will be actively involved in that process of discussion. Whilst the shadow Minister tried to paint a picture of what has happened in the past, it is important to remember that any government always sent guidelines to CTEC telling it what the government wanted in relation to developments within higher education. CTEC would then come back with recommendations which the government would or would not choose to accept. Always in those reports there was the adoption of general plans; preferences were expressed for certain areas of development and institutions were intended to respond to that. Of course, what has happened so often is that broad principles have been applied in such a way as not to allow institutions to respond to changing circumstances as well as they may. Indeed, if we consider the way in which institutions have changed, we must conclude that they have not changed very much over the past couple of decades. When there have been enormous changes within the economy, when there has been substantial growth overall within the higher education system, if we consider the composition of higher education courses we see that there has been very few changes except those that have been forced on the system by Commonwealth Government decisions. For instance, the move from teacher education to business education is one clear example. That was a government directive. Therefore, it is a bit of a myth to suggest that governments have been disinterested in this area or have not given instructions as to how the situation should develop in the future. We want to ensure that the autonomy of institutions is reinforced and that institutions are encouraged to make the kinds of decisions about their future that they should make. I believe there have been difficulties in terms of the capacity of institutions to make decisions, and we have made proposals as to how they might improve the decision making process and determine priorities within institutions. By and large, there has been a favourable response, at least to the idea that institutions should be allowed to make decisions. How crazy it was that decisions on minor works and equipment grants, often involving a few thousand dollars, had to be approved by CTEC. Of course, all that is changing and institutions will have a much greater say in their budgets. We really want to encourage institutions to pursue areas of particular excellence rather than try to do a little of everything, some of it very well and some of it perhaps not quite so well. Institutions must be encouraged in these circumstances to develop their areas of excellence in both scholarship and research, and I believe that that will occur. We say clearly that any crude use of performance indicators would be a mistake, but we also say that we are interested in ideas from the sector as to what performance indicators we might use. The response of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee to that suggestion has been quite positive. I believe that over the next few years we will be able to develop some more useful indicators that will improve teaching. There is much criticism of the standard of teaching in some areas of higher education and of the fact that our graduation rate is still only 60 per cent. That is, only 60 per cent of highly qualified people who enter higher education actually complete the course. That is something worth examining. That is not to say that we should lower the pass mark to improve the graduation rate; rather we should consider the quality aspects. The existing funding arrangements encourage institutions to take the maximum number of people in first year and fail those whom the institution believes will not succeed to the end, so that the numbers in second and third year, where the costs are higher, are as low as possible. We want to remove the incentive for such a high failure rate at the end of first year, which has produced an artificial situation. I refer now to the National Board. This is really the first opportunity I have had to hear the shadow Minister's views on the National Board. I would be perfectly happy to discuss with him those aspects of the proposals that are of concern to him. These proposals have been out since last December or before, but this is the first I have heard-- Mr Carlton —You don't read my Press releases. Mr DAWKINS —There have been only four of them. Mr Carlton —Rubbish! You just have not seen them. Mr DAWKINS —I have. I have them here. Mr Carlton —How many members are on the National Board? Mr DAWKINS —They are not about the detail. If the honourable member wants to talk about some of the detailed principles, I would be happy to discuss them with him. I make the offer now to discuss the draft Bill and some of these matters. The honourable member cannot, on the one hand, say that because I am closing CTEC I am denying a proper forum and, on the other hand, criticise me for taking initial steps to ensure that the National Board which will replace CTEC and the other bodies is up and running as soon as possible. The other point I want to make is that the membership of the Higher Education Council will be drawn broadly from the sector. The Council will continue, as CTEC was in the past, to be the main source of advice to the Government on higher education policy. In addition, it will be the main vehicle through which profiles are negotiated. I want to make very clear that we intend to have people from the sector involved in those negotiations from our point of view. Another point I want to make relates to this business about the board being composed entirely of people who know nothing about education. While the membership has not been fully finalised, it is likely that the majority of members will be drawn from the education sector. I believe that other people have a legitimate interest in these areas. People from business, unions and representatives of the community have a clear interest in the development of employment, education and training policy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(3.56) —My time is very limited today, so I cannot respond to all the points the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) raised. However, I note that he spent the first three minutes, or about 20 per cent of his time, in a personal attack on the shadow Minister for education, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). A couple of his comments should be replied to. The Minister claimed that the contribution of the shadow Minister in this debate was the first he had heard from the shadow Minister on this matter. The Minister scathingly alleged that the shadow Minister had issued only four Press releases. I take a very close interest in the statements of the shadow Minister for education and I can say that the Minister's comment is absolutely untrue. If the Minister can stand here with a straight face and tell the Parliament that, his real problem is his own staff. He might check the number of speeches the shadow Minister has made on this subject, the detailed Press releases he has issued and the very substantial contribution he has made to the debate, given that the Green Paper was released only in mid-December last year, at the end of the parliamentary session. Effectively, there have been very few opportunities for anyone to debate the subject in Parliament. If what the Minister has just said is his prescription for higher education, it would seem that rather than the client getting a sugar-coated pill he will get all sugar and no remedy. The Minister can very easily stand here for 15 minutes and paint his projects in the most glowing terms. He has more to answer for than just the speech he made today on this matter of public importance. He has now made many statements, given many interviews to the Press, and made many speeches on how he perceives the future of tertiary education in particular in this country. Those statements and thoughts of the Minister have properly raised a considerable degree of concern and, in many cases, actual alarm about how he perceives the role of tertiary education in Australia. Some acknowledged experts on the subject have given the Minister a severe public caning over his views. Not all are sanguine about what the Minister aims for. The Green Paper has earned some proper praise, including praise from the shadow Minister for education, but it has also earned a number of cautions. It was Will Rogers, the American humorist, who said, `Everyone is ignorant, but on different subjects'. It is the misfortune of tertiary education in Australia that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training demonstrates some ignorance about significant areas of his Ministry-tertiary education and research. He has been taken to task on this subject by a number of very learned people, who have pointed out to him in words of one syllable how pure research fits with applied research. It seems that the Minister is very heavily influenced by his background as Minister for Trade and see output simply in terms of machinery exported and money directly earned. He does not demonstrate in his utterances a thorough appreciation of broadbased education and the interrelated aspect of a number of areas of research. Indeed, he shows no appreciation at all, that I am aware of, of pure research for its own sake-that research which does not have an immediately recognisable application to a machine or a medicine or something tangible. The Minister's ignorance reflects itself in a distrust of tertiary institutions and in his proposals as to how funding might be allocated in the future. This combination of mistrust and ignorance has led to the potential for an authoritarian and intrusive approach to the structure and funding of tertiary education in this country. Some of those implications have been described by the shadow Minister for education today. I want to put the central issue: what is the Government's proper role in the determination of the content of teaching and research in tertiary institutions? I also support the concern expressed by the Opposition as the damage being done to Australia's higher education system by the Hawke Government's approach to tertiary institutions. Government plays a role through funding and decision making structures. As they have been affected by the Hawke Government, those structures have been shaken in their ability to contribute to the public debate on education. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training, claims that he welcomes such debate and considers it to be necessary. He says he believes that tertiary institutions should take heed of the concern that is expressed publicly. However, the Minister does not want the public to know of concern that is being expressed to the Government by our tertiary institutions. It has already abolished the public reporting function of education councils and commissions. Such reports were critical of governments, including the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government. The Hawke Government has taken the view, `If you don't like the message, gag the messengers. Don't allow anybody to hear what they have to say.' The Government instead aims to elevate the role of government departments. I agree that departments have a contribution to make but not in the public arena; nor should they. The advice they give to the Minister is confidential and individuals who give that advice are never subjected to any personal scrutiny of their views. The Government's proposal to establish the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) is hardly what the Minister has just claimed to be the objective of the Government. It will hardly be a foundation of widespread debate. I point out that the shadow Minister did not say that the members of NBEET would know nothing about education, but that large areas of interest in education will not have their views represented on NBEET. On the other hand, as part of the corporatist approach to the structure of this critical advisory group, of the 12 members of NBEET there will be four public servants, two representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and two representatives of big business. Only the other four members will have the opportunity to counter the corporate state. They will include two education or training providers, only one of whom will represent the professionals at the coalface of tertiary education. The two other so-called independent members are as independent as their appointment by the Minister will allow them to be. This Government has changed methods of advice on funding and structures in order to meet narrow objectives which could be inimical to the flourishing of independent thought and research, and that is the concern that many tertiary educators are expressing today. The Minister does all this in the name of the national interest, but it seems that he confuses the national interest with the Government's interest. They are not necessarily synonymous. Tertiary institutions do not exist to benefit the government of the day, although their activities benefit the nation and humanity. I give a parallel of what could have happened in the past but did not, versus the potential in the future. When the Menzies Government decided in the 1950s to get this nation `off the sheep's back'-in other words, to reduce our reliance on agricultural exports and to expand our manufacturing capacity-it did not do it by interfering in any way with the research capacity of the agricultural sector. It encouraged the development of manufacturing industry and, to a large extent, it was successful in its objectives of reducing our reliance on imports of manufactured goods and of varying our export base. However, agriculture was allowed to proceed unabated and large amounts of effort and money went into agricultural research. Australian agriculture became even more efficient; so today our agricultural products remain vital elements in our well-being, both in export earnings and also in keeping down the cost of food-one of the factors that enable us to enjoy our high standard of living. I contrast that with the alternative that many perceive this Minister to be putting; that is, if he deems that research into technology and applied technology must be encouraged, the risk is that funding will be swung away from other areas. Someone could say that, because we have the most efficient agricultural industries in the world, we can go easy on them for a while; we can divert funding. It was only today in Question Time that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) admitted that, in the past five years under the Hawke Government, funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has declined. That has had an effect on agricultural research funding. The implications are vast for a wide range of industries and productive areas of the economy when, for example, a geneticist works in a pure science laboratory. Such people do not have to be plant geneticists for the secrets of the nature of genes and chromosomes that they unlock to have implications and benefits for agriculture and other areas. Politicians have a right to play a role through contributing to informed public debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(4.06) —I point out that the Hawke Labor Government, rather than causing damage to the higher education system in Australia, has set higher education on a path that will mean that the interests of the nation and of our young people will be served. Their needs will be met, for the best part. One would expect that the Opposition would oppose any changes to the higher education system in this country. For too long higher education has been the path down which the privileged and the rich have found a role in society. However, the Opposition has failed to meet the needs of technology and change, and the needs of industry and business, within our community. So it is that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has moved along the course that was set in 1983 when the Hawke Government came to power. We are now looking at a major overhaul of higher education in this country through the processes of the Green Paper. The Green Paper looks at change through a process of consultation and I was amazed to hear the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) discuss the fact that so few people have been part of the consultations. As a member of the Labor Party education committee and as a member of parliament, I know that there have been wide ranging consultations, certainly on my part, with parents, students, educators, academics, business people and others concerned about the direction and the cost of higher education. The cost which must be met by the taxpayer is not just in dollar terms. There is also a hidden cost to the community when so many of our talented young people are unable to find places in higher education institutions. As a result, much of our industry and business is unable to develop and expand because we lack the kind of skills that are necessary to take Australia into the twenty-first century. The public discussions and very wide ranging consultations that have occurred under the auspices of the Green Paper have resulted in the people who run the institutions, the people who have access to them and the students who attend them having an input into what is happening. I am also interested that there is concern about the change in funding. Of course, there would be. The Green Paper proposes to put an end to the binary system which imposes inequity and inequality. Under that system, some institutions are perceived as being better and more prestigious and, therefore, worthy of more money. Some people are treated as second rate. In other words, some people can go into the members' stand while others stand in the outer. In the Australia of 1988, such inequities and inequalities cannot be allowed to continue. The institutions that are currently funded as second rate have embraced the Green Paper with joy because they see it as a way in which they will be treated equally and funded fairly. They will be recognised within the community as offering meaningful education which will take Australia into the twenty-first century. So institutions such as the Queensland Institute of Technology and others which have been meeting the needs of business and industry for too long will now be recognised institutionally by the Government and by funding processes as doing the kind of first rate job which they are doing instead of being funded in a second rate manner. As well as that, funding will be done through educational profiles. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), seems to suggest there is something sinister about educational profiles. What, pray tell, is sinister about suggesting that educational institutions should be able to define the kind of clients they will embrace, the kind of courses they will have and the kind of results they expect to have, and be funded accordingly? If we are talking about autonomy, responsibility and funding people to do the kind of things which they want to do and which they can do best, then an educational profile is the way to go. Surely it is not an imposition; in fact, it is asking people to set their own goals and ambitions. Again, I must say the institutions have welcomed this with great joy. In fact, many of the technical and further education (TAFE) institutions in my electorate have embraced this because, for the first time, they see an opportunity in the resource funding programs to be able to rid themselves of some of the political implications which have been imposed upon them for far too long. They will now be able to embrace shorter courses, funding for which is through the Department of Employment, Education and Training. There are institutions which would willingly have picked up the $1 1/2m from the Federal Government which it wanted to pay to the Queensland TAFE and higher education sector for nurses' education but which the Queensland Government resisted. There are other processes whereby shorter courses could enable those less advantaged people in our community to participate in the higher education of this country. But alas, no. The Government says that TAFE institutions must have very difficult entry standards and, of course, those people who enter must run courses for the longest possible time. The directions which are posed in the Green Paper mean that those people who are marginalised in our society and those who are less advantaged will be able to participate in higher education because not only will there be opportunities made by the institutions for them but there will also be considerably more places. I point out that in a State which has a very severe shortage of higher education places, there are many people who are hopeful that this new direction will enable institutions to expand and to use their resources to the betterment of their students without being hidebound by some of the strategies which the institutions and the State government are placing upon them. In fact, the Federal Government has increased the number of places in higher education institutions in Queensland by 11,650, or 32 per cent, since it came to power in 1983. Surely not even the shadow Minister could suggest that this has had a damaging effect upon the higher education system in Queensland. This is the kind of direction which the Green Paper has taken up and is pursuing. It is a direction which offers a wide range of courses and a wide range of places for all in our community. While doing so, it takes into account the fact that higher education is for all. It is not simply for those people who happen to be rich; it is not simply the prerogative of rich and wealthy institutions. All institutions are to be treated fairly and equitably. If they can deliver the services efficiently and effectively then they will be funded according to the way in which those services are delivered. Many people-parents, students and educators alike-welcome the entry of business and the trade union movement into the education sector, particularly through their presence on the proposed national board. For too long industry and the trade union movement have been making statements about educational outcomes in this country, particularly higher education, without having any real input. This Green Paper and the direction which our Minister for Employment, Education and Training is taking is about education that meets the needs of Australia and young Australians right through into the twenty-first century. It will not in any sense damage our higher education system but will offer real growth and opportunity for all Australians. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The debate is concluded. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(4.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988, by which date it is expected that the equivalent appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1988-89, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $8,689m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $37m, or about 0.4 per cent, greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1987-88. A significant part of the increase reflects commitments which have been approved by the Government, price and cost increases and exchange rate variations. Major increases are: $125.3m for Department of Defence running costs, largely reflecting the flow-on of national wage case determinations and second tier awards from 1987-88 and transfer of Defence removal costs from other appropriations; $32.6m to meet higher rate of student allowances and higher numbers of students qualifying for the Austudy benefits; $25.5m for the program for families with children due to the large full year effects of new services coming on-stream in 1987-88, the finalisation of capital projects under the 20,000 places commitment and indexation for cost increases; and $24.3m for the program for aged people who need residential assistance reflecting the transfer of funding for approved services for non-nursing home residents from a standing appropriation, increased capital expenditure under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 and the Government's decision to increase special and geriatric assessment services. The running costs appropriations of departments have been adjusted to include the salaries costs of departmental secretaries and other relevant office holders. At present these salaries are met from a special appropriation established under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1971. This change, which has been cleared from a legal point of view, aligns departmental running costs `appropriations' with departmental running costs `budgets'. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks interim provision only in respect of approved ongoing policies of the Government. It does not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1988-89 Budget context for which provision will be sought in the Appropriation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling some $2,064m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988. The amount sought is $341m, or about 14 per cent less than that provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1987-88. Certain new provisions in respect of which Government decisions have been taken have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. The most significant of these are those items establishing the proposed revised funding arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). In the 1986-87 Budget context, the Government announced that action would be taken to progressively place ACT finances on a basis consistent with Commonwealth arrangements with the States and local governments. As a further step in this alignment process an ACT fiscus will be established, incorporating both territorial and municipal functions, administered by the ACT Administration, to operate from 1 July 1988 through a trust account established pursuant to section 62a of the Audit Act 1901 with a working capital advance of $55m. Funding will be provided in a way that parallels Commonwealth/State and local government arrangements. Consequently, the Bills have been restructured such that the ACT Administration receives its funds on a State-type basis from relevant Commonwealth departments. Apart from the working capital advance, this approach does not involve additional expenditures for the ACT. In addition, the inclusion of a `notated' appropriation item in conjunction with clause 6 will enable all Australian Capital Territory receipts-that is, taxes, duties, fees, fines, charges, et cetera-of a State or local government nature to be paid direct to the trust account. It is estimated that some $93m of receipts will be involved during the Supply period. The only other significant increase in this Bill is $37.4m for community services and health largely reflecting indexation and unmatched moneys of the home and community care program. As indicated with respect to the Supply Bill No. 1, the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1988-89 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditures by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988. They total some $41.2m, which is $17.5m or about 74 per cent greater than the amount provided for in the supply period 1987-88. The large percentage increase for the parliamentary departments Bill is attributable to moving and establishment costs, and increased operating costs, arising from the occupation of the new Parliament House. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to a number of Acts administered by the Transport and Communications portfolio. The amendments are of a kind which it has been the practice, in recent years, to make in an omnibus Bill of this nature. Amendments of the Navigation Act 1912 Under the offshore constitutional settlement in 1979 it was agreed that jurisdiction over offshore industry vessels would normally be exercised by the States and the Northern Territory. However, section 8a of the Navigation Act 1912 provides that the Minister may, following consultation with State and Northern Territory Ministers, declare an offshore industry vessel to be a vessel to which the Act applies, where the owner declares that the vessel's operations will not be confined to the waters of one State or Territory during the subsequent three years. At the seventy-fourth Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in July 1987, Federal, State and Northern Territory transport Ministers agreed that the statutory constraints upon the Minister's declaration should be dispensed with. The Bill, in clause 5, gives effect to that agreement. The Efficiency Scrutiny Unit established by the Government in 1986, and headed by Mr David Block, reviewed the functions and administration of Mercantile Marine Offices. The review found that many of the functions performed by the Government through Mercantile Marine Offices were out of date and wasteful of resources of both the taxpayer and the maritime industry. Significant streamlining measures were recommended and, after consultation with the industry, involving both maritime unions and shipowners, have been given effect by clause 6 and schedule 1 of the Bill. The proposed amendments will accordingly eliminate detailed involvement by the Department in the engagement and discharge of seafarers. The Act will, however, maintain a legislative framework ensuring the welfare of seafarers in accordance with International Labour Organisation conventions. The opportunity is also being taken to remove references in the Act to indentured apprentices. Such references are obsolete and contrary to the future training initiatives recently taken by the maritime industry through the Maritime Industry Development Committee. At the same time, a now obsolete transitional provision in the Navigation Amendment Act 1979 relating to ships crews is to be repealed. Unproclaimed amendments contained in the Navigation Amendment Act 1980 and Navigation Amendment Act 1981, which were intended to introduce a contract of sea service as an alternative to articles of agreement in the offshore industry, are to be repealed as being no longer required following the Department's reduced involvement in the employment of seamen. The levels of penalties under the Navigation Act 1912 have been revised by the Attorney-General's Department to conform to penalties applying to similar offences in other Federal legislation. Clause 7 and schedule 2 of the Bill give effect to these. Amendment of the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 The amendment of the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 is to make decisions in respect of remission or refund of charges due or paid under the Act reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Amendments of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 The amendments of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 are: to ensure that the Corporation's liability for accrued staff entitlements, including annual and long service leave transferred by the Commonwealth to the Corporation, is taken into account in determining the capital of the Corporation; to clarify the power and procedure relating to the determination of charges under the Act; to enable the Corporation to establish a second superannuation scheme for short term contract staff; and to make a minor editorial correction. Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive of the Bill give effect to these amendments. Amendments of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 The amendments to the Shipping Registration Act 1981 are to ensure that where a ship or a share in a ship is disposed of, the registration certificate for the ship is returned to the Registrar of Ships for registration of the change. Amendments of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 are of an editorial nature to correct erroneous cross-references. Financial Impact Statement Implementation of the scrutiny review recommendations regarding Mercantile Marine Office services will achieve savings through more efficient utilisation of staff and accommodation. All remaining services provided to industry will be fully cost recovered from users. In 1988-89 it is estimated that those savings will amount to $0.7m, reflecting gradual implementation of new procedures, and in 1989-90 savings of $1.4m will be achieved, based on 1987-88 costs. There will be no significant costs, revenues or savings to the Government arising from the other amendments in the Bill. None of the amendments proposed in the Bill is of a controversial nature. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 to empower a Minister, with the agreement in writing of the Minister responsible for the Act, to make minor changes in the provision of tariff assistance to industries in narrowly defined circumstances without the requirement for a prior report of the Commission. At present, section 23 (3) of the Act prevents changes in prescribed forms of assistance unless a relevant report of the Commission has been received by the Government within the preceding 12 months. The only exceptions are for changes that relate to bilateral or multilateral trade negotiations or to tariff preferences for developing countries. Section 23 (3) is of fundamental importance to the Act and to the role of the Commission. It aims to ensure that, when governments make decisions on matters involving assistance to particular industries, they have available to them up to date, independent and informed advice by the Commission on these matters. The Commission's reports, being based on processes of public inquiry in which the views of all interested parties can be presented and examined, provide a vital means for allowing public scrutiny of the claims of individual industries for assistance before decisions are made. The Government fully endorses this objective and will continue to maintain the role of the Commission. However section 23 (3) is at present very widely drawn. Apart from the two exceptions I have mentioned, it prevents all changes in prescribed forms of assistance, no matter how minor, in the absence of a relevant report of the Commission or legislation by the Parliament. The proposed amendments will provide a very limited degree of additional flexibility to make minor changes in industry assistance in specified circumstances. The amendments relate only to changes in assistance provided through customs duties, not other forms of assistance, and the circumstances are precisely defined. These circumstances are: where action is necessary to correct anomalies, errors or ambiguities in the Customs Tariff Act; where action is necessary to correct an error in the implementation of a government decision on assistance to industry where that decision arose out of a report of the Commission; where action is necessary to vary details of industry assistance arrangements because of changes in circumstances where provision for such action was made in the government decision establishing those arrangements and where that decision arose out of a report of the Commission; where action is necessary to maintain the level of assistance previously applying where a decision by a tribunal or a court has had the effect of altering the rate at which duty on imported goods is collected; or where action is necessary to keep tariff classifications in line with the Customs Cooperation Council nomenclature. The last of these circumstances relates to the implementation of tariff classification rulings by the Customs Cooperation Council under the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. The Bill makes clear that such changes are covered by the existing exception in section 23 (3) relating to multilateral trade agreements. The provisions in the Bill relating to the other four circumstances involve the establishment of new exceptions in section 23 (3) under which tariff changes can be made when more than 12 months have elapsed since the receipt of a relevant report by the Commission. In each case the circumstance is carefully defined and has the objective either of correcting anomalies, errors or ambiguities or of maintaining the intention of earlier government decisions on industry assistance where those decisions have been made on the basis of Commission reports. As an additional safeguard to ensure that the role of the Commission is not eroded, action by a Minister under any of these four circumstances requires the written approval of the Minister administering the Industries Assistance Commission Act. The provisions in the Bill relating to anomalies, errors or ambiguities and to errors in the implementation of decisions are intended to apply to simple clerical mistakes, such as the misspelling or misspecification of an item, or the like. They do not apply to situations where a government may wish to change its mind after the 12-month period following the receipt of a report of the Commission has elapsed. Similarly, the provisions in the Bill relating to changes in circumstances are restricted to situations where a government has decided, at the time it made its decision on assistance arrangements for an industry following receipt of a report of the Commission, to allow specific actions to be taken if those changes in circumstances occur. These provisions are intended to provide scope for variations in tariff rates to be made in response to changes in economic conditions affecting an industry where the variations are within predetermined limits set at the time of the original decision and the circumstances involved were specified in that decision. For example, an industry plan might make provision for variations in the duty rates applying to out-of-quota imports in the event that imports of the goods concerned exceed specified limits. The Bill also provides for variations in tariff assistance to particular goods following a decision by a court or tribunal. Under Australia's tariff system, an appeals mechanism exists on the classification of goods. Such appeals are decided on legal grounds, although a decision to vary the classification of particular goods usually results in a change in the level of assistance provided to a domestic industry. The provisions in the Bill will allow action to be taken to reinstate quickly, and with minimal loss of revenue, the level of assistance previously decided by the Government where the Government's decision arose out of a report of the Industries Assistance Commission. These provisions in the Bill will not overturn a ruling of a tribunal or court on the classification of goods between tariff items. Such rulings will stand. However, the provisions will permit the intent of Government decisions on levels of tariff assistance to be maintained. Changes in tariff assistance following government consideration of a report of the Commission are normally introduced initially by way of customs tariff proposal, when Parliament is sitting, or Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice of intention to propose a customs tariff alteration when it is not. The provisions of the present Bill will allow these procedures to be utilised, in the specific circumstances I have outlined, where a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since the receipt of a relevant report of the Commission. In each case, the action taken will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when the corresponding Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is introduced. The proposals put forward in the Bill are expected to have only a minor financial impact. The Bill does not involve any additional staff or resources for the Industries Assistance Commission or the Australian Customs Service, which is responsible for implementing changes to the Customs Tariff Act. Present practice is to introduce a Customs Tariff Bill into Parliament to give effect to the proposed changes in the Bill. This delays the collection of duties. The financial impact of the Bill would result from more timely changes to the rates of duty which may flow from the proposed amendments, but it is expected that any such changes would be minor. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Attorney-General)(4.51) —Before the debate was interrupted I was replying to the remarks made by Opposition members about the amendment which was moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I have only a few minutes left in which to speak, but I had better repeat what I said earlier. The problems with the scheme are probably exemplified by the fact that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the honourable gentleman to the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill, even if I wanted to do so. The provisions of the scheme are such that I can only introduce legislation that has been approved by the Ministerial Council. I am not entitled to accept any amendments. I think that that summarises some of the complaints that the business community and others have as to the question of parliamentary accountability and ministerial responsibility. I think that this would be the only type of legislation in the whole of the democratic world which, when it is introduced into a parliament, cannot be changed because some outside group determines that that is the situation. This legislation is not able to be debated in any parliament except this one and it cannot be altered in this one. What we need, in accordance with our constitutional requirements, is responsibility for corporation law. The honourable member for Ryan said there was some uncertainty about the position. However, I have made it clear over a long period that we should legislate in that area. The matter has been the subject of continual discussion with my ministerial colleagues at the Ministerial Council. I went through the exercise with them. Their first objection was on the basis of what would happen to State revenue, of which there is a profit of $72m. The most important thing that I have emphasised is that there needs to be ministerial responsibility and parliamentary scrutiny. That is what we would achieve by Commonwealth legislation. The honourable member for Ryan thought that there was some surprise in the legislation before us. I acknowledge that it takes a while to draft such legislation because the present corporate law is of some size. The new matters would be of this nature, for which I accept responsibility: it is important that there be an Australian Securities Commission (ASC) consisting, I would think, of only three members. Such a commission would require the advice of the business community and I suggested that there be a statutory business advisory council. I did so because the various State capitals felt that their business communities ought to have an input. I agreed with that. I thought that there should be various representatives from the various business communities in each State capital which would have a statutory base and a direct input into the proposed Australian securities commission. For the first time, they would give it advice. At present, the business community does not have such an input. Nobody really objected to that. National Companies and Securities Bill From the point of view of reasonable participation, the leaders of the respective business communities who would form part of the advisory group would also, obviously, have groups in the capitals to which they could report. So there would be a continual stream of information back to all the business communities in Australia, which would go back through the representatives to the Australian Securities Commission on the basis of what should be done to improve the administration or the law. I noted with interest the honourable gentleman's comments that there have been problems with the takeover code. He said that insider trading is rife. He is accurate about that. The problem is: what is being done about it? Those are the problems that we face in terms of administration. If we get it right, the business community will be much better served and, in fact, people will have more confidence in the stock exchange. That is the issue. Honourable members will be aware that the stock exchanges are no longer individual State stock exchanges. They have formed themselves into the Australian Stock Exchange. There is only one exchange, one market, and it wants one set of rules. We must also consider the small business community. In the proposed legislation I suggest-I have incorporated it in a draft form-that there be what are called close corporations so that small business will not have all this nonsense of a massive amount of filing of documents, memorandums and articles of association. We would provide an improved structure, for those which have fewer than 10 in number. Small business would not have to go through this burden and the ridiculous situation of the corporate affairs commissions wasting a lot of time looking at documents that do not matter. That would be an improvement. The proposed legislation would pick up the law in terms of incorporation, give a streamlined administration to the ASC and give the business community, for the first time, a statutory basis and an input into it. Also, there would be parliamentary responsibility and accountability. Because there is some argument as to what will happen to employees in State corporate affairs commissions-under State awards they get more money than I can pay them-I would be happy to leave them there with financial arrangements to be made with the States. All I want from the States is 12 1/2 per cent of what they would get from running a very smart, effective national scheme. They can keep the rest. They can put it in their treasuries and look after their employees. All they have to do is administer Commonwealth law. From the point of view of the Ministerial Council, I am quite happy to have its recommendation if it feels that some representatives of State corporate affairs commissions ought to assist the ASC's administration on a part time basis. It is ridiculous, as is the case at present, for the National Companies and Securities Commission to come to us and say, `We need more resources'. When one says, `There are 1,500 employees in State corporate affairs commissions' the reply is, `But we don't have access to those people.' When one asks, `What about the revenue?' we are told, `We have no access to that either'. We could streamline the whole arrangement taking 12 1/2 per cent off the top. We could establish a national computer scheme-a national availability of names-and immediate business administration; not the nonsense of what might be happening and delays. The business community would welcome that change. It is not an argument about political power. It ought to be a bipartisan position. If it is not, there is no point in pursuing it. I think that, from the point of view of business administration, it would regret the decision if it were ever rejected by the Senate. If we bring in such a law it will be a challenge for the Opposition to see whether it still adheres to its opposition to this legislation. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 April. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to implement key elements of the Government's plan to restructure and re- vitalise Australia's textiles, clothing and foot-wear (TCF) industries. Details of the Government's plan were contained in a statement to Parliament on 5 June 1987-we have rushed this through-and this speech should be read in conjunction with that statement. In broad terms, the plan involves an industries development strategy, changes to import protection, and special measures to minimise adjustment pressure for those adversely affected by structural change. The plan also envisages the establishment of a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, as proposed in this Bill. The Authority is an integral part of the plan and will have the objective of promoting the restructuring and revitalisation of the industries so that they become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on assistance by the Commonwealth. The main function of the Authority will be to implement the industries development strategy. Development of the new plan followed an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry and report and extensive consultation with manufacturers, importers, retailers and trade unions. There was also detailed consultation with the TCF Industry Council. This process demonstrated not only a widespread recognition of the need for change but also engendered a commitment on the part of the various industry participants to support and contribute to the success of the Government's new plan for these industries. The TCF industries have grown up behind significant import barriers and as a consequence have been insulated from the realities of operating in the international environment. The reductions in protection inherent in the new plan will progressively expose the industries to international competition, but substantial changes in practices and attitudes are needed if the industries are to meet the challenges and opportunities afforded by a more open international environment. The industries development strategy will provide a vehicle for desirable change in the TCF industries. Broadly, the strategy involves four programs of support: a raw materials processing program; an industries efficiency program, covering programs for increased access to the National Industry Extension Service (NIES), plant and equipment modernisation and international competitiveness incentives; an industries infra- structure program; and an export development program. The raw materials processing program seeks to upgrade domestic processing of raw materials such as wool, cotton, hides and skins. For too long the Australian TCF industries have failed to capitalise on our rich resource base. Australia is the world's largest wool producer yet processes less than 5 per cent of the clip domestically to the final stage. Similarly, Australia is widely recognised as a world class producer of fine cotton, but we domestically process only 10 per cent of our crop. The same applies to hides and skins, where most of our output is exported in the raw state with only about 10 per cent tanned in Australia. Finance will be provided to the Australian Industry Development Corporation for investment in suitable modern and world scale projects aimed at significantly upgrading domestic processing in these areas. A number of studies into the feasibility of increased domestic processing have been commissioned. The plant and equipment modernisation program, the international competitiveness incentive program and the industries efficiency program all seek to improve the efficiency of existing TCF firms by addressing those internal factors which have limited their ability to compete with imports and on the international market. The plant and equipment modernisation program includes measures to assist yarn bounty recipients in undertaking plant and equipment modernisation aimed at improved efficiency, competitiveness and export orientation. Under the international competitiveness incentive program an applicant for assistance will be required to submit detailed plans outlining how it intends to increase substantially its export or import replacement production. Under the industries efficiency program the industries will be provided with greater access to the range of generally available measures directed at improving a firm's business efficiency through, for example, assistance with formulating and implementing business plans. Aspects of this program will be contracted to State industry departments for delivery via the National Industry Extension Service. The aim of the industries infrastructure program is to improve and coordinate the infrastructure support for the TCF industries, including training skills upgrading, information services, research and development. A major study into the existing and future training arrangements for these industries will be undertaken. The study will be presented to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Senator Dawkins) with recommendations on appropriate measures to upgrade the quality of the TCF work force. Under the export development program a number of measures will be implemented to support increased exports of TCF products. Aspects of this program will be contracted to Austrade which will provide a range of sector support measures such as overseas promotions, export education, and the like. These programs of support will assist firms in overcoming impediments to their competitiveness as well as providing incentives and opportunities for firms to capitalise upon areas of opportunity. The measures will help to reduce the dependence of the industries on protective measures. In announcing reductions in import protection the Government was conscious of the concern within the industries over the possible employment impact. In order to minimise adjustment difficulties, the Government has developed a package of labour adjustment measures specifically developed to assist workers to become re-employed in jobs outside of the TCF industries. These measures took effect from 1 January 1988. The Government recognises that some communities and regional centres may experience short term difficulties as a result of the plan, owing to the concentration of certain TCF firms within them. The TCF Development Authority, in consultation with the Office of Local Government and local communities, will monitor the impact of TCF adjustments on regional centres. The new plan is about building on the industries' strengths, skills and opportunities. It is about restoring dynamism to industries which have lost their competitive edge and ensuring the emergence of new and dynamic industries able to compete on the world market. It recognises that major changes in attitudes will be required and that they will have a greater bearing upon future success than changes in protection. I understand that many companies within the industries have, since the plan's announcement, initiated major investment projects designed to facilitate improved efficiency and competitiveness. I am encouraged by such developments which demonstrate that the Government's commitment to restructuring these industries is not misplaced. The widespread endorsement within the industries of the new TCF plan indicates that it is a serious attempt to overcome the problems facing the industries. Ultimately this will result in more secure industries that contribute more fully to net national wealth. I should say, however, that the industries cannot expect the plan to be immutable and that industry planning should take into account other factors such as macro- economic circumstances. I now turn to the TCF Development Authority as proposed by this Bill. The Authority's broad role will be to promote restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on support by the Commonwealth. The Authority will be a catalyst for desirable change and will be actively encouraging those in the industries to take the necessary steps to improve their performance. The establishment of such a body was recommended by the TCF Industry Council in its consideration of post-1988 assistance arrangements for the industries. The Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan and with the provision for advisory powers to remedy any deficiencies in the plan's operation. I see the role of the Authority as being broader than that envisaged by the Council. While it will be important to ensure adequate oversighting of the plan, I consider the Authority's major function will be to administer the industries development strategy in a coordinated and cost effective manner, as it is the strategy which will promote those changes in attitudes necessary to the reinvigoration of the industries. The Government expects the TCF industries to demonstrate a commitment to make real efforts to improve their efficiency and reduce dependence on public support. Support provided under the industries development strategy will be conditional upon recipients making a commitment both in financial terms and in a preparedness to spend time on addressing those problems which have inhibited competitiveness or restrained development. Where employment reductions are involved, support will be conditional on recipients adopting a responsible labour management plan and minimising involuntary employment reductions. In providing support under the industries development strategy the Authority will consult with appropriate organisations to ensure that support is of most relevance to the Government's policy objectives. The Authority will develop and administer some measures as appropriate, while in other cases it will contract the measures to outside bodies. Examples of the latter are the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Austrade and NIES. The Authority will be responsible for ensuring the industries are aware of the measures contained within the industries development strategy and will promote the plan. The Authority will have the flexibility, subject to the Minister's approval, to make changes between programs, including funding allocations, in the light of experience gained in their implementation. In this respect the Authority could also recommend on new initiatives should such a need be determined. The Authority will also monitor the effectiveness of the delivery mechanisms for a program and, should it consider that an existing delivery body is not fulfilling the requirements expected of it, it may recommend changes. Changes in attitudes within the industries will be essential to ensuring the success of the new plan. A move away from a narrow inward-looking focus will be integral to the success of revitalising these industries. The Authority will be a catalyst in this process and will be initiating and holding discussions with major industry participants, acting as an honest broker if appropriate, encouraging desirable restructuring, the adoption of new techniques and processes, improved management practices, the development of new markets and so on. The Authority will also be in a position to disseminate information on developments within the industries. The Authority will have contact with all sides of the industries, including manufacturers, unions, retailers, importers and consumers. I am also conscious that the complexity of barrier protection arrangements can give rise to anomalies which may require administrative changes to ensure that they do not run counter to the intentions of the plan, and that some body to recommend on such matters is desirable. Therefore the Authority will oversee the technical and administrative operations of the plan and provide advice on any administrative changes necessary to ensure that the plan is operating as intended. The Authority will also report on the operations of the plan and progress towards achievement of the Government's policy objectives. The Authority will be required to report annually to the Parliament. Provision is also made for the Authority to report to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce either on its own initiative or on matters which he refers to it. Additionally, the Minister will be able to give directions to the Authority on the policies and practices it should adopt in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. Any such direction will be laid before this House and the Senate as well as being gazetted. I would stress that any information provided to the Authority on a confidential basis is required to be treated as such. While the Authority will be monitoring developments within the industries, it will not be intrusive and I envisage its information requirements will be satisfied most likely by statistical collections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and discussions and periodic surveys, similar to those previously undertaken by the TCF Advisory Committee. In this respect the Authority will be developing an information base on the industries. Naturally those firms receiving support under the industries development strategy will need to provide feedback to the Authority on developments arising from this support. The Authority, as part of its responsibilities, will also be responsible for conducting a major review of the operations of the plan by no later than mid-1992. The review will be broadly based and cover the operations of the entire plan, including past and expected developments in the industries and progress towards achievement of the Government's policy objectives for the TCF industries. The review will also include a detailed assessment of the impact of the plan in regional centres where the textiles, clothing and footwear industries are an important employer. It will include a detailed assessment of the industries' efforts to improve their performance in such areas as efficiency and productivity, training of staff, developing export markets and in the management of any employment displacement that occurs. The Government would be concerned should the Authority find only limited progress in these areas. However, if the Authority believes that, despite efforts by the industries to improve their competitiveness, the plan is likely to cause aggregate TCF production in value added terms to contract by more than 15 per cent, or 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 20 per cent for textiles, clothing and footwear respectively, the Authority could at the time of review, or in any subsequent report, make recommendations including a year's deferral of the phase-down in penalty duties and that an anticipatory inquiry be initiated to establish a course of action which could be taken promptly in the event that the future developments warrant. This provision is known, entirely appropriately, as the `safeguard mechanism' and was described in detail in the statement to the Senate by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in 1987. In reaching its recommendations the Authority would take into account the degree to which expected contraction in production results from the withdrawal of major producers from domestic activity in favour of offshore sourcing, and whether the remainder of the relevant industry sector is likely to experience contraction above the specified benchmark levels. In this respect the requirement for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission before fundamental changes in the assistance arrangements for the industries are made is unaffected by this legislation. The Authority will be able to make recommendations on administrative changes necessary to ensure the integrity of the plan. The Government wishes to have the Authority operational as soon as possible and appointments to the Authority will proceed as quickly as possible following passage of the legislation. The operation of the Authority will require close contact with employers, unions, importers and other participants in the industry. It will be located in Melbourne because Victoria has the largest share of TCF among the States. It will be independent of the industries and will consist of up to six members with its own secretariat staff to provide support. Arrangements for recruiting staff to provide the support have already started. The Authority will operate for the duration of the assistance plan and will cease operating on the plan's scheduled expiry date of 29 February 1996, which is of course a leap year. The Government's policy for the TCF industries beyond 1996 will be determined following a further review by the IAC before 1996. The budget allocation for the establishment of the Authority in 1987-88 in $1.2m and for the programs is $5m in 1987-88. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.09) —After the introduction by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones)-- Mr Barry Jones —There is nothing more to be said. Mr MOORE —There is nothing more to be said. That is all there is to it. As the Minister said, the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill establishes a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority which is one of the measures included in the sectoral plan for the TCF industries and is to come into full operation from 1 March 1989. The TCF plan provides for a seven-year phase-down of quota rates commencing 1 March 1989 in conjunction with an increase in volume quotas of 1.2 per cent per annum. By 1 March 1996 all quotas for the industry will be abolished and footwear, footwear parts, clothing and textiles will be protected by tariffs of 50 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent and up to 60 per cent respectively. Bounties on yarn will continue but at a slightly reduced rate. The plan includes an assistance package of up to $200m, including four industry development programs and regional and labour adjustment assistance. It is proposed that the Authority will monitor and report on the effect of changes to industry protection and administer the industry development programs. While the coalition has supported the broad thrust of the TCF sectional plan, the Bill sets out the functions, powers and constitution of this Authority. The Authority is to be an independent body, because the TCF Council saw a need for a specialist body to monitor the industry. The Government has given this Authority a much broader role in that its main function will be to implement the industries development strategy, which is claimed by the Government to be a key element of the assistance package for the TCF industries. The Authority will also provide advice on technical administrative operations of the package, particularly the barrier assistance measures. The Authority will monitor the operation of the assistance package and progress made towards the achievement of the Government's objectives for the TCF industries and report to the Minister on those actions. The Authority may also report to the Minister on any TCF matters it considers relevant and the Minister may refer matters to the Authority for consideration and report. The Government, however, is not precluded from referring matters to the Industries Assistance Commission. I have real concerns, however, about the powers of the Authority. These include, firstly, conducting such inquiries as it considers necessary for the performance of its functions-a very wide sweep. Secondly, it is to report any instances of failure by a person involved in any of the TCF industries to act consistently with the policies of the Commonwealth Government with respect to those industries. Thirdly, it is to prepare and maintain a data base on the TCF industries. These powers are enforceable by the Authority conducting public formal inquiries to which any person may be summoned as a witness to give evidence, produce books and so on. Failure to do so may incur penalties of a fine of up to $1,000 or six months imprisonment. These inquiries will not be limited in any way to those people seeking assistance. It seems to me that they would enable a non-judicial body not unlike a royal commission to conduct an inquiry. A witness has the same protection and, in addition to the penalties provided under the Act, is subject to the same liabilities as a witness in the proceedings of the High Court of Australia. Further clauses deal with protection of members of the Authority, contempt and protection from dismissal, threats and so on of employees who give evidence. Further, in my view there is inadequate protection for commercial confidentiality and there are excessive powers of delegation. All those things lead the Opposition to oppose this legislation. Any authority which sets out with those powers in hand quite clearly is doing a lot more than administering an assistance package. It is attempting to stand over an industry in a way which is quite unhealthy as a commercial proposition. As a consequence, the Opposition does not go along with the legislation. At the same time, the Opposition supports and has supported the general thrust in the area of textiles, clothing and footwear industry assistance. This should be seen in no way to alter that stance of opposition to the Bill. The coalition will stick to the plan but, certainly given the opportunity to reduce tariffs, which reduce burdens on industry, the opportunity should be taken. We are not enthusiastic about the intrusive nature of this quango-yet another body with all the trappings and extra overheads that are entailed. Quangos have a long history in industry, yet we wonder what good some of them do. What the industry leaders wanted was some body to monitor the plan to ensure that if there were a major reduction in this industry the plan would be deferred or delayed in some way to be outlined by the Minister, the protection reduction halted for some period. The Minister acknowledged that. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business said: The establishment of such a body was recommended by the TCF Industry Council . . .The Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan . . . Later in the speech the Minister said that while that might be what the Council wanted it was not what it was going to get. He said: I see the role of the Authority as being broader than that envisaged by the Council . . . I consider the Authority's major function will be to administer the industries development strategy . . . It may well be that the industry leaders want a monitoring authority but they will get much more than that. The coalition supports the TCF legislation and wishes for a continuing stable framework of government policy in which the industry can operate, invest and employ. Certainty in the marketplace is always necessary. The view of the Opposition is that the TCF Development Authority will not assist the industry in these objectives. It will be another costly bureaucratic roadblock in the quest for increased efficiency and increasing technology. I say this in the light of the problems we have witnessed with the car plan and the steel plan, in both of which an authority was established that in some cases has been a lot less than successful. Neither industry authority has lived up to the very high expectations that were set. The Steel Industry Authority in particular has had an undistinguished record. The Authority has demonstrated that it is unable adequately to monitor, analyse and report to the Minister responsible. In other words, its existence is hard to justify. Reports have been so delayed that the conclusions are outdated. At first, in the steel industry case, the Australian Council of Trade Unions was blamed in relation to shortages in the industry. The most recent report to come out-that for the December quarter, which came out in April-blames the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) for problems associated with steel production. By the time the report came to hand, BHP claimed that what was said in the report was highly erroneous. It strikes me that if a special industry body, set up to report on that industry, comes forward some months after the period under review with a report that is claimed by the industry, when it is made public, to be out of date, what is the point of maintaining such an authority? For that reason, the Opposition has very real doubts about the viability of the TCF Development Authority. In conclusion, it seems to me that in a lot of industries these days what is required is an understanding of the problems in the marketplace and an understanding by government of what is a commercially real position. Having decided those things, having had the recommendations from the IAC and determined policy, then it should not be intrusive. If a plan is put into place, let us go through with it. If movements in the exchange rate affect the levels of protection, adjustments should be made. That has been the case in the car plan. In other cases, to vest an authority with the sorts of inquisitorial powers that go with this Authority is not helpful to industry and certainly will do nothing to increase investment or employment in an area which very badly needs those two items. The Opposition does not support the Bill and will oppose it. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.20) —The implementation of the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) plan is an important part of the Government's overall industry restructuring strategy. In fact, considering that these industries employ almost 10 per cent of the manufacturing work force, it is more than important; it is essential. The developing authority to be established by this legislation, the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, provides the structure for implementing the plan. This plan exemplifies the Government's approach to industry development which has transformed the old debate about the level of tariff protection, with free trade and protection seen as the only alternatives. It establishes the principle of phased and predictable exposure to international competition in conjunction with a range of structural adjustments and a cushioning of short term effects. It is gratifying to see the degree of accord between the Government, the TCF industries and the unions on the need for and the shape of this plan, including the establishment of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority to ensure its implementation. It is only the Opposition which is out of step in opposing this legislation. I must say that I was thoroughly unimpressed by the grounds cited by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), in opposition to the Bill. The gist of his argument seemed to be that the Authority will go beyond the function that was originally envisaged by the TCF Industry Council. From what the previous speaker was saying, I believe that he would have been happy to see the Authority restrict itself to monitoring production levels and determining whether modification in the rate of reduction in tariff protection was required. However, as we know, the plan involves a lot more than that; it involves a whole raft of assistance and adjustment measures, many of which involve significant outlays by government. To suggest that the Authority should not have a role in monitoring the progress of those activities is to me quite incomprehensible. The Opposition has suggested that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce would be sufficiently equipped to implement the plan. This suggestion misunderstands the whole rationale of the plan, the rationale that has made the plan not only acceptable but also welcome to the industry. It is that the Authority should, by virtue of its composition, tap into existing expertise within the industry and, further, be able to offer independent advice to the Minister. In addition, the Government aims to remove the present psychological dependency of these industries on government decision making, a dependency which inevitably develops in a highly protected industry. In this context, it would not be helpful to keep the monitoring and review processes within the Public Service. The TCF industries are composed overwhelmingly of small manufacturing concerns, accounting for over 70 per cent of employment, and this fragmentation presents additional problems not present in, say, the motor vehicle industry, which is itself undergoing considerable restructuring. Recent attempts by sectors of the industry to improve efficiency appear to have been restricted mainly to the larger companies. The TCF industries went sour for countries such as Australia in the 1970s with the development of competition from newly industrialising countries, particularly in Asia. The unfortunate, though understandable, response was to impose trade restrictions which today mean that these industries have the highest levels of protection of any industry in Australia. This in turn has led to complacency and a lack of entrepreneurial spirit. Of course, those who say that all Australia has to do is get rid of tariffs and encourage efficiency and entrepreneurial spirit and overseas markets will be at our feet are unrealistic. The problems of overseas competitors with cost structures achieved at the expense of the living standards of their population still exist. This does not mean that Australia cannot become internationally competitive, and this plan addresses the means whereby it can hope to do so. I shall come back to this later. I welcome the formation of this Authority as a means to implement the industry plan. Nevertheless, there are a couple of issues I would like to highlight. The first is the need for a safeguard, or trigger, mechanism. Plans for such a mechanism were outlined by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in attachment E of his statement to Parliament on 5 June last year. As well as specifying a one-off comprehensive review of the plan by 1992, the Minister's statement said: `If . . . it is apparent that because of the operations of the plan, substantial and widespread contraction of industry production is likely to occur over the life of the plan, the Authority would be empowered to recommend action to address the situation. Such a recommendation could only be made if the Authority believes that despite industry initiatives the plan is likely to cause aggregate TCF production, particularly value-added at constant prices over the period 1986-1996, to contract by more than 15 per cent or 10 per cent and 20 per cent for textiles, clothing and footwear respectively, of the levels which prevailed in 1986. I stress that this so-called safeguard mechanism is not operative solely as a result of the mid-term review. The Minister's second reading speech stated that the Authority in any subsequent report would be able, in effect, to operate that mechanism. The Minister went on to detail a number of recommendations the Authority might consequently make to the Minister, for example, the suspension of the plan for up to one year. I am aware that both the unions and the industry consider this to be an essential part of the plan, allowing them to operate with some certainty and stability. I had hoped to see this safety net specifically included in the legislation following the Minister's statement. The mid-term review was included in the legislation but the possibility of a subsequent operation of the trigger mechanism was not included. However, only the one-off review is specified in the legislation. Nevertheless, this trigger mechanism does exist. It was detailed once more in the Minister's second reading speech for this Bill. I am assured that a second reading speech carries a legal status in clarifying the purpose of legislation; However I would have preferred to see it spelt out in the actual legislation. Workers in these industries are poorly paid overall. There is a disproportionate representation of female and migrant workers and significant pockets of exploitation of the work force, despite the high level of protection. These industries, for example, employ an estimated 30,000 outworkers, most of them in the clothing industry and most of them in the smaller companies. We are all familiar with the stories of gross exploitation and abuse of these workers, many of whom are migrant women with little English and a lack of awareness of their rights. The use and abuse of outworkers has, unfortunately, typified the unconstructive ways that many of the firms have chosen to use to keep up profitability levels. A survey of a number of inner Melbourne firms showed that they believed that it was not worth while training staff and that staff that had been trained had unrealistic aspirations. Very few of the firms employed apprentices. The conclusion of the researchers was that the surveyed firms appeared to feel no responsibility for expanding or even maintaining skill levels in the industry but at the same time they identified the lack of trained personnel as the main factor holding them back. Under the restructure plan, firms will participate in skill expansion or pay the cost in terms of their future viability. In this context I would like to praise the TCF unions for their far-sighted attitude on the issue of restructure of their industry. This will not be an easy process for their members. The plan will undoubtedly mean a contraction of employment, at least in the short term, and this is a difficult situation to deal with. The unions have had to sell the restructure to their members by convincing them of its long-term benefits. I point out at this stage that the safeguard mechanism was a crucial element in selling the plan to the unions involved. The unions welcomed this Government's rejection of the recommendations on the future of the TCF industries made by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) last year. The IAC recommended a 50 per cent tariff cut after seven years; no labour adjustment measures; no investment incentives; no monitoring authority; and no review of the effects of these recommendations. These harsh recommendations were totally unacceptable to Labor members and were rejected by the Government. Honourable members will recall the very large demonstrations by those employed in the industry that occurred after the IAC recommendations became known. The plan now being introduced was formulated as an alternative by the Government after an extensive consultation process with the industries and unions. The unions' concerns for their members have been addressed by the Government. For those workers who can no longer find employment within the TCF industries a package of labour adjustment measures was introduced at the beginning of the year. These were specified in attachment G of last year's statement and include financial support during retraining; employment assistance; and relocation assistance. For workers remaining within the TCF industries, the industry restructure plan provides for a major study to discover the best method of upgrading skills and training. There is no doubt that the Government has attempted to constructively tackle problems being faced by the work force. However, I consider it to be crucial that the labour adjustment measures are scrupulously and sympathetically applied. In this regard I draw attention to and endorse the comments made in a recent letter by my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who stressed the electoral importance of paying close attention to the effect on the ground of structural adjustment measures. The second concern that I wish to raise, with respect to this plan, is the question of rumoured across the board tariff cuts. A plan such as this is carefully formulated to ensure that the maximum rate of tariff reduction compatible with the continued viability of the industry is achieved. I would be extremely concerned if this careful work were undermined or even destroyed by the imposition of any across the board cuts, in this industry particularly. Naturally if such cuts were introduced, the pressure would be on for them to be applied in a non-discriminatory way; that is, that there should be no exemptions. I would merely say that such non-discrimination would in fact be strong discrimination in the case of the TCF industries which have already submitted themselves to restructuring, with firms making decisions on the basis of expected rates of protection over the next seven years. I would strongly question whether many TCF firms would survive these additional cuts, let alone have the capacity to continue to develop in the competitive and export oriented fashion which is the whole purpose of the plan. There is already clear evidence of firms deferring major investment decisions because of uncertainty about future tariff levels-the very type of uncertainty that the industry plans are designed to minimise. I note that the Minister, in his June 1987 statement, affirmed as his first guiding principle of restructure: Predictability and stability of policy would be essential in such complex industries if they are to restructure and rationalise operations and the process of adjustment must be over a period of years. In my opinion, the imposition of further tariff cuts on top of the plan would militate against this principle and could well torpedo the plan. In this context it is useful to make a couple of observations about the position of the TCF industry, compared with the passenger motor vehicle industry. So far as the latter industry is concerned, the Government has just announced major changes to the protection regime, with the immediate elimination of tariff quotas, the lowering of tariff rates and changes to the local content and export facilitation arrangements. However, there is a fundamental difference between the position of the passenger motor vehicle industry and the TCF industry. The motor vehicle plan was introduced in May 1984 and, since it came into operation, there has been a 55 per cent depreciation of the Australian dollar against the yen and 50 per cent against the deutschmark. Overall, the fall in the dollar since the end of 1984 has enhanced the industry's competitiveness by about 30 per cent. That is according to a study carried out by the Bureau of Industry Economics. The recently announced changes substantially but not completely offset this competitive gain. By contrast, the TCF industry has experienced a deterioration in its competitive position since it was negotiated in late 1986 and that can be seen in the exchange rate changes. In the March quarter of 1988, the national trade weighted index of the Australian dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners was 53.8 compared to 51.9 in September 1986; that is, we have appreciated by 3.7 per cent. The Australian dollar has appreciated by 17 per cent against India and 18 per cent against China since the TCF plan was announced, although it has remained stable against other major trading partners. Given that fact, it would be a serious mistake to impose further changes to the already negotiated seven-year plan to reduce industry protection, as part of an across the board tariff cut. Four programs of support are to be provided to the TCF industries by this plan: the raw materials process program; the industries efficiency program; the industries infrastructure program; and an export development program. I have mentioned aspects of these programs already. However, I make special mention of the raw materials processing or value added program. Value added is a concept particularly important with an economy such as ours where our top several exports have very little value added component-a situation which has contributed greatly to the decline in our terms of trade with the fall in world commodity prices. It is also important to realise that, despite improvements in some areas such as that being enjoyed by wool at present, the long-term trend is for a continuing relative downward movement in raw material prices and we should not be made complacent by short-term rallies. In light of this pessimistic outlook, it is crucial that we begin to domestically process a much larger percentage of our raw materials. I mentioned earlier that we have faced serious competition in the TCF industries from newly industrialised countries. However, this competition is mainly offered in the lower quality end of the market. Australia, with its production of fine wool and cotton, is well placed to compete at the quality end of the market. The pity is that our previous complacency about riding on the sheep's back means that such a market has not already been developed as the delay has made for more problems in breaking into this market. Certain other countries-Italy, for example-have a firm grip at present. Nevertheless, we must break through this barrier and must also concentrate on identifying other niches where we have a natural advantage. The Minister mentioned that the Australian Industry Development Corporation will play an important role in aiding projects aimed at upgrading domestic processing in these areas. The AIDC, being government owned, is particularly well placed to take a long term perspective on such projects. It is not subject to the pressures for short and medium term returns in the same way as are lending bodies subject to stock market vagaries. This, of course, points up clearly the strong case for ensuring that the AIDC remains in public control so that it can continue to operate in the long-term interests of our economy. As to the actual functioning of the TCF Development Authority, this has already been spelt out in considerable detail. A lot of thought has gone into ensuring that it is able to be flexible and responsive in implementing and overseeing the restructuring of these industries. That implies that it has a role over and above the purely monitoring function that is envisaged by the Opposition. I hope that the encouraging signs of cooperation by the industries themselves mean that there will be a productive relationship with the Authority, leading to the achievement of the goals outlined by the Government in this plan. Frankly, I see such cooperation as the only means of survival for these firms. Mr COBB(Parkes)(5.37) —Today, the House is debating the establishment of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority to oversee changes in that industry. Regrettably, the Authority is little more than a quango. It could be said that it was put there as a sop to the Left. I congratulate the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on the changes that he has been able to get through the Government that go in the right direction. However, the changes do not go far enough and, in saying that, I acknowledge that there has been fault on both sides of the House in previous years. The textiles, clothing and footwear plan is a seven-year plan and will be phased in from 1 March next year. Quota rates will be phased out and there will be an increase in quota volumes from 1.2 per cent a year so that, by March 1996, all quotas will have been abolished. In addition, tariff protection will be reduced by a tops down approach so that footwear will have an upper limit of 50 per cent tariff protection, footwear parts 40 per cent, clothing 60 per cent and textiles up to 60 per cent. As well, some bounties on yarns will continue to be paid. In addition to all this is an assistance package of up to $200m that the Authority will oversee. The legislation establishing the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority contains many motherhood clauses. One of them concerns processing raw materials such as wool, cotton, skins and hides. The finance enabling companies to do this will be channelled through the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It sounds very good, but I doubt whether much of it will get off the ground if many of the work practices in this country remain in place and are not changed at the same time. Many ridiculous examples can be found in this country of the dead hand of government holding back industry. In this particular area, the producers of man-made or synthetic fibres receive an effective rate of assistance of about 140 per cent. In contrast, producers of natural fibres receive no protection at all. To give an example, synthetic carpet yarn producers receive protection assistance of 140 per cent but woollen carpet yarn producers receive no assistance at all. I must ask whether it is in the best interests of Australia that synthetic fibre production is encouraged over natural fibre production. I would like to see this question addressed. The Authority will also be concerned with other things such as modernisation of plant and financial assistance for plans submitted to it by producers. This will take account of market plans, project selection and export demand assessment. If a producer wants financial assistance from the Authority he will have to put in business plans for exports. I note that there are lots of rules and regulations to which businesses will probably object. I just mention one in clause 37 (3) (b) which says that a plan submitted by a producer must contain proposals for `consulting with trade unions and employees'. I find this very disappointing. I think that this sort of fine detail should be left up to the industry rather than the Government directing it by legislation. The Authority will also be concerned with matters of infrastructure and whether businesses are viable to export textiles, clothing and footwear. I acknowledge that there is considerable potential in Australia, if we can get our act together, to export such products as high fashion textiles and apparel, but there are clauses in the Bill to which the coalition has great objections. Clause 7 (m) relates to a data base being set up and this has overtones that we do not like. Also clause 7 gives the Authority the power to conduct inquiries so that it can put out an annual plan. The rules and regulations also contain a lot of nonsense. I turn to clause 14 (7) which says: The Chairperson may be referred to as the Chairman or the Chairwoman, as the case requires. Really! It now appears that we need permission through Acts of Parliament to be able to use the Queen's English. Clause 46 says that the chairperson, as he is called, can summon witnesses to give evidence or produce documents and if they fail to do so they will be fined $1,000 or gaoled for six months or both. If a person does not answer questions when he is summonsed he is up again for a $1,000 fine or six months gaol or both. Mr Peter Fisher —That is about what drug dealers get. Mr COBB —That is almost true. Clause 51 says that one shall not: . . . disturb a member in the exercise of his powers. That is, when he comes around to check on one. If one disturbs a member, one is up for a fine of $1,000 or six months gaol or both. If one uses insulting language to one of these inspectors, one faces similar fines. These inspectors may inspect any books or take copies or extracts of any written material that is on the premises. They may retain these books as long as they reasonably want. There is even a clause which says that if an employee appears as a witness and slags on his employer, is disloyal to the company or gives a totally mischievous version and his employer sacks him as a result, that employer could still be fined $1,000 or get 12 months in gaol, or both. Another matter of concern to the Opposition is that there will now be four separate bodies providing advice to the Government on textiles, clothing and footwear. We have the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) section of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce providing advice; we have the TCF Industry Council; we have the Australian Customs Service; and now we will have the TCF Authority. There is already a considerable amount of overlap in administration in these departments. We believe the TCF Industry Council with a slight expansion could do the work this Authority is being set up to do. It is instructive to look at some of the facts and figures concerning the TCF industries in Australia. At present they employ between 110,000 and 120,000 people. That makes up 10 per cent of the total of manufacturing employment in Australia or 2 per cent of total employment in Australia. TCF industries contribute of the order of 1.4 per cent to our gross domestic product. They make up 7 per cent of manufacturing value added. It is a highly fragmented industry consisting of many small firms and several large firms. In fact, I believe that there are about 2,500 TCF enterprises in Australia, although the 11 largest make up 30 per cent of total employment in that industry. Of these industries, 77 per cent are located in capital cities and 66 per cent of that 77 per cent are located in Sydney and Melbourne. So it is very much an urbanised industry. On top of that an extra 7 per cent are located in Newcastle, Wollongong and Geelong, so that only leaves 16 per cent located in country centres. In 1986 only Wangaratta, Warrnambool, Maryborough and Stawell have more than 10 per cent of their work force employed in TCF industries. The TCF industries supply 70 per cent of the Australian market, but regrettably export only 5 per cent of their product. I believe that the previous fears of governments of all political persuasions that seats would be lost if these industries were rationalised are quite false. I seek leave to have some tables incorporated in Hansard. I have cleared them with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones). Leave granted. The tables read as follows- STATISTICS GROUP Department of the Parliamentary Library 1986 Census of Population and Housing Ranked by the proportion of Persons employed in the Textiles Clothing and Footwear Industry Rank Electoral Division Party Per cent 1 O'Connor (WA)... LIB 0.0 2 Kalgoorlie (WA)... ALP 0.0 3 Hinkler (Qld)... ALP 0.0 4 Riverina-Darling (NSW)... NP 0.0 5 Kennedy (Qld)... NP 0.1 6 Canberra (ACT)... ALP 0.1 7 Dawson (Qld)... NP 0.1 8 Fraser (ACT)... ALP 0.1 9 New England (NSW)... NP 0.1 10 Capricornia (Qld)... ALP 0.1 11 Northern Territory (NT)... ALP 0.1 12 Eden-Monaro (NSW)... ALP 0.1 13 Leichhardt (Qld)... ALP 0.1 14 Grey (SA)... ALP 0.2 15 Herbert (Qld)... ALP 0.2 16 Maranoa (Qld)... NP 0.3 17 Parkes (NSW)... NP 0.3 18 Page (NSW)... NP 0.4 19 Mallee (Vic)... NP 0.4 20 Barker (SA)... LIB 0.4 21 Brand (WA)... ALP 0.4 22 Gippsland (Vic)... NP 0.4 23 Curtin (WA)... LIB 0.4 24 Groom (Qld)... NP 0.4 25 Fisher (Qld)... ALP 0.4 26 Ryan (Qld)... LIB 0.5 27 Wide Bay (Qld)... NP 0.5 28 Berowra (NSW)... LIB 0.5 29 Franklin (Tas)... LIB 0.5 30 Wakefield (SA)... LIB 0.5 31 Petrie (Qld)... ALP 0.5 32 Tangney (WA)... LIB 0.6 33 Canning (WA)... ALP 0.6 34 Fairfax (Qld)... NP 0.6 35 Cowan (WA)... ALP 0.6 36 Stirling (WA)... ALP 0.6 37 Hume (NSW)... LIB 0.6 38 Brisbane (Qld)... ALP 0.6 39 Boothby (SA)... LIB 0.6 40 Mitchell (NSW)... LIB 0.6 41 Fremantle (WA)... ALP 0.7 42 Richmond (NSW)... NP 0.7 43 Bradfield (NSW)... LIB 0.7 44 Swan (WA)... ALP 0.7 45 Lilley (Qld)... ALP 0.7 46 Shortland (NSW)... ALP 0.7 47 Warringah (NSW)... LIB 0.7 48 Dundas (NSW)... LIB 0.7 49 North Sydney (NSW)... LIB 0.7 50 Hughes (NSW)... ALP 0.7 51 Forrest (WA)... LIB 0.8 52 Newcastle (NSW)... ALP 0.8 53 Gwydir (NSW)... NP 0.8 54 Moore (WA)... ALP 0.8 55 Bennelong (NSW)... LIB 0.8 56 Lyons (Tas)... LIB 0.8 57 Mackellar (NSW)... LIB 0.8 58 Fadden (Qld)... LIB 0.8 59 Moreton (Qld)... LIB 0.8 60 Bowman (Qld)... ALP 0.8 61 Cook (NSW)... LIB 0.8 62 Forde (Qld)... ALP 0.8 63 Cowper (NSW)... NP 0.9 64 Dobell (NSW)... ALP 0.9 65 Lyne (NSW)... NP 0.9 66 Perth (WA)... ALP 0.9 67 Robertson (NSW)... ALP 0.9 68 Sturt (SA)... LIB 0.9 69 Hawker (SA)... ALP 1.0 70 Denison (Tas)... ALP 1.0 71 Macquarie (NSW)... LIB 1.0 72 Mayo (SA)... LIB 1.1 73 Rankin (Qld)... ALP 1.1 74 Griffith (Qld)... ALP 1.1 75 Farrer (NSW)... NP 1.2 76 Murray (Vic)... NP 1.2 77 McPherson (Qld)... LIB 1.2 78 Adelaide (SA)... ALP 1.2 79 Moncrieff (Qld) LIB 1.2 80 Charlton (NSW)... ALP 1.2 81 Gilmore (NSW)... NP 1.2 82 Braddon (Tas)... LIB 1.2 83 Kingston (SA)... ALP 1.3 84 Oxley (Qld)... ALP 1.3 85 Calare (NSW)... ALP 1.3 86 Macarthur (NSW)... ALP 1.3 87 Phillip (NSW)... ALP 1.3 88 Makin (SA)... ALP 1.4 89 Lindsay (NSW)... ALP 1.5 90 McMillan (Vic)... ALP 1.5 91 Banks (NSW)... ALP 1.5 92 Flinders (Vic)... LIB 1.5 93 Throsby (NSW)... ALP 1.5 94 Casey (Vic)... LIB 1.6 95 Hindmarsh (SA)... ALP 1.6 96 Werriwa (NSW)... ALP 1.6 97 Parramatta (NSW)... ALP 1.6 98 Wentworth (NSW)... LIB 1.6 99 Isaacs (Vic)... ALP 1.7 100 Barton (NSW)... ALP 1.8 101 Greenway (NSW)... ALP 1.8 102 Wannon (Vic)... LIB 1.8 103 Dunkley (Vic)... ALP 1.9 104 Port Adelaide (SA)... ALP 2.0 105 Aston (Vic)... ALP 2.0 106 La Trobe (Vic)... ALP 2.0 107 Ballarat (Vic)... ALP 2.0 108 Lowe (NSW)... LIB 2.0 109 Kooyong (Vic)... LIB 2.1 110 Deakin (Vic)... LIB 2.1 111 Chisholm (Vic)... LIB 2.2 112 Chifley (NSW)... ALP 2.2 113 Reid (NSW)... ALP 2.2 114 Streeton (Vic)... ALP 2.2 115 Sydney (NSW)... ALP 2.2 116 Bruce (Vic)... LIB 2.3 117 Bass (Tas)... LIB 2.3 118 Cunningham (NSW)... ALP 2.3 119 Kingsford-Smith (NSW)... ALP 2.4 120 Higgins (Vic)... LIB 2.4 121 Prospect (NSW)... ALP 2.5 122 Lalor (Vic)... ALP 2.5 123 Burke (Vic)... ALP 2.5 124 Fowler (NSW)... ALP 2.5 125 Henty (Vic)... ALP 2.5 126 Hunter (NSW)... ALP 2.5 127 Goldstein (Vic)... LIB 2.6 128 Blaxland (NSW)... ALP 2.6 129 Corangamite (Vic)... LIB 2.7 130 Bonython (SA)... ALP 2.8 131 Menzies (Vic)... LIB 2.8 132 Holt (Vic)... ALP 2.9 133 Jagajaga (Vic)... ALP 2.9 134 Melbourne Ports (Vic)... ALP 3.0 135 Maribyrnong (Vic)... ALP 3.0 136 McEwen (Vic)... ALP 3.0 137 St George (NSW)... ALP 3.3 138 Hotham (Vic)... ALP 3.3 139 Indi (Vic)... LIB 4.0 140 Grayndler (NSW)... ALP 4.4 141 Melbourne (Vic)... ALP 5.0 142 Calwell (Vic)... ALP 5.0 143 Gellibrand (Vic)... ALP 5.1 144 Bendigo (Vic)... ALP 5.1 145 Corio (Vic)... ALP 6.0 146 Wills (Vic)... ALP 7.7 147 Batman (Vic)... ALP 7.9 148 Scullin (Vic)... ALP 8.3 Statistics Group Department of the Parliamentary Library 1986 Census of Population and Housing Ranked by the number of Persons employed in the Textiles Clothing and Footwear Industry Rank Electoral Division Party Number 1 O'Connor (WA) ... LIB 9 2 Hinkler (Qld) ... ALP 17 3 Riverina-Darling (NSW) ... NP 18 4 Kalgoorlie (WA) ... ALP 27 5 Kennedy (Qld) ... NP 38 6 New England (NSW) ... NP 42 7 Dawson (Qld) ... NP 44 8 Capricornia (Qld) ... ALP 53 9 Canberra (ACT) ... ALP 56 10 Eden-Monaro (NSW) ... ALP 59 11 Fraser (ACT) ... ALP 61 12 Leichhardt (Qld) ... ALP 65 13 Grey (SA) ... ALP 74 14 Northern Territory (NT) ... ALP 83 15 Herbert (Qld) ... ALP 100 16 Parkes (NSW) ... NP 106 17 Page (NSW) ... NP 122 18 Maranoa (Qld) ... NP 127 19 Brand (WA) ... ALP 141 20 Mallee (Vic) ... NP 155 21 Gippsland (Vic) ... NP 162 22 Wide Bay (Qld) ... NP 167 23 Barker (SA) ... LIB 173 24 Groom (Qld) ... NP 177 25 Franklin (Tas) ... LIB 183 26 Curtin (WA) ... LIB 184 27 Fisher (Qld) ... ALP 191 28 Fairfax (Qld) ... NP 192 29 Richmond (NSW) ... NP 216 30 Petrie (Qld ... ALP 218 31 Ryan (Qld) ... LIB 220 32 Wakefield (SA) ... LIB 226 33 Berowra (NSW) ... LIB 238 34 Tangney (WA) ... LIB 245 35 Stirling (WA) ... ALP 252 36 Hume (NSW) ... LIB 252 37 Newcastle (NSW) ... ALP 257 38 Shortland (NSW) ... ALP 262 39 Brisbane (Qld) ... ALP 263 40 Dobell (NSW) ... ALP 268 41 Canning (WA) ... ALP 270 42 Lilley (Qld) ... ALP 275 43 Cowan (WA) ... ALP 277 44 Lyons (Tas) ... LIB 283 45 Boothby (SA) ... LIB 285 46 Fremantle (WA) ... ALP 286 47 Swan (WA) ... ALP 290 48 Cowper (NSW) ... NP 292 49 Bradfield (NSW) ... LIB 302 50 Lyne (NSW)... NP 304 51 Forrest (WA) ... LIB 306 52 Mitchell (NSW) ... LIB 310 53 Fadden (Qld) ... LIB 319 54 Robertson (NSW) ... ALP 325 55 Moreton (Qld) ... LIB 329 56 Dundas (NSW) ... LIB 338 57 Gwydir (NSW) ... NP 340 58 Forde (Qld) ... ALP 350 59 Moore (WA) ... ALP 353 60 Hughes (NSW) ... ALP 359 61 Warringah (NSW) ... LIB 361 62 Denison (Tas) ... ALP 366 63 Bowman (Qld) ... ALP 369 64 Cook (NSW) ... LIB 370 65 Hawker (SA) ... ALP 374 66 Mackellar (NSW) ... LIB 388 67 Bennelong (NSW) ... LIB 389 68 North Sydney (NSW) ... LIB 409 69 Braddon (Tas) ... LIB 410 70 Sturt (SA) ... LIB 415 71 Perth (WA) ... ALP 424 72 Macquarie (NSW) ... LIB 431 73 Charlton (NSW) ... ALP 434 74 Gilmore (NSW) ... NP 447 75 Rankin (Qld) ... ALP 464 76 Mayo (SA) ... LIB 469 77 Murray (Vic) ... NP 472 78 Griffith (Qld) ... ALP 489 79 Moncrieff (Qld) ... LIB 490 80 Oxley (Qld) ... ALP 516 81 Macarthur (NSW) ... ALP 518 82 Farrer (NSW) ... NP 526 83 Adelaide (SA) ... ALP 533 84 McPherson (Qld) ... LIB 551 85 Calare (NSW) ... ALP 552 86 Throsby (NSW) ... ALP 563 87 Kingston (SA) ... ALP 569 88 Flinders (Vic) ... LIB 582 89 Banks (NSW) ... ALP 624 90 McMillan (Vic) ... ALP 655 91 Lindsay (NSW) ... ALP 669 92 Hindmarsh (SA)... ALP 673 93 Isaacs (Vic) ... ALP 686 94 Makin (SA) ... ALP 696 95 Port Adelaide (SA) ... ALP 747 96 Parramatta (NSW) ... ALP 747 97 Phillip (NSW) ... ALP 754 98 Wannon (Vic) ... LIB 761 99 Dunkley (Vic) ... ALP 768 100 Bass (Tas) ... LIB 781 101 Barton (NSW) ... ALP 788 102 Ballarat (Vic) ... ALP 803 103 Greenway (NSW) ... ALP 810 104 Casey (Vic) ... LIB 811 105 Werriwa (NSW) ... ALP 814 106 Wentworth (NSW) ... LIB 876 107 Cunningham (NSW) ... ALP 880 108 Reid (NSW) ... ALP 915 109 Chisholm (Vic) ... LIB 919 110 Kooyong (Vic) ... LIB 924 111 La Trobe (vic) ... ALP 951 112 Deakin (Vic) ... LIB 975 113 Lowe (NSW) ... LIB 976 114 Aston (Vic) ... ALP 980 115 Streeton (Vic) ... ALP 984 116 Chifley (NSW) ... ALP 989 117 Henty (Vic) ... ALP 1057 118 Higgins (Vic) ... LIB 1065 119 Corangamite (Vic) ... LIB 1066 120 Hunter (NSW) ... ALP 1068 121 Bruce (Vic) ... LIB 1075 122 Kingsford-Smith (NSW) ... ALP 1104 123 Blaxland (NSW) ... ALP 1122 124 Goldstein (Vic) ... LIB 1125 125 Fowler (NSW) ... ALP 1153 126 Burke (Vic) ... ALP 1163 127 Bonython (SA) ... ALP 1196 128 Sydney (NSW) ... ALP 1232 129 Jagajaga (Vic) ... ALP 1240 130 Prospect (NSW) ... ALP 1242 131 Menzies (Vic) ... LIB 1300 132 Lalor (Vic) ... ALP 1349 133 Maribyrnong (Vic) ... ALP 1377 134 Holt (Vic) ... ALP 1383 135 St George (NSW) ... ALP 1424 136 Melbourne Ports (Vic) ... ALP 1505 137 McEwen (Vic) ... ALP 1543 138 Hotham (Vic) ... ALP 1623 139 Bendigo (Vic) ... ALP 1878 140 Indi (Vic) ... LIB 1914 141 Gellibrand (Vic) ... ALP 2113 142 Grayndler (NSW) ... ALP 2181 143 Calwell (Vic) ... ALP 2286 144 Corio (Vic) ... ALP 2332 145 Melbourne (Vic) ... ALP 2764 146 Scullin (Vic) ... ALP 3196 147 Batman (Vic) ... ALP 3287 148 Wills (Vic) ... ALP 3298 1986 Census of Population and Housing Persons employed in the Textiles Clothing and Footwear Industry Electoral Division Party Number Adelaide (SA) ... ALP 533 Aston (Vic) ... ALP 980 Ballarat (Vic) ... ALP 803 Banks (NSW) ... ALP 624 Barker (SA) ... LIB 173 Barton (NSW) ... ALP 788 Bass (Tas) ... LIB 781 Batman (Vic) ... ALP 3287 Bendigo (Vic) ... ALP 1878 Bennelong (NSW) ... LIB 389 Berowra (NSW) ... LIB 238 Blaxland (NSW) ... ALP 1122 Bonython (SA) ... ALP 1196 Boothby (SA) ... LIB 285 Bowman (Qld) ... ALP 369 Braddon (Tas)... LIB 410 Bradfield (NSW) ... LIB 302 Brand (WA) ... ALP 141 Brisbane (Qld) ... ALP 263 Bruce (Vic) ... LIB 1075 Burke (Vic)... ALP 1163 Calare (NSW) ... ALP 552 Calwell (Vic) ... ALP 2286 Canberra (ACT) ... ALP 56 Canning (WA) ... ALP 270 Capricornia (Qld) ... ALP 53 Casey (Vic) ... LIB 811 Charlton (NSW) ... ALP 434 Chifley (NSW) ... ALP 989 Chisholm (Vic) ... LIB 919 Cook (NSW) ... LIB 370 Corangamite (Vic) ... LIB 1066 Corio (Vic) ... ALP 2332 Cowan (WA) ... ALP 277 Cowper (NSW) ... NP 292 Cunningham (NSW) ... ALP 880 Curtin (WA) ... LIB 184 Dawson (Qld) ... NP 44 Deakin (Vic) ... LIB 975 Denison (Tas) ... ALP 366 Dobell (NSW) ... ALP 268 Dundas (NSW) ... LIB 338 Dunkley (Vic) ... ALP 768 Eden-Monaro (NSW) ... ALP 59 Fadden (Qld) ... LIB 319 Fairfax (Qld) ... NP 192 Farrer (NSW) ... NP 526 Fisher (Qld) ... ALP 191 Flinders (Vic) ... LIB 582 Forde ... ALP 350 Forrest (WA) ... LIB 306 Fowler (NSW) ... ALP 1153 Franklin (Tas) ... LIB 183 Fraser (ACT) ... ALP 61 Fremantle (WA) ... ALP 286 Gellibrand (Vic) ... ALP 2113 Gilmore (NSW) ... NP 447 Gippsland (Vic) ... NP 162 Goldstein (Vic) ... LIB 1125 Grayndler (NSW) ... ALP 2181 Greenway (NSW) ... ALP 810 Grey (SA) ... ALP 74 Griffith (Qld) ... ALP 489 Groom (Qld) ... NP 177 Gwydir (NSW) ... NP 340 Hawker (SA) ... ALP 374 Henty (Vic) ... ALP 1057 Herbert (Qld) ... ALP 100 Higgins (Vic) ... LIB 1065 Hindmarsh (SA) ... ALP 673 Hinkler (Qld) ... ALP 17 Holt (Vic) ... ALP 1383 Hotham (Vic) ... ALP 1623 Hughes (NSW) ... ALP 359 Hume (NSW) ... LIB 252 Hunter (NSW) ... ALP 1068 Indi (Vic) ... LIB 1914 Isaacs (Vic) ... ALP 686 Jagajaga (Vic) ... ALP 1240 Kalgoorlie (WA) ... ALP 27 Kennedy (Qld) ... NP 38 Kingsford-Smith (NSW) ... ALP 1104 Kingston (SA) ... ALP 569 Kooyong (Vic) ... LIB 924 Lalor (Vic) ... ALP 1349 La Trobe (Vic) ... ALP 951 Leichhardt (Qld) ... ALP 65 Lilley (Qld) ... ALP 275 Lindsay (NSW) ... ALP 669 Lowe (NSW) ... LIB 976 Lyne (NSW) ... NP 304 Lyons (Tas)... LIB 283 Macarthur (NSW)... ALP 518 Mackellar (NSW)... LIB 388 Macquarie (NSW)... LIB 431 Makin (SA)... ALP 696 Mallee (Vic)... NP 155 Maranoa (Qld)... NP 127 Maribyrnong (Vic)... ALP 1377 Mayo (SA)... LIB 469 McEwen (Vic)... ALP 1543 McMillan (Vic)... ALP 655 McPherson (Qld)... LIB 551 Melbourne (Vic)... ALP 2764 Melbourne Ports (Vic)... ALP 1505 Menzies (Vic)... LIB 1300 Mitchell (NSW)... LIB 310 Moncrieff (Qld)... LIB 490 Moore (WA)... ALP 353 Moreton (Qld)... LIB 329 Murray (Vic)... NP 472 Newcastle (NSW)... ALP 257 New England (NSW)... NP 42 Northern Territory (NT)... ALP 83 North Sydney (NSW)... LIB 409 O'Connor (WA)... LIB 9 Oxley (Qld)... ALP 516 Page (NSW)... NP 122 Parkes (NSW)... NP 106 Parramatta (NSW)... ALP 747 Perth (WA)... ALP 424 Petrie (Qld)... ALP 218 Phillip (NSW)... ALP 754 Port Adelaide (SA)... ALP 747 Prospect (NSW)... ALP 1242 Rankin (Qld)... ALP 464 Reid (NSW)... ALP 915 Richmond (NSW)... NP 216 Riverina-Darling (NSW)... NP 18 Robertson (NSW)... ALP 325 Ryan (Qld)... LIB 220 Scullin (Vic)... ALP 3196 Shortland (NSW)... ALP 262 St George (NSW)... ALP 1424 Stirling (WA)... ALP 252 Streeton (Vic)... ALP 984 Sturt (SA)... LIB 415 Swan (WA)... ALP 290 Sydney (NSW)... ALP 1232 Tangney (WA)... LIB 245 Throsby (NSW)... ALP 563 Wakefield (SA)... LIB 226 Wannon (Vic)... LIB 761 Warringah (NSW)... LIB 361 Wentworth (NSW)... LIB 876 Werriwa (NSW)... ALP 814 Wide Bay (Qld)... NP 167 Wills (Vic)... ALP 3298 Mr COBB —Those tables clearly show where the high numbers of workers are located. Incidentally, they are mainly in Labor-held seats. Those seats are, by previous standards, relatively safe; so no party need fear doing the right thing by the Australian economy by rationalising properly in those areas. As a general statement, TCF industries in Australia are inefficient by world standards. We have a low entrepreneurial spirit and a low level of innovation in this area. In effect, high protection has only served to lock the industry into the domestic market. Because of the high protection the industries can export very little because they cannot compete. Over the last decade or so this has been exacerbated by the East Asia push and by the high wage structure here which has caused a slump in the industry. The textiles, clothing and footwear industries today enjoy the highest protection levels of any industry in Australia. They are only rivalled by the motor vehicle industry. The average level of protection for textiles is of the order of 50 per cent and for clothing and footwear it exceeds 100 per cent and sometimes exceeds 200 per cent. If we compare this with the manufacturing average effective rate of assistance, which is only 25 per cent, I think that puts it into perspective. In fact, if we extract the two highest areas-textiles, clothing and footwear and motor vehicles-the average level in manufacturing in Australia is only 15 per cent, which is relatively low. A great variation of protection is given within the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. It varies from 2 per cent at the lowest up to well over 100 per cent and 200 per cent. I quote some of the highest protected areas from an article in the Business Review Weekly of 26 February this year. Stockings are apparently receiving assistance of 188 per cent; cardigans and pullovers in excess of 250 per cent; men's work clothing, 128 per cent; footwear, 182 per cent; women's foundation garments, 250 per cent; underwear, 250 per cent; household textiles, 117 per cent; and textile floor coverings, 219 per cent. In the past we have seen penalty tariff rates which range up to 440 per cent for some articles. I want particularly to make some comments on employment because there is a lot of concern that the changes to be made from next year onwards will cause some unemployment. I think the Industries Assistance Commission has said that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost each year over seven years. This would total about 20,000 jobs for these industries. Of course, the opponents of the changes say that the job losses will be even higher, but there are no valid facts to substantiate that. At present about 120,000 people are employed in the industry. About 75,000 of those are female, and that represents 3 per cent of the total female employment in Australia. But let us not forget that 26 per cent of the workers in this industry voluntarily change their jobs each year. In fact, 60 per cent of the workers in the industry have been employed for less than five years. Most TCF workers have had other jobs. In fact, 24 per cent have been unemployed over the last three years. Most ex-TCF workers, when they have left the industry, have got into another job quite readily. The overwhelming majority of them have said that their current job was better than when they were working in TCF industries. Over 30,000 leave the industry each year of their own free will and a similar number enter the work force, so it is a very mobile work force. On top of that, between 1971 and 1985, 60,000 lost their jobs in this industry, despite higher and higher protection being placed on the industry. The workers usually need between one and three months on-the-job training. They have demonstrated that they can learn the skills in that industry, and there is no reason why they cannot learn the skills necessary for other jobs. There is much concern about migrants in the industry, especially migrant women. Some 43 per cent of TCF employees are migrants. The TCF industry employs about 8 per cent of all migrant women in Australia, which in 1985 amounted to 49,000 women out of a total of 607,000 migrant women. So the industry is employing one in 12 migrant women that have a job. But 60 per cent of these migrant women have been in Australia for longer than 15 years, and 95 per cent of them have been here longer than five years. So I think the worry about migrants, and particularly migrant women, is somewhat misplaced. Their position is very similar to that of other Australians. In fact, they might even be better equipped. Most migrants, too, are employed in Geelong and Wollongong, and both of these centres are close to capital cities; so if unemployment occurs they are well situated geographically to get jobs elsewhere. Let us not forget that there is a very good safety net in this country today: unemployment benefits, special benefits, retraining schemes and so on. We must not continue to reward failure to adjust through higher protection because of an overstated and misplaced concern about the structure of the work force and its ability to adjust readily to necessary change. Dynamic gains are to be had from letting the marketplace take its course, and these gains are real, large and recognised by other countries. The Industries Assistance Commission studies have shown, in this industry and others, that for every job shed up to three jobs can be created elsewhere because of the beneficial effects that flow through. That finding is similar to that of studies done overseas, too. There are, of course, 150,000 jobs in TCF retailing, wholesaling and importing. The number of these jobs will increase if tariff protection comes down and prices fall. That is a similar story to that of the car industry, in which, if tariffs come down, employment in the service industries for the car industry will increase, too. If tariff protection comes down people will import more, and that will benefit large and small industries alike. In one of its submissions, the Fashion Industry of Australia estimated that, even if the fashion industries received a subsidy of 100 per cent of the direct labour costs, they still faced a cost disability of 66 per cent against Asian suppliers. So it is clear that structural change is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth in this country. We have a situation today in which the highest assistance is being given to the least suited in our economic environment. We have had 500 reports since 1921 in the TCF area. It is, indeed, time for action. There will be many beneficial effects if these changes are implemented. Because of lower prices, consumers will benefit. Tariff protection to manufacturing in 1986-87 totalled $6.9 billion in this country, which was a tax on consumers of $7.6 billion. In the TCF area alone their contribution was $1 billion. If levels of protection came down to 50 per cent, that contribution would drop about 40 per cent. The poor are hit hardest by the prices being forced up due to this protection. Let us not forget that the poorest 22 per cent in this country pay more in tariff taxes than they do in income taxes. The protection we have in Australia today is equivalent to putting on these goods a consumption tax of 40 per cent. When there is all this hoo-ha in the Press about whether we are to have a consumption tax of 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, or whatever, let us bear that in mind. High protection restricts choice. We have seen that with children's footwear, which has been restricted in Australia, and there is less variety of it. Of course, if goods are dearer, people are forced to buy less or to buy cheaper alternatives. It upsets buying patterns. People are forced to buy substitutes or to neglect buying goods at all. It means a lower standard of living for all of us because this country is misallocating its resources. It stifles competitive industry. The rules and regulations are very complex and very hard to understand. Some people have taken up to four years to understand fully the present seven-year plan, and that costs over $2m a year to administer. Of course, high prices force up inflation. I have already mentioned the effect on jobs. Let us not forget that if tariffs come down, other industries will benefit from the lower inflation and from the capital and labour that was put into the TCF industries being available to be spread elsewhere. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(5.56) —Since gaining office in 1983, the Hawke Government has initiated a series of programs designed to restructure and revitalise Australian industries. These programs followed years of industrial neglect and the disastrous economic policies inflicted on this country by the Fraser-Howard Government. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill is another step in the Government's campaign to make Australian industries more competitive. The manufacturing industry in this country was almost totally destroyed by the John Howard-induced recession of 1982. When we came to office Australia was virtually without a competitive industry structure. With an overvalued dollar and an overregulated financial system, Australian business had no opportunity to compete in the world market. Jobs were lost, businesses closed and Australia faced prolonged economic decline. Our vulnerability stemmed from 30 years of policy failure under conservative governments. Australia had an over-reliance on a narrow export base in mineral and agricultural commodities. The country was of the view that, if it could not be mined or grown, it was not worth having. Due to the failure of the Fraser-Howard Government to widen our industrial base, Australia now faces a terms of trade crisis. It has now become a matter of urgency for Australian manufacturers to become export oriented to offset the decline in income from traditional exports. Our industries have to become internationally competitive. In the past, Australian industries have been reliant on protection in the form of tariffs and other trade barriers to survive. As a result, industries were weakened and became inward-looking, concentrating on the domestic market rather than pursuing overseas markets. Many trading opportunities have been allowed to slip away because our major businesses and firms have been unable to grasp them. They have lacked the foresight and the courage to take a chance. It was considered much easier to cater for the safe domestic market than to confront the lucrative international market. Australia is one of the major sources of some of the most sought after raw materials in the world. However, our businesses have continually failed to capitalise on our resource base. Australia is rich in cotton and wool, yet processes less than 5 per cent of wool produced and only 10 per cent of our cotton crop. The Hawke Government has recognised the need for Australian firms to become more competitive. We have embarked on a series of policies designed to restore the dynamic nature of our industries. This Government has undertaken to reform our industries and make our economy more efficient and more attuned to world markets. We have deregulated the financial market, devalued the dollar, established the national industry extension service (NIES) to provide advice to firms, introduced a 150 per cent tax concession for research and development, established the management and investment companies scheme, reformed the tax system, and liberalised foreign investment policy. This record is in stark contrast to that of the Fraser-Howard Government. No effort was made to restructure or reform industries or the economy. In recognition of its poor record, the Liberal Party is now trying to decide whether it was Malcolm Fraser or the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who was responsible for the lack of necessary economic change during the seventies and into the early eighties. The coalition's efforts in reforming the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries were also unspectacular. In 1977, the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) presented a report on the need for wholesale restructuring of the industries. Subsequently, the only reaction from the coalition Government was to call for an inquiry into the future of the IAC-a classic case of if one does not like the message, shoot the messenger. After totally ignoring the recommendations of the report, the conservative Government increased the amount of protection to the textiles, clothing and footwear industries in November 1977. Luckily for the Australian economy, this mentality was not inherited by the Hawke Government. The dinosaurs have not continued to receive unqualified protection under this Government. They have been forced to change-to become more in step with international demands and markets. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill aims to restructure the TCF industries. These industries are significant employers taking up nearly 10 per cent of the manufacturing work force. The Bill sets out the key elements of the Government's policy of reform. The plan involves the establishment of an industries development strategy and a development authority and changes to import protection. A package designed to minimise the effect of the changes on the work force has also been developed. The industries development strategy will consist of a raw materials processing program and an industries efficiency program dealing with plant and equipment modernisation, industry infrastructure and incentives for international competitiveness. An export development program is also included in the package. The raw materials processing program aims to develop facilities within Australia for the processing of Australian wool, cotton, skins and hides. Most of these products are exported as raw materials rather than as finished products. Efforts need to be made to encourage more domestic production which would boost our exports and improve our balance of trade. Finance for investment into suitable projects will be provided through the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the AIDC. A number of studies will also be undertaken into suitable processing ventures. Development of more facilities for the processing of raw materials will bring to an end the absurd situation where Australian hides are exported in the raw state and then imported as Italian leather shoes at highly inflated prices. This practice contributes little to Australia's export earnings or the need to strengthen our manufacturing sector. The industries' efficiency, plant and equipment modernisation and international competitiveness incentive programs are all designed to improve the efficiency of existing TCF firms. All seek to improve efficiency by dealing with internal factors which have limited their ability to compete with imports and on the international market. The industries' efficiency program will encourage firms to assess their current position and their strengths and weaknesses. This will allow firms to formulate and implement long term strategies which can increase their strength. The industries' efficiency program will have a number of strands, including a general industry subprogram, and a scheme to assist bounty recipients with investment. The subprogram will increase firms' access to the national industry extension service scheme. This scheme provides small and medium sized firms with the opportunity to improve their efficiency and to develop marketing and promotion programs. Bounty recipients will be allowed to capitalise part of the future bounty payments. This will provide investment for modernisation projects. The industries' infrastructure program will deal with problems encountered with the work force in TCF industries. The program will coordinate infrastructure support, including the upgrading of skills, information services and research and development. A study into existing and future training arrangements will be conducted and a report made to the appropriate Minister. Any upgrading of industries has to direct attention to the skills of its work force. An Australian work force which does not possess adequate training and skills will not be as productive as another country's work force which has been highly trained to carry out specific tasks. A more skilled work force results in increased productivity. An upgrading of skills, especially within management, will do much to boost the international competitiveness of Australia's TCF industries. The export development program will implement a number of measures designed to support increased exports of TCF products. The measures will be coordinated through Austrade, which will establish a self-contained TCF unit. The Austrade unit will develop a data base on overseas market conditions and will promote Australian TCF products internationally. The Government is conscious of the concern expressed by TCF companies over the impact of the Government's plan on people employed within the industries. The Government has developed a package of labour adjustment measures which will assist workers to become re-employed in jobs outside the TCF industries. This package will take into account the particular characteristics of the industry's labour force, including the high percentage of female and migrant workers. The assistance came into effect on 1 January of this year. The package includes access to training allowances, vocational training wage subsidies and relocation assistance for those who are willing to relocate to find employment. A special training allowance of $100 a week is also included in the labour adjustment package and will provide people with a financial incentive to retrain. Mr Hand —Particularly for women. Mr BEDDALL —Particularly for women and particularly for migrant women. The Hawke Government is also mindful of the effect the restructuring will have on some communities and regional centres where a number of TCF firms are established. Provision has been made for a study of the impact on these centres by the Office of Local Government and the newly established TCF Development Authority. The strategies to increase competitiveness and to improve the skills of the TCF work force will work in conjunction with a phased reduction of barrier protection. The TCF plan involves the gradual phasing out of import quota restrictions and a decrease in tariffs to 60 per cent by 1996. The overall monitoring of the Federal Government's plan to restructure the textiles, clothing and footwear industries will be carried out by the TCF Development Authority. The Authority will be responsible for the administration of the industries' development strategy and will liaise closely with bodies such as NIES and Austrade. These bodies will be involved in the delivery of other programs. The Development Authority will also be responsible for the promotion of the Government's strategies and ensure that TCF firms are aware of the plan. Through its overseeing of the implementation of the plan, the Authority will be able to identify any weakness or inconsistencies that may occur. The Authority will also have the power and flexibility to alter programs and recommend new initiatives-always first gaining the Minister's approval. It will report on the progress of the plan to achieve the Government's objectives and will be responsible for conducting a major review by 1992. The Authority will report on all aspects of the plan, including the effect on efficiency and productivity, staff training and management. The Government has allocated $1.2m for the establishment of the Authority in 1987-88 and an additional $5m for the implementation of the programs. The Authority will operate for the life of the Federal Government's plan-scheduled to end in 1996. Further policies on restructuring TCF industries will be carried out by the IAC before the expiration of the current policy. The TCF plan developed by the Hawke Government has won widespread endorsement and support from within the industries. This would seem to indicate that the industries are aware that they cannot continue with their narrow inward looking focus which has been encouraged by consecutive conservative governments. This new plan will build on the industries' current strengths and skills. It will assist in restoring the competitiveness to the industries and ensure that they are dynamic enough to compete on world markets. More competitive and secure industries will contribute to the national wealth. The Government's policy has taken into account the changing nature of the industries. The overall impression of the plan is its flexibility-something which was never a feature of previous conservative governments. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(6.08) —Tonight we are discussing the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988. As honourable members would be aware, whilst the Opposition agrees with the thrust of what the Government has put forward, we disagree with the setting up of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. At long last the Government has realised that we must change the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries so that they can compete on world markets. The Opposition is concerned with the method of bringing about this change, rather than the general thrust of the Government's policy. The Opposition is opposed to the setting up of the Authority on the grounds that it is another quango. It is a bureaucratic organisation which will play an intrusive and interfering role in the industries. Of course, we also have to take into account the cost of setting up the Authority. In addition, with the present Labor Administration, there will also be the obvious trade union influence. If we look carefully we see that some rather disturbing features are contained in the Bill. For instance, under clause 37-and this was mentioned by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb)-the Authority, when considering an application for international competitive incentive programs seeking funds, would have to be mindful of minimising involuntary reductions of employment in the producer's business. This is one of the very problems that the TCF industries face all the time. Of course, the Authority would have to consult trade unions and employees. We can be sure what their answers would be. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) referred to clause 58 which contains the confidentiality provisions. There are some very damaging requirements about the confidentiality of people dealing with the Authority. They can be forced to produce evidence to the Authority, often against their better judgment. The textiles, clothing and footwear industries have been subjected to numerous inquiries. I gather that, since 1920, over 500 inquiries have looked at these industries. The focus of the protection debate has encompassed management and workers and has been encouraged by the centralised industrial relations system in Australia. We have an inflexible system. In such an environment the work force and management were able to extract more and more protection from government. It is interesting that on the very day that we are discussing the Bill, whilst the Government has at least suggested tariff cuts and has moved in the right direction-I commend Senator Button for his attitude in this area-this morning's Age ran the headline `Tariff cuts spell doom for industry: CAI'. Yet again, we see the forces of workers and management saying that there cannot be any cuts in industry protection. Likewise, in a similar news release we see, `CAI backs Cabinet line on tariffs'. In the small print it is suggested that the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) is quite happy for a gradual reduction in tariffs and let us not have too much of a 25 per cent cut. The Australian ran the headline `Tariff cuts ``may cost 15,000 jobs'' '. Mr Greg Harrison of the metal workers union is putting pressure on the Government to say that, if the tariff cuts are too severe, jobs will be lost. We have been hearing those arguments since the 1920s and nothing is different today. This manifestation of difficulties was demonstrated clearly in the cartoon in today's Age which showed the twins-big business and big unions-living off the milk of government support and Treasurer Keating making the comment, `The problem with twins, of course Bob, is that they're both going to scream together'. That is, when the high tariffs are taken away there will be a combination of management and unions looking for further government support. The TCF industry is a significant employer. It employs 10 per cent of the manufacturing work force, covering about 2,500 textiles, clothing and footwear enterprises. The other interesting feature of the whole industry is that there are 11 large enterprises which employ 30 per cent of the work force. About 120,000 people are employed and they are concentrated in Sydney and Melbourne. Of course, in those cities politicians are around and the Australian Council of Trade Unions operates from there. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission also operates from Melbourne. The lobby groups have become very skilled in putting their point of view and working on politicians to maintain their protective barriers. Concentration in country towns also adds political influence to the industry, particularly in Wangaratta, Warrnambool, which is the home town of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand)-I acknowledge that the Minister has a long association with the industry and understands some of the difficulties, but even he would go along with a reduction in tariffs so the industry can become more competitive-Stalwell and Geelong. There is a political problem in that the pressures are very heavy on the local political representatives to maintain jobs. I support the workers in my electorate, especially textile workers. I should think that they would be efficient and effective and would adopt new industrial relations practices and not depend on government protection from the cold winds of international competition. Local producers sell about 70 per cent of their goods in the Australian market so, again, they are protected from the harsh winds of international competition. In the 1970s there was a recognition of the impact of imports in the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. However, by 1982 there was a change in the debate when the government of the day opened the Australian market to export competition and the industry began to concentrate on the efficient area of local production. In the 1980s the whole protection argument became more rational. Exporters put forward their arguments, representing farmers and miners. I pay particular tribute to Mr David Trebeck of the National Farmers Federation who put forward the arguments on behalf of woolgrowers. His contribution to the tariff debate was quite significant in changing attitudes in the community at large, and those in the farming community, when they understood fully the impact and the costs of high tariff protection policies on their industries. The problems that those debates caused in conservative ranks have come to the public's mind in recent times. In the 1960s, a former Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon, attempted to provide some rationale for tariff protection in Australia. That rational debate was resisted rather strongly by Sir John McEwen, the Leader of the then Country Party, who ran a line of protection at all costs. The rational debate during that period did not get an airing in public or among the then Government or Opposition. The other important influence in the debate of those years was that of the Modest Member-a former member of this House, Mr Bert Kelly-who was a very lonely figure during these debates, even among his own people. With sheer logic and a very sharp wit, as well as a considerable amount of research, he turned the absurdities of the argument to a point of laughter and ridicule because a number of industries were receiving more and more protection at the expense of our export earners. As I have said earlier in this debate, the TCF industry has been subjected to a number of Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) reports. The reaction was always one of, `shock, horror, how could the industry live with any sensible recommendations because of the employment prospects, relocation, the flood of Asian imports and so on?'. Time after time, the traditional lobbying capacities of the industry, the employment under one roof principle and the concept of big factories all added to militate against intelligent recommendations by the IAC. The IAC report of May 1986 yet again put up some sensible and intelligent arguments about the position of the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. It produced lengthy submissions, having talked to the industry and the people in it. The industry developed an insular mentality when it was protected by these high tariff walls and had no appreciation of the world scene. I wish to quote from a paragraph of the report which, I think, describes very clearly the sort of outlook that had developed and the sorts of effects that high tariff barriers had on Australian industry in general, and exporters particularly, and the attitude of management in business. The report states: Any negative effects of lowering protective barriers would be overwhelmed by the benefits. Most attempts to measure these benefits are necessarily static, constrained exercises. They cannot hope to catch the dynamic gains but these would be pervasive and large. The benefits would flow from reducing incentives to defend existing structures. In the place of cumbersome, defensive organisations where risk-takers and entrepreneurs are stifled, organisations which encouraged these attributes would evolve. The energetic search for prices, costs, products and ideas would flourish. Co-operation would evolve as people concentrate on making the economic cake bigger, and not on squabbling about how it is to be cut up. All these are the sources of dynamic gains; individually little and subtle they may be, but collectively that is where the answer lies. The test that they exist is sadly a negative one. Australia has slipped by comparison with other countries in almost any measure of economic performance over the past 20 years. That suggests that dynamic gains are real, large and known about by other countries. This indicates the sort of outlook that is being suggested by the IAC and a change of attitude. Of course, along with the centralised operations of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that helped to contain our living standards at the lower level. The Opposition agrees with the thrust of the TCF seven-year sectoral plan, beginning on 1 March 1989, when there will be a phasedown in quota rates and an increase in quota volumes by 1.2 per cent per annum. By March 1996 all quotas will be abolished. Tariff protection on footwear will be 50 per cent, on footwear parts 40 per cent, and on clothing and textiles 60 per cent. Under the sectoral plan, $200m worth of government funds will be spent on four industry programs. We support the thrust of the operation but not the way in which it is being implemented. I turn to some comments made by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and quote the Director of the Bureau, Dr Robert Bain, in a report that was produced in the last month. It indicated the problems that exporters suffered compared to highly protected industries such as the TCF. The report states: High levels of assistance force up prices to consumers, causing inflation and higher wage costs. Also they directly affect the ability of export industries to compete in world markets. There are some highly protected industries in most sectors of the economy. On average, assistance to the manufacturing sector is higher (at around 20 per cent) than to agriculture (around 12 per cent), while the minerals and energy industries receive negative assistance (-1 per cent) with the exception of gold mining (9 per cent). The more highly protected farming industries are eggs, dairy, sugar, rice, canning fruit and tobacco, while the large broad-acre industries such as wool, wheat, beef and other grains have low levels of assistance. In manufacturing, motor vehicles and textiles, clothing and footwear stand out as very highly protected, while many `value adding' activities such as cotton ginning, wool scouring, metal smelting and flour milling have negative rates of assistance. The Bureau goes on in the report to say that the effective agricultural rate is 12 per cent. It makes the point that dairy, sugar and tobacco have a high rate of market protection whereas wool, beef and wheat have a low rate of protection which is Budget-assisted. The low rate in the wool, beef and wheat industries is one of regulation, quality control, promotion and research. The other interesting feature of the protection in agriculture is that agriculture receives 60 per cent of its protection budget on such visible items as the superphosphate bounty, meat inspection services and the underwriting of the minimum price for the Australian Wheat Board. These are all very visible items which the electorate can see. However, the manufacturing sector has only 5 per cent on Budget which is invisible from the electorate's point of view. According to the report, manufacturers enjoyed about a 20 per cent rate of assistance in 1985-86. The document goes on to suggest that the effective rate of assistance in the clothing and footwear industries is about 176 per cent, with a deviation of 70 per cent, which adds up to an effective rate of about 250 per cent, whereas the effective rate in the mining industry, the document suggests, is minus 22 per cent, with the only positive assistance in the area of exploration expenses and the tax concessions on gold. The tariffs on imported materials and capital are particular disincentives in the oil and black coal industries. The report continues: A relatively large proportion of agricultural support comes from the budget, and removal of agricultural assistance programs would depress average returns by 12 per cent. However, removal of all assistance on an economy wide basis would improve agricultural returns by around 7 per cent. Removal of all current assistance would boost mining returns by 17 per cent. Dr Bain emphasised that the study focused on the short-term impact of reduced assistance. `In the longer term, as adjustments take place to new arrangements, the benefits of a more dynamic competitive economy should be significantly greater than those indicated here.' The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading speech, talked about the role of the Authority. He said: The Authority's broad role will be to promote the restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on the support by the Commonwealth. The Opposition supports that objective. We do not agree with the way in which the Authority will set about achieving that objective. However, by the year 1996, when the Opposition will be in government, we will be looking at the achievement of those objectives and taking as a benchmark the rate of protection in the year 1988. Likewise, we will be looking at our position and the tariff protection of our overseas competitors. Taking those benchmarks into consideration, we will look at whether Australia has taken a more competitive role in those industries which have enjoyed protection since the turn of the century. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.27) —The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill indicates that the Government is steadily progressing towards the restructuring of the manufacturing base of this country, and I emphasise that. It is a deliberate goal, a deliberate program, which requires legislation and the cooperation of all sectors of Australian industry. It has been said often, and I think it is worth saying repeatedly, that Australian manufacturing industry must aim at becoming competitive; it must aim at increasing its exports. I must admit that there is a certain irony in a couple of the claims that have been made this afternoon by Opposition members. For instance, the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) mentioned that the levels of tariff in the industry have a similar effect to a consumption tax. I wonder whether the same member would have supported the actions of successive coalition governments that were responsible for implementing ad hoc tariff decisions over very many years. The Opposition can hardly blame us for those. Let us face it, we have the guts to have a go at restructuring this industry. I say to the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), who is quite a good friend and, I might say, a constituent, although not necessarily a voting constituent-- Mr Hand —He votes for you. Mr MILDREN —He probably does, along with all the other folk from Bookar. It saddens me to hear the honourable member for Corangamite reiterate anti-union attitudes. I would have thought that in restructuring Australian industry we should take a relatively neutral stance in our attitudes towards the main players. We should seek their cooperation rather than simply assume that somehow or other this is the nineteenth century and that only one group of people has the power and the right to be informed and consulted. Mr Hawker —Rubbish! Mr MILDREN —It is very sad. The honourable member says, `Rubbish!'. It seems that we have a long way to go before the Opposition realises that the Australian community is made up of employers and employees. If we are to have a capitalist system-which I am sure honourable members opposite want-they had better recognise that working people have the right to see themselves protected from the basic value of capitalism, which is simply greed. The unions are equal players in the industrial field and they ought to be consulted. If they are not consulted, and if honourable members opposite do not get what they want, they will have no-one to blame but themselves. If Australia is to achieve the goals that are set by this Government, our industry sector must become more internationally competitive, more export oriented and more innovative. The Government has striven to provide the best set of circumstances to encourage the industry to develop overseas markets. By freeing up the dollar the Government has given a major boost to the export trade. Research and development grants encourage industries to be competitive with those of other nations in technological development. The provision of venture capital through management and investment companies-so-called MICs-is a boost for entrepreneurs. When we talk of expanding our export trade we must not forget the value of import replacement as a potential niche for some of our industries. One of the advantages to the industry is the exchange rate, following devaluation of the dollar. In the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) sector, when we came to office there was evidence of decline, as the honourable member for Melbourne, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), would certainly know. Something had to be done, but the first task was to look at the problem carefully and objectively. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1984 an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) inquiry was instituted. I made a submission to that inquiry on behalf of the Ballarat TCF industries specifically. I was able to demonstrate that the central highlands region of Victoria, where Ballarat is situated, had a slightly higher than average work force participation in TCF industries, on the 1981 census figures-11.8 per cent of the total manufacturing employment, compared with the national figure of 8.8 per cent. It is pleasing to note that the current figures indicate that TCF employment now represents 13.2 per cent of total manufacturing employment in my electorate. Therefore, rather than the industry suffering a decline, it is showing resilience and growth. That, of course, is in the climate that the Government has established-one of cooperation among all sectors of the industry. Currently in Ballarat alone there are over 550 people employed in the five major TCF firms. These firms are capable of innovation and self-help. For example, two of these Ballarat firms-Paddles Shoes and Oliver and Stevens-have come together to try to solve some of the labour problems that they have encountered. Although Ballarat's unemployment rate is high, our local TCF industries have often found that skilled workers are scarce. So these two firms have combined to provide training opportunities. Last year 12 apprentices began their training and this year 10 have begun their training. Instead of the apprentices having to travel to Melbourne for schooling, Paddles has constructed a classroom-workshop adjacent to its premises, in which classroom training for apprentices is concertinaed into the first year or two of their training. Classes are conducted three times a week by travelling technical and further education teachers, instead of the previous practice of sending apprentices to Melbourne one day a week. On 19 May 1986 the IAC released its report on the TCF industries. In the report the issues were exhaustively canvassed. The Government, in response, and following extensive consultation with industry representatives, introduced a carefully considered and detailed plan for the industry. When the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) announced the plan he said that it would become fully operational in 1989. The plan provides for the phasing out of quota restrictions on imports and reduction of tariffs to 60 per cent by 1996. The social ramifications of protection decisions are important. I represent a provincial-rural electorate. Ballarat is the major population centre. The region also covers the smaller centre of Ararat and two other towns, namely, Beaufort and Creswick, which enjoy the employment benefits of decentralised TCF industries. All of us who live in these communities are only too conscious of the significant role the industries play in their economies. Any perceived threat to the industries is very easily perceived as a threat to these communities. This does not mean that change is not necessary or is not beneficial. I commend the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) because in his second reading speech he indicated that the Government recognised that some communities and regional centres might experience short term difficulty as a result of the TCF plan being implemented. He also said that the TCF Development Authority would monitor the impact of TCF adjustments on regional centres. This should be reassuring to the many rural and provincial communities and also to the enterprises themselves. Unlike my colleague on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Corangamite, I have absolutely no misgivings about the unions being represented on that Authority. Why should they not be? They are part of the industry. I am pleased that the Government recognises the special needs of non-metropolitan areas. As the Minister well knows, the effects of economic change are felt more keenly by these communities, because workers do not have the job mobility that is available in metropolitan centres. I recognise that many of the people whom the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, represents so diligently lack work skills and also lack language skills and as a result suffer from job immobility. I stress that my interest in this Bill and in the issue of industry protection generally is not simply a parochial one. Various organisations, including the National Farmers Federation, call for the total elimination of all forms of protection. That was alluded to by the honourable member for Corangamite, and I acknowledge the points that he was making, except that there is a down side to that, as well. Mr Hand —Merino rams. Mr MILDREN —He represents them as well. Mr Hand —He talks to them. Mr MILDREN —Whatever he does to them, that is his business. This is a very liberal House-partly, anyway. With all due respect, I think this is a somewhat unrealistic viewpoint, although I can understand the frustration of the organisations at present. In quite a number of rural towns-and I am sure the honourable member for Corangamite will attest to this-the presence of textiles, clothing and footwear industries often plays a very significant role in supplementing farm incomes. I cite Ararat and Beaufort as examples. Without these textiles, clothing and footwear industries there would be a significant down-turn in job availability for the spouses and children of some of the farmers. They are not all big graziers. For many years textiles, clothing and footwear industries have made a conscious choice to establish themselves in rural areas. There are advantages for firms locating in non-metropolitan areas of Australia, for the very obvious reason that there is a much more stable work force in the country. This results in a much smaller turnover of staff, with resultant savings in training of staff. When a staff member is trained by the individual enterprise, the skill and experience he develops over a long period of employment with one firm contributes to a higher level of productivity. Quite obviously there also needs to be an attempt to discover and exploit niches in the market to counter the effects of withdrawing protection. The Authority to be established by this Bill will have the responsibility for providing exactly that sort of support to the industry. In his second reading speech the Minister indicated that the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority was recommended by the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council, which saw the need for a special body to monitor changes occurring under the plan, a body with advisory powers to remedy any deficiencies in the plan's operations. Like the member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), I am pleased that this body will be able to indicate not just once but whenever there is a need to hold a review. The Minister said that he saw the role of the Authority as being broader than that. He considered the Authority's major function to be administering the new strategy in a coordinated and cost-effective manner while promoting those changes in attitude necessary to reinvigorate the industry. I note that the Opposition has decided to oppose this Bill and the establishment of this Authority. A report in the Australian Financial Review of 16 March 1988 drew attention to the fact that, although the Liberal Party Opposition objected to this part of the Government's strategy, it did not have the support of the industry in that stand. This demonstrates that it will not be 1996 when the Opposition is likely to be returned to power but perhaps the year 2026, because it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to industry as it does not recognise the changes taking place in Australian society. Here we have an example of the Opposition opposing something just for the sake of it. The Financial Review says the Opposition: . . . is at odds with the textile, clothing and footwear industry, mainly made up of small businesses, which generally support the establishment of the Authority to administer what it regards as vital assistance. The article goes on: The Executive Director of the TCF Council of Australia, Mr Keith Purcell, said the Authority would play a key role in monitoring the industry, and would recommend whether safeguard measures should be implemented. On the monitoring role, the Minister, in his second reading speech, said that he was conscious that the complexity of barrier protection arrangements could give rise to anomalies and indicated the desirability of a body to recommend on such matters. In other words, the country-I hope-is learning from experience. Later he indicated that the Authority would also be responsible for conducting a major review of the operations of the plan, including a detailed assessment of the impact of the plan in regional centres, where the textiles, footwear and clothing industries are an important employer. He said that if the Authority believed that the plan was causing aggregate TCF production in value-added terms to contract by more than 15 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent for textiles, clothing and footwear respectively, the Authority could make recommendations including a year's deferral of the phase down in penalty duties. I would like to have seen that spelt out a little more clearly in the Bill but the in principle statements are there. The Minister has built flexibility-one might almost say compassion-into this legislation. If TCF industries can demonstrate, through this Authority, that they are hurting, the Government not only will listen but also will act to relieve the pressures. It is hard to understand the position of those opposite but it is quite obvious that they still have not learned very much from the mistakes they made over many years with respect to the development of Australian industry. The Opposition has decided that it will oppose the Bill in total. It really is the odd one out in this exercise. It does not understand the state of Australian industry. It has no responsible policy at all for the development of manufacturing industry in this country. What it does not understand is that there can be no development and no resurgence of activity in Australian manufacturing industry unless there is negotiation between government and the industry, including both management and unions. That has to be repeated constantly for the Opposition to understand that those bodies are partners in the restructuring process. Frankly, Australia cannot afford its attention to be diverted from the crucial task of industry reform by reverting to the destructive process of union bashing so readily adopted by the Opposition. It is extremely important to get the agreement of these three bodies for the implementation of the Government's long term plan. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988 puts the mechanism in place for precisely this sort of agreement across the industry. Obviously the Authority must have certain powers and it also must have access to certain sanctions. One of the problems with the Opposition's way of viewing industry is that it thinks that government assistance or government involvement has to be, by definition, toothless. Under the Government's TCF plan, there cannot be a place for any of the major players to backslide. We are not talking about something which is of peripheral interest in the development of industry; we are talking about an industry which employs over 100,000 people. As I have stressed, it is also an industry which for such a long time was very heavily protected. That protection was haphazard. It developed in an ad hoc fashion. We are particularly concerned that with the new regime being implemented for this industry the Authority needs adequate powers to ensure that the opportunities which are being developed through the plan, plus the devaluation of the dollar, are not just fritted away. For too long our TCF industries have devoted too much attention to the lower end of the domestic market in price and quality. Everyone in the industry knows that similar products can be brought into the country at a much cheaper rate, despite our trade barriers. It is in that context that the restructuring of this industry is to take place. There has been, over time, a very large turnover of firms-firms coming and going in the industry under a regime of very high protection. I do not believe that there is evidence that this new plan will see an increase in the fallout. Any firms that go will go because they really have not read the signs; they have been trying to work in a climate which no longer exists and, of course, in a climate which is totally inappropriate for development of Australian industry today. We have to realise that we are playing in the big league. We cannot put up barriers and pretend that somehow or other Australia is not only a geographical island but an economic island as well. It is not; it it part and parcel of the world economy. In particular, it is part of the burgeoning economic region of the western Pacific. We either heed the message and adjust quickly or become, and deservedly so, a stagnant economic backwater. We are concerned to increase our productivity and competitiveness and to develop in Australia an export orientation and an innovative approach to opportunities. I must commend the Minister for the determination he has shown in bringing about these changes of attitudes-in the community, at management and employee levels, within unions and within the Government. He has done this in the face of a resisting industrial culture, accustomed to protection and hence dismissive of the pressures of emerging economies around us. For a long time consumers have tended to the view, `If it is imported, it is better'. That also has to change. It can change only when we all begin to aim for excellence. Nobody owes us a living and nobody really needs to buy a product which is unsatisfactory. This aim is now well within our reach. We have the raw materials and the labour skills. The Bill to establish the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority will provide added stimulus and support for this industry. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(6.47) —As I listened to the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the previous speaker, I was reminded of Margaret Thatcher, who said a couple of years ago that she did not want people to buy British because it was British; she wanted people to buy British because it was best. I had hoped that this would be the theme coming through from Government members both here and in the Senate. This has not been discussed at any level in this debate in the Parliament. I say to the previous speaker that I followed his passion in supporting his electorate industries. I share a similar passion but I do not have the advantage of having small rural towns in my electorate-I am a simple suburban lad from Cronulla. Mr O'Keefe —You are not simple. Mr DOBIE —I thank the honourable member. There are few occasions in this Parliament when both sides agree on some aspects of a Bill. It should be pointed out at this time that there is total agreement in every nook and cranny of the Parliament that the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries need to have a restructuring and reassessment of their role. But the difference comes when we work out whether it should take place with undue haste or with too long a delay. I do not think that any of us can accept undue haste or unacceptable delay in seeing that these changes come about because when they do they will have to be to the advantage of all-for people who have invested their money, the people who work for it and the people whom they supply. What we on this side of the House are objecting to is not the need for restructuring and reconstructing the industries but the establishment of this Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority-whether this Authority should exist at all. We must ask whether the creation of this new Authority is the answer to the problems besetting the industries that it will control. Mr Hand —Did you talk to the industry? Mr DOBIE —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs asks whether I have spoken to the industry. I have done that, but I have not spoken to the large manufacturers; I have spoken to small manufacturers. I believe that the establishment of this Authority will merely create another quango that will be too inquisitive, too burdensome, too expensive and too lacking in safeguards that one would have hoped would be the effect of the proposed restructuring of the administration of the TCF industries. It is the Opposition's view that the implementation and monitoring of the new plan for the TCF industries should remain within a Commonwealth Department. The creation of a statutory authority is neither necessary nor appropriate. That is not to suggest that there is no serious overlapping of functions between the Australian Customs Service, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the TCF Industry Council, nor do I suggest that there is no friction between these groups; I know that there is friction. I do not intend to put details before the House today, but I am very much aware of one example whereby a longstanding and successfully managed clothing firm in New South Wales is suffering severe financial hardships and facing possible bankruptcy if various departments do not resolve with some degree of urgency the difficulties amongst themselves in favour of this company. As an aside, I point out that the company to which I refer would not be assisted in any way by the creation of the TCF Development Authority as proposed in the Bill and neither would the industry be advantaged. I noted that when this Bill was debated in the Senate one of the Labor senators talked about possible across the board tariff reductions which, he implied, would be brought in by the Labor Government. He made one of the understatements of the year when he said: It would be unfortunate for the textile, clothing and footwear industry if that came about. I remind the House that, when the Whitlam Labor Government brought about a 25 per cent reduction across the board of all tariffs, it virtually destroyed the viability of the TCF industries in Australia. Those industries had no time to adjust, and that action resulted in not only massive but also instant unemployment. While the same numbers of workers are not facing instant dismissal in 1988, should the Treasurer announce in his May statement such an across the board reduction of tariffs, let there be no misunderstanding by anyone on either side of the House that such a policy announcement would bring disaster to this industry and other industries which no longer seek permanent tariff protection but which are in the course of rearranging their affairs and structures to meet the challenges of the remainder of the twentieth century. Senator Button said in his second reading speech that the new Authority `will be required to report to the Government on the success of its strategy in 1992'. Senator Button's supporters say-and I quote one of the honourable senators-that this is `certainly not a long time in the future'. This is arrant nonsense, for one must wonder what the Authority will report to the Parliament in its annual reports in the intervening years if it is not to make annual assessments of its own strategy until 1992. This double talk by the Hawke-Keating Government gives no solace or encouragement to those who continue to struggle in this industry. I suspect that, if the Government is to take no notice of the annual reports of this Authority until 1992, there will be precious few viable companies in the TCF industry upon which the Authority can report, let alone report on the success of the Authority. As I said earlier, I am not in a position to provide details of the New South Wales firm of which I have a long-term knowledge, and a non-financial association; it does not make my size shirt, amongst other things. Let me just repeat that there are a lot of matters about which that firm should complain and, if it does not, it is playing the game. One of the sillier anomalies of the present quota system-and I mention this just as an aside-is the fact that one is constantly being referred by the Department to a ministerial statement that was made during the Whitlam era. The anomaly lies in the fact that one is unable to obtain a copy of the actual content of that statement. Although I suspect it was made at the time of the Whitlam 25 per cent reduction in 1974, the details remain unknown and the reference to that statement is always vague yet, paradoxically, it is of great influence. I disagree with the comments made in this debate about which companies remain in the TCF industry. There have been dramatic changes in this industry, certainly in the past 14 years, and one must be aware not just of the situation regarding employment but also of the funds invested by those companies that remain in the industry. There have been valiant attempts by many of those companies to combine offshore operations with their Australian manufacturing enterprises. Changing Government policies, both coalition and Labor, have caused total confusion and near fatal hiccups to the point where I believe that today the TCF industry is down to a basic and bare minimum to supply those items that demand locally produced suppliers. Time does not permit me to go into detail, but I believe that we are going down the wrong road if we think that the TCF industry comprises a group of lotus land industries hiding and prospering behind high tariffs. That is far from the fact. Those that remain in the industry have been innovative, risk taking enterprises that do not deserve condemnation by honourable members on either side of this House. They certainly have been aware of and support the need for reconstruction and restructuring of their industry. I believe that most of them have been and are still engaged in the continuous task that demands a programmed, sensible timetable. I know that in using this terminology I am talking about an across the board reduction, but it alarms the likes of me when a member of the Government in the Senate says in this debate that an across the board tariff reduction is most likely. A uniform reduction in tariffs forthwith would be heartless and economically stupid. If we hope for a future export potential base, there must be an industry remaining upon which to build that export potential. I do not criticise the purpose of this Bill-that is a different matter to the issue of across the board tariff reductions-but I criticise the creation of this Authority. I believe that the decision should remain with the Department and that the creation of the Authority will cause disruption amongst those departmental officers whose task it is to monitor, supervise and control the industry and the tariffs relating thereto. I have seen no consideration of the actions being taken to merge these people. Let me assure the House that in Sydney there is strife within the conflicting sections of departments in interpreting by-laws. This quango has not been set up to overcome these problems in any way, and for that reason, along with all the others, we should not support it. In strongly supporting the need for restructuring the industry, along with most constituent members of the industry, I oppose the Bill before the House, which will bring about an authority with inquisitorial powers that will not help investment or employment and of which, to quote Senator Button, there will be no serious examination until 1992. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(7.01) —Contrary to the views expressed by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), not only do I wholeheartedly support the legislation but I am prepared to go to some lengths to debate with him the processes he spoke about and the concerns he has. Above all, I would ask him what role he played as a member of the previous Government in trying to provide a secure future for people in this vital industry, and that is where I want to start my comments tonight. In creating the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority and in the introduction of this package for the textiles industry, the Government is not creating change for the sake of change. Rather, it is attempting to ensure a secure future for this vital industry based on some understandings of its place in our own economy and in the regional and world economies. My colleague the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), who spoke earlier, put the broad arguments and also dealt with the specific arguments as they related to his electorate. I will not go over the same ground; nor do I wish to go over the ground covered by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in his second reading speech in the other place. It is relevant for me to show how this industry can be looked at as a model for the Australian economy. As the honourable member for Ballarat indicated, over 100,000 people are employed in this industry in metropolitan rural and provincial centres in Australia, so this model has applications across a broad sector. Approximately 12 months ago we were surrounded by predictions of gloom and doom, particularly emanating from honourable members on the other side of the House. Now organisations such as the Business Council of Australia are talking about an economic miracle. The textile industry has been involved in the turnaround. It has been evident to members of the Government that, provided direction is given, provided time is spent in consultation and discussions to get to the heart of the problems and to explain the way in which the pieces fit together, there could be across the board acceptance for a major restructuring of this industry. That is how it has happened. The only way I can understand Opposition members opposing this package today is that I know that it is a complete mirror reverse of their own shameful performance in the decimation of Australian manufacturing industry between 1976 and 1983, when effects of the fixed value of the currency were apparent. I have already mentioned the issues of consultation and discussion, and I shall come back to them because they were one of the features of the Opposition's style of government. It operated behind closed doors, in secret, with very little dialogue or liaison with the direct players in the industry. As the Minister said in the second reading speech, this legislation incorporates a strategy that is concerned with four different areas, the first of which is a raw materials processing program. My electorate has a rural base and I know that many primary producers were totally bewildered by the fact that, although they were producing the resources, there was no attempt to set in place the value added manufacturing or production structure to use those resources. As has already been said, Australia is the largest producer of wool in the world yet before we started to look at these new directions only 5 per cent of the clip was processed in Australia. A key part of the strategy is the value added raw materials processing program. Industry efficiency measures are the second prong to the strategy, and the third prong is plant and equipment modernisation. Last year, Australia embarked on a massive program of investment in new plant and equipment. The final aspect of the strategy is export enhancement, of which much has already been said. From my own perspective, value adding is the key to the strategy. People in the industry have to understand that there is no point in trying to manufacture high volume, large run products to compete with countries that specialise in labour intensive, low cost, low quality products. We in Australia must concentrate on high quality specialist products, which means an increase in our skill base and our training. In that regard, I turn to my own electorate and the Broadmeadows College of Technical and Further Education (TAFE), which at the moment gives special consideration to new courses that are targeted directly at the textile industry. I know from submissions that are before the Victorian Government concerning funding priorities for that college that there is a proposal that the Melbourne College of Textiles be drawn under the umbrella of the Broadmeadows TAFE College, and I will give my full support to that. If we are to encourage Australian industry to export and to increase production to replace imports, we must continue to improve the infrastructure base. I have seen positive examples of that at Tullamarine Airport, which is also in my electorate. After the currency was devalued, John Brown Hosiery Pty Ltd, which is a textile manufacturer in Kyneton, received an order from New York for 600 dozen high quality Australian socks. Because the company was able to fill the order immediately and fly it straight out of Tullamarine Airport into New York, it got the contract. Other countries were not able to perform when Australia was. The company got the contract and it got the full profit margin through devaluation. That is a very positive example of how these sorts of measures flow on to increased orders, more jobs, greater income, improved export potential and import replacement. It is the sort of direction that Australia is looking for, and at every opportunity I will press to see that the resources available for Tullamarine Airport and the concentration given to that airport reflect its growing importance. The other night I had something to say about that in relation to Sydney Airport, but I will say no more about that particular contribution because you might get upset with me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the local flavour and the process we have gone through as a government in putting together this textiles package. The Minister was involved in an extensive negotiation process along with the Government's industrial policy committee. It brought to account unions, management, retailers, manufacturers and consumers to try to find the best possible direction. Those sorts of issues are important not only in our capital cities but also in our regional centres-at places such as Castlemaine, where the woollen mills are now manufacturing carpets in a competitive environment, and Daylesford where Day-Tex Fabrics has changed its whole approach to gearing for the high quality specialist market. That has been a key factor. As the honourable member for Ballarat said, in regional centres particularly the textile industry provides employment, and the greatest number of participants in the industry are female. I make no apology for the commitment of this Government to the principles of equal opportunity and to the awareness of the industry about providing employment opportunities for women. It is no accident that in one million new jobs that have been created by the Hawke Labor Government, the participation rate of women in the work force has been a key factor. There has been a significant increase in that participation rate, to which the textile industry is making a real contribution. This industry is a model of what is occurring across Australia, particularly in manufacturing industry. It is where work practices are changing, the principles of consultation and employee democracy are changing and, as a result, the products are getting better. They are finding new niches in the market place and as a result we are developing a much healthier attitude towards our products and the markets that we may penetrate with them. That brings me to my final point, which relates to the `Buy Australian' campaign. I am very proud to have been closely involved in the development of this campaign. The research has shown that there has been a 63 per cent shift in consumer preference and 92 per cent of shoppers are now looking for Australian made products. People understand that support for an Australian made product is a direct way of helping each other. Many of our neighbours and families have jobs which depend on support from local buyers and the textile industry is a classic example of this. When this program was introduced it was pronounced as a gimmick by the knockers, who said it would not receive support. There are now 2,000 companies involved in the `Buy Australian' campaign. There are 30,000 products now listed to carry the green and gold logo and many of those are in the textile industry. Mr Spencer, the campaign's executive director, mentioned in an announcement the other day a number of major retail chains that have recently embraced the `Buy Australian' campaign. Among those were some key clothing and textile outlets. Obviously, they are now reflecting the consumer preference for Australian products. It is no accident that this four-pronged approach, of adding value within our own economy, making profits in Australia, directing ourselves to high quality specialist products geared to a particular market niche, and working away at industries' efficiency coupled with plant modernisation and an export development program, is a thrust which is not only working but is also widely understood and appreciated in most corners of Australian society except on the other side of this House. There again we have the situation where every progressive move made by this Government and resulting in the sorts of things I have been talking about is opposed, as is this Bill. On the question of the Authority, the whole approach of the Government to the reform and restructuring of the economy has been to put in place the particular measures but to have with them some kind of safety net measured and worked through with a consultative body of some kind which embraces all the major players, as my predecessor in this debate, the honourable member for Ballarat, said. The Opposition may find the concept of talking with unions, workers and their families and consumers difficult to come to grips with. Certainly it is not part of its traditional base; the Mr Elliotts and company, the Business Council of Australia-these people do not talk to those groups or have not done so in the past. Because it is not part of their traditional base the whole process of consultation does not come naturally to them. That is why the Opposition is so out of touch with the meaning of this kind of legislation and with the role that the Authority will play. That is why honourable members opposite come in here and oppose this Bill. In winding up I say that this is one of the most important structural changes that the Government has made in its whole industry reform package. The Authority is an integral part of that reform package. I have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the legislation. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(7.17) —As a number of speakers have said, this is a very important piece of legislation. It deals with a very important issue-that of protection in this country. It also deals with a very important set of industries which account for about 7 per cent of final private consumption expenditure. They are very significant employers not only among manufacturing industries but also among all employment in Australia. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill, as the second reading speech suggests, proposes to implement key elements of the Government's plan to restructure and revitalise Australia's textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF)industries. I know that many of the participants in these industries feel that they have been very much a political football over a very long period. As an earlier speaker mentioned, these industries have been plagued with an excessive level of government interference and government support through most of their histories. In fact, if we go back as far as 1920 for example, there have been some 500 reports to government on assistance in these industries. The outcome has generally been continuing increases in the level of overall protection and an increasingly complex structure of protection and assistance in relation to these industries. Yet they are industries that have to function in an increasingly difficult international environment when some of our near Asian trading partners have been noticeably much more successful than we have. Quite frankly, there is an increasing feeling in the industries at present that the Government should get out of their way and that they should be given more scope to compete, to develop necessary efficiency and to try to develop not only in a domestic sense but also compete internationally in their particular products. It is against this background that we look at this piece of legislation. At the outset I must be fair and compliment the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for some of the work he has done in this country in accelerating the debate about protection and some of its undesirable effects and also for some of the proposals that he has put in relation to these industries. However, I question the essential thrust of this Bill. I cannot, for the life of me, see why we should support the establishment of a development authority in relation to the textile, clothing and footwear industries. It is yet one more stage of government and bureaucratic intervention. It promises to be a very intrusive, inquisitive and interfering body as we look at it and as described in the second reading speech and in the detail of the legislation. After reading the Bill and the second reading speech, it is difficult to know precisely what the Authority will do. Many separate roles have been identified for it. I think I counted 12 in the second reading speech-I am sorry; 11, a Labor Party dozen. I shall briefly list some of them. The first is to promote restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on support by the Commonwealth. The second is to administer the industries development strategy in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. The third is to consult with appropriate organisations to ensure that support is of most relevance to the Government's policy objectives. The fourth is to be responsible for ensuring industries are aware of the measures contained within the industry's development strategy and to promote the plan. The fifth is to monitor the effectiveness of the delivery mechanism for a program, and possibly recommend changes. The sixth is to oversight the technological and administrative operations of the plan and provide advice on any administrative changes necessary to ensure the plan is operating as intended. The seventh is to report annually to the Parliament. The eighth is to report to the responsible Minister either on its own initiative or on matters which he has referred to it. The ninth is to carry out directions on policies and practices it should adopt in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. The tenth is to conduct a major review of the operation of the TCF plan by no later than mid-1992. The eleventh is to monitor and make recommendations in relation to the safeguard mechanism. If I were in the industry and read that sort of speech and the legislation, I would be very nervous. I would have a sinking feeling in my stomach. I would think, `Here we go again. One more time; one more bite at the cherry; one more piece of unnecessary government meddling and interference in the conduct of the industry'. Mr Fitzgibbon —The industry supports it. Dr HEWSON —I am not sure that the industry as a whole supports it. It certainly supports some of these ideas in principle, but I think that many in the industry are now very concerned about the lack of stability in terms of the Government's attitude towards the industry. They have seen these sorts of authorities introduced under the car plan and the steel plan, and in both of those cases the authorities have not been great bastions of success. But even looking at some of the sentiment expressed in those cases, it is very difficult for the industry to take seriously what is being said. For example, the first role that I identified was to promote restructuring and revitalisation of the TCF industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on support by the Commonwealth. That is interesting, because how will they become less dependent on support by the Commonwealth? Another authority is to be created, another Commonwealth statutory corporation, and it just seems so incongruous that the way in which we are to introduce the industry to living with less support by the Commonwealth is actually to increase the level of support by the Commonwealth. We have here what is euphemistically called a quango. We know something about the history of quangos. They tend to develop a life of their own. Death and taxes and other things-such as a lower dollar under this Government-may be certain but the life of a quango is not something to be underestimated. When I was reading the legislation, I recalled the situation in the United Kingdom in 1813 when the British Government set up a quango whose function was to stand someone on the white cliffs of Dover to ring a bell if he saw Napoleon coming. That quango was not abolished until 1945. I think that my point stands about the life a quango can develop on its own. In this case we already have some evidence that this quango is developing that sort of existence. The Industries Assistance Commission's annual report for 1986-87 shows on page 121 that the Authority will be a statutory corporation comprising a maximum of four members assisted by a small secretariat. Yet when I read the second reading speech and other material released recently, I see that the Authority will now be a group of six people rather than four, and that the word `small' has been omitted in relation to the supporting secretariat. It is already on its way in the sense that we understand quangos to develop a life of their own. All this will be a very intrusive and meddling performance in relation to this particular industry. I should like to list some of my main concerns about the legislation, identifying about half a dozen key sections which I think are worthy of the particular attention of honourable members. I go first to clause 37, in which we see some of the details about applications for financial assistance. In subclause (3) I note that a producer who is applying for financial assistance under the program has to put forward a proposal that contains details on minimising involuntary reductions of employment in the employer's business and consulting trade unions and employees. He is already significantly constrained and he has to meet certain particular employment objectives of this Government as manifested in that clause. I go, secondly, to clause 58, which relates to confidentiality. I realise that there has been a reasonably active debate in the other House on this particular clause. If one were in the industry, one could only be concerned as to what confidentiality will actually be preserved by the operations of this Authority. We have seen some evidence in this House in the performance of the Minister for Community Services and Health, the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), on what confidentiality means to this Government, and here we are to have an Authority which is to have almost unbounded powers in many respects to conduct whatever sorts of inquiries it likes and to prepare and maintain a database on the industry, and we are asked to believe that confidentiality in the terms of that clause will be preserved. That is the second area of major concern to me. I go, thirdly, to clause 61, which focuses on the question of delegation by the Authority. We see that the Authority may, by resolution, delegate to a member, or delegate to a member of the staff of the Authority, or, with the approval of the Minister, it can delegate to any other person or body in Australia. I start to wonder when I read a clause such as that, first, what were the motives behind that clause when drafted and, secondly, where that might lead in practical circumstances. It is difficult for me to imagine in any favourable terms the outcome of that sort of clause in relation to this industry. Can honourable members imagine the absolutely ludicrous situation which could develop if there were a member of the staff of the Authority who had a certain vindictiveness to individual enterprises or organisations within the industry, and just how far he might go under the authority of that clause? The fourth area of concern to me is clause 53, which deals with offences and introduces the concept of penalties to be imposed on members of the industry for the provision of incorrect information or misleading statements to the Authority. Again, it is a fairly authoritarian back-up to what is supposed to be an organisation that is designed to assist the industry to get out of its economic difficulties. A fifth area that concerns me and something about which we are always left in doubt with these sorts of proposals is who will be on the Authority? What are we told about the choice of personnel? We are not told very much. I think that Senator Button said something in the other House about their being eminently qualified people, well regarded and experts in the field. They always are. Mr Prosser —Jobs for the boys. Dr HEWSON —Yes, exactly; some more jobs for the boys. I go back to my earlier point of how the Authority was to have a membership of four to begin with and now it is to be six. It is obviously getting somewhat more difficult to find jobs for the boys, so we need to create more with each piece of legislation. I realise that the time available to me is about to expire, so all I can say at this stage is that the industry is sick and tired of being a political football. It is sick and tired of government intervention. It is sick and tired of getting pieces of legislation such as this, which only compound its uncertainty and which only cause it to become increasingly concerned as to the true intent of the Government. As I have already mentioned, going back to 1920, there has been very little real adjustment in this industry as a result of various attempts at government intervention over the life of many of the companies presently operating in the industry. It is for those sets of reasons that I have to oppose the concept of this authority. We on this side of the House strongly support the plan as such, although I have a personal reservation that it is not going far enough fast enough. It is certainly in the right direction, but I fail to see any particular justification-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(7.30) —The Federal Government recently banned the release of Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) quarterly job statistics, a decision that will seriously disadvantage Australians living in regional areas. The public has been denied access to the only source of local information on unemployment levels and clearly the motive for keeping regional communities in the dark must be questioned. The accuracy of the figures is not at issue here. I acknowledge that the monthly labour force surveys produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) would be the official estimates. But for technical reasons, the ABS is not able to target the movements in employment figures in specific areas within Federal electoral boundaries. This is simply not adequate. For example, in my own electorate the ABS figures for January showed an alarming 31 per cent increase in unemployment over the previous January. But where are the trouble spots? The ABS cannot tell me and now the local Commonwealth Employment Service office will not provide backup information. The two major centres of population in Forrest are 300 kilometres apart, yet only one set of job figures are available from the ABS. People want to be informed on unemployment, but more specifically they want to know how it affects their community. The CES has a role in providing that information, and it has a responsibility to encourage discussion so that local communities can participate in developing strategies to combat unemployment. Clearly, the Government is not interested in local participation. Rather, its information blackout will gag debate. Unemployment statistics are important economic indicators, but without those figures public scrutiny of the Government's performance in regional areas will be less effective. Or is that the idea? Political motivation aside, even though the CES regional job figures apparently will no longer see the light of day under this Labor Government, I do not believe that there is a valid reason for keeping the information under wraps, in the absence of a better system. I am reminded of the Western Australian Labor Government's broken election promise to provide better regional job statistics. As part of its pre-1983 election platform, the Australian Labor Party pledged to develop a statistical data base on employment and unemployment at an industrial and regional level. Five years later we are still waiting to see this commitment fulfilled. Those on the other side of the House are not about democratic, open government. They realise that the only way to promote themselves in a good light is to keep the public in the dark. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.33 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Beazley to move- That unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Tuesday, 26 April at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 27 April at 10 a.m. Thursday, 28 April, at 10 a.m. Mr Campbell to move- That this House- (1) condemns the irrational campaign being waged against the food irradiation process; (2) recognises that irradiation is just another method of preserving food, that it has no deleterious effect, and that it may have potential for improving our share of world trade; (3) notes that the technology has the capacity to enhance nutrition in a Third World country; and (4) believes that its introduction into this country should be primarily a matter of commercial decision. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 20 April 1988: National Health Act-Pharmaceutical benefits information provision incentive payment rules, pursuant to section 99aaa, dated 23 March 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 143) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: What is the reason for the large increase in financial and non-financial information required by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on an annual basis pursuant to section 123 of the Broadcasting Act. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Beginning with the returns for the financial year ended 30 June 1987, television service licensees are required to provide annual returns using revised forms. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal introduced the new forms following a consultant's report and after consultation with broadcasters. The new returns are designed to provide standardised financial and other information that is comparable among licensees, and at a level of detail adequate for the Tribunal to discharge its statutory responsibilities relating to: (a) the determination of the commercial viability of existing radio and television stations; (b) the determination of the financial capabilities of licensees and of corporations which are applicants for licences; (c) the financial implications for individual services, or the radio and television industries as a whole, of changes in Tribunal Program Standards; and (d) the calculation of licence fees. The Tribunal expects to introduce next financial year new returns for radio service licensees for the year ended 30 June 1988, after consultation with broadcasters. (Question No. 202) Mr Cobb asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: What percentage of the inflation rate is attributable to the effect of devaluation for each year since 1980. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Between the September quarter 1981 and June quarter 1983, the trade-weighted value of the Australian dollar depreciated by around 18 per cent. Between the December quarter 1984 and the September quarter 1986 there was a much larger fall and the Australian dollar depreciated by around 39 per cent in trade-weighted terms. The high and increasing rates of inflation (as measured by the growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 can be largely traced to the marked increase in wages growth in the early 1980s. (See table 1 below). As can also be seen, the rate of increase in import prices, although sizeable, was well below the rate of growth of wages through this period). TABLE 1 CPI (a) Average Earnings (b) Import Prices (c) (per cent change on previous year) 1980-81 ... 9.4 13.0 9.0 1981-82 ... 10.4 14.4 3.6 1982-83 ... 11.5 12.8 8.9 1983-84 ... 7.9 5.0 2.0 1984-85 ... 5.8 7.3 10.0 1985-86 ... 8.4 6.2 16.2 1986-87 ... 9.3 -6.7 (d)...9.6 (a) Adjusted where necessary to remove the effect of the introduction of Medicare. (b) National accounts basis. (c) As measured by the implicit price deflator for imports of goods and services. (d) the 1986-87 annual data are distorted by pay-day effects; on a seasonally adjusted basis the increases are 6.5 per cent (cf. 6.7 per cent unadjusted) in 1986-87 and 6.3 per cent (cf. 6.2 per cent unadjusted) in 1985-86. From the March quarter 1985, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has identified the contribution to the increase in the CPI of price changes for goods and services which are wholly or predominantly imported. This estimate, which is shown in Table 2 below, provides a guide to the direct effects of movements in import prices on the CPI. It does not purport to capture precisely the direct effects of the depreciation because some of the price changes covered would not be attributable to depreciation while other effects of the depreciation would be missed. In addition, the ABS measure does not take into account indirect effects of exchange rate movements on the CPI which arise, inter alia, because of increases in the cost of imported material inputs, including capital equipment, or because of depreciation-induced increases in prices of exported goods and services which are also consumed domestically. The ABS estimate of movements in the prices of goods and services wholly or predominantly imported does not include petrol prices. Nonetheless, under the import parity pricing arrangements for crude oil which prevailed up to December 1987 and under the current deregulated arrangements, prices of domestically refined petroleum products are affected by exchange rate movements. Accordingly, Table 2 also shows the estimated effect of changes in the exchange rate on petrol prices. The ABS measure of the contribution to CPI growth of price increases for goods wholly or predominantly imported, together with the estimate of the effects of exchange rate movements on petrol prices, provides a guide to the direct effects of the exchange rate movements on the CPI growth since the December quarter 1984. TABLE 2 Percentage point contribution to increase in CPI 1984-85 (a)...1985-86 1986-87 Automotive fuel... 0.7 0.1 0.0 Goods and services wholly or predominantly imported... 0.6 1.3 1.4 Total... 1.2 1.4 1.4 Total CPI Increase (per cent)... 3.3 8.4 9.3 (a) Change in second half of 1984-85 only. My Department has also undertaken some empirical analysis which seeks to estimate the total (direct and indirect) effects of the depreciation on inflation. While subject to a number of limitations, this work suggests that, on average over the period from the December quarter 1984, the total (direct and indirect) effects may have been of the order of two to three times that in Table 2. (Question No. 506) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) Does the Australian Conservation Foundation, through its preference grants scheme, enable financial donors to other organisations, including the Movement Against Uranium Mining, the Peace Publications Co-operative and the People for Nuclear Disarmament, to claim a tax deduction. (2) Does the Government approve of this practice; if so, will it allow other organisations to provide funding at taxpayers' expense to groups of their choice. (3) If the Government does not approve of this practice, will it instruct the Australian Conservation Foundation to terminate the scheme. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The basic legal position is that gifts of $2 and upwards made to the Australian Conservation Foundation are specifically tax deductible under the gift provisions of the income tax law. However, gifts to the types of organisations mentioned by the honourable Member are not deductible. The situation to which the honourable Member refers appears to have arisen because gifts to the Australian Conservation foundation are specifically deductible and because its constitution enables it to provide assistance to, or to co-operate with, other bodies concerned with or interested in conservation. The question whether gifts made in the circumstances described would be allowable as tax deductions is primarily one for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine according to law. The advice furnished by the Commissioner is that the answer would depend upon whether the gift in question is made to the Foundation in its own right or, rather, to another organisation with the Foundation acting merely in the nature of a trustee or agent in respect of the gift. In the latter event, of course, the gift would not qualify for deduction under the gift provisions. (Question No. 599) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: Will the Minister provide a list of all industry councils, including the (a) aims and objectives; (b) total membership; (c) number of staff; (d) (i) estimated and (ii) actual running costs; and (e) achievements of each council. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government has established, on a tripartite basis, the Australian Manufacturing Council (AMC) and eleven Industry Councils covering all the major sectors of the manufacturing industries: Aerospace; Automotive; Basic Metals; Chemicals and Plastics; Electrical, Electronic and Information; Forestry and Forest Products; Machinery and Metal Engineering; Metal Fabrication; Paper conversion, Printing and Publishing; Processed Foods; and Textiles, Clothing and Footwear. (a) The AMC and Industry Councils have three main functions- To provide a consultative forum in which unions, industry and government can exchange economic and industrial information and discuss issues in a productive and non-adversarial environment. To provide advice to the Minister, responding to matters referred to them in addition to proposing initiatives to the Government and assessing the effect of government policies thus ensuring the continuing relevance of Government programs. To contribute to the public debate on industry policy matters by communicating deliberations and publishing reports. The Terms of Reference for the AMC together with a typical terms of reference for the Industry Councils are set out on page 46 of the AMC's Annual Report 1986-87. (b) the membership of the AMC and the Industry Councils is tripartite. Members are appointed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and are drawn from firms, industry associations, trade unions, Commonwealth and State Industry Departments, the CSIRO, and Universities and research bodies. The total membership of the AMC and Industry Councils is over 150. A complete list of members, as at June 1987, may be found in the AMC's Annual Report 1986-87. Current membership terms will expire in June 1988. (c) The AMC and the Industry Councils are collectively serviced by the Industry Councils' Secretariat which is located in Melbourne. The Secretariat has an authorised staffing level of 25.6 for 1987/88. (d) (i) As the Councils are serviced collectively, costs are not attributed to individual Councils. Funds are allocated to the Industry Councils program as a whole. Estimates of expenditure for 1987-88 are: Salaries...$916,000 Non-salaries...$1,515,000 Total...$2,431,000 (ii) In 1986-87 the Industry Councils' actual expenditure was: Salaries...$786,897 Non-salaries...$1,001,261 Total...$1,788,158 (e) The Government has many different sources of input to its policies. The AMC and the associated Industry Councils are one such major source. However, the particular significance of the Councils' input stems from the tripartite nature of the membership. The intangible achievements of the Councils-their ability to secure agreement among union, industry, and government representatives about many important issues facing Australian manufacturing industry and on approaches required to revitalise industry-are of equal importance to some of the more tangible achievements listed below. The release of the report ``Future Directions for Australian Manufacturing Industry: A Broad Strategy Framework'' by the AMC in 1986 exemplifies the success of the tripartite consultative approach. This overview strategy report draws together the various common themes and issues identified in the industry-specific strategy reports previously released by the individual Industry Councils. It offers an agreed framework for addressing broad issues critical to the growth and competitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry. This report has received the full attention of the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the States and Northern Territory. The degree of consensus is also reflected in the more recently released AMC document entitled ``Work Skills in Australian Manufacturing Industry: Future Directions''. Industry Councils have provided the Government with valuable advice on a wide range of issues. Following are a few examples of their recent activities. The Automotive Industry Council has contributed to the Government's decision on heavy commercial vehicle assistance, prepared major statements on the ``Competitiveness of the Australian Automotive Industry'' and of ``Economic Statistics of the Australian Automotive Industry'', and has provided coordinated industry responses to issues such as fringe benefits tax, sales tax, and the inquiry into shore based shipping costs. Similarly, highlights of the achievements of the Electrical, Electronics and Information Council would include its contribution to the development and implementation of the Government's ten year Communications Equipment Strategy announced in July 1986; and its participation, together with other Industry Councils, in a working group examining offsets policy guidelines and considering means of improving Australian industry participation in the offsets program. The Basic Metals Industry Council reported on the scope for further processing of Australia's minerals concluding that there is scope for both the expansion of existing operations and the establishment of new processing facilities for minerals currently and potentially exported from Australia. The major findings indicate areas where further analysis could assist government, industry, and union policy makers. In October 1986, following on from the formulation of their industry development strategy, the Metal Fabrication Council released a document entitled ``Untying the Knot: Future Directions for the Metal Fabrication Industry''. The document was widely circulated within the industry. It sought to encourage an attitude of change and to promote the values of innovation, export orientation, and international competitiveness at the industry management and shop floor levels. The details of these contributions and a diversity of other achievements of the Councils may be found in the Annual Reports of the AMC for the last three years. (Question No. 605) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) What costs were incurred by the Constitutional Commission for car hire to 30 September 1987? (2) Which Commission members or committee members have been entitled to car hire? (3) In each case, (a) from whom have cars been hired, (b) for what purposes were they hired, (c) in what localities were they hired, (d) what types of cars were hired and (e) for what period were they hired? (4) What has been the most expensive single contract to hire cars? (5) Have cars been hired with or without chauffeurs? Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As previously advised in answer to House of Representatives Question No. 201 asked by Mr Cobb on 6 October 1987 (Hansard 10.12.87 Page 3289) the cost of car hire to 30 September 1987 for the Commission was $56,739.59. As the answer indicated, to break down these costs to the detail requested would result in a significant diversion of the Commission's limited resources. (2) All members of the Commission and its five Advisory Committees are entitled to car hire when travelling on Constitutional Commission business. (3) (a) In the great majority of cases cars have been hired from the Transport and Storage Division of the Department of Administrative Services. In some cases, in remote localities or at times when DAS facilities were not available, cars were hired from privately owned companies. (b) To transport appointees when travelling on Constitutional Commission business. (c)- SYDNEY MELBOURNE BRISBANE ADELAIDE PERTH CANBERRA DARWIN HOBART INVERELL NORFOLK ISLAND TOOWOOMBA MOUNT GAMBIER PORT AUGUSTA PORT HEDLAND NEWCASTLE TAMWORTH BENDIGO LAUNCESTON ALICE SPRINGS ALBURY ROCKHAMPTON TOWNSVILLE CAIRNS ARMIDALE MILDURA BURNIE KALGOORLIE MORUYA DUBBO (d) Whenever possible, the Commission has used vehicles available through the Transport and Storage Division, Department of Administrative Services. The Transport and Storage Division mostly provided cars from its own fleet but during busy periods, when fleet cars were unavailable, the Division would arrange, as available, taxis or hire cars. On some occasions, when Transport and Storage Division facilities were not available (eg. in remote locations or during strikes) the Commission used taxis or rented cars. (e) Mostly for trips of less than one hour's duration. The car used by the Commission's Secretariat has been leased continuously from March 1986 to date. (4) The contract for the car used by the Commission's Secretariat. The Commission leases a four cylinder station wagon from the Transport and Storage Division, Department of Administrative Services. (5) Cars hired from the Transport and Storage Division fleet for short term trips are made available with a driver. Taxis and hire cars, arranged in the circumstances outlined in (3) (d) and (e) above, are also made available with a driver. Self-drive cars have been rented on a few occasions, and the car leased by the Commission's Secretariat is self-drive. (Question No. 630) Mr Goodluck asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) Who carried out the January `price watch' in Tasmania. (2) How many supermarkets were visited. (3) Were brand names surveyed. (4) Were `specials' taken into consideration. (5) What butcher shops were visited. (6) How many persons conducted the survey. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: `Price Watch' is a community-based activity, which the Government has supported. It helps consumers to help themselves in making their dollar go further, as well as enhancing competition between retailers. The individual community price watch groups are co-ordinated by the National Prices Network, a committee chaired by Mr George Gear, MP. While `Price Watch' is not a Government activity, I have sought advice from the Secretary to the National Prices Network on the specific questions raised, who has advised me that: (1) January's price watch in Tasmania was carried out by Taswatch Consumer Advice Group. (2) Five stores were surveyed in Tasmania in January. (3) Brand names were used, as is the normal practice with Price Watch. (4) `Specials' are not surveyed unless they are items included in the Price Watch basket that month. (5) Butcher shops do not presently form part of the survey. (6) Seven people conducted the survey in the South of the State and two people in the North. (Question No. 665) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 February, 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in Part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget; if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities or organisations responsible to the Minister on (a) job advertising and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects, campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken or are being planned, and in each case, (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) $95,800 (b) Nil (c) Nil. (2) (a) $72,308 (b) Nil (c) Nil. (3) (a) No (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable (4) (a) Job advertising $19,349; (b) Other advertising $52,959. (5) Graduate Recruitment: (a) Planned projects (i) Campus interviews $250 (ii) Careers shows $2,430 (iii) Campus newspapers $70 (b) All activities are to be conducted by departmental officers (c) Not applicable (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (Question No. 697) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 February, 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected. (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote. (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects, and in each instance, (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete. (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked. (6) How were firms selected for this research work. (7) Was there a public tender, if not, why not. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) None. (2) to (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 713) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 February, 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for: (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered in the opinion research. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) $104,445 (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) Non-campaign advertising-$85,467 Recruitment advertising-$18,978 (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 762) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: What steps will need to be taken for the Proposed Cape York Space Port to be declared a tariff free zone. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I assume that the honourable member's question has been prompted by some recent comments suggesting that the imposition of Australian import tariffs would hinder the commercial operation of the proposed Cape York Spaceport. I note as a matter of fact that, under Customs and Excise legislation, there are mechanisms that allow for relief to be provided from the imposition of tariffs in appropriate circumstances. In relation to the operation of a spaceport on the Cape York Peninsula, these circumstances are yet to be determined. In December 1987, the Prime Minister nominated my colleague, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, as the Federal Minister responsible for co-ordinating Commonwealth issues in relation to the proposed space launch and recovery facilities on Cape York. Senator Button and his advisers will be considering a wide range of topics, including, presumably, the appropriate application of the import tariff. (Question No. 804) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) Is either velvet or velveteen produced in Australia. (2) What (a) is the duty currently payable and (b) was the duty payable before 1 January 1988 on imported velvet and velveteen. (3) What percentage increase does this represent. (4) What was the reason for the increase. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Neither velvet nor velveteen is presently produced in Australia. However several companies produce goods which serve similar functions such as wool and cotton. (2) a. The current import duty rate payable on velvet and velveteen is 25 per cent. b. The corresponding duty rate prior to 1 January 1988 was 2 per cent. (3) This represents an increase of 1,150 per cent or an increase in duty of 23 percentage points. (4) The decision to increase the duty arose from the 1986 review of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The decision was prompted by expressions of concern by local knitters and weavers about minimum duty rate imports of wovenpile fabrics such as velvet and velveteen being substituted for locally produced fabrics capable of being used in similar end uses.